Robert Fulford: Mao outmurdered Hitler and Stalin combined | National Post
Robert Fulford: Mao outmurdered Hitler and Stalin combined. Robert Fulford. April 16, AM EDT. Filed under. Full Comment. Comment. Facebook. Personally I think Joseph Stalin outdid Hitler. This refers to the fact that either Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler, mostly of their own population that Snyder's thesis is that while many histories portray the relationship between. The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had already annoyed Mao by criticizing Stalin, whom Mao regarded as one of the great figures of.
Rather, they strictly tested potential members, in a manner similar to exclusive clubs, and often engaged in political purges of the membership, expelling large numbers of people from their ranks and sometimes arresting and executing those expelled, such as in the Great Purge or the Night of the Long Knives.
Who Said It: Hitler, Stalin, Or Mao? | Thought Catalog
While both Nazism and Stalinism required party members to display such total loyalty in practice, they differed in the way they dealt with it in theory. Stalinism, meanwhile, denied that it did anything similar, and claimed instead to uphold democratic principles, with the Party Congress made up of elected delegates supposedly being the highest authority. Thus, regardless of the differences in their underlying ideological claims, the Nazi and Stalinist parties were organized in practice along similar lines, with a rigid hierarchy and centralized leadership.
Friedrich and Brzezinski argue, in agreement with Arendt, that Nazi and Stalinist leaders really believed in their respective ideologies and did not merely use them as tools to gain power. Friedrich and Brzezinski also draw attention to the symbols used by Nazis and Stalinists to represent themselves. According to Friedrich and Brzezinski, the most effective terror is invisible to the people it affects.
They simply develop a habit of acting in a conformist manner and not questioning authority, without necessarily being aware that this is what they are doing. Propaganda is then used to maintain this appearance of popular consent. Both Joseph Goebbels and Soviet propagandists sought to demonize their enemies and present a picture of a united people standing behind its leader to confront foreign threats.
In both cases there was no attempt to convey complex ideological nuances to the masses, with the message being instead about a simplistic struggle between good and evil. Both Nazi and Stalinist regimes produced two very different sets of propaganda — one for internal consumption and one for potential sympathizers in other countries.
And both regimes would sometimes radically change their propaganda line as they made peace with a former enemy or got into a war with a former ally. With no way for anyone to express criticism, the dictator has no way of knowing how much support he actually has among the general populace. Induring the early days of the Berlin Blockadethe Soviet leadership apparently believed that the population of West Berlin was sympathetic to Soviet Communism and that they would request to join the Soviet zone.
But to declare that the struggle had been won would have meant to declare that most of the totalitarian features of the government were no longer needed. A secret police force, for instance, has no reason to exist if there are no dangerous traitors who need to be found. In the Stalinist USSR, the repressive apparatus was eventually turned against members of the Communist Party itself in the Great Purge and the show trials that accompanied it.
The Nazis did not turn inward towards purging their own party except in a limited way on two occasions the Night of the Long Knives and the aftermath of the 20 July plot.
However, unlike Hannah Arendt, who held that the Gulag camps served no economic purpose, Friedrich and Brzezinski argue that they provided an important source of cheap labor for the Stalinist economy. At the outset, Lewin and Kershaw identify similarities between the historical situations in Germany and Russia prior to the First World War and during that war.
Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
Both countries were ruled by authoritarian monarchies, who were under pressure to make concessions to popular demands. And both countries had expansionist foreign policies with a particular interest in Central and Eastern Europe.
Stalinism had an absolute leader, but he was not essential. He could be replaced by another. Stalinism had an ideology which existed independently of Stalin.
Who Killed More: Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? | ChinaFile
In Stalinism, the bureaucratic apparatus was the foundation of the system, while in Nazism, the person of the leader was the foundation. This confusion produced competition between Nazi officials, as each of them attempted to prove that he was a more dedicated Nazi than his rivals, by engaging in ever more extreme policies.
This competition to please Hitler was, according to Mommsen, the real cause of Nazi irrationality. The Nazi regime, on the other hand, was much more personalized and depended entirely on Hitler, being unable to build any lasting institutions. Stalinism could exist without its leader. If you win, you need not have to explain…If you lose, you should not be there to explain! Do not compare yourself to others.
If you do so, you are insulting yourself. What luck for rulers that men do not think. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live. The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes. He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. The victor will never be asked if he told the truth. To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.
As in everything, nature is the best instructor. No politician should ever let himself be photographed in a bathing suit.
A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. Those who vote decide nothing. One is the political scientist Rudolph Rummela non-China specialist who made wildly higher estimates than any other historian—that Mao was responsible for 77 million deaths. His work is disregarded as polemical, but has a strange life online, where it is cited regularly by anyone who wants to score a quick victory for Mao.
Equally scorned but extremely influential is the British-based author Jung Chang. After writing a bestselling memoir about her family the most popular in what now seems like an endless succession of imitatorsshe moved on to write, along with her husband, Jon Halliday, popular history, including a biography of Mao as monster. Few historians take their work seriously, and several of the most influential figures in the field—including Andrew J.
Goodman— published a book to rebut it. But is starting a war of aggression less of a crime than launching economic policies that cause a famine? Tombstone is a testament to inhumanity and occasional heroism that pits collective memory against the historical amnesia imposed by those in power. Stunning in scale and arresting in its detailed account of the staggering human cost of this tragedy, Tombstone is written both as a memorial to the lives lost—an enduring tombstone in memory of the dead—and in hopeful anticipation of the final demise of the totalitarian system.
The Soviet Union suffered upward of 8 million combatant deaths and many more due to famine and disease—perhaps about 20 million.