Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

That Other Holocaust, Revisited
War to Mobilize Democracy, LLC ^ | February 2, 2006 | Andrew L. Jaffee

Posted on 02/02/2006 7:02:36 AM PST by forty_years

Every time I bring up the Holocaust, the same thing happens. Some of the people want Hitler's genocide to be the archetype of a people's suffering, denying others their right to bring similar atrocities to light. Some want to deny it (like current Iranian President Ahmadinejad). Some want to straddle the line or apologize: "There would have been no Hitler if not for the reparation payments put upon Germany after World War I." What are we to do, create a chart ranking peoples' suffering: "mine was worse than yours?" These were all horrors. Calling one a genocide while not allowing another to call it a holocaust is sophistry. Denial is just historic ignorance -- or caused by some ulterior motive, like racism.

By far, the biggest "controversies" arise when I compare Hitler's genocide to the various communist atrocities of the same century. The extreme leftists always get upset because it challenges their beliefs about "socialism." They tend to subscribe to the Leninist adage, "The ends justify the means." Some get defensive, or perhaps feel a tab bit guilty, because, after all, Stalin helped us defeat Hitler, never mind the fact that he murdered millions of innocents himself. And some say that communist atrocities were secular -- not motivated by ethnic divisions.

Take the Russian communist atrocities. These were in fact racially/ethnically motivated. During the reign of the Soviets, which was basically a Russian-dominated endeavor, with help from plenty of indigenous collaborators, the motivation was precisely ethnic cleansing (Ukraine, Estonia, etc.).

Why do I emphasize Russian complicity in Soviet atrocities? Simple: Some have tried to paint the Soviet Union as some kind of distinctly “communist” phenomena. That’s like saying Germans had nothing to do with the Nazi Party during WWII. Sorry to disappoint the historical revisionists, but let’s give credit where credit is due. According to the U.S. Library of Congress:

The ethnic composition of the [Soviet communist] party reflected further disproportions between the party and the population as a whole (see table 26, Appendix A). In 1922 the share of Russian members in the party exceeded their proportion of the population by 19 percent. Since that time, the gap between Russians and other nationalities has narrowed. In 1979 Russians constituted 52 percent of the Soviet population; however, they constituted 60 percent of the party in 1981. Moreover, the percentage of Russians in the party apparatus was probably even greater than their percentage in the party as a whole.

After the mass slaughters, intensive Russification was carried out in the Soviet “republics.” Selective murders were carried out by the KGB and NKVD for 50 years to quell indigenous cultural expression. For example, the Latvian and Estonian nations were pushed to the brink of extinction through policies of forced language learning, outlawing of cultural/religious practices, and by encouraging huge numbers of Russians to emigrate to the “republics.” Estonia ended up with a 42% Russian population while Latvia ended with a 30% Russian population. If not for these peoples’ tenacity, and a little help from Reagan, ex-pats, etc., the attempted genocide would have been completed.

All the occupied republics had resources which Russians either needed or wanted. As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The commissars got personal dachas, pocketed local tax revenues, and exercised unlimited power. It was good being at the top.

Before the Soviets, the czars ruled most of the later-labeled "republics." The "greater Russia" concept, that Russians were a master race that deserved to rule the inferior satellites, was simply carried on by Soviet czars.

Go to Lithuania. Go to Turkmenistan. Ask the locals about how the Russians ruled them, czar or commissar alike. Ask the people there how they viewed Russian domination. The Russian neo-imperialists are still talking of a "greater Russia."

The Russian rulers mistreated the satellites for power and greed. Their master plan was to fill nations like Estonia up with Russians until there was nothing left but Russians. The satellites were inferiors (and were resented for their economic successes), just as the Nazis considered the Jews. Remember that Hitler had the same plan for countries like Lithuania. He planned to work the populaces to death, and then fill the nations with German settlers.

It was racist, plain and simple.

Stalin systematically eliminated Crimea's Tartars. Hitler killed the Jews, gays, and gypsies. Saddam gassed the Kurds. The Teutonic Knights exterminated every last living Prussian (the Baltic people; before Germans ever lived there). American settlers fed diseased cattle to Native Americans. Five years after Cortez’ arrival in Mexico, 70% of the indigenous peoples were dead…

Is one tragedy more equal than the others? Does it matter as long as we remember the mantra, "Never forget; never again?"

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: americans; cattle; communist; cortez; cultural; diseased; ends; estonia; expression; genocide; hitler; indigenous; justify; latvia; leninist; master; means; mexico; native; party; race; racsim; russification; sophistry; stalin; tartars

1 posted on 02/02/2006 7:02:41 AM PST by forty_years
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: forty_years

Interesting, and yes the worst tyrannant of all time was Stalin. There are plenty of socialists in this country who are confused about this (and other things)...

2 posted on 02/02/2006 7:29:26 AM PST by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veracious
Interesting, and yes the worst tyrannant of all time was Stalin

Actually, it's Mao Tse Tung.

3 posted on 02/02/2006 7:31:38 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I'm was using tyranny to mean body counts. Stalin's regime was good for >30 million. Where's commrade Mao on this?

4 posted on 02/02/2006 7:57:08 AM PST by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veracious
Here's historian Matthew White's body count:

Major mass killings of the Twentieth Century
Rank Deaths Event Time Frame
1 50 000 000 World War II 1937-1945
2 40 000 000 China: Mao Zedong's regime 1949-1976
3 20 000 000 USSR: Stalin's regime 1924-1953
4 15 000 000 World War I 1914-1918
5 8 800 000 Russian Civil War 1918-1921
6 4 000 000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-1937
7 3 000 000 Congo Free State 1900-1908
8 2 800 000 Korean War 1950-1953
9 2 700 000 2nd Indochina War (incl. Laos & Cambodia) 1960-1975
10 2 500 000 Chinese Civil War 1945-1949
11 2 100 000 Expulsion of Germans after World War II 1945-1947
12 1 900 000 Second Sudanese Civil War 1983-1999
13 1 700 000 Congolese Civil War 1998-1999
13 1 500 000 Turkish Genocide against Armenia 1915-1923
14 1 000 000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge regime 1975-1979
15 1 400 000 Afghanistan Civil War 1980-1999
15 1 400 000 Ethiopian Civil Wars 1962-1992
17 1 250 000 Mexican Revolution 1910-1920
18 1 250 000 East Pakistan massacres 1971
19 1 000 000 Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
19 1 000 000 Nigeria: Biafra 1967-1970
21 800 000 Mozambique Civil War 1976-1992
21 800 000 Rwanda 1994
23 675 000 French-Algerian War 1954-1962
24 600 000 First Indochina War 1945-1954
24 600 000 Angolan Civil War 1975-1994
26 500 000 Indonesia: Massacre of Communists 1965-1967
26 500 000 India-Pakistan Partition 1947
26 500 000 First Sudanese Civil War 1955-1972
26 500 000 Amazonian Indian decline 1900-1999
30 365 000 Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
?? >350 000 Somalia 1991-1999
?? >400 000 North Korean Communist regime 1948-1999

5 posted on 02/02/2006 8:10:36 AM PST by forty_years ('Nuff Talk, More Action!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

good article.

6 posted on 02/02/2006 8:11:54 AM PST by sauropod ("Here Lies Joe Biden, Buried Under His Own Words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forty_years
Five years after Cortez’ arrival in Mexico, 70% of the indigenous peoples were dead…

That was due to the lack of immunity to small pox on the part of the indigenous people. Not that Cortez was a saint or anything.

Interesting that the indians gave the Europeans tobacco in return. How many people have died from that over the years?

7 posted on 02/02/2006 8:12:14 AM PST by hang 'em ("None work so hard for their money as those who marry for it " - another Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson