Hitler vs. Stalin

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu10/17/18
I have been reading various books dealing with Joseph Dzhugashivili aka Stalin, and came across a piece which summarized the still popular leftist belief, that Communism is not as bad as Nazism, even though many millions more have been killed by Communists than by Nazis. I found this particularly interesting as the reasoning behind the article is still in use by today’s left.

The piece, “Stalin Was Not as Evil as Hitler,” was written by Avishai Margalit, a leftist Israeli politician and former professor.  It was included in a text book for high school/early college level students.

Margalit writes:

“Nazism is an attack on the very idea of morality, whereas Communism, perverse as it was under Stalinism, does not amount to such an attack.”

And;

“The practice of Stalinism was hellish but its ideals were moral.”

Let me say that only an insane leftist could make such claims. The records are very clear that there was nothing about Stalinism or Communism which was “moral.”

Margalit goes on to write:

“.. Hitlerism is something very different. It is the dismembering of humanity into races. It thereby excludes as a matter of doctrine, groups of people from being deserving of moral consideration of whatever sort.”

Substitute the word “races” with “classes” and you will have the essence of Communist/Marxist doctrine. Does that make Communism the more moral belief? Truly, the professor must be obtuse or dishonest.

Leftists might say, “One can’t change his race, but he can change his beliefs.” This is a red herring. Is it moral to create an atmosphere of dishonesty and lies like those which pervaded the Soviet Union?  Is it more moral to impose a lunatic belief on mankind, which goes completely against human nature? Is it moral to force people to swallow a system which has never, and will never work?

In fact, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two systems when it comes to the real world consequences.  Frankly, I believe Margalit’s attempt at justifying Communism vs. Nazism is, in itself, pretty evil and gives cover to some extremely nasty people. But I have come to expect evil cant from left-wing scribblers who will use just about any dishonest means to justify their radical, inhuman beliefs. Just because these leftist scoundrels try to use an elevated language to say they are doing something to help mankind doesn’t mean it is so.

The Stalinists/Communists were willing to kill millions to achieve an improved world, as they envisioned it. The Nazi’s were willing to do the same. One doubts that the victims of either monstrous ideologie were much concerned with theoretical questions as to which belief was worse.

And just for good measure, it should be pointed out that Stalin was in fact a pronounced racist as well as Communist fiend. If one doubts this statement, one only has to look into the Holodomor in which some 7 million Ukrainians were systematically starved to death by Stalin’s agricultural policy. Documents show he knew exactly what he was doing when he forced this policy on the Ukraine. This was a tool to destroy the Ukrainian nation. So the question arises, “Who was worse, someone who caused slow death by starvation or someone who sent people to gas ovens for a quick death?” Of course the question should not even be asked. Both are monsters.  But Margalit apparently has no problems finding the one monster better than the other.

Fortunately, the Nazis no longer have any power today, and despite the headlines one reads across Europe, it is doubtful they will ever be a threat to the world. Sadly, this cannot be said of Communists, who are still with us in many guises

Margalit’s piece is a typical word-salad which left wing intellectuals put together to blur the truth about their ideology. Why is his “shared humanity” limited to ethnicity or race? Is it more moral to kill someone because he doesn’t agree with you than it is because he doesn’t look like you?  The unbiased reader with know the answer and realize that people such as the professor start with false assumptions in order to develop their specious arguments. We must constantly be on our guard against such demonic types in human form.


Kung Fu Zu is a conservative prognosticator who has traveled widely and lived outside the United States. • (96 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Hitler vs. Stalin

  1. pst4usa says:

    How do these people get a podium to spew their crap. Communist killed a whole lot more people than the Nazis’ did. I do not say this to defend Nazis, just pointing out the facts. Both evil, both murderous, and both anti God.

    Without God, there can be no fixed morality, and that is just how they wanted it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I remember my father once saying that what was wrong with Communism was that it treated its people as human fertilizer, to be expended to create their future utopia. This is basically just a different (and very interesting) way of saying that you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. But as Arthur Peabody Goodpasture pointed out in Don Quixote, USA, there’s a difference between breaking eggs and breaking people. And as Eugene Lyons pointed out in Worker’s Paradise Lost, the resultant omelet stinks and is inedible.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      What I found a little disturbing was that this bum’s piece was included in a 2013 text book dealing with Stalin’s Purges. The first part of the book presents different/opposing view points regarding Stalin and his actions.

      To my mind, some ideas don’t deserve respect and should be kept to the pages of the gutter-press, at best. The inclusion of such ideas in a text book is not appropriate.

      Thankfully, the editors then included a second part which consisted of recollections of some who had suffered under Stalin. I have not read them yet because I had to put the book down after reading the garbage from Margalit. But the headings of the pieces by these people indicate that they didn’t think Stalin a good man.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Robert Conquest pointed out in Harvest of Sorrow that Stalin also devastated the Kazakhs as well as the Ukrainians. That might actually qualify as racism as well as ethnocentrism. Of course, Hitler went after the Jews, so it’s no surprise that a leftist Jew would hate him more. Never mind that Stalin was evidently preparing an anti-Jewish pogrom at the time of his death and certainly had no use for Jews.

    Mark Rogers, in Samurai Cat in the Real World, revealed what happened to Hitler after World War II. He had made a bet with Stalin as to who could kill the most Russians, and the loser had to go to work for the winner. This is one of the strangest aspects of Stalin’s career (at least to those who don’t understand Communism): he was most violent against his own people. Hitler killed foreigners en masse, but not so many Germans (other than Jews, whom he considered alien). Stalin murdered his own people by the millions. During the war, ethnic groups considered disloyal, such as the Kalmyks, the Chechens, and the Crimea Tartars, were exiled to Siberian gulags as entire groups.

    Of all the war crimes Hitler’s gang committed, there were 2 that Stalin may not also have committed: the general conspiracy to go to war (the Nazi regime was built on eventually conquering a vast empire) and the deliberate genocide of the Jews. Both may have been unique in history. But the actual harm he did was less than Stalin, if only because he had less opportunity.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Never mind that Stalin was evidently preparing an anti-Jewish pogrom at the time of his death and certainly had no use for Jews.

      What I find very strange about leftist Jews is how obtuse they can be when it comes to their own survival.

      Stalin had already gone after Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. The original Bolshevik Politburo consisted of Stalin, Bubnov, Lenin whose grandmother was Jewish, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sokolnikov, all of whom were Jewish. Only Lenin and Stalin died natural deaths. Stalin had the rest exterminated.

      He also had other high-ranking Jewish Communists such as Radek, Krenstinsky and Yagoda as well as famous Jewish artists such as Mandelstam, Babel dispatched to meet Marx.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I would like to describe to the readers a little more of the Communist idea of “morality” which the leftist lickspittle Margalit seems to find so impressive. The information below is from “A Russian Remembers Childhood During Stalin’s Terror” by Nina Markovna. This a a chapter from the book “Perspectives on Modern World History:Stalin’s Great Purge”, edited by Noah Berlatsky.

    The reader should be familiar with the word Besprizhornik which literally means-one without supervision. This was the term given to children of those adults who the State arrested as “enemies of the people.” Below is part of Markovna’s story.

    When a man was arrested, his wife was often fired from her job, because she was considered an “undesirable.” Family belongings were confiscated, frequently to the last piece of clothing, to the last cooking pot. The family was thrown out of its lodgings and, in the end, the wife, too, disappeared.

    Children in such cases had, literally, to live on the streets or, as in Dulovo, run into the forest. To help a besprizhornik, to scrub his lice-infested, scalp and bathe him or to boil and mend his rags crawling with vermin, to give him some dried bread, suhary, was officially prohibited. No religious or other charitable organizations were allowed, under Soviet rule, to help besprizhorniks. These outcasts, although trying at first to remain decent-remembering their family upbringing-in the end had no alternative but to turn to crime.

    Does that sound like something arising from a “moral ideal?” Obviously not. But even worse is the fact that it is an incredibly stupid and/or insane policy for a country to discard millions of its children to become criminals. Is the ideal state where the government falls away built in such a manner?

    Do not doubt that the type of insane leftists who brought about such misery are still with us and, if given the chance, are capable of their own stupid insane actions. Personally, I believe people like Margalit should be given a little dose of their own medicine. Perhaps it might cure them of their virulent form of leftism. Doubtful, but there is a slim chance he might learn something useful.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This no doubt led to a lot of harm for others given that these children carried lice or other vermin, which might spread to others. But that wouldn’t matter to those “moral” Communists.

      During the 1920s, a group of American liberals (including Paul Douglas, much later an Illinois senator) visited Russia. Douglas visited a factory where he had a discussion of justice with one of the more pro-Communist workers. She mocked bourgeois concepts of justice (as leftists do today) and defended the early purges of that era. A decade later, Douglas came across her name in an article. She had fallen afoul of the Yezhovshchina and been executed for disloyalty of some sort. This is also known as “biter bit”. And it shows yet another example of Communist “morality”.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Do not doubt that the type of insane leftists who brought about such misery are still with us and, if given the chance, are capable of their own stupid insane actions.

      I saw one of these leftists on Tucker Carlson last night. She (a Ms. Klein) was a rabid partisan who kept spouting Kavanaugh’s guilt because “Dr. Fraud was credible.” No other proof necessary. You could take this type of thing right out of the Soviet Show Trials. Ms. Klein would clearly have no problem pronouncing anyone who she disagreed with as “GUILTY.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I remember her. She was arguing that Susan Collins should have an honorary degree revoked for disagreeing with her. Too bad Tucker didn’t read his Amity Shlaes. He could have asked her if she opposed due process as bourgeois justice rather than people’s justice.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I did wonder why Carlson didn’t go after her more aggressively, but I believe part of his method of exposing these Bolsheviks is simply to let them keep on talking.

          If anyone listens, they will hear insane bias being spewed forth.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    “Nazism is an attack on the very idea of morality, whereas Communism, perverse as it was under Stalinism, does not amount to such an attack.”

    That’s an interesting parsing by an intellectualoid. This is why I caution one ane all to not go off half-cocked on large essays that basically just parse how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. This kind of intellectualizing is the exact opposite of enlightening anyone on a subject.

    It’s pretty clear that Nazism and Russian Communism were multi-faceted beasts. They each had their own moral view of the world. The obvious (to all but intellectuals) isn’t whether or not morality was superseded but whose morality would perdure.

    I thank Mr. Kung for bringing this nonsense to our attention. I think it is very important (if only for one’s own sanity) to steer clear of such intellectual misadventures. The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      That’s an interesting parsing by an intellectualoid.

      The hair-splitting nature of Margalit’s piece was a dead giveaway to his basic dishonesty. My immediate reaction to his comparison was that he was making a distinction without a difference.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There may be a background psychology or bias there. Nazism was evil, but Communism was just not done right. That’s typically what they believe. Also (and I haven’t read the article, but I would not expect honesty from it), “Nazis” are considered “right wing” so, of course, they are not just misguided or an idea not implemented correctly. It has to be evil. You can see the wafer-thin intellectual and moral content of that writer as he struggles to salvage something from Stalin by downplaying his evil.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, at least they finally admit the evil. The New York Times got a Pulitzer for Walter Duranty’s stories denying the terror famine (aka the Holodomor). That’s why I created the Walter S. Duranty Memorial Award for Creative Journalism, awarded each year back when I was doing FOSFAX. Ironically, Duranty came to Russia a decade earlier as an anti-Communist, and found that he couldn’t get stories with such views. So he changed them.

          Now they admit the crimes (though they like to minimize them when possible) and pretend that it was just executed (literally) by a monster rather than that in the long run this was inevitable. They also ignore the enslavement of labor, which is inherent to socialism/communism.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The whole group of swine, including Lenin and Trotsky, were murderous monsters. The only group of swine which may have been even bigger monsters (on an outcome based on number of deaths) would be Mao and his cabal.

            Academia and the press seem to have a strange attraction to tyrannies and monsters, particularly those monsters who write well, or at least a lot. Think of their love for Trotsky and Lenin who have been, with no justification, been favorably compared to Stalin. I guess it might be something like the way a salesman loves to watch another good salesman in action. Scribblers admire other scribblers.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Well, neither Lenin nor Trotsky murdered as many people as Stalin did. Mao was worse, but he had an unfair advantage: There were (and are) far more Chinese than Russians available to murder.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                neither Lenin nor Trotsky murdered as many people as Stalin did.

                That’s a little like saying Richard Speck didn’t kill as many as Charles Whitman.

                Had they had more time they would NO DOUBT have killed millions more.

                It is a myth that these two were anything other than bloodthirsty murders. Lenin was the originator of the use of terror once the Bolsheviks took over. He died in early 1924 and had been ill for a couple of years before that. So he was only getting started when he died. Furthermore, contrary to those who say Lenin did not put Stalin in power, it was Lenin who created the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party, explicitly for Stalin. This increased the number of depts. Stalin controlled and was his main springboard to total power. It would appear Lenin did this, at least partially, because he got fed up with Trotsky’s arrogance.

                Lenin was not the only one in the Communist hierarchy who could not stand Trotsky because of his arrogance. When Lenin died, Trotsky’s power base was no match for Stalin’s.

                Another case of a genius not being as smart as he thought himself to be.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I long wondered how it was that word did not come out of China regarding the huge potential problems which the country faced due to its large Muslim population. Lately, word has been slipping out.

    https://www.afp.com/en/news/717/inside-chinas-internment-camps-tear-gas-tasers-and-textbooks-doc-1a73p63

    I was talking about this today with a friend who mentioned that China was also persecuting Christians. I pointed out the main difference was that Christians were not inclined to terrorism and other such civic acts. That was left to Muslims, Communists and Anarchists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *