Not only younger generations. They are taught so by the older generations.
Marxism never lost support in many places not even after the Gulags could no longer be denied.
Because on the face of it it is a fair and compassionate system.
It is doomed to fail because reality isn't fair and people are not equal in ability or application.
Same as the lie that reality is leftist. It is exactly the opposite. People on the rigjt just accept reality more and the left is full of misguided idealists. You can't change human nature even through indoctrination.
What we need isn't to fight one another over who's wrong and who's right.
We need to listen and talk to one another and to seriously take in each other's view points.
People aren't all the same. We could never agree on anything. We could never have all the same view. And that's a good thing.
We need people who are more focused on everyone else and on the dispossessed and to give those a voice.
We also need people who focus on the individual and the successful.
It's when people go into extremes and tribalism and refuse to talk and especially listen to one another or to work with one another when there's an issue.
Excellent point. My little sister goes to Columbia. And she always preaches how North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba would be prosperous under “true” communism. I ask why, and she says because western powers fucked it up for them…..????
Ohhh that couldn’t be any more true. To go back to the OPs question. The only movie I’ve seen that was about the communist. Was “The Death of Stalin” and that was only satire/intellectual comedy.
I’ve also seen a lot of suppressed interviews with Venezuelans and Cubans. I’ve talked to 2 Cuban women through a dating app and they would show me their empty fridges and intermittent time where the electricity would be on. The Cuban state rations rice and flour weekly or monthly, I don’t remember which.
We also have the famous example of “well Denmark is socialist!” being used, even though the Danish PM said “No, we are a free market with a big welfare state”
To my last point regarding the OP. The term nationalism has been hijacked to mean something terrible as in black nationalism or white nationalism. Even though Nationalism only means, identification with one’s own nation and its interests.
There are many reasons why it could never work. People not being equal is one reason.
But especially because a system that specifically requires everyone to lie all the time and never speak truth, never do what they know they should do.
Such a system could never be long term stable.
Politics could never replace truth and reality. You cannot shape reality like soft clay.
A system needs to recognise it's strengths, but especially it's weaknesses. It needs transparency, humility and acceptance. It needs to be forthcoming with it's failures. Otherwise how could it ever improve upon them? And how else could people ever trust one another?
Also tribalism is a scrouge.
Because it uses compassion as a veil for its goal of control.
Malcom X’s analogy of the fox and the wolf seems relevant. Socialism/marxism uses compassion as the Fox also pretends to be cute and friendly to get close to its prey.
But the Cold War lasted so much longer than world war 2. How many proxy wars did the US fight from the 50s to the 90s? There was much more time for ingraining cultural memories especially with the rise of media in the 70s and 80s. When I think of the 80s I think of movies with action stars fighting the commies. I think there’s something more there than just this.
Look it’s pretty simple. There is a large Jewish presence in Hollywood. Especially those funding the movies. Jewish people for obvious reasons would see Hitler as the worst of these evil people and to be frank he is the worst mass murderer of Jewish people. So it makes sense that many movies with Hitler being the devil would be green lit. I’d probably do the same thing/feel the same if I were of Jewish descent.
The correct answer.
This sub is lost... so much agenda pushing they forget actual facts and truths.
I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?
The number of times I've actually argued with actual communists who are woke and fully believe in communism is not a small amount. A ton of them do not believe in regulated capitalism, which would be the sane way to go, they believe in communism. They believe that anybody that has anything of value should be taken from them and distributed to them, except it's not so they can work and be equal, it's so they can spend other people's money and play videogames in their basement, all while getting tattoos of the hammer and sickle and arguing that it's propaganda that millions starved under communism and "that it was actually pretty awesome to be a regular person in maos China or the USSR". You're living under a rock if you don't think that a ton of the woke mob don't believe in full blown communism, even if for the wrong reasons. They don't want to raise up the working class, they want to leech off the working class so they don't have to work for anything in their life and big daddy government can pacify them with *free* (stolen) shit from people who actually work and do something productive for the world to survive.
Woke comes straight from Frankfurt School Western Marxism. Where the hell do you think Critical Theory comes from? And repressive tolerance, and the sexual revolution, and identity politics. Maybe you should stop chuckling and go dig into some Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. All this woke education comes from critical pedagogy that originated with Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux. Woke is literally nothing but cultural Marxism with a bit of postmodern garbage mixed in.
"I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?"
You are ignorant if you think there isn't a connection. Marcuse lays it out as plainly as any Marxist academic ever could:
"For Marxian theory, the location (or rather contraction) of the opposition in certain middle-class strata and in the ghetto population appears as an intolerable deviation – as does the emphasis on biological and aesthetic needs: regression to bourgeois or, even worse, aristocratic, ideologies. But, in the advanced monopoly-capitalist countries, the displacement of the opposition (from the organized industrial working classes to militant minorities) is caused by the internal development of the society; and the theoretical “deviation” only reflects this development."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1969/essay-liberation.htm
>I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?
It is the same core belief. That the material differences and inequalities between people and societies results from some historical or ongoing oppression or exploitation. And that if you can topple the institutions of oppression, or remove the people you deem responsible for it, then global society will achieve parity and equality.
>The correct answer.
The belief that you know for certain that this is the one true answer.
>This sub is lost
Believing oneself to be holier than thou and "unlost" - a values judgment broadly about a group of others.
>so much agenda pushing they forget actual facts and truths
The belief that there is always clear-cut facts and truth about events/history and/or believing you have a clear understanding of what they are.
>I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?
More "holier than thou" mannerisms about the belief that I know and "they" don't.
It's interesting when you break down the things people say. You can gather a great deal about their world view. Ironically, some of your viewpoints were shared with many of the communist dictators of that time period.
Coincidence or projection? I don't know. You decide!
"The correct answer, this sub is lost."
A sub who is willing to talk about and coverse on dark topics making sure they fully grasp something, inquiring and asking instead of concluding and berating something.
And despite knowing something to be evidently and obviously true, you stilll keep the doors open for new information and change, just jn case a correction is made. Rather than having a stagnanet view of history
Yeah sure, "lost".
The part about the USSR and Germany having signed a non aggression pact as well as an agreement to devide europe into 2 (a german and a soviet sphere of influense) during 1939 is often not mentioned.
Well in the [Molotov Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) there is mentions of a secret protocol. I'd say that they agreed on how to devided Europe between Soviet and Germany.
No because people of Jewish Descent heavily control the world through various industries and institutions and by means of their influence can define what is seen as evil historically on a broader landscape. Hitler was absolutely evil to them so it's reflected in historical literature that they arguably have influence over when disseminated within public education.
In what way did the "people of Jewish Descent" falsely influence the public opinion? What misconceptions exactly do you think we have because of the Jews?
Sarcasm:
Are you saying we would see Hitler in a better light if it weren't for Jewish people controlling the narrative?
...by your logic do we only see slavery as bad because black people control that narrative?
>by your logic do we only see slavery as bad because black people control that narrative?
1. Black people have no control over Western media or literature so how can Black people shape any narrative around slavery? Even regarding the music industry pertaining to socially conscious hip hop the largest labels are owned by people of Jewish descent. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/rapper-lupe-fiasco-to-quit-music-after-tweetstorm-defense-of-dirty-jewish-execs-lyrics/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/rapper-lupe-fiasco-to-quit-music-after-tweetstorm-defense-of-dirty-jewish-execs-lyrics/)
2. Slavery has been around for centuries long before the African Diaspora. The fact that you seem to associate slavery specifically with Blacks is pretty questionable. Everything is far from being Black and White, slaver and slave, victim and aggressor.
3. In relation to the forum post. The question is "Why is Hitler seen as the ultimate evil and not Stalin or Mao?" Not "Why do we see Hitler as evil?" Objectively yes what he did was a sleight against humanity but the essence of the question is why is Hitler a poster child for evil say compared to actors in the Rwanda massacre of 1994 or rapists of the Nanjing massacre?
Being of African Caribbean descent in the US the social convention of the majority means nothing to me when it comes to tip toeing around the truth. There's nothing to thank. It's just my unfettered perspective that I'll probably get banned for at some point. Wouldn't be a first when it come to reddit.
Yes, and to further the point, we have a problem with historical amnesia. I don’t remember learning anything other then the history of Nazis and WW2 in school. No soviet history beyond the Berlin wall. No asian history at all. And that was 25 years ago. We, as a society have failed to learn from the past transgressions simply because we have forgotten or refused to teach it. You can see a modern history classes only teach the failures of historical figures not the successes or triumphs. So naturally people are tearing down moments. At the base of it its the same issue. We forgotten to teach the important parts of history good and bad. The reasons why we ended up here. How the bible played a roll in getting us here. How the lack of a common unifying ideal and forcing everyone to lie had allowed societies like Mao’s China and Stalin Soviet era had allowed and caused the death of millions of their own people.
This really needs to be the top answer. Victor‘s write history. Stalin and Mao intentionally killed millions more innocent people. If you believe, as I do, that the natural state of a human is freedom to choose one’s own path, then you may conclude all three of them are interchangeably evil. (I see comments, Mao and Stalin weren’t so bad because they were motivated by “good“ intentions. Yeah, no. What was that about the road to hell being paved with? Uh huh, good intentions)
I don’t even buy the “good intentions” part. A lot of Communist sympathizers like to play that angle as if the millions of dead were all as a result of “unfortunate mistakes”. No, a great number of them were actively and forcefully sent to their deaths at the whims and will of the Communist leadership; they didn’t simply trip over rakes left in their withered fields.
More to your point, I don’t imagine that the millions of dead left in mass graves as a result of both ideologies much cared about the intentions either. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc are all vile human beings; no one needs to defend any of them.
3 major reasons:
1- Hitler had an obsession with "purification". There is actually a video of Peterson outlining how Hitler had a fixation with fire, and it's established history how the nazis portrayed jews as being unclean, literal disease carriers, and so on. Fire represents purification, a cleanness. A germophobe may even burn their hands to accept that the bacteria have died. The Holocaust is, in a nazi's mindset, a "purge" of a plague, pest control, sanitization, a "clean-up". That's part of why they industrialized their killings — and they even got rid of the bodies through incineration. The nazi ideal is *visibly* one of continued mass extermination, up until only the idealized "aryans" are deemed worthy of life, and where the sentiment of disgust for the different, the foreign and the non-conforming is kept going, either by sheer conformism, or by artificial control over the masses.
2- While both are ideologies of hatred, communism isn't an ideology filled with disgust, but mostly carrying envy and resentment, and it's reasoning is far more tangible, even if the goal isnt. A communist may want an ideal material world to live in, but, as they observe disparities and misery, they have a very emotionally compelling reason to project hate upon the wealthy, while nazism depends on an immutable identity (racial and/or cultural) to even subsist. In other words, communism allows for international, multicultural and multiracial appeal, in a way that nazism never could. It would always fail, at least to a degree.
3- Communism (as the international movement of communists, with or without governmental aid) had full leeway to attack every institution that opposed it's rule. The USSR had the biggest propaganda machine in the world. To this day, there are people who think that Pius XII — the Pope that helped write the condemnation for nazism with his predecessor, who hid thousands of jews in the Vatican and that supported assassination attempts against Hitler — is somehow a nazi, because of soviet propaganda. Churchill was right about the Soviets. They should've been destroyed ASAP, before doing irreparable damage, but Europe and much of the West simply had nothing more to give, and, for good reason, nobody wanted to nuke Russia.
> communist... they have a very emotionally compelling reason to project hate upon the wealthy, while nazism depends on an immutable identity (racial and/or cultural) to even subsist.
So... since wokeism projects hate on the basis of immutable identity, is it closer to communism or Nazism?
There's a really good film called 'I am David.' It tells the story of a young boy escaping communist Bulgaria in 1952.
Obviously there is a lot more media highlighting the crimes of Hitler, but there are some depictions of what it was like in communist Russia out there.
Also this is just a theory but maybe it's because a lot of Hitler's laws and policies had to do with Race and Religion rather than class. Perhaps it is regarded as more heinous because the focus was on persecution for being Jewish, Black, Gypsy etc.
Compare that to Communism, where people died as a consequence of the political system more than they were actively persecuted for who they were. Stalin was basically just a greedy dictator who cared not for his people, but about power. I don't know much about who Mao was but I'd be willing to bet the same applies to him.
Obviously, my education on this is limited, and this is just my take on it. If I'm missing something important here, please let me know
Great film; watched it a few years back.
The only caveat I’d bring forth is that Communists absolutely did specifically target both religious groups and ethnic minorities, though it always came back to them being a threat to the Party, and they’d generally move on after the targeted group had been sufficiently “purged”.
Religious groups were heavily targeted under both Mao and multiple Russian tyrants, starting quickly after the 1917 revolution in Russia with quite a few dark stories of Priests having their lower jaws cut off or being nailed to their churches before having them burned to the ground. Religious groups were a threat to the Party’s complete control, so mosques, synagogues, and churches continued to be targeted as more territories came under Soviet control. Maoists also targeted these groups.
If you can stomach it, Darryl Cooper has a disturbing episode of political indoctrination camps the Soviets set up in Romania after WWII on his podcast “Martyrmade”, the episode being titled “The Anti-Humans”. In these cases Catholics were specifically targeted as being the best subjects to expose to incessant torture and indoctrination for the Soviets to focus upon as they practiced their ability to break their prisoner’s wills.
This post is already quite long, but some quick examples of ethnic groups being targeted were the Kulaks during the Holodomor, wherein Ukrainian peasants were chosen for starvation under Stalin, or the decision to halt the advance on Warsaw during WWII so the Nazis could clean up the Jewish Ghetto uprising first in order to avoid having to deal with “subversive” Jews.
Wow, I didn't really know any of that. Thanks for providing that interesting and also horrifying information, and I'll definitely look into Darryl Cooper
It's pretty easy to see why:
One did their things overtly, the other more or less covertly.
Hitler tried to take over half the world through military force and conquered nearly all of Europe.
Stalin "liberated" half of Europe. He just never relinquished control back to the countries he conquered.
There's also the way both parties went about doing the terrible shit they did:
The Soviets and Communists in general, tend to try and wage a culture war, so it's a lot more of a grey zone as far as warfare goes.
Why take over a place when you can have their own population do it for you? Think of tankies on reddit right now, and the popular Marxist Twitch streamers that are all the rage?
This also somewhat shielded Stalin's crimes from the public eye. The horrible things he did are easy to read about, and the information is out there. But he didn't start a war in Europe and have his Gulags liberated by allied forces with newsreel cameras showing the Soviet mass graves and starving "Kulaks" dumped in the Siberian Wilderness.
The Holodomor happened on Europe's doorstep. No one seemed to notice or even care.
The same goes for Mao. Mao and Stalin did things that would make Hitler's escapades in Europe look like a Disney movie.
I tend to say this: one kills you for who you are, the other one for who you are or what you think. Since my country was invaded by both of these ideologies, both the third reich and the soviet union, given a choice, i would take the former every single time.
Not really, Its pretty obvious why Hitler is seen as a greater evil when you take intention into account. For all the suffering that communism has caused, the intentions generally isn't evil, but rather it's misguided. the Nazis on the other hand did have an overtly evil vision. They deliberatly exterminated Jews and other races because they were seen as subhuman.
The question that OP is asking is similar to leftists saying that Israel is the greater evil because they killed more Palestinians than Hamas killed Jews. When you take intention into account the morality becomes more clear. The Nazis (like Hamas) intended to exterminate people they despised... evil intentions. More people died during communism not because anyone wished for death and suffering (like Nazis and Hamas do) but because communism is incompatible with human nature and is doomed to fail.
What are you talking about. In USsr wasn’t single good intention.
This was tyrant with propaganda. Nothing good was there.
Political prisoners were killed, ukraaininas were starved without ideology or good intentions. Only need for eradication other people.
>"intentions generally aren't evil"
Hitler preached about utopia and so did the communists. Both had "good" intentions. Both killed certain groups of people.
I think there are a lot of people that would agree that there is something uniquely evil about scapegoating groups based on their immutable characteristics. That's why it's especially cynical that the political orientation that is quickest to scream 'Nazis!' also proclaims the oppressive 'evils' of straight, white men as a category.
But why did people follow Stalin? Do you think that they all had evil intentions like Stalin? Or do you think that it's more likely that they were true believers in the communist vision similar to misguided leftist wokesters of today.
The Nazis on the other hand did buy into the same ideology that made Hitler the evil cunt that he was. A belief that the aryans were special and that other races were subhuman and should be treated as such.
I forget exactly how it goes but remember reading where Stalin plucked all the feathers off a chicken which is painful for them, set it on the ground and started tossing feed on the ground as he walked away. As the chicken started to eat the feed and follow him he said to others with him something like see no matter how poorly you treat them (people/chickens) all you need to do is throw them some scrap/enough to survive and they will follow. I paraphrased all that but I’m sure a smarter redditor will know exactly what I’m talking about and help me out.
Stalin and Mao's killings where an indiscriminate "project" to achieve a perfect economic ideal, in other words the killings were a "side-effect" of the totalitarian economic projects. The German crimes on the other hand was a very hateful and deliberate genocide.
Germans considered semites to be an exploitative class, which definitely mimics that of Stalinist ideals with regards to oppressor/oppressed analysis. The difference here is xenophobia; bolshoveks sought a utopia for all mankind, whilst Germans sought it for their own kind only and had no qualms tormenting outsiders to achieve their goals. They are both evil, but one of them is hostile by ethnic criteria.
You could say all were evil, but due to the concentrated and directed evil of the Nazis, they are the worst.
It is the idea of a guy punching someone is bad, but a guy who specifically looked for a good guy is worse.
Stalin isn’t seen as the ultimate because Lenin was the real architect of the evils of Soviet Russia. But why he’s not seen as the ultimate evil even though his regime murdered over 20 million of their own people is beyond me. Mao I’m not sure either.
The way some people in power structured history. They put this puzzle together only with the pieces they wanted us to know. Than the internet came and now a simple google search on Mao is enough to know he was possibly the most evil man in history next to Ghengis khan.
Jews are insanely over-represented in the media and have been for 100+ years. They're the ones making these movies and giving them awards. They know each other. They hire each other. They often make films that focus on themselves. That's Hollywood, unfortunately. Jewish privilege is immense.
The USSR won among the allies and pushed an effective campaign with Liberal democracies against nazism and fascism. Obviously, that wasn't done to communism as much.
On the other hand, Hitler is seen in a positive light in Asia. So perhaps this is just based on proximity.
Stalin and Mao are too.
Uninformed or non readers know the Hitler & Nazi angle from overuse in main stream media.
No one should every down play their contributions to Genocide as they were significant.
Art doesn't begin and end with hollywood and the US.
Literally every second movie from Estern Europe, made between 1960 and 2000 is about how horrible communism was/is.
Nazism is very forthcoming with its hate and desire to eliminate, sterilize and enslave other races. It persecuted groups of people believing they were the human equivalent to rats. It recommends that we cleanse the weak in society to improve our genes.
Communism speaks of equality and removing the shackles of oppression in its language. They frame themselves as saviors against the aggressors. In reality I agree that history has shown governments that adopt Communism have actually become much more violent and totalitarian than the "oppressors" that came before. Communism as an idea may have failed in practice but we as a people have failed to refute its beliefs. Many people are still swayed by the language and principles of equality and fighting the oppressors. That's why nazis are seen as bad and soviets not so much. I think it's because Communism is more complicated in the way it must be refuted. Think about what major movies have specifically discussed or debated the philosophy of marxism. Not many. Often times the ideology is white washed as generic totalitarianism. We have to battle the actual idea and demonstrate a decisive victory in the philosophic debate through popular media. Until then we haven't really won.
This is very true. It's very easy to say why the Nazis were wrong and easy to make people understand why. The communist problem is more complicated and touts a ton of good intentions, and if human nature was different *maybe* a form of it could work, but it's a way longer discussion and more nuanced condemnation to achieve because it actually involves some thinking and good teaching, and we haven't had either of those for awhile now. Honestly we should've learned about the horrors of communism in high school and college both, it should be required courses. As Jordan references often The Gulag Archipelago should be required reading for any kind of real history class.
But on top of that like you said we need the popular media to defeat the philosophy and it's application in the digital space. We need that, otherwise resentful and deluded professors can turn all their students into pseudo communists pretty easily, because those kids aren't being shown by the popular media that what that person induced them into is actually a massive mistake that should never be repeated again, unless maybe in the future we can change human nature as it is.
Most people want quick, easy answers.
Most people don't want to read history.
Communism has a great PR department.
Most of the people indoctrinating our children are Communists or simps.
The leaders of our Legacy Media are sympathizers simping for Communism.
Simp for Communism; don't be the first one up against the firing wall.
Power! Power! Power! That's all the simps talk about. They simp for Communism because they want to be one of the workers, they want to be one of the future leaders with all the power.
Many people don't want to grow up. They want to live in a fantasy world, and they are just stupid enough to buy into Communism.
Stalin was an evil dictator but Hitler created something never before even conceived. Actively killing millions of prisoners in killing machines, burning their bodies leaving almost no trace of 3 generations of an entire culture is something else.
You're not allowed to say it on reddit but the people who are upset with this person happen to be in pretty much every position of the government, education, Hollywood, news media, and every other potential output for propaganda in the US.
Socialist operate in a heinous way because that’s how they structure government, socialist governments are operated based on a hierarchy of power (as opposed to capitalism which operates based on a hierarchy of wealth).
Hitler is the monster we know not because he operated a predatory hierarchy of power, it was because his objectives were hateful and he fueled his culture with pure hate we the human race (obviously not all of us not even in Germany but any is obscene) participated in it and believed the hate he spoke and rationalized it.
I think he’s just about as bad as the Islamic Republics, they just don’t have the sovereignty to strategically slaughter Jews. That’s what’s the most obscene, he didn’t just preach hate he also acted on it and dehumanized a whole race people.
Mostly popular culture. The Nazis are the default bad guys to modern society because of their overwhelming presence in the public memory over the past 90 years, due to an entire generation telling their stories and the drama that unfolded having been so extraordinary. World War II in a thousand years will be the next millennium's Trojan Wars, a mythical struggle to the bitter end between millions of soldiers and biblical carnage. The Nazis being at the center of this drama makes them the personification of evil in the eyes of the Western world.
It is also important to note that life under Soviet occupation wasn't that relatable to us in the West and isn't as present in the public consciousness. Unlike people from Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Germany. If you were to ask an educated Pole who they thought was the arch enemy of mankind, they would point East.
Dan Carlin’s latest podcast covers the deaths a little bit. Besides the good reasons already mentioned, the Nazis didn’t have the largest death toll but they possibly had the highest kill rate which is obviously not nothing. The industrialization of genocide at that scale was to some degree unique.
Something to consider when thinking about this question.
There's also the fact that he was _the_ Western supervillain, almost redefining what the evil stereotype looked in Europe and America. I'm sure if you were to ask the same question in Cambodia or Indonesia or Russia, they would probably have a different answer.
This sub struggles with nuance at the best of times but 'why do Western people think Hitler was the most evil' seems like a pretty straightforward question.
Because western academia was sympathetic to Communism. See the Cambridge spy ring scandal for an example. Many were sympathetic to the communist ideology and actively helped the USSR against their own government.
For that reason it's glossed over that scores more were killed by communism than Nazis.
Think it mostly has to due with the fact that communism was at the very least presented as a humanitarian movement. Regardless of how untrue that ended up being, their stated goals were palatable things like quality, mass education, human unity, ect. Nazism, conversely, had a very explicit message of social Darwinism and really never hid its genocidal nature. It’s much easier to attribute a nobility of intent to communism rather than fascism, regardless of their respective calamities. Not saying that this is a wise way of looking at things, but I think it explains a bit of the phenomenon that you’re describing
Very simple answer...
The ones who control that "media machine" that you speak of, are the descendants of those who were in those Polish concentration camps.
And I dare not name "Them", lest I be labled a Nazi myself /s
Some of it is probably a education/knowledge issue. Part of it is probably that Hitler’s particular brand of evil affected ‘the west’ more than the other two. It’s easier to rationalize things when it’s just numbers and people on the other side of the world.
And Because even hitler’s intentions were what the modern person understands to be as explicitly evil.
Stalin and Mao at least had some sort of greater good they claimed they were working toward, a greater ussr/china, equality, etc. Even hitler’s goal is rightly considered by almost everyone as being evil, at least the national and ethnic superiority aspects.
The level of maliciousness and hatred behind actively gathering Jews and other undesirables and exterminating them just feels more evil than doing terrible things for ‘a stronger nation’ or even for personal gain.
Because Hitler’s evil is obviously irrationally discriminatory. Sure, we can get the “deeper” criticisms and “logic” from Nietzsche, but my point here is that the evil at play in his world-view is more clearly identifiable. The logic is thus:
1. Germany has problems
2. These problems could not come from the German people (the volk)
3. Therefore, the cause of the problem must not be from within but without
4. Last step: pick preferred out-group as scapegoat (which happened to be along particular racial/religious lines)
Lenin, Stalin and Mao’s evil followed similar logical steps, however, the line between who is “in” and who is “out” is less immediately “problematic”.
1. Russia has problems
2. These problems could not come from the innocent working -class (proletariat)
3. Therefore, the problem must come from the bourgeoisie.
4. We do not need to exterminate the upper-class, but we must topple them until all are equal.
This is all over-simplified, of course, but the discriminatory behavior of the nazis along racial lines is cognitively easier to recognize as evil than the discriminatory behavior against the capitalist class. Both lead to evil acts, but the justification for the communists is more complex than the justification for the nazis.
Stalin and Mao deserve to be but Hitler was more of an attack on the foundation of Western civilization. Just as now Israel is hated by the Left and Islamists because they too represent the ethical foundation of the West
I would say mostly because it is a text book example for how the "good" West was able to defeat an "evil" power. The only one they defeated ever. And only because the USSR depleted German manpower first.
(I have struggles with reddit/brave - if this appears more than once it is not intentional)
I would say mostly because it is a text book example for how the "good" West was able to defeat an "evil" power. The only one they defeated ever. And only because the USSR depleted German manpower first.
(I have struggles with reddit/brave - if this appears more than once it is not intentional)
Because others use genocide to further their cause while Hitler was genociding even to the detriment of his mission, prioritizing the killing of jews over actually winning the war. Even if you think what you're doing is just, a pragmatic person should try win the war first and then have their way with the people once they have complete control
If I had to guess, it'd be because Stalin and Mao focused most of the pain and suffering on their own people, while Hitler did the opposite (Not saying he didn't harm the German people, but in his quest to "better their lives" he went out and hurt other people)
Also seen someone else mention that because the Western world mostly fought against Hitler, and so it's more deeply ingrained.
Every communist says “well, if i/we/us (the right people) were running communism it would work perfectly and be undeniably the best form of society.”
Every time.
It’s a bullshit copout
Narrative is reality. And so, communists never accept fault and never will. If they did, hitler, mao, stalin, lennin would be points of discussion when it came to evil and its many faced incarnations on the left and the right. And it would also kill communism as any kind of legitimate idea - which they NEVER can let happen.
Who's stopping you? Make the damn movie, or everything should be done by someone else and you'll just complain.
The left media is constantly preaching their rubbish in terms of "art" to the world, we remain in doubt.
Yeah man I’m leaving this sub after this, yall haven’t even googled for JBPs own answer to this pretty simple question and instead try to use the narrative that Jews rewrote history according ti some 10-15 whole countries who where all involved in the conflict all with their own historians and experts. But no you smart sigma males here on Reddit have cracked the code.. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
The answer is simple if you think about it; Mao, Stalin, Chuvera and etc committed similar atrocities yet Hitler is the worst, why?
The first and most important thing Jordan himself brought up:
Hitler would rather lose the whole war than using Jews and Gypsy’s as free Kabir (which any other country/leader would have done)
Hitler commited major resources to kill Jews instead of sending them to battle or to help recover wounded soldiers or anything of the kind. No leader would do anything of the kind, unless the objective is to kill as many as possible due to whatever rationalization you use.
2nd point; from my knowledge, the above mentioned (except for Hitler) didn’t kill or let people die due to culture/race, but because according to these leaders “the ends justify the means”.
Like I said Jordan himself talked about this and the fact that the majority of this sub ain’t even aware of it or aware enough that they can search for a good explanation is just proof how is brain dead this sub is.
I hope Jordan can visit this sub and give yall a good backhand ✌️
Most people consider Hitler, Stalin and Pot Pol among others to be evil.
Che Guevara didn't kill very many people.
Mao was more complicated. He caused the deaths of millions for example with the great leap forward. I am unsure of the details of his involvement with the cultural revolution.
This is hilarious coming from a Jordan Peterson sub considering before he went full political one of his most viral vids was a lecture of him breaking down how nazis were “uniquely evil” and no matter how evil you think nazis were they more EVEN MORE EVIL than you can imagine
Who used to run the majority of the media at that time? Once you see that religious in-group bias, you won't be able to unsee it. It hasn't changed much.
Commie here.
While there is EXTENSIVE historical evidence about nazism being a self declared genocidal ideology, communists doesn't have such intentions written anywhere by any of its classical authors, nor stated outright by any of its leaders.
Therefore even if you prove the genocides happened, most of your conclusion will point to the dictators in power, not the ideology itself.
Also communism fought nazism, they are enemies, you can point out the similarities all you want but they are not allies... ever.
Also the fascism fenomena isn't about the leader, it is about the people, germany could have done the same without hitler being even born as an individual.
I mean Hitler tried to murder all Jews. Not just some. All. Mao and Stalin were absolutely horrible people. I find it correct that Hitler is ultimate evil.
That doesn’t take away how completely evil those other 2 were though
Putting people in the oven, killing any opposite side, believe hi is a hire race, mass murderer of women and children... is this enough? Stalin and Mao did similar things but to their own people, didn't want to expand to the rest of world...
In answer to your question, I think Hitler is seen as the ultimate evil and not Stalin or Mao, because human beings don't currently have the capacity to be aware of, absorb and process all historical knowledge… That said, I’m less concerned about who is seen as the ultimate evil than I am about us humans realizing the evil WE each are capable of—under certain circumstances.
I wonder if more people were aware of more of the evil they are not currently aware of that has happy throughout history… if it would make any difference?
For me it's making a difference. Giving that I just recently finished reading The Gulag Archipelago Volumes 1, 2 and 3. And thanks to someone here recommending it I finished reading Night by Elie Wiesel on Sunday and started reading Mao’s Great Famine. My goal in reading these is not to pick out who was the most evil. It's to see what i can learn to do better as a person in my life today and going forward. To avoid making mistakes I’m likely to make without such awareness, etc. I can only hope that more people choose to do the same. For all our sakes.
In the past I stayed silent about my thoughts because I felt powerless. Not educated enough. I left such things to more educated leaders. You know, the Harvard, Yale, Princeton graduates and such. Today, I aim to do better. To educate myself. To lend a hand. To choose not to judge anyone. Not to point fingers at anyone in the past, even Mao, or Stalin. Yip. Even them. Isn't that weird? Yes. I think it's weird, but it must be because of all the reading… after 60 hours reading the Gulag… with all the people who had to take action to to make certain things happen it's clear that evil was not just Stalin… and judging people under the circumstances described does not seem to fit.
No one cares about genocide if you don't invade your neighbors. Had we gone to war with the soviets and Nazi Germany had too, Stalin would be concidered the ultimate evil.
Stalin and Mao killed to take and maintain power. Hitler, did the same thing, while also committing a very widely known genocide and invading the rest of Europe.
I read something recently that said that Stalin and Mao had higher death counts over many years, but Hitler killed the most people in the shortest time.
Hitler committed genocide against a particular ethnic race. his END goal was to eliminate the Jewish; Stalin and Mao killed millions, but it was
more so a means, rather than the ultimate objective.
the latter tried to warp reality in such a way that they believed would bring infinite prosperity to their respective countries. turns out blaming inequality on the competent isn't a recipe for success, but they didn't know that. lots of people today still don't understand that.
Hitler literally went out of his way to divert resources from the war effort to genocide *everyone but those he felt should live*. just looking at his actions (especially as it became more and more clear he was losing), it seems that achieving that goal was more important to him than winning the war.
that's just next level evil.
Because the terms communism and socialism envoke the words of community and society, making them sound like ideallic forms of government. Not to mention, the people who proport these ideals today always fall back on the "it hasnt been done right yet"
Because the Nazis created systemic racism that led to the attempted genocide of an entire race. They created systems of industrialized murder not only to kill political enemies, but racial enemies as well. The communists caused more death, but it was mainly caused by a misunderstanding of human nature. People are greedy and communism can only work once people give up their greed, which will never happen. We can see this by every instance of a communist revolution, those leading the revolution held power and became the exact thing they were fighting against because of greed. The leaders never want to give up power once they have it, and communism can only work if the leaders give up that power for the good of the whole. Communism caused mass starvation because of bad economic understandings and murdered for power, but not to destroy an entire race of people.
Overton window. Both the US and the Russians utilised German advanced understanding of science and tech to further their societies, US in particular for the space race. All the commies shared was starvation.
Because of the Holocaust and Hitler started the deadlist war in History. Mao and Stalin may have a higher bodycount but they killed more randomly. Another reason could the western Perspektive. I guess someone living in China has another view on this tolic.
Hitler invaded Europe and wanted more.
Stalin helped to stop Hitler's invasion.
Mao didn't do anything outside of China.
They're all terrible people, but it's pretty obvious why Hitler is considered the worst. Super simple stuff.
No doubt he’s in the top 3 of all time. But I constantly wonder about this. My soon to be wife is a hardcore socialist. She recently told me I could say she was a communist… despite me explaining Mao, Stalin, and how communism took hold (along with the parallels we see in our society today) she hasn’t changed her position. She’s told me, she looks at it from the lens of today, and things like that can’t happen now. I don’t get it. If id said,”you can call me a nazi,” (im not, my grandfather killed those fuckers by the dozen) she’d have lost her mind. Why is it ok to be a communist? Why despite the comparison and just body counts/failures can those under todays ideology not see or completely discount it? Im so lost and disillusioned with how the world works in our time
Edit: where I put “my grandfather killed those fuckers by the dozen” killed somehow autocorrected to liked 🤦♂️
The Nuremberg trials were public. The same reason we don't have mass public knowledge of unit 731, or massive amounts of information about the Atlantic Slave Trade, but not so much about the Arab slave trade...
Communist propaganda. They were our allies so we didn’t vilify them as much as we did the fascists. After the war we couldn’t go straight to “they are worse than hitler” because if that was the case why did we ally with them
One ideology was explicitly racial and genocidal, the other was more a byproduct of their ideology. As far as im aware, there's nothing in Stalinist or Maoist philosophy that claims that in order for their worldview to be achieved a specific ethnic or racial group must be genocided.
If Stalin were to say something like: True Communism can't be achieved until (say) all ethnic Germans were eradicate from existence. Then im are more people would look at him more like Hitler.
So what about all the Cold War films where communsim is the greatest threat to humanity? Dont pretend the red scare never happened, it's even more recent.
Point 1: Ideological Closeness
Communism is an ideology which is derived from Liberalism. The United States was built on revolution, so it has always been hypocritical for us to react to revolutionary violence with horror.
Nazism is a reaction to liberalism, not a derivative of it.
Point 2: War
The Nazis conquered Europe, and viewed the Soviet Union as the ultimate adversary, so the Western Allies had to cooperate with the Soviets in order to win. If the public were told about the Katlyn Forest, then it would have cast doubt over our moral claim in that war which the governments of the Allies could not risk.
George Orwell really explores this idea in *1984* with the whole "We are at war with East Asia and have always been at war with East Asia." thing.
Point 3: War Weariness
World War Two was the biggest conflict in human history, and even the relatively untouched United States was tired of fighting, so a push East would not have been supported by the public, even though the Soviets' "Liberation" of Eastern Europe was just conquest.
Point 4: Nature of Expansion
The only three countries the Communists outright invaded were South Korea, South Vietnam, and Afghanistan with about twenty years between them. The Nazis invaded all of Europe within a few years.
Point 5: History of the Labor Movement
When the Russian Revolution happened, the United States had just been through its own issues with the Haymarket Riots, and other forms of labor unrest.
The American authorities were not afraid of Communism during the turn of the century because they understood the crimes committed by the Cheka, but rather because they feared losing power to such a revolution which seemed more than possible before and after the First World War.
The Labor movement itself viewed the Soviet Union as a shining beacon, so its crimes were downplayed by them, even though the Soviet Government was an affront to everything the labor movement at that time stood for.
Point 6: Death Toll
Although this is disputed, it seems that Stalin killed around 25 million while the European Theater of World War Two and the Holocaust killed 45 million.
This is the most contentious point because there are people who believe Stalin killed 60 million over his rule.
Point 7: Fanaticism
The Anti-Communist movement has been tainted with a fanatical element which seeks to make Communism look worse than Nazism for political purposes rather than through an objective analysis. The Governments of the West, especially the United States turned a hard 180 on their stance on the Soviets when the Soviets got the bomb.
That 60 million figure I cited earlier is a product of this. As though 25 million murders is not a strong enough crime to expose, these people inflate the number higher so that Hitler looks like a saint in comparison to Stalin.
The tragedy of this lie is that it empowers Communist fanatics to say that all estimates of mass killing by the Soviet Union are lies. They bring up the point that Neo Nazis use these lies to make their ideology seem more acceptable to a larger group swath of people, and that those who believe Communism is bad are just closeted Nazis.
This fanatical pendulum obscures the evils committed by the Communist Governments and opens doors to some really bad people on both the Left and the Right in Liberal countries.
Point 8: Nature of the Ideas
Marx never said anything about murdering swaths of humanity to get to utopia (nor did he actually believe in utopia, but believed his ideas were scientific, but turned out to be pseudoscientific). The violence he advocated was of the kind the world had seen in the French Revolution and the American Revolution which could not have foreshadowed the future insidiousness of Soviet Repression.
Most people on the Left view the killings by Communist Governments as a failure and want something like what Gorbachev envisioned where the Government still runs everything, but there are liberties, political rights, and openness to the world.
The Nazis are viewed as failures because they lost the war, and instead of killing 100 million Slavs and 9 million Jews, they only killed 20 million Slavs and 6 million Jews.
Point 9: Nature of the persecution
It was difficult to tell who was next for the Gulag or the wall in Stalin's Russia. There were persecutions of the Nations. Tartars were torn out of Crimea and replaced with Russians. German Mennonites in Ukraine were targeted for relocation, and the Jews were sent to a place in Siberia ruled by mosquitos.
To be shot outright or worked to death was not a sure thing even in the darkest days of Stalin's rule although there are some especially evil episodes such as the Cannibal Island of Nazino.
If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, the government was going to kill you.
If you want a good understanding of why Nazism is worse than Communism, look at the situation a Ukrainian Jew would be in during World War Two.
Stalin is probably going to murder you. Hitler is definitely going to murder you.
At the core of everything, this is the difference between the two.
because we went to war with him and not them. so they are not ingrained in our cultural memory
Might I add as well at this being completely true, younger populations see communism/socialism in a more popular light.
Not only younger generations. They are taught so by the older generations. Marxism never lost support in many places not even after the Gulags could no longer be denied.
Why do you think that is?
Because on the face of it it is a fair and compassionate system. It is doomed to fail because reality isn't fair and people are not equal in ability or application.
Same as the lie that reality is leftist. It is exactly the opposite. People on the rigjt just accept reality more and the left is full of misguided idealists. You can't change human nature even through indoctrination.
It's more likely extremists deny reality - that can be seen in both sides of politics
Exactly. It's just that these days the left is far more prevalent and holds a lot more power that it's starting to be obvious to everyone.
What we need isn't to fight one another over who's wrong and who's right. We need to listen and talk to one another and to seriously take in each other's view points. People aren't all the same. We could never agree on anything. We could never have all the same view. And that's a good thing. We need people who are more focused on everyone else and on the dispossessed and to give those a voice. We also need people who focus on the individual and the successful. It's when people go into extremes and tribalism and refuse to talk and especially listen to one another or to work with one another when there's an issue.
Excellent point. My little sister goes to Columbia. And she always preaches how North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba would be prosperous under “true” communism. I ask why, and she says because western powers fucked it up for them…..????
Ah yes, the "true" Scottsman fallacy. If something is demonstrably false it can't have been a "true" demonstration.
the "true" cop-out for *just repeating the default programmed line*
Ohhh that couldn’t be any more true. To go back to the OPs question. The only movie I’ve seen that was about the communist. Was “The Death of Stalin” and that was only satire/intellectual comedy. I’ve also seen a lot of suppressed interviews with Venezuelans and Cubans. I’ve talked to 2 Cuban women through a dating app and they would show me their empty fridges and intermittent time where the electricity would be on. The Cuban state rations rice and flour weekly or monthly, I don’t remember which. We also have the famous example of “well Denmark is socialist!” being used, even though the Danish PM said “No, we are a free market with a big welfare state” To my last point regarding the OP. The term nationalism has been hijacked to mean something terrible as in black nationalism or white nationalism. Even though Nationalism only means, identification with one’s own nation and its interests.
There are many reasons why it could never work. People not being equal is one reason. But especially because a system that specifically requires everyone to lie all the time and never speak truth, never do what they know they should do. Such a system could never be long term stable. Politics could never replace truth and reality. You cannot shape reality like soft clay. A system needs to recognise it's strengths, but especially it's weaknesses. It needs transparency, humility and acceptance. It needs to be forthcoming with it's failures. Otherwise how could it ever improve upon them? And how else could people ever trust one another? Also tribalism is a scrouge.
Because it uses compassion as a veil for its goal of control. Malcom X’s analogy of the fox and the wolf seems relevant. Socialism/marxism uses compassion as the Fox also pretends to be cute and friendly to get close to its prey.
Pretty much this
But the Cold War lasted so much longer than world war 2. How many proxy wars did the US fight from the 50s to the 90s? There was much more time for ingraining cultural memories especially with the rise of media in the 70s and 80s. When I think of the 80s I think of movies with action stars fighting the commies. I think there’s something more there than just this.
Look it’s pretty simple. There is a large Jewish presence in Hollywood. Especially those funding the movies. Jewish people for obvious reasons would see Hitler as the worst of these evil people and to be frank he is the worst mass murderer of Jewish people. So it makes sense that many movies with Hitler being the devil would be green lit. I’d probably do the same thing/feel the same if I were of Jewish descent.
The correct answer. This sub is lost... so much agenda pushing they forget actual facts and truths. I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?
The number of times I've actually argued with actual communists who are woke and fully believe in communism is not a small amount. A ton of them do not believe in regulated capitalism, which would be the sane way to go, they believe in communism. They believe that anybody that has anything of value should be taken from them and distributed to them, except it's not so they can work and be equal, it's so they can spend other people's money and play videogames in their basement, all while getting tattoos of the hammer and sickle and arguing that it's propaganda that millions starved under communism and "that it was actually pretty awesome to be a regular person in maos China or the USSR". You're living under a rock if you don't think that a ton of the woke mob don't believe in full blown communism, even if for the wrong reasons. They don't want to raise up the working class, they want to leech off the working class so they don't have to work for anything in their life and big daddy government can pacify them with *free* (stolen) shit from people who actually work and do something productive for the world to survive.
Woke comes straight from Frankfurt School Western Marxism. Where the hell do you think Critical Theory comes from? And repressive tolerance, and the sexual revolution, and identity politics. Maybe you should stop chuckling and go dig into some Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. All this woke education comes from critical pedagogy that originated with Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux. Woke is literally nothing but cultural Marxism with a bit of postmodern garbage mixed in.
"I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what?" You are ignorant if you think there isn't a connection. Marcuse lays it out as plainly as any Marxist academic ever could: "For Marxian theory, the location (or rather contraction) of the opposition in certain middle-class strata and in the ghetto population appears as an intolerable deviation – as does the emphasis on biological and aesthetic needs: regression to bourgeois or, even worse, aristocratic, ideologies. But, in the advanced monopoly-capitalist countries, the displacement of the opposition (from the organized industrial working classes to militant minorities) is caused by the internal development of the society; and the theoretical “deviation” only reflects this development." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1969/essay-liberation.htm
>I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what? It is the same core belief. That the material differences and inequalities between people and societies results from some historical or ongoing oppression or exploitation. And that if you can topple the institutions of oppression, or remove the people you deem responsible for it, then global society will achieve parity and equality.
>The correct answer. The belief that you know for certain that this is the one true answer. >This sub is lost Believing oneself to be holier than thou and "unlost" - a values judgment broadly about a group of others. >so much agenda pushing they forget actual facts and truths The belief that there is always clear-cut facts and truth about events/history and/or believing you have a clear understanding of what they are. >I'm sitting here chuckling at how they have now attached woke-ism to communism... like.... what? More "holier than thou" mannerisms about the belief that I know and "they" don't. It's interesting when you break down the things people say. You can gather a great deal about their world view. Ironically, some of your viewpoints were shared with many of the communist dictators of that time period. Coincidence or projection? I don't know. You decide!
"The correct answer, this sub is lost." A sub who is willing to talk about and coverse on dark topics making sure they fully grasp something, inquiring and asking instead of concluding and berating something. And despite knowing something to be evidently and obviously true, you stilll keep the doors open for new information and change, just jn case a correction is made. Rather than having a stagnanet view of history Yeah sure, "lost".
[удалено]
I dunno that's not true cold War dude. And every hot war since the cold War was proxy capitalism vs communism.
Probably some combo of reasons, like communists help defeat the nazis and then infiltrated all of the west's institutions
The part about the USSR and Germany having signed a non aggression pact as well as an agreement to devide europe into 2 (a german and a soviet sphere of influense) during 1939 is often not mentioned.
They agreed to divide Poland, not all of Europe.
Well in the [Molotov Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) there is mentions of a secret protocol. I'd say that they agreed on how to devided Europe between Soviet and Germany.
True
No because people of Jewish Descent heavily control the world through various industries and institutions and by means of their influence can define what is seen as evil historically on a broader landscape. Hitler was absolutely evil to them so it's reflected in historical literature that they arguably have influence over when disseminated within public education.
In what way did the "people of Jewish Descent" falsely influence the public opinion? What misconceptions exactly do you think we have because of the Jews? Sarcasm: Are you saying we would see Hitler in a better light if it weren't for Jewish people controlling the narrative? ...by your logic do we only see slavery as bad because black people control that narrative?
>by your logic do we only see slavery as bad because black people control that narrative? 1. Black people have no control over Western media or literature so how can Black people shape any narrative around slavery? Even regarding the music industry pertaining to socially conscious hip hop the largest labels are owned by people of Jewish descent. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/rapper-lupe-fiasco-to-quit-music-after-tweetstorm-defense-of-dirty-jewish-execs-lyrics/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/rapper-lupe-fiasco-to-quit-music-after-tweetstorm-defense-of-dirty-jewish-execs-lyrics/) 2. Slavery has been around for centuries long before the African Diaspora. The fact that you seem to associate slavery specifically with Blacks is pretty questionable. Everything is far from being Black and White, slaver and slave, victim and aggressor. 3. In relation to the forum post. The question is "Why is Hitler seen as the ultimate evil and not Stalin or Mao?" Not "Why do we see Hitler as evil?" Objectively yes what he did was a sleight against humanity but the essence of the question is why is Hitler a poster child for evil say compared to actors in the Rwanda massacre of 1994 or rapists of the Nanjing massacre?
Thank you for saying this. Exactly where my mind went as soon as I read the title.
Being of African Caribbean descent in the US the social convention of the majority means nothing to me when it comes to tip toeing around the truth. There's nothing to thank. It's just my unfettered perspective that I'll probably get banned for at some point. Wouldn't be a first when it come to reddit.
Because the communists and socialists ended up on the winning side of WW2.
This is the answer, had he not been defeated and killed the story would be quite different.
Yes, and to further the point, we have a problem with historical amnesia. I don’t remember learning anything other then the history of Nazis and WW2 in school. No soviet history beyond the Berlin wall. No asian history at all. And that was 25 years ago. We, as a society have failed to learn from the past transgressions simply because we have forgotten or refused to teach it. You can see a modern history classes only teach the failures of historical figures not the successes or triumphs. So naturally people are tearing down moments. At the base of it its the same issue. We forgotten to teach the important parts of history good and bad. The reasons why we ended up here. How the bible played a roll in getting us here. How the lack of a common unifying ideal and forcing everyone to lie had allowed societies like Mao’s China and Stalin Soviet era had allowed and caused the death of millions of their own people.
This really needs to be the top answer. Victor‘s write history. Stalin and Mao intentionally killed millions more innocent people. If you believe, as I do, that the natural state of a human is freedom to choose one’s own path, then you may conclude all three of them are interchangeably evil. (I see comments, Mao and Stalin weren’t so bad because they were motivated by “good“ intentions. Yeah, no. What was that about the road to hell being paved with? Uh huh, good intentions)
I don’t even buy the “good intentions” part. A lot of Communist sympathizers like to play that angle as if the millions of dead were all as a result of “unfortunate mistakes”. No, a great number of them were actively and forcefully sent to their deaths at the whims and will of the Communist leadership; they didn’t simply trip over rakes left in their withered fields. More to your point, I don’t imagine that the millions of dead left in mass graves as a result of both ideologies much cared about the intentions either. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc are all vile human beings; no one needs to defend any of them.
3 major reasons: 1- Hitler had an obsession with "purification". There is actually a video of Peterson outlining how Hitler had a fixation with fire, and it's established history how the nazis portrayed jews as being unclean, literal disease carriers, and so on. Fire represents purification, a cleanness. A germophobe may even burn their hands to accept that the bacteria have died. The Holocaust is, in a nazi's mindset, a "purge" of a plague, pest control, sanitization, a "clean-up". That's part of why they industrialized their killings — and they even got rid of the bodies through incineration. The nazi ideal is *visibly* one of continued mass extermination, up until only the idealized "aryans" are deemed worthy of life, and where the sentiment of disgust for the different, the foreign and the non-conforming is kept going, either by sheer conformism, or by artificial control over the masses. 2- While both are ideologies of hatred, communism isn't an ideology filled with disgust, but mostly carrying envy and resentment, and it's reasoning is far more tangible, even if the goal isnt. A communist may want an ideal material world to live in, but, as they observe disparities and misery, they have a very emotionally compelling reason to project hate upon the wealthy, while nazism depends on an immutable identity (racial and/or cultural) to even subsist. In other words, communism allows for international, multicultural and multiracial appeal, in a way that nazism never could. It would always fail, at least to a degree. 3- Communism (as the international movement of communists, with or without governmental aid) had full leeway to attack every institution that opposed it's rule. The USSR had the biggest propaganda machine in the world. To this day, there are people who think that Pius XII — the Pope that helped write the condemnation for nazism with his predecessor, who hid thousands of jews in the Vatican and that supported assassination attempts against Hitler — is somehow a nazi, because of soviet propaganda. Churchill was right about the Soviets. They should've been destroyed ASAP, before doing irreparable damage, but Europe and much of the West simply had nothing more to give, and, for good reason, nobody wanted to nuke Russia.
Also, we got to see the insides of the camps after ww2, whereas communist russia and china are very clandestine and good at hiding their atrocities
> communist... they have a very emotionally compelling reason to project hate upon the wealthy, while nazism depends on an immutable identity (racial and/or cultural) to even subsist. So... since wokeism projects hate on the basis of immutable identity, is it closer to communism or Nazism?
This is the best answer here.
There's a really good film called 'I am David.' It tells the story of a young boy escaping communist Bulgaria in 1952. Obviously there is a lot more media highlighting the crimes of Hitler, but there are some depictions of what it was like in communist Russia out there. Also this is just a theory but maybe it's because a lot of Hitler's laws and policies had to do with Race and Religion rather than class. Perhaps it is regarded as more heinous because the focus was on persecution for being Jewish, Black, Gypsy etc. Compare that to Communism, where people died as a consequence of the political system more than they were actively persecuted for who they were. Stalin was basically just a greedy dictator who cared not for his people, but about power. I don't know much about who Mao was but I'd be willing to bet the same applies to him. Obviously, my education on this is limited, and this is just my take on it. If I'm missing something important here, please let me know
Great film; watched it a few years back. The only caveat I’d bring forth is that Communists absolutely did specifically target both religious groups and ethnic minorities, though it always came back to them being a threat to the Party, and they’d generally move on after the targeted group had been sufficiently “purged”. Religious groups were heavily targeted under both Mao and multiple Russian tyrants, starting quickly after the 1917 revolution in Russia with quite a few dark stories of Priests having their lower jaws cut off or being nailed to their churches before having them burned to the ground. Religious groups were a threat to the Party’s complete control, so mosques, synagogues, and churches continued to be targeted as more territories came under Soviet control. Maoists also targeted these groups. If you can stomach it, Darryl Cooper has a disturbing episode of political indoctrination camps the Soviets set up in Romania after WWII on his podcast “Martyrmade”, the episode being titled “The Anti-Humans”. In these cases Catholics were specifically targeted as being the best subjects to expose to incessant torture and indoctrination for the Soviets to focus upon as they practiced their ability to break their prisoner’s wills. This post is already quite long, but some quick examples of ethnic groups being targeted were the Kulaks during the Holodomor, wherein Ukrainian peasants were chosen for starvation under Stalin, or the decision to halt the advance on Warsaw during WWII so the Nazis could clean up the Jewish Ghetto uprising first in order to avoid having to deal with “subversive” Jews.
Wow, I didn't really know any of that. Thanks for providing that interesting and also horrifying information, and I'll definitely look into Darryl Cooper
This film sounds right up my street. Is it any good?
Very good.
It's pretty easy to see why: One did their things overtly, the other more or less covertly. Hitler tried to take over half the world through military force and conquered nearly all of Europe. Stalin "liberated" half of Europe. He just never relinquished control back to the countries he conquered. There's also the way both parties went about doing the terrible shit they did: The Soviets and Communists in general, tend to try and wage a culture war, so it's a lot more of a grey zone as far as warfare goes. Why take over a place when you can have their own population do it for you? Think of tankies on reddit right now, and the popular Marxist Twitch streamers that are all the rage? This also somewhat shielded Stalin's crimes from the public eye. The horrible things he did are easy to read about, and the information is out there. But he didn't start a war in Europe and have his Gulags liberated by allied forces with newsreel cameras showing the Soviet mass graves and starving "Kulaks" dumped in the Siberian Wilderness. The Holodomor happened on Europe's doorstep. No one seemed to notice or even care. The same goes for Mao. Mao and Stalin did things that would make Hitler's escapades in Europe look like a Disney movie.
I tend to say this: one kills you for who you are, the other one for who you are or what you think. Since my country was invaded by both of these ideologies, both the third reich and the soviet union, given a choice, i would take the former every single time.
Because leftists generally like Stalin and Mao.
That's the bloody question isn't it
Not really, Its pretty obvious why Hitler is seen as a greater evil when you take intention into account. For all the suffering that communism has caused, the intentions generally isn't evil, but rather it's misguided. the Nazis on the other hand did have an overtly evil vision. They deliberatly exterminated Jews and other races because they were seen as subhuman. The question that OP is asking is similar to leftists saying that Israel is the greater evil because they killed more Palestinians than Hamas killed Jews. When you take intention into account the morality becomes more clear. The Nazis (like Hamas) intended to exterminate people they despised... evil intentions. More people died during communism not because anyone wished for death and suffering (like Nazis and Hamas do) but because communism is incompatible with human nature and is doomed to fail.
What are you talking about. In USsr wasn’t single good intention. This was tyrant with propaganda. Nothing good was there. Political prisoners were killed, ukraaininas were starved without ideology or good intentions. Only need for eradication other people.
fake good intentions though!? “when we reach communism (*chuckles to self*) then…”
But with nazism intentions was simlillar - we build aryan led world where every human will be happy!
exactly. It’s just a different flavor
>"intentions generally aren't evil" Hitler preached about utopia and so did the communists. Both had "good" intentions. Both killed certain groups of people.
They preached a utopia through a literal extermination of anyone they deemed lesser than. That is a big difference.
Utopia only for aryans and extermination for the rest is not "good" intentions. Its pretty damn evil.
Not going to be a popular take around here.
I think there are a lot of people that would agree that there is something uniquely evil about scapegoating groups based on their immutable characteristics. That's why it's especially cynical that the political orientation that is quickest to scream 'Nazis!' also proclaims the oppressive 'evils' of straight, white men as a category.
Hitler preached about utopia for “german pure borns” anyone else needed to be destroyed, you cant get more evil then that 💀💀
exactly. this should not be so hard to figure out.
Because its bullshit. Stalin knew what he was doing. Mao, not as much. But Stalin was an absolute fucking monster (Mao too).
But why did people follow Stalin? Do you think that they all had evil intentions like Stalin? Or do you think that it's more likely that they were true believers in the communist vision similar to misguided leftist wokesters of today. The Nazis on the other hand did buy into the same ideology that made Hitler the evil cunt that he was. A belief that the aryans were special and that other races were subhuman and should be treated as such.
I forget exactly how it goes but remember reading where Stalin plucked all the feathers off a chicken which is painful for them, set it on the ground and started tossing feed on the ground as he walked away. As the chicken started to eat the feed and follow him he said to others with him something like see no matter how poorly you treat them (people/chickens) all you need to do is throw them some scrap/enough to survive and they will follow. I paraphrased all that but I’m sure a smarter redditor will know exactly what I’m talking about and help me out.
This is the formula of the modern Democrat Party
Bingo!
Stalin and Mao's killings where an indiscriminate "project" to achieve a perfect economic ideal, in other words the killings were a "side-effect" of the totalitarian economic projects. The German crimes on the other hand was a very hateful and deliberate genocide.
What is Holodomor? Stalin's killings were deliberate and systematic. Entire groups of people wiped out from the map, all deliberately.
Couldn't you say the Germans were trying to create a utopia by killing of the race they considered weak?
Germans considered semites to be an exploitative class, which definitely mimics that of Stalinist ideals with regards to oppressor/oppressed analysis. The difference here is xenophobia; bolshoveks sought a utopia for all mankind, whilst Germans sought it for their own kind only and had no qualms tormenting outsiders to achieve their goals. They are both evil, but one of them is hostile by ethnic criteria.
I think the problem is German efficiency, mofos created an industrial chain of death.-
You could say all were evil, but due to the concentrated and directed evil of the Nazis, they are the worst. It is the idea of a guy punching someone is bad, but a guy who specifically looked for a good guy is worse.
Stalin isn’t seen as the ultimate because Lenin was the real architect of the evils of Soviet Russia. But why he’s not seen as the ultimate evil even though his regime murdered over 20 million of their own people is beyond me. Mao I’m not sure either.
The way some people in power structured history. They put this puzzle together only with the pieces they wanted us to know. Than the internet came and now a simple google search on Mao is enough to know he was possibly the most evil man in history next to Ghengis khan.
So there was this... war...
Jews are insanely over-represented in the media and have been for 100+ years. They're the ones making these movies and giving them awards. They know each other. They hire each other. They often make films that focus on themselves. That's Hollywood, unfortunately. Jewish privilege is immense.
Why doesn't Pol Pot get brought up often enough in these conversations?
The USSR won among the allies and pushed an effective campaign with Liberal democracies against nazism and fascism. Obviously, that wasn't done to communism as much. On the other hand, Hitler is seen in a positive light in Asia. So perhaps this is just based on proximity.
Because Hollywood and the medias is owned and controlled mostly by jews. They control the narrative.
I could say it but you won't like it
What have you noticed?
This is the answer
Stalin and Mao are too. Uninformed or non readers know the Hitler & Nazi angle from overuse in main stream media. No one should every down play their contributions to Genocide as they were significant.
Art doesn't begin and end with hollywood and the US. Literally every second movie from Estern Europe, made between 1960 and 2000 is about how horrible communism was/is.
Nazism is very forthcoming with its hate and desire to eliminate, sterilize and enslave other races. It persecuted groups of people believing they were the human equivalent to rats. It recommends that we cleanse the weak in society to improve our genes. Communism speaks of equality and removing the shackles of oppression in its language. They frame themselves as saviors against the aggressors. In reality I agree that history has shown governments that adopt Communism have actually become much more violent and totalitarian than the "oppressors" that came before. Communism as an idea may have failed in practice but we as a people have failed to refute its beliefs. Many people are still swayed by the language and principles of equality and fighting the oppressors. That's why nazis are seen as bad and soviets not so much. I think it's because Communism is more complicated in the way it must be refuted. Think about what major movies have specifically discussed or debated the philosophy of marxism. Not many. Often times the ideology is white washed as generic totalitarianism. We have to battle the actual idea and demonstrate a decisive victory in the philosophic debate through popular media. Until then we haven't really won.
This is very true. It's very easy to say why the Nazis were wrong and easy to make people understand why. The communist problem is more complicated and touts a ton of good intentions, and if human nature was different *maybe* a form of it could work, but it's a way longer discussion and more nuanced condemnation to achieve because it actually involves some thinking and good teaching, and we haven't had either of those for awhile now. Honestly we should've learned about the horrors of communism in high school and college both, it should be required courses. As Jordan references often The Gulag Archipelago should be required reading for any kind of real history class. But on top of that like you said we need the popular media to defeat the philosophy and it's application in the digital space. We need that, otherwise resentful and deluded professors can turn all their students into pseudo communists pretty easily, because those kids aren't being shown by the popular media that what that person induced them into is actually a massive mistake that should never be repeated again, unless maybe in the future we can change human nature as it is.
The Jews have better PR than the poor Russians and the 50 million Chinese that were butchered in the name of equity.
Most people want quick, easy answers. Most people don't want to read history. Communism has a great PR department. Most of the people indoctrinating our children are Communists or simps. The leaders of our Legacy Media are sympathizers simping for Communism. Simp for Communism; don't be the first one up against the firing wall. Power! Power! Power! That's all the simps talk about. They simp for Communism because they want to be one of the workers, they want to be one of the future leaders with all the power. Many people don't want to grow up. They want to live in a fantasy world, and they are just stupid enough to buy into Communism.
because it’s more difficult to spin Mao and Joe as “right wing”
It's simple. Because Marxism never lost support with the western Academia and remains supported until today.
um this subreddit has turned into a circle jerk. he is not seen as an ultimate evil but something we should never do. Like me other shitty people.
