Learning From Hitler

[Flanders]

In my mind these two articles have a single theme:

Why Aren't Murderous Communists Condemned Like Nazis Are?
Tue, Aug 07 2012 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET

Socialists And Communists Are Even Bigger Murderers Than Hitler's Nazis Were - Investors.com

XXXXX​

August 7, 2012
Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
James Simpson

Blog: Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties

Walter E. Williams asks:

Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught — and possibly is covered up — is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history.

One answer can be seen in those who rant against war while calling for bigger government. The number of dead caused by all of the wars in the past five centuries is less than the total the number of murders modern totalitarian governments committed against their own people in just the last century. The totals cited by Professor Williams should shock every so-called pacificist out of their cherished benevolent-government fantasies:

Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website, at Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page, and in his book "Death by Government."

How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle.

Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.

Interestingly, it was Adolf Hitler, not Lenin or Stalin, who clearly stated everything Hussein & Company personify. Hitler reduced everything they do to the four words in the final sentence:

"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

Williams identifies the worst offenders:

Path To Genocide

Whether it's the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism — a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.

I want to separate the children from the others by turning to Hitler again:

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

If you doubt where American Communists were going long before Hussein came along apply Hitler’s Children to Communist control of the public education system in this country.

Ninety-nine percent of Socialist education is formulated especially to indoctrinate young children into the joys of collectivism. Implanting the idea that there is good totalitarian government and bad totalitarian government is critical. All of the propaganda apparatus at the government’s disposal cannot bury the bad. There is too much known about totalitarian governments to hide the bad; more so since the Internet.

Further education all the way through higher education reinforces the concept of good and bad totalitarian governments. Proof: Professor Williams’ et al., exposing totalitarianism’s innate cruelty drives Socialists to point to Communist China and say “See, communism is working. That’s good totalitarian government.”

Obviously, the media elite, along with stalwarts of the Democrat party, totally ignore the Mao cited by Professor Williams, and the incomprehensible brutality Mao initiated against his own people in order to make communism work.

To Socialists/Communists there is but one sin: Pointing out that totalitarian governments must kill everyone who resists no matter how slight that resistence might be, and they must kill quickly, without mercy, lest they be overthrown by revolution. In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best —— murder, torture and enslave. Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible.

Moving on

I learned something from James Simpson’s piece that surprised me:

This working relationship, and how it developed, was explained in depth by a prominent Soviet KGB defector, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, who spoke on his report, Communists and Muslims, the Hidden Hand of the KGB. For example, he describes the work of Karim Hakimov, a Soviet KGB operative who was one of the first of many "Muslims with a communist heart". An expert in Islam, he helped found the modern state of Saudi Arabia and befriended King Saud. He was instrumental in forming an anti-West group which was the precursor to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. As a result, Russia has "Observer" status with the group.

He also cites Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent murdered by the Kremlin with Polonium 210, who charged that al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a trained agent of the KGB. Preobrazhensky further discusses a Taliban leader and close advisor to Osama bin Laden, Juma Namangoniy. Namangoniy was born in Soviet Uzbekistan and was also a KGB-trained communist. He was supposedly killed by coalition forces but his body has not been found.

I was surprised to learn there were Muslim Communists with so much political influence, while I understand the marriage between the two ideologies perfectly. Islam and Communism are totalitarian theocracies.

Again, one can turn to Hitler who sanctioned marriage between totalitarians in a different context: Nazi Party recruiters had one standing order: Recruit new members from the ranks of the Communists because they always make the best Fascists. The context is different because Communists will not make the best Muslims, nor will Muslims make the best Communists.

Identical methods of subjugation aside, Muslims are asking for the dirty end of the stick on this one. A Muslim Communist might believe that Communist ideology can be adapted to accommodate Islam, while Communists will never allow any Supreme Deity religion to survive after Socialists/Communists consolidate political power. Indeed, Muslims will be slaughtered first because Communists fear all other forms of totalitarian government. Hitler covered that one, too.

