Category Archives: World War 2

Repost: New Movie about the Fake Holodomor

Those of you who are not familiar with the Holodomor lie that holds that 7-10 million Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by Stalin in 1932-1933 in order to break their will because they opposed collectivization might want to read up on what really happened in those years. Note that I will accept a figure of 390,000 Ukrainians killed during that period, but I don’t think any of those were deliberately starved.

But oh no, the anti-Communist crazies, the Ukrainian nationalists and the Russia-haters have to have their precious “7-10 million murdered” figure. Read up down below to see why these scumbags, most of whom are unrepentant Nazis, are so enamored of that number. My observation is that “Ukrainian nationalist” and “Nazi” are pretty much synonyms.

Some idiot Hollywood filmmakers, some of them Ukrainians, are behind Holodomor: The Movie, a new documentary about the fake Holodomor of 1932-33, the fake deliberate famine that never even happened.

Looking over the story line, there are problems already.

Worst genocide in the history of mankind. Not true. First of all, it wasn’t a genocide. Second, the figures are wrong.

7-10 million died, presumably all Ukrainians. Not true. There were probably about 5.4 million deaths, most actually due to disease and not starvation. People weakened by lack of food fell prey to disease epidemics, particularly cholera. Sanitation was still rudimentary in the USSR at this time, and the antibiotic era only began after WW2. Before the antibiotic era, those afflicted with epidemic diseases often just died.

The movie implies that only Ukrainians died. This is not true. There was a famine over the entire land. People died in Moscow and Siberia.

The movie implies that Ukrainians as a people were deliberately targeted for genocide. Not true. As noted, starvation occurred throughout the land. In particular, the Russian regions near the Ukraine had death rates as high as the Ukrainians. If the Ukrainians were specifically targeted for genocide, why was the death rate just as high among the Slavs of the Lower Volga?

The movie tells the usual lie – there was a bumper harvest in 1932-1933, but the USSR confiscated the crops in order to kill off the Ukrainians, many of whom were protesting collectivization. It’s not true. The famine occurred because there was a famine harvest. The harvest simply collapsed in those years. Some of it was due to weather, but mostly an epidemic of wheat rust spread throughout the land. The Ukrainians also were destroying many of their own crops, setting them on fire, or harvesting them and then leaving them in piles to rot in the rain.

Anti-government guerrillas were rampaging through the Ukraine, attacking collective farms, killing collective farmers, raping women. In early 1932, there were multiple armed attacks occurring every day. For several years prior, the Ukrainians had been killing their own farm animals. They had destroyed about 50% of the livestock in the USSR. This contributed to the famine since many of these animals were used for food, but also, the horses were used to plow the fields.

The government did not “confiscate the bountiful harvest.” It was a real problem with the Ukrainians destroying the food and farm animals, so it’s true that the state sent soldiers and agents down there to seize grain before it could be destroyed. The grain unfortunately was needed to feed the cities, in particular the army. Ukrainians died disproportionately because this was where the crop failure due to wheat rust was the worst.

It’s not true that the Ukrainians were locked in a prison to starve. It was a very difficult time. The crop had failed, with a famine harvest. People were desperately trying to flee the Ukraine to go to other parts of the USSR. In fact, people were on the move all of the USSR, mostly looking for food. It was a great big mess, because workers need to stay in one place for any work to get done.

If the Ukrainians all left the Ukraine, there would be another famine harvest the next year since there would be no workers in the fields to grow crops. So, yes, they did try to prevent people from moving around, but people kept moving around anyway.

Fortunately, the next year was a bumper crop.

There were no 7-10 million deliberate killings (genocide) in the Ukraine in 1932-33. It’s true that there were 390,000 state killings associated with dekulakization in the Ukraine in 1932-33. If the Ukrainians wish to play that up, they can be my guest. But they seem to have an intellectual hard-on for that juicy 10 million dead number.

How did the “7-10 million” figure pop up?

The figure kept going up, because the Ukrainians kept raising it. After WW2, it was decided that the Nazis had killed 6 million Jews. The Ukrainians were upset about this because it made their Holodomor seem lesser.

Plus, the Ukrainian nationalists who play up the Holodomor were deeply involved in Nazism and mass Jew-killing genocide in the Ukraine after the Germans invaded. The Ukrainian nationalists had Jewish blood of the Holocaust all over their hands, and now the Holocaust was beating their precious Holodomor in the numbers racket too. Something had to be done.

The 7 million figure was tossed out. Why? To outdo the 6 million of the Jewish Holocaust and beat the Jews at the numbers game. Also, to play up the “Stalin was worse than Hitler” card, since the Ukrainians were so deeply in bed with the Nazis, this was meant to minimize Nazism as a lesser evil.

To this day, Ukrainian nationalist groups are some of the nastiest anti-Semites out there, more or less unrepentant Nazis. The fake Holodomor thing is part and parcel of their Nazi anti-Semitic project, since supposedly a bunch of Soviet Jews are the ones who “genocided the Ukrainians.”

Over time, they kept adding onto this, and now we have this inflated 7-10 million figure.

One would think that the Ukrainian nationalists could come up with at least one document showing proof of this Holodomor of theirs. The Soviet archives have been opened, including the secret archives of the KGB. It’s all out there for anyone to look at.

With the Nazis, researchers have been able to go over their documentation scrupulously and find documents showing that the Nazi leadership was behind the Holocaust, as much as they tried to cover it up with euphemisms. That the Ukrainians can’t come up with one piece of paper to prove their case is telling.

What’s strange is that the collectivization project is probably what saved the world from Nazism. The USSR of the 1930’s was involved in breakneck industrialization, since Stalin knew that the Nazis and or the West were going to attack them. They had industrialize quickly or be destroyed. The buildup of the USSR during that period was one of the greatest and most extensive national developmental projects in history.

Collectivization was needed to feed the workers in the cities and to free up workers from the fields. Previously, Russian farmers farmed small, unproductive farms that barely grew enough food for one family. This wasn’t going to feed an industrial society, so collectivization was done. The result of this world-shattering developmental project was that the USSR was able to defeat the Nazis. 89% of Germans killed in the war were killed by the USSR. For all intents and purposes, the USSR won the war for us and saved the world from Hitler.

This website takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support my work.

11 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Anti-Semitism, Asia, Cinema, Death, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Health, History, Illness, Jews, Modern, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, Ukrainians, USSR, War, World War 2

A Look at Some Uto-Aztecan Languages: Hopi, Nahuatl and Comanche

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Uto-Aztecan languages Hopi, Nahuatl and Comanche in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn them.

Uto-Aztecan
Northern

Hopi is so difficult that even grammars describing the language are almost impossible to understand. For instance, Hopi has two different words for “and” depending on whether the noun phrase containing the word “and” is nominative or accusative.

Hopi is rated 6, hardest of all.

Southern Uto-Aztecan
Corachol-Aztecan
Core Nahua
Nahuatl

In Nahuatl, most adjectives are simply what are known as “stative verbs.” Hence:

Umntu omde waya eTenochtitlan.
Literally: “The man he is tall went to Tenochtitlan.”
“The tall man went to Tenochtitlan.”

“He is tall” is a stative verb in the above.

Nahuatl gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

Numic
Central Numic

Comanche is legendary for being one of the hardest Indian languages of all to learn. Reasons are unknown, but all Amerindian languages are quite difficult. I doubt if Comanche is harder than other Numic languages.

Bizarrely enough, Comanche has very strange sounds called voiceless vowels, which seems to be an oxymoron, as vowels would seem to be inherently voiced. English has something akin to voiceless vowels in the words particular and peculiar, where the bolded vowels act something akin to a voiceless vowel.

Comanche was used for a while by the codespeakers in World War 2 – not all codespeakers were Navajos. Comanche was specifically chosen because it was hard to figure out. The Japanese were never able to break the Comanche code.

Comanche is rated 6, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Amerindians, Applied, History, Hopi, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, World War 2

A Good Soldier

Found on the Internet in a Net dictionary under one of the definitions of “badass.”

I would say this guy was a badass and one Hell of a great soldier too. It’s hard to comprehend his performance here. He won the Medal of Honor for his service on Saipan. William O’Brien: Thank you for your service!

O’Brien, William J.

Rank and organization: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, 1st Battalion, 105th Infantry, 27th Infantry Division.

Place and date: At Saipan, Marianas Islands, 20 June through 7 July 1944.

Entered service at: Troy, N.Y.

Birth: Troy, N.Y.

G.O. No.: 35,

9 May 1945.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty at Saipan, Marianas Islands, from 20 June through 7 July 1944.

When assault elements of his platoon were held up by intense enemy fire, Lt. Col. O’Brien ordered 3 tanks to precede the assault companies in an attempt to knock out the strongpoint.

Due to direct enemy fire the tanks’ turrets were closed, causing the tanks to lose direction and to fire into our own troops. Lt. Col. O’Brien, with complete disregard for his own safety, dashed into full view of the enemy and ran to the leader’s tank, and pounded on the tank with his pistol butt to attract 2 of the tank’s crew and, mounting the tank fully exposed to enemy fire, Lt. Col. O’Brien personally directed the assault until the enemy strongpoint had been liquidated.

On 28 June 1944, while his platoon was attempting to take a bitterly defended high ridge in the vicinity of Donnay, Lt. Col. O’Brien arranged to capture the ridge by a double envelopment movement of 2 large combat battalions. He personally took control of the maneuver. Lt. Col. O’Brien crossed 1,200 yards of sniper-infested underbrush alone to arrive at a point where 1 of his platoons was being held up by the enemy.

Leaving some men to contain the enemy he personally led 4 men into a narrow ravine behind, and killed or drove off all the Japanese manning that strongpoint. In this action he captured S machineguns and one 77-mm. fieldpiece. Lt. Col. O’Brien then organized the 2 platoons for night defense and against repeated counterattacks directed them. Meanwhile he managed to hold ground.

On 7 July 1944 his battalion and another battalion were attacked by an overwhelming enemy force estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 Japanese. With bloody hand-to-hand fighting in progress everywhere, their forward positions were finally overrun by the sheer weight of the enemy numbers. With many casualties and ammunition running low, Lt. Col. O’Brien refused to leave the front lines.

Striding up and down the lines, he fired at the enemy with a pistol in each hand and his presence there bolstered the spirits of the men, encouraged them in their fight and sustained them in their heroic stand.

Even after he was seriously wounded, Lt. Col. O’Brien refused to be evacuated and after his pistol ammunition was exhausted, he manned a .50 caliber machinegun, mounted on a jeep, and continued firing. When last seen alive he was standing upright firing into the Jap hordes that were then enveloping him. Some time later his body was found surrounded by enemy he had killed His valor was consistent with the highest traditions of the service.

2 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Micronesia, Pacific, Regional, Saipan, War, World War 2

Interesting Photo

Amazing picture.

Amazing picture.

Apparently a real photo, possibly from Poland during World War 2. Those Jews had a lot of balls to put that menorah up in the window like that.

5 Comments

Filed under Europe, European, History, Judaism, Photography, Regional, War, World War 2

Evil Dictatorship To Release 400,000 Prisoners

Here.

Boy I am sure glad we live in the world’s greatest democracy where we lock up more people than the rest of the world combined! It could be worse. I could live in an evil dictatorship that routinely amnesties hundreds of thousands of prisoners, all guilty of minor to moderate offenses!

Dictatorships are evil! They set hundreds of thousands of criminals free!

Democracies are wonderful! They lock up every fourth or fifth citizen!

1 Comment

Filed under Crime, Eurasia, Government, Law, Regional, Russia, War, World War 2

“Hitler’s Pope” – Anatomy of a Calumny – The Case of Pope Pius XII

From Pius XII and the Jews, by David Dalin. Published in the Weekly Standard, February 26th, 2001, pp. 31-39.

Even before Pope Pius died in 1958, the charge that his papacy had been friendly to the Nazis was circulating in Europe, a piece of standard Communist agitprop against the West.

It sank for a few years under the flood of tributes from Jews and gentiles alike that followed the Pope’s death only to bubble up again with the 1963 debut of The Deputy, a play by a left-wing German writer and former member of the Hitler Youth named Rolf Hochhuth.

The Deputy was fictional and highly polemical, claiming that Pius XII’s concern for Vatican finances left him indifferent to the destruction of European Jewry. But Hochhuth’s seven-hour play nonetheless received considerable notice, sparking a controversy that lasted through the 1960’s. And now more than thirty years later, that controversy has suddenly broken out again for reasons not immediately clear.

Indeed, “broken out” doesn’t describe the current torrent. Just recently, nine books that treat Pius XII have appeared: John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope, Pierre Blet’s Pius XII and the Second World War, Garry Wills’ Papal Sin, Margherita Marchione’s Pope Pius XII, Ronald J. Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope, Michael Phayer’s The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965, Susan Zuccotti’s Under His Very Windows, Ralph McInerny’s The Defamation of Pius XII, and, most recently, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword.

Since four of these — the ones by Blet, Marchione, Rychlak, and McInerny — are defenses of the pope (and two, the books by Wills and Carroll, take up Pius only as part of a broad attack against Catholicism), the picture may look balanced. In fact, to read all nine is to conclude that Pius’s defenders have the stronger case, with Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope the best and most careful of the recent works, an elegant tome of serious, critical scholarship.

Still, it is the books vilifying the Pope that have received most of the attention, particularly Hitler’s Pope, a widely reviewed volume marketed with the announcement that Pius XII was “the most dangerous churchman in modern history,” without whom “Hitler might never have…been able to press forward.” The “silence” of the pope is becoming more and more firmly established as settled opinion in the American media: “Pius XII’s elevation of Catholic self-interest over Catholic conscience was the lowest point in modern Catholic history,” the New York Times remarked, almost in passing, in a review last month of Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword.

Curiously, nearly everyone pressing this line today, from the ex-seminarians John Cornwell and Garry Wills to the ex-priest James Carroll is a lapsed or angry Catholic. For Jewish leaders of a previous generation, the campaign against Pius XII would have been a source of shock. During and after the war, many well-known Jews — Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, Moshe Sharett, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, and innumerable others — publicly expressed their gratitude to Pius.

In his 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews, the diplomat Pinchas Lapide (who served as Israeli consul in Milan and interviewed Italian Holocaust survivors) declared that Pius XII “was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”

This is not to say that Eugenio Pacelli — the powerful churchman who served as Nuncio in Bavaria and Germany from 1917 to 1929, then as Vatican secretary of state from 1930 to 1939, before becoming Pope Pius XII six months before World War II began — was as much a friend to the Jews as John Paul II has been.

Nor is it to say that Pius was ultimately successful as a defender of Jews. Despite his desperate efforts to maintain peace, the war came, and despite his protests against German atrocities, the slaughter of the Holocaust occurred. Even without benefit of hindsight, a careful study reveals that the Catholic Church missed opportunities to influence events, failed to credit fully the Nazis’ intentions, and was infected in some of its members with a casual anti-Semitism that would countenance — and, in a few horrifying instances, affirm — the Nazi ideology.

But to make Pius XII a target of our moral outrage against the Nazis and to count Catholicism among the institutions delegitimized by the horror of the Holocaust reveals a failure of historical understanding. Almost none of the recent books about Pius XII and the Holocaust is actually about Pius XII and the Holocaust. Their real topic proves to be an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today with the Holocaust simply the biggest club available for liberal Catholics to use against traditionalists.

A theological debate about the future of the papacy is obviously something in which non-Catholics should not involve themselves too deeply. But Jews, whatever their feelings about the Catholic Church, have a duty to reject any attempt to usurp the Holocaust and use it for partisan purposes in such a debate, particularly when the attempt disparages the testimony of Holocaust survivors and spreads to inappropriate figures the condemnation that belongs to Hitler and the Nazis.

The technique for recent attacks on Pius XII is simple. It requires only that favorable evidence be read in the worst light and treated to the strictest test, while unfavorable evidence is read in the best light and treated to no test.

So, for instance, when Cornwell sets out in Hitler’s Pope to prove Pius an anti-Semite – an accusation even the pontiff’s bitterest opponents have rarely leveled – he makes much of Pacelli’s reference in a 1917 letter to the “Jewish cult” — as though for an Italian Catholic prelate born in 1876, the word “cult” had the same resonance it has in English today and as though Cornwell himself does not casually refer to the Catholic Cult of the Assumption and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. The most immediately helpful part of Hitler, the War and the Pope may be the thirty-page epilogue Rychlak devotes to demolishing this kind of argument in Hitler’s Pope.

The same pattern is played out in Susan Zuccotti’s Under His Very Windows. For example, there exists testimony from a Good Samaritan priest that Bishop Giuseppe Nicolini of Assisi, holding a letter in his hand, declared that the Pope had written to request help for Jews during the German roundup of Italian Jews in 1943. But because the priest did not actually read the letter, Zuccotti speculates that the bishop may have been deceiving him, and thus that this testimony should be rejected.

Compare this skeptical approach to evidence with her treatment, for example, of a 1967 interview in which the German diplomat Eitel F. Mollhausen said he had sent information to the Nazis’ ambassador to the Vatican, Ernst von Weizsecker, and “assumed” that Weizsecker passed it on to Church “officials.”

Zuccotti takes this as unquestionable proof that the Pope had direct foreknowledge of the German roundup. A fair reading suggests Pius had heard rumors and raised them with the Nazi occupiers. Princess Enza Pignatelli Aragona reported that when she broke in on the Pope with the news of the roundup early on the morning of October 16, 1943, his first words were: “But the Germans had promised not to touch the Jews!”

With this dual standard, recent writers have little trouble arriving at two preordained conclusions. The first is that the Catholic Church must shoulder the blame for the Holocaust: “Pius XII was the most guilty,” as Zuccotti puts it. And the second is that Catholicism’s guilt is due to aspects of the Church that John Paul II now represents.

Indeed, in the concluding chapter of Hitler’s Pope and throughout Papal Sin and Constantine’s Sword, the parallel comes clear: John Paul’s traditionalism is of a piece with Pius’s alleged anti-Semitism; the Vatican’s current stand on papal authority is in a direct line with complicity in the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews. Faced with such monstrous moral equivalence and misuse of the Holocaust, how can we not object?

It is true that during the controversy over The Deputy and again during the Vatican’s slow hearing of the case for his canonization (ongoing since 1965), Pius had Jewish detractors. In 1964, for example, Guenter Lewy produced The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, and, in 1966, Saul Friedlander added Pius XII and the Third Reich. Both volumes claimed that Pius’s anti-communism led him to support Hitler as a bulwark against the Russians.

As accurate information on Soviet atrocities has mounted since 1989, an obsession with Stalinism seems less foolish than it may have in the mid-1960s. But, in fact, the evidence has mounted as well that Pius accurately ranked the threats.

In 1942, for example, he told a visitor, “The Communist danger does exist, but at this time the Nazi danger is more serious.” He intervened with the American bishops to support lend-lease for the Soviets, and he explicitly refused to bless the Nazi invasion of Russia. The charge of overheated anti-communism is nonetheless still alive: In Constantine’s Sword, James Carroll attacks the 1933 concordat Hitler signed for Germany by asking, “Is it conceivable that Pacelli would have negotiated any such agreement with the Bolsheviks in Moscow?” — apparently not realizing that in the mid-1920s, Pacelli tried exactly that.

In any case, Pius had his Jewish defenders as well. In addition to Lapide’s Three Popes and the Jews, one might list A Question of Judgment, the 1963 pamphlet from the Anti-Defamation League’s Joseph Lichten, and the excoriating reviews of Friedlander by Livia Rotkirchen, the historian of Slovakian Jewry at Yad Vashem. Jeno Levai, the great Hungarian historian, was so angered by accusations of papal silence that he wrote Pius XII Was Not Silent (published in English in 1968), with a powerful introduction by Robert M.W. Kempner, deputy chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg.

In response to the new attacks on Pius, several Jewish scholars have spoken out over the last year. Sir Martin Gilbert told an interviewer that Pius deserves not blame but thanks. Michael Tagliacozzo, the leading authority on Roman Jews during the Holocaust, added, “I have a folder on my table in Israel entitled Calumnies Against Pius XII…Without him, many of our own would not be alive.” Richard Breitman (the only historian authorized to study U.S. espionage files from World War II) noted that secret documents prove the extent to which “Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews.”

Still, Lapide’s 1967 book remains the most influential work by a Jew on the topic, and in the thirty-four years since he wrote, much material has become available in the Vatican’s archives and elsewhere. New oral-history centers have gathered an impressive body of interviews with Holocaust survivors, military chaplains, and Catholic civilians. Given the recent attacks, the time has come for a new defense of Pius — because, despite allegations to the contrary, the best historical evidence now confirms both that Pius XII was not silent and that almost no one at the time thought him so.

In January 1940, for instance, the Pope issued instructions for Vatican Radio to reveal “the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny” the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. Reporting the broadcast the following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston praised it for what it was: an “outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind.”

The New York Times editorialized: “Now the Vatican has spoken, with authority that cannot be questioned, and has confirmed the worst intimations of terror which have come out of the Polish darkness.” In England, the Manchester Guardian hailed Vatican Radio as “tortured Poland’s most powerful advocate.”

Any fair and thorough reading of the evidence demonstrates that Pius XII was a persistent critic of Nazism. Consider just a few highlights of his opposition before the war:

Of the forty-four speeches Pacelli gave in Germany as Papal Nuncio between 1917 and 1929, forty denounced some aspect of the emerging Nazi ideology.

In March 1935, he wrote an open letter to the bishop of Cologne calling the Nazis “false prophets with the pride of Lucifer.”

That same year, he assailed ideologies “possessed by the superstition of race and blood” to an enormous crowd of pilgrims at Lourdes. At Notre Dame in Paris two years later, he named Germany “that noble and powerful nation whom bad shepherds would lead astray into an ideology of race.”

The Nazis were “diabolical,” he told friends privately. Hitler “is completely obsessed,” he said to his long-time secretary, Sister Pascalina. “All that is not of use to him, he destroys;…this man is capable of trampling on corpses.” Meeting in 1935 with the heroic anti-Nazi Dietrich von Hildebrand, he declared, “There can be no possible reconciliation” between Christianity and Nazi racism; they were like “fire and water.”

The year after Pacelli became secretary of state in 1930, Vatican Radio was established, essentially under his control. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano had an uneven record, though it would improve as Pacelli gradually took charge (extensively reporting Kristallnacht in 1938, for example). But the radio station was always good — making such controversial broadcasts as the request that listeners pray for the persecuted Jews in Germany after the 1935 Nuremberg Legislation.

It was while Pacelli was his predecessor’s chief adviser that Pius XI made the famous statement to a group of Belgian pilgrims in 1938 that “anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites.” And it was Pacelli who drafted Pius XI’s encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, or With Burning Concern, a condemnation of Germany among the harshest ever issued by the Holy See. Indeed, throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI’s “Jew-loving” cardinal, because of the more than fifty-five protests he sent the Germans as the Vatican secretary of state.

To these must be added highlights of Pius XII’s actions during the war:

His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, rushed out in 1939 to beg for peace, was in part a declaration that the proper role of the papacy was to plead to both warring sides rather than to blame one. But it very pointedly quoted St. Paul, “There is neither Gentile nor Jew,” using the word “Jew” specifically in the context of rejecting racial ideology. The New York Times greeted the encyclical with a front-page headline on October 28, 1939: Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism. Allied airplanes dropped thousands of copies on Germany in an effort to raise anti-Nazi sentiment.

In 1939 and 1940, Pius acted as a secret intermediary between the German plotters against Hitler and the British. He would similarly risk warning the Allies about the impending German invasions of Holland, Belgium, and France.

In March 1940, Pius granted an audience to Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister and the only high-ranking Nazi to bother visiting the Vatican. The Germans’ understanding of Pius’s position, at least, was clear: Ribbentrop chastised the Pope for siding with the Allies. Whereupon Pius began reading from a long list of German atrocities. “In the burning words he spoke to Herr Ribbentrop,” the New York Times reported on March 14, Pius “came to the defense of Jews in Germany and Poland.”

When French bishops issued pastoral letters in 1942 attacking deportations, Pius sent his Nuncio to protest to the Vichy government against “the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French-occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia.” Vatican Radio commented on the bishops’ letters six days in a row — at a time when listening to Vatican Radio was a crime in Germany and Poland for which some were put to death. Pope Is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France, the New York Times headline read on August 6, 1942. Vichy Seizes Jews; Pope Pius Ignored, the Times reported three weeks later.

In retaliation, in the fall of 1942, Goebbels’s office distributed ten million copies of a pamphlet naming Pius XII as the “pro-Jewish Pope” and explicitly citing his interventions in France.

In the summer of 1944, after the liberation of Rome but before the war’s end, Pius told a group of Roman Jews who had come to thank him for his protection: “For centuries, Jews have been unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity, God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. They should also be welcomed as friends.”

As these and hundreds of other examples are disparaged, one by one, in recent books attacking Pius XII, the reader loses sight of the huge bulk of them, their cumulative effect that left no one, the Nazis least of all, in doubt about the Pope’s position.

A deeper examination reveals the consistent pattern. Writers like Cornwell and Zuccotti see the Pope’s 1941 Christmas address, for example, as notable primarily for its failure to use the language we would use today. But contemporary observers thought it quite explicit. In its editorial the following day, the New York Times declared, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas….In calling for a ‘real new order’ based on ‘liberty, justice, and love,’…the pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism.”

So, too, the Pope’s Christmas message the following year — in which he expressed his concern “for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction” — was widely understood to be a public condemnation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Indeed, the Germans themselves saw it as such: “His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for….He is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews….He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals,” an internal Nazi analysis reads.

This Nazi awareness, moreover, had potentially dire consequences. There were ample precedents for the Pope to fear an invasion: Napoleon had besieged the Vatican in 1809, capturing Pius VII at bayonet point; Pius IX fled Rome for his life after the assassination of his chancellor; and Leo XIII was driven into temporary exile in the late nineteenth century.

Still, Pius XII was “ready to let himself be deported to a concentration camp rather than do anything against his conscience,” Mussolini’s foreign minister railed. Hitler spoke openly of entering the Vatican to “pack up that whole whoring rabble,” and Pius knew of the various Nazi plans to kidnap him. Ernst von Weizsecker has written that he regularly warned Vatican officials against provoking Berlin.

The Nazi ambassador to Italy, Rudolf Rahn, similarly describes one of Hitler’s kidnapping plots and the effort by German diplomats to prevent it. General Carlo Wolff testified to having received orders from Hitler in 1943 to “occupy as soon as possible the Vatican and Vatican City, secure the archives and the art treasures, which have a unique value, and transfer the Pope, together with the Curia, for their protection, so that they cannot fall into the hands of the Allies and exert a political influence.” Early in December 1943, Wolff managed to talk Hitler out of the plan.

In assessing what actions Pius XII might have taken, many wish that explicit excommunications had been announced. The Catholic-born Nazis had already incurred automatic excommunication for everything from failure to attend Mass to unconfessed murder to public repudiation of Christianity. And, as his writings and table-talk make clear, Hitler had ceased to consider himself a Catholic — indeed, considered himself an anti-Catholic — long before he came to power. But a papal declaration of excommunication might have done some good.

Then again, it might not. Don Luigi Sturzo, founder of the Christian Democratic movement in wartime Italy, pointed out that the last times “a nominal excommunication was pronounced against a head of state,” neither Queen Elizabeth I nor Napoleon had changed policy. And there is reason to believe provocation would, as Margherita Marchione puts it, “have resulted in violent retaliation, the loss of many more Jewish lives, especially those then under the protection of the Church, and an intensification of the persecution of Catholics.”

Holocaust survivors such as Marcus Melchior, the chief rabbi of Denmark, argued that “If the Pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so.” Robert M.W. Kempner called upon his experience at the Nuremberg trials to say in a letter to the editor after Commentary published an excerpt from Guenter Lewy in 1964, “Every propaganda move of the Catholic Church against Hitler’s Reich would have been not only ‘provoking suicide,’…but would have hastened the execution of still more Jews and priests.”

This is hardly a speculative concern. A Dutch bishops’ pastoral letter condemning “the unmerciful and unjust treatment meted out to Jews” was read in Holland’s Catholic churches in July 1942. The well-intentioned letter — which declared that it was inspired by Pius XII — backfired. As Pinchas Lapide notes: “The saddest and most thought-provoking conclusion is that whilst the Catholic clergy in Holland protested more loudly, expressly, and frequently against Jewish persecutions than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, more Jews — some 110,000 or 79 percent of the total — were deported from Holland to death camps.”

Bishop Jean Bernard of Luxembourg, an inmate of Dachau from 1941 to 1942, notified the Vatican that “whenever protests were made, treatment of prisoners worsened immediately.” Late in 1942, Archbishop Sapieha of Cracow and two other Polish bishops, having experienced the Nazis’ savage reprisals, begged Pius not to publish his letters about conditions in Poland. Even Susan Zuccotti admits that in the case of the Roman Jews, the Pope “might well have been influenced by a concern for Jews in hiding and for their Catholic protectors.”

One might ask, of course, what could have been worse than the mass murder of six million Jews? The answer is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more. And it was toward saving those it could that the Vatican worked. The fate of Italian Jews has become a major topic of Pius’s critics, the failure of Catholicism at its home supposedly demonstrating the hypocrisy of any modern papal claim to moral authority. Notice, for example, Zuccotti’s title: Under His Very Windows. But the fact remains