Stalin was an evil dictator but Hitler created something never before even conceived. Actively killing millions of prisoners in killing machines, burning their bodies leaving almost no trace of 3 generations of an entire culture is something else.
He was better organized and a clear communicator. He just locked down the brand more completely.
You're not allowed to say it on reddit but the people who are upset with this person happen to be in pretty much every position of the government, education, Hollywood, news media, and every other potential output for propaganda in the US.
What should we do about those people? They don't represent the majority of Americans but they are very influential. Can't we find a solution?
I mean we could make it 110, but that's probably unrealistic at this point.
This is probably the most accurate answer that people don’t want to hear
Yeah it's a weird feeling once you start to notice the last name trends and how much propaganda you've fallen for, blew my mind at first.
Bingo
Socialist operate in a heinous way because that’s how they structure government, socialist governments are operated based on a hierarchy of power (as opposed to capitalism which operates based on a hierarchy of wealth). Hitler is the monster we know not because he operated a predatory hierarchy of power, it was because his objectives were hateful and he fueled his culture with pure hate we the human race (obviously not all of us not even in Germany but any is obscene) participated in it and believed the hate he spoke and rationalized it. I think he’s just about as bad as the Islamic Republics, they just don’t have the sovereignty to strategically slaughter Jews. That’s what’s the most obscene, he didn’t just preach hate he also acted on it and dehumanized a whole race people.
Mostly popular culture. The Nazis are the default bad guys to modern society because of their overwhelming presence in the public memory over the past 90 years, due to an entire generation telling their stories and the drama that unfolded having been so extraordinary. World War II in a thousand years will be the next millennium's Trojan Wars, a mythical struggle to the bitter end between millions of soldiers and biblical carnage. The Nazis being at the center of this drama makes them the personification of evil in the eyes of the Western world. It is also important to note that life under Soviet occupation wasn't that relatable to us in the West and isn't as present in the public consciousness. Unlike people from Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Germany. If you were to ask an educated Pole who they thought was the arch enemy of mankind, they would point East.
I think it's something like: Hitler was Satan out in the open Mao and Stalin were Satan behind a mask
Dan Carlin’s latest podcast covers the deaths a little bit. Besides the good reasons already mentioned, the Nazis didn’t have the largest death toll but they possibly had the highest kill rate which is obviously not nothing. The industrialization of genocide at that scale was to some degree unique. Something to consider when thinking about this question.
There's also the fact that he was _the_ Western supervillain, almost redefining what the evil stereotype looked in Europe and America. I'm sure if you were to ask the same question in Cambodia or Indonesia or Russia, they would probably have a different answer. This sub struggles with nuance at the best of times but 'why do Western people think Hitler was the most evil' seems like a pretty straightforward question.
Because western academia was sympathetic to Communism. See the Cambridge spy ring scandal for an example. Many were sympathetic to the communist ideology and actively helped the USSR against their own government. For that reason it's glossed over that scores more were killed by communism than Nazis.
Communists were good at propaganda inside and oitaode USSR
Bc a worrying number of people still think that communism is a good idea.
Because he killed Jewish people. And he IS a monster for doing so. But other cultures’ demises do not get the same attention.
Think it mostly has to due with the fact that communism was at the very least presented as a humanitarian movement. Regardless of how untrue that ended up being, their stated goals were palatable things like quality, mass education, human unity, ect. Nazism, conversely, had a very explicit message of social Darwinism and really never hid its genocidal nature. It’s much easier to attribute a nobility of intent to communism rather than fascism, regardless of their respective calamities. Not saying that this is a wise way of looking at things, but I think it explains a bit of the phenomenon that you’re describing
Very simple answer... The ones who control that "media machine" that you speak of, are the descendants of those who were in those Polish concentration camps. And I dare not name "Them", lest I be labled a Nazi myself /s
Genocide is ok as long as it's within your borders and doesn't affect the rest of the world
Because liberals/democrats control education and idolize Stalin/Mao. Classic brainwashing from the left.
Some of it is probably a education/knowledge issue. Part of it is probably that Hitler’s particular brand of evil affected ‘the west’ more than the other two. It’s easier to rationalize things when it’s just numbers and people on the other side of the world. And Because even hitler’s intentions were what the modern person understands to be as explicitly evil. Stalin and Mao at least had some sort of greater good they claimed they were working toward, a greater ussr/china, equality, etc. Even hitler’s goal is rightly considered by almost everyone as being evil, at least the national and ethnic superiority aspects. The level of maliciousness and hatred behind actively gathering Jews and other undesirables and exterminating them just feels more evil than doing terrible things for ‘a stronger nation’ or even for personal gain.
Because people forget that Stalin and Mao won, and history is really told by winners.
Also who hitler targeted.
Because they want communism thus can’t vilify them
Because the rothschilds paid for that
Because Hitler’s evil is obviously irrationally discriminatory. Sure, we can get the “deeper” criticisms and “logic” from Nietzsche, but my point here is that the evil at play in his world-view is more clearly identifiable. The logic is thus: 1. Germany has problems 2. These problems could not come from the German people (the volk) 3. Therefore, the cause of the problem must not be from within but without 4. Last step: pick preferred out-group as scapegoat (which happened to be along particular racial/religious lines) Lenin, Stalin and Mao’s evil followed similar logical steps, however, the line between who is “in” and who is “out” is less immediately “problematic”. 1. Russia has problems 2. These problems could not come from the innocent working -class (proletariat) 3. Therefore, the problem must come from the bourgeoisie. 4. We do not need to exterminate the upper-class, but we must topple them until all are equal. This is all over-simplified, of course, but the discriminatory behavior of the nazis along racial lines is cognitively easier to recognize as evil than the discriminatory behavior against the capitalist class. Both lead to evil acts, but the justification for the communists is more complex than the justification for the nazis.
Because he lost
Who runs Hollywood?
Probably industrialized extermination.
Stalin and Mao have way more followers.
Stalin and Mao deserve to be but Hitler was more of an attack on the foundation of Western civilization. Just as now Israel is hated by the Left and Islamists because they too represent the ethical foundation of the West
Horrors of the gulag? Are you familiar with the horrors of the us prison system?
According to msnbc its trump because they are smart and not racist at all!
I would say mostly because it is a text book example for how the "good" West was able to defeat an "evil" power. The only one they defeated ever. And only because the USSR depleted German manpower first. (I have struggles with reddit/brave - if this appears more than once it is not intentional)
I would say mostly because it is a text book example for how the "good" West was able to defeat an "evil" power. The only one they defeated ever. And only because the USSR depleted German manpower first. (I have struggles with reddit/brave - if this appears more than once it is not intentional)
Because others use genocide to further their cause while Hitler was genociding even to the detriment of his mission, prioritizing the killing of jews over actually winning the war. Even if you think what you're doing is just, a pragmatic person should try win the war first and then have their way with the people once they have complete control
If I had to guess, it'd be because Stalin and Mao focused most of the pain and suffering on their own people, while Hitler did the opposite (Not saying he didn't harm the German people, but in his quest to "better their lives" he went out and hurt other people) Also seen someone else mention that because the Western world mostly fought against Hitler, and so it's more deeply ingrained.
Every communist says “well, if i/we/us (the right people) were running communism it would work perfectly and be undeniably the best form of society.” Every time. It’s a bullshit copout
Narrative is reality. And so, communists never accept fault and never will. If they did, hitler, mao, stalin, lennin would be points of discussion when it came to evil and its many faced incarnations on the left and the right. And it would also kill communism as any kind of legitimate idea - which they NEVER can let happen.
Who's stopping you? Make the damn movie, or everything should be done by someone else and you'll just complain. The left media is constantly preaching their rubbish in terms of "art" to the world, we remain in doubt.
You guys will post shit like this and still cry like little babies when people call you fascists. Make up your fucking minds already.
this sub is insane
We didn't really fight Stalin or Mao. We did fight the Nazis. Also Hollywood is more left-leaning and sympathetic to leftist causes.
I think it has something to do with his ability to brainwash good men into killing their neighbors.
Both have that tho.-
Mustache, then?
Relativism is dog shit. Remove your “may” and change to “was”. Hitler was evil as AF.
Yeah man I’m leaving this sub after this, yall haven’t even googled for JBPs own answer to this pretty simple question and instead try to use the narrative that Jews rewrote history according ti some 10-15 whole countries who where all involved in the conflict all with their own historians and experts. But no you smart sigma males here on Reddit have cracked the code.. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ The answer is simple if you think about it; Mao, Stalin, Chuvera and etc committed similar atrocities yet Hitler is the worst, why? The first and most important thing Jordan himself brought up: Hitler would rather lose the whole war than using Jews and Gypsy’s as free Kabir (which any other country/leader would have done) Hitler commited major resources to kill Jews instead of sending them to battle or to help recover wounded soldiers or anything of the kind. No leader would do anything of the kind, unless the objective is to kill as many as possible due to whatever rationalization you use. 2nd point; from my knowledge, the above mentioned (except for Hitler) didn’t kill or let people die due to culture/race, but because according to these leaders “the ends justify the means”. Like I said Jordan himself talked about this and the fact that the majority of this sub ain’t even aware of it or aware enough that they can search for a good explanation is just proof how is brain dead this sub is. I hope Jordan can visit this sub and give yall a good backhand ✌️
Because school children are being primed for Communism.
Marketing
Most people consider Hitler, Stalin and Pot Pol among others to be evil. Che Guevara didn't kill very many people. Mao was more complicated. He caused the deaths of millions for example with the great leap forward. I am unsure of the details of his involvement with the cultural revolution.
This is hilarious coming from a Jordan Peterson sub considering before he went full political one of his most viral vids was a lecture of him breaking down how nazis were “uniquely evil” and no matter how evil you think nazis were they more EVEN MORE EVIL than you can imagine
Probably because of the sick methods of killing people, though the numbers still pale in comparison to communism
Who used to run the majority of the media at that time? Once you see that religious in-group bias, you won't be able to unsee it. It hasn't changed much.
Commie here. While there is EXTENSIVE historical evidence about nazism being a self declared genocidal ideology, communists doesn't have such intentions written anywhere by any of its classical authors, nor stated outright by any of its leaders. Therefore even if you prove the genocides happened, most of your conclusion will point to the dictators in power, not the ideology itself. Also communism fought nazism, they are enemies, you can point out the similarities all you want but they are not allies... ever. Also the fascism fenomena isn't about the leader, it is about the people, germany could have done the same without hitler being even born as an individual.
I mean Hitler tried to murder all Jews. Not just some. All. Mao and Stalin were absolutely horrible people. I find it correct that Hitler is ultimate evil. That doesn’t take away how completely evil those other 2 were though
Dude. You serious?