“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”

There is no way in hell one totalitarian government will share power with another for very long. Hitler understood what had to be done; so he invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler well-knew that Stalin would have done it to Nazi Germany at the first opportunity. In fact, the very nature of totalitarian government abhors power-sharing. In that same vain it is logical to assume Mussolini’s Italy was first on Hitler’s hit list after Germany won the war.

WWII

I’ve always said the wrong side won WWII in Europe. Communism is still alive and well while Fascism has disappeared. There is not one openly Fascist country today although many countries are dictatorships. There are several Communist countries.

Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism. Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.

Finally, the single theme I referred to in the first sentence of this thread:

It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans — who would have cringed at the thought of genocide — who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice. Walter E. Williams

And this:​

. . . a huge network of U.S. and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America. James Simpson

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been saying this for a while now:

"You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"

Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.

Every time

Every single time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"

 

[Flanders]

I've been saying this for a while now:

"You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"

Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.

Every time

Every single time.

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"

To CrusaderFrank: Good responses. I would add “Who Lost China.” is an ongoing debate. After much reading over the past six decades my personal believe is that a lot of bad advice was deliberately given to FDR, Truman, military leaders, etc., by career State Department officials in order to quietly support Mao and communism. Regardless of what this informative analysis says about Who Lost China says, I think it was deliberate:

The United States' role in the fall of China, then, was not any one particular mistake, but a broader failure of U.S. policy. During World War II almost everyone in United States policy-making positions blinded himself to the reality of Communism because the Soviet Union was our ally in the war against the Nazis. It would have taken men of great vision and courage to have been able to say, in the atmosphere of necessary and justified determination to destroy Nazi Germany, that the Communists were the greater enemy and that we must never lose sight of the moral imperative of helping countries avoid a Communist takeover. But it is in such vision and courage that historical greatness consists. Precisely the opposite happened, however. At the Teheran and Yalta conferences the U.S. and Great Britain gave Stalin all he asked as a means of keeping him in the war against Germany (it was never a realistic possibility that he would make a separate peace) and bringing him into the war against Japan (in which, as we have seen, the Soviets made no contribution to victory). After the war, it was not until the Truman Doctrine that the U.S. faced up to the reality of Communist imperialism, but only in Europe, not in Asia, though there was a chance that China could even then have been saved. Therefore the responsibility for the U.S. role in the loss of China cannot be placed on the shoulders of any one individual person or policy. The responsibility lies with all those in our country who have refused to face the reality of Communism. For the choice was not, as some wanted to believe, between democracy and anti-democracy, or even between Communist authoritarianism and Nationalist authoritarianism, but between Chiang's anti-Communism, corrupt and inefficient as it might be, and the revolutionary destruction which is Communism. The contrasting histories of mainland China and Taiwan since 1949 clearly show the true nature of the choice.

<All of the Above>

Is the answer to the question "Who lost China?" then "All of the above"? To say that would be to take the easy way out. Even admitting all the other factors and Chiang's considerable responsibility, the fact remains that the U.S. could have done far more to save China than it did. Even an excellent Chinese leader (a Chinese Jonas Savimbi, for example) wouldn't have been able to defeat the Communists without any U.S. aid, given all the obstacles he faced. With full-scale aid, based on the premise that the Communists must be defeated, Chiang could have won. Therefore U.S. aid was crucial. America was the one country that could have prevented the Communist conquest of China, but we didn't know why we should and so we didn't.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/FR89102.TXT

The birth of the United Nations provided added incentive for American Communists. Younger Americans probably do not know that “Admit China” to the UN was a top priority for the American Left until President Nixon eventually gave Nationalist China’s seat in the UN, and on the Security Council, to Communist China. Nobody ever thought Nixon was soft on Communists, yet he caved in to the Left.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been saying this for a while now:

"You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"

Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.

Every time

Every single time.

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"

To CrusaderFrank: Good responses. I would add “Who Lost China.” is an ongoing debate. After much reading over the past six decades my personal believe is that a lot of bad advice was deliberately given to FDR, Truman, military leaders, etc., by career State Department officials in order to quietly support Mao and communism. Regardless of what this informative analysis says about Who Lost China says, I think it was deliberate:

The United States' role in the fall of China, then, was not any one particular mistake, but a broader failure of U.S. policy. During World War II almost everyone in United States policy-making positions blinded himself to the reality of Communism because the Soviet Union was our ally in the war against the Nazis. It would have taken men of great vision and courage to have been able to say, in the atmosphere of necessary and justified determination to destroy Nazi Germany, that the Communists were the greater enemy and that we must never lose sight of the moral imperative of helping countries avoid a Communist takeover. But it is in such vision and courage that historical greatness consists. Precisely the opposite happened, however. At the Teheran and Yalta conferences the U.S. and Great Britain gave Stalin all he asked as a means of keeping him in the war against Germany (it was never a realistic possibility that he would make a separate peace) and bringing him into the war against Japan (in which, as we have seen, the Soviets made no contribution to victory). After the war, it was not until the Truman Doctrine that the U.S. faced up to the reality of Communist imperialism, but only in Europe, not in Asia, though there was a chance that China could even then have been saved. Therefore the responsibility for the U.S. role in the loss of China cannot be placed on the shoulders of any one individual person or policy. The responsibility lies with all those in our country who have refused to face the reality of Communism. For the choice was not, as some wanted to believe, between democracy and anti-democracy, or even between Communist authoritarianism and Nationalist authoritarianism, but between Chiang's anti-Communism, corrupt and inefficient as it might be, and the revolutionary destruction which is Communism. The contrasting histories of mainland China and Taiwan since 1949 clearly show the true nature of the choice.

<All of the Above>

Is the answer to the question "Who lost China?" then "All of the above"? To say that would be to take the easy way out. Even admitting all the other factors and Chiang's considerable responsibility, the fact remains that the U.S. could have done far more to save China than it did. Even an excellent Chinese leader (a Chinese Jonas Savimbi, for example) wouldn't have been able to defeat the Communists without any U.S. aid, given all the obstacles he faced. With full-scale aid, based on the premise that the Communists must be defeated, Chiang could have won. Therefore U.S. aid was crucial. America was the one country that could have prevented the Communist conquest of China, but we didn't know why we should and so we didn't.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/FR89102.TXT

The birth of the United Nations provided added incentive for American Communists. Younger Americans probably do not know that “Admit China” to the UN was a top priority for the American Left until President Nixon eventually gave Nationalist China’s seat in the UN, and on the Security Council, to Communist China. Nobody ever thought Nixon was soft on Communists, yet he caved in to the Left.

The very people McCarthy tried to warn us about were in fact dictating US State to support Mao.

 

[Douger]

I've been saying this for a while now:

"You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"

Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.

Every time

Every single time.

You nailed it !

 

[blimpo]

What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?

When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.

 

[Political Junky]

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"

Stalin was our ally in WW2. You must know that.

 

[Flanders]

blimpo;5769543]What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?

To blimpo: What’s with all of the stupid people who don’t like Hitler threads but still comment on them?

When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.

To blimpo: You sound like I owe you insight. If you’re looking for insight get yourself reading glasses.

 

[GHook93]

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!

Second, you adhor Socialism, but the National SOCIALIST Worker's Prty was a socialist movement that believed STRONGLY in a LARGE CENTRAL CONTROLLING BIG-BROTHER GOVERNMENT!!! SOCIALIST TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIPS (which really what communist is) would have been spring up EVERYWHERE!!! A follow like you believes NAZI German victory would have been better. State your real reason! You believe the absolute falsity that (1) The Holocaust never happened and (2) Jews control everything from the world governments, banks, media and military! That is the reason you think Hitler is a swell guy.

Third, Hitler is JUSTIFIABLY VIEWED worse, because he invaded all his neighbors and started a WORLD WAR!!! The worse destruction in WORLD HISTORY!!!

Lastly, are you really saying, Britian and the US weren't beacons of freedom, capitalism and prosperity during in the 40s? If so your a bigger fool than I thought.

 

[GHook93]

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Unfair attack! Stalin's USSR help win the war against Nazi Germany!

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"

That is also and unfair attack. This was right after WW II. No much they could have done!

 

[Flanders]

GHook93;5770661

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!

To GHook93: You clearly lack reading comprehension skills. Try again:

Quote OP

In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best —— murder, torture and enslave. Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible.

You did not understand what I said about dictators; so you cannot possibly know what the hell you are talking about on more complicated topics. Had you read and understood Walter E. Williams’ column that I quoted you would not have said this:

GHook93;5770661

Third, Hitler is JUSTIFIABLY VIEWED worse, because he invaded all his neighbors and started a WORLD WAR!!! The worse destruction in WORLD HISTORY!!!

As for the rest of your response spare me the psychoanalysis. Should I ever feel the need to have someone tell me what I think I’ll go see a professional idiot not a semi-literate half-wit on a message board. In the future try researching my messages if you want to know where I stand.

GHook93;5770670

Unfair attack! Stalin's USSR help win the war against Nazi Germany!

To GHook93: Wrong. America made the mistake of saving communism in the Soviet Union. Then-Senator Truman had the right way to go:

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

GHook93;5770670

That is also and unfair attack. This was right after WW II. No much they could have done!

To GHook93: Hallelujah brothers and sisters! At long last somebody answered the question “Who lost China?”.

 

[ginscpy]

TheLeft are MASS _ MURDERERS without souls................................

 

[mememe]

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!

Really? How?

Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?

 

[drtywhtboy]

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!

Really? How?

Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? ?Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?

So you would have invaded 'the Home island' of Japan, killed millions of them and millions of your 'fellow Americans', to win WW2.

Napalm in Vietnam, I'm not sure what to call you now. How about Hanoi MEME? The decisions made by those people (President Truman and not sure about Vietnam) saved lives.

Its only your foolish and twisted mind that makes those decisions look wrong

 

[mememe]

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!

Really? How?

Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? ?Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?

So you would have invaded 'the Home island' of Japan, killed millions of them and millions of your 'fellow Americans', to win WW2.

Napalm in Vietnam, I'm not sure what to call you now. How about Hanoi MEME? The decisions made by those people (President Truman and not sure about Vietnam) saved lives.

Its only your foolish and twisted mind that makes those decisions look wrong

1. The USSR defeated Japan TWICE in 1930-s without "killing millions". US dropping atomic bombs had nothing to do with "saving American lives"; it was about a) testing a new weapon on unsuspecting CIVILIANS; b) defeating Japan BEFORE the USSR got there, thus claiming it for US; c) showing the USSR "who's the daddy".

2. Two questions for you: what US was doing in Vietnam in the first place? Is it OK' with you to use chemical weapons, especially on civilians?

 

[whitehall]

Hitler subscribed to the "eugenics" theory just like Wilson and FDR and a hundred other US and international liberals. Hitler expanded Eugenics to the point where everyone would be subject to execution for the good of society instead of just the unborn. The "eugenics" movement evolved into "planned parenthood" and the abortion industry.

 

[Flanders]

mememe;5778062

1. The USSR defeated Japan TWICE in 1930-s

To mememe: Nice misdirection. The Soviets won several border skirmishes in the late ‘30s because the Japanese military was tied up in China. In 1941 the USSR signed a neutrality pact with Japan that made Manchukuo Japan’s puppet state.

mememe;5778062

without "killing millions".

To mememe: Soviets were busy killing millions of their own people at the time. They would have used the A-bomb if they had it.

mememe;5778062

US dropping atomic bombs had nothing to do with "saving American lives"; it was about a) testing a new weapon on unsuspecting CIVILIANS;

To mememe: Get off it. That phoney liberal talking point was designed to show moral superiority. It was discredited a long time ago.

mememe;5778062

b) defeating Japan BEFORE the USSR got there, thus claiming it for US; c) showing the USSR "who's the daddy".

To mememe: The USSR wasn’t going anywhere without America’s help.

mememe;5778062

2. Two questions for you: what US was doing in Vietnam in the first place? Is it OK' with you to use chemical weapons, especially on civilians?

To mememe: Surprise, surprise! Another clever liberal asking questions as a debating technique. Make your own case, don’t expect others to do it for you by answering loaded questions.

 

[mememe]

1. To mememe: Nice misdirection. The Soviets won several border skirmishes in the late ‘30s because the Japanese military was tied up in China. In 1941 the USSR signed a neutrality pact with Japan that made Manchukuo Japan’s puppet state.


2. To mememe: Soviets were busy killing millions of their own people at the time. They would have used the A-bomb if they had it.


3. To mememe: Get off it. That phoney liberal talking point was designed to show moral superiority. It was discredited a long time ago.


4. To mememe: The USSR wasn’t going anywhere without America’s help.


5. To mememe: Surprise, surprise! Another clever liberal asking questions as a debating technique. Make your own case, don’t expect others to do it for you by answering loaded questions.

1. Thanks to the Soviet victories over Japan in 1930-s, Japan did not contribute to European aggression. And that was achieved without using WMD on civilians or "millions" of military casualties.

2. According to US propaganda? Because, according to the OFFICIAL records:

At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting contr-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.

In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.

The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.

For comparison: now, in peaceful times in the most democratic and free democracy of all -- USA 2.3 million people are in prisons and camps. And that's not taking into account Guantanamo and other CIA prisons!

3. So, for Americans it is permissible to commit mass murder of civilians in other countries! May I ask, why? Is it because other nations are subhuman in Americans' eyes?

4. Why?
O! Please, don't tell me you think it is US lend lease that enable the USSR to end WW2? Because, if you really think so, I would have to ask you for numbers for lend lease in comparison with the USSR military production; also I would have to ask you for particulars of US help to Hitler (and it went as far as 1944!).

5. see point 3.

 

[Flanders]

1. Thanks to the Soviet victories over Japan in 1930-s, Japan did not contribute to European aggression. And that was achieved without using WMD on civilians or "millions" of military casualties.

2. According to US propaganda? Because, according to the OFFICIAL records:

At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting contr-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.

In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.

The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.

For comparison: now, in peaceful times in the most democratic and free democracy of all -- USA 2.3 million people are in prisons and camps. And that's not taking into account Guantanamo and other CIA prisons!

3. So, for Americans it is permissible to commit mass murder of civilians in other countries! May I ask, why? Is it because other nations are subhuman in Americans' eyes?

4. Why?
O! Please, don't tell me you think it is US lend lease that enable the USSR to end WW2? Because, if you really think so, I would have to ask you for numbers for lend lease in comparison with the USSR military production; also I would have to ask you for particulars of US help to Hitler (and it went as far as 1944!).

5. see point 3.

To mememe: Number 1. makes no sense at all.

Gulag statistics came from Soviet records. That makes them complete fabrications. There is no way anyone else could get accurate numbers, or the brutal conditions that existed in Gulag, or an accurate percentage of “political prisoners.” Stalin sure as hell wasn’t letting anyone snoop around. Ditto Stalin’s successors.

As to number 4: American Communists went nuts the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Prior to June 22, 1941 Hitler was a prince of a fellow to Communists the world over because of the non-aggression pact the two dictators had agreed upon in 1939. After Hitler made the mistake of declaring war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor all Communist efforts in America —— political pressure, media and Hollywood propaganda, etc. —— were directed towards bullying FDR into establishing a second front. Even though Japan attacked the US 90 percent of America’s went to fighting the war in Europe:

In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet's victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them.

Second Front

Had Hitler never double-crossed Stalin the Soviet Union would have remained neutral for the duration. As far as Stalin was concerned in 1939 Hitler could have the rest of Europe so long as he stayed out of those countries the Soviets coveted. Stalin knew he couldn’t stop Hitler anyway; so he thought he got a good deal with the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. Stalin was basically correct. Had the war been fought between Germany and the Soviet Union alone Germany would have won hands down.

The rest of your nonsense is too convoluted to respond to.