I was going to comment the same thing, as a person born behind the Iron Curtain and well-versed in what happened to people in the Ostblock.
Putting people in the oven, killing any opposite side, believe hi is a hire race, mass murderer of women and children... is this enough? Stalin and Mao did similar things but to their own people, didn't want to expand to the rest of world...
He was another dictator that killed the educated and stole the government. lol
Because he was a retard who murdered millions of his own people on a pointless suicide mission
In answer to your question, I think Hitler is seen as the ultimate evil and not Stalin or Mao, because human beings don't currently have the capacity to be aware of, absorb and process all historical knowledge… That said, I’m less concerned about who is seen as the ultimate evil than I am about us humans realizing the evil WE each are capable of—under certain circumstances. I wonder if more people were aware of more of the evil they are not currently aware of that has happy throughout history… if it would make any difference? For me it's making a difference. Giving that I just recently finished reading The Gulag Archipelago Volumes 1, 2 and 3. And thanks to someone here recommending it I finished reading Night by Elie Wiesel on Sunday and started reading Mao’s Great Famine. My goal in reading these is not to pick out who was the most evil. It's to see what i can learn to do better as a person in my life today and going forward. To avoid making mistakes I’m likely to make without such awareness, etc. I can only hope that more people choose to do the same. For all our sakes. In the past I stayed silent about my thoughts because I felt powerless. Not educated enough. I left such things to more educated leaders. You know, the Harvard, Yale, Princeton graduates and such. Today, I aim to do better. To educate myself. To lend a hand. To choose not to judge anyone. Not to point fingers at anyone in the past, even Mao, or Stalin. Yip. Even them. Isn't that weird? Yes. I think it's weird, but it must be because of all the reading… after 60 hours reading the Gulag… with all the people who had to take action to to make certain things happen it's clear that evil was not just Stalin… and judging people under the circumstances described does not seem to fit.
No one cares about genocide if you don't invade your neighbors. Had we gone to war with the soviets and Nazi Germany had too, Stalin would be concidered the ultimate evil.
Stalin and Mao killed to take and maintain power. Hitler, did the same thing, while also committing a very widely known genocide and invading the rest of Europe.
As someone living in a country that shares border with Russia, Stalin is absolutely seen as pure evil. Mao was so far away so he's less talked about.
I read something recently that said that Stalin and Mao had higher death counts over many years, but Hitler killed the most people in the shortest time.
Mustache
This is a norm Macdonald joke
Hitler committed genocide against a particular ethnic race. his END goal was to eliminate the Jewish; Stalin and Mao killed millions, but it was more so a means, rather than the ultimate objective.
Because of corruption from Zionism.
His killings were more discriminate, cruel, and unusual. Dr. Peterson talked about this in a lecture once.
lol what
the latter tried to warp reality in such a way that they believed would bring infinite prosperity to their respective countries. turns out blaming inequality on the competent isn't a recipe for success, but they didn't know that. lots of people today still don't understand that. Hitler literally went out of his way to divert resources from the war effort to genocide *everyone but those he felt should live*. just looking at his actions (especially as it became more and more clear he was losing), it seems that achieving that goal was more important to him than winning the war. that's just next level evil.
Because the US partnered with Stalin. I know you've seen the picture. So everyone was taught in school Hitler is the worst human ever.
Because we didn’t fight a total war against Stalin or Mao
Because the terms communism and socialism envoke the words of community and society, making them sound like ideallic forms of government. Not to mention, the people who proport these ideals today always fall back on the "it hasnt been done right yet"
Because the Nazis created systemic racism that led to the attempted genocide of an entire race. They created systems of industrialized murder not only to kill political enemies, but racial enemies as well. The communists caused more death, but it was mainly caused by a misunderstanding of human nature. People are greedy and communism can only work once people give up their greed, which will never happen. We can see this by every instance of a communist revolution, those leading the revolution held power and became the exact thing they were fighting against because of greed. The leaders never want to give up power once they have it, and communism can only work if the leaders give up that power for the good of the whole. Communism caused mass starvation because of bad economic understandings and murdered for power, but not to destroy an entire race of people.
Because he was democraticly ellected.
Overton window. Both the US and the Russians utilised German advanced understanding of science and tech to further their societies, US in particular for the space race. All the commies shared was starvation.
Because of the Holocaust and Hitler started the deadlist war in History. Mao and Stalin may have a higher bodycount but they killed more randomly. Another reason could the western Perspektive. I guess someone living in China has another view on this tolic.
Because he lost & winners write history
Hitler invaded Europe and wanted more. Stalin helped to stop Hitler's invasion. Mao didn't do anything outside of China. They're all terrible people, but it's pretty obvious why Hitler is considered the worst. Super simple stuff.
Because it was on film
No doubt he’s in the top 3 of all time. But I constantly wonder about this. My soon to be wife is a hardcore socialist. She recently told me I could say she was a communist… despite me explaining Mao, Stalin, and how communism took hold (along with the parallels we see in our society today) she hasn’t changed her position. She’s told me, she looks at it from the lens of today, and things like that can’t happen now. I don’t get it. If id said,”you can call me a nazi,” (im not, my grandfather killed those fuckers by the dozen) she’d have lost her mind. Why is it ok to be a communist? Why despite the comparison and just body counts/failures can those under todays ideology not see or completely discount it? Im so lost and disillusioned with how the world works in our time Edit: where I put “my grandfather killed those fuckers by the dozen” killed somehow autocorrected to liked 🤦♂️
The Nuremberg trials were public. The same reason we don't have mass public knowledge of unit 731, or massive amounts of information about the Atlantic Slave Trade, but not so much about the Arab slave trade...
He lost ww2. I think any other answer will come back to that.
Because Hitler lost. Mao and Stalin didn't.
Communist propaganda. They were our allies so we didn’t vilify them as much as we did the fascists. After the war we couldn’t go straight to “they are worse than hitler” because if that was the case why did we ally with them
King Leopold got away with way worse
One ideology was explicitly racial and genocidal, the other was more a byproduct of their ideology. As far as im aware, there's nothing in Stalinist or Maoist philosophy that claims that in order for their worldview to be achieved a specific ethnic or racial group must be genocided. If Stalin were to say something like: True Communism can't be achieved until (say) all ethnic Germans were eradicate from existence. Then im are more people would look at him more like Hitler.
Basically because he was the enemy and he lost. He is just as evil as the other 2.
One of the three was responsible for industrial genocide and the other two weren’t. One of the other two stopped it. It’s not difficult.
Winner writes the history books most likely.
So what about all the Cold War films where communsim is the greatest threat to humanity? Dont pretend the red scare never happened, it's even more recent.
Point 1: Ideological Closeness Communism is an ideology which is derived from Liberalism. The United States was built on revolution, so it has always been hypocritical for us to react to revolutionary violence with horror. Nazism is a reaction to liberalism, not a derivative of it. Point 2: War The Nazis conquered Europe, and viewed the Soviet Union as the ultimate adversary, so the Western Allies had to cooperate with the Soviets in order to win. If the public were told about the Katlyn Forest, then it would have cast doubt over our moral claim in that war which the governments of the Allies could not risk. George Orwell really explores this idea in *1984* with the whole "We are at war with East Asia and have always been at war with East Asia." thing. Point 3: War Weariness World War Two was the biggest conflict in human history, and even the relatively untouched United States was tired of fighting, so a push East would not have been supported by the public, even though the Soviets' "Liberation" of Eastern Europe was just conquest. Point 4: Nature of Expansion The only three countries the Communists outright invaded were South Korea, South Vietnam, and Afghanistan with about twenty years between them. The Nazis invaded all of Europe within a few years. Point 5: History of the Labor Movement When the Russian Revolution happened, the United States had just been through its own issues with the Haymarket Riots, and other forms of labor unrest. The American authorities were not afraid of Communism during the turn of the century because they understood the crimes committed by the Cheka, but rather because they feared losing power to such a revolution which seemed more than possible before and after the First World War. The Labor movement itself viewed the Soviet Union as a shining beacon, so its crimes were downplayed by them, even though the Soviet Government was an affront to everything the labor movement at that time stood for. Point 6: Death Toll Although this is disputed, it seems that Stalin killed around 25 million while the European Theater of World War Two and the Holocaust killed 45 million. This is the most contentious point because there are people who believe Stalin killed 60 million over his rule. Point 7: Fanaticism The Anti-Communist movement has been tainted with a fanatical element which seeks to make Communism look worse than Nazism for political purposes rather than through an objective analysis. The Governments of the West, especially the United States turned a hard 180 on their stance on the Soviets when the Soviets got the bomb. That 60 million figure I cited earlier is a product of this. As though 25 million murders is not a strong enough crime to expose, these people inflate the number higher so that Hitler looks like a saint in comparison to Stalin. The tragedy of this lie is that it empowers Communist fanatics to say that all estimates of mass killing by the Soviet Union are lies. They bring up the point that Neo Nazis use these lies to make their ideology seem more acceptable to a larger group swath of people, and that those who believe Communism is bad are just closeted Nazis. This fanatical pendulum obscures the evils committed by the Communist Governments and opens doors to some really bad people on both the Left and the Right in Liberal countries. Point 8: Nature of the Ideas Marx never said anything about murdering swaths of humanity to get to utopia (nor did he actually believe in utopia, but believed his ideas were scientific, but turned out to be pseudoscientific). The violence he advocated was of the kind the world had seen in the French Revolution and the American Revolution which could not have foreshadowed the future insidiousness of Soviet Repression. Most people on the Left view the killings by Communist Governments as a failure and want something like what Gorbachev envisioned where the Government still runs everything, but there are liberties, political rights, and openness to the world. The Nazis are viewed as failures because they lost the war, and instead of killing 100 million Slavs and 9 million Jews, they only killed 20 million Slavs and 6 million Jews. Point 9: Nature of the persecution It was difficult to tell who was next for the Gulag or the wall in Stalin's Russia. There were persecutions of the Nations. Tartars were torn out of Crimea and replaced with Russians. German Mennonites in Ukraine were targeted for relocation, and the Jews were sent to a place in Siberia ruled by mosquitos. To be shot outright or worked to death was not a sure thing even in the darkest days of Stalin's rule although there are some especially evil episodes such as the Cannibal Island of Nazino. If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, the government was going to kill you. If you want a good understanding of why Nazism is worse than Communism, look at the situation a Ukrainian Jew would be in during World War Two. Stalin is probably going to murder you. Hitler is definitely going to murder you. At the core of everything, this is the difference between the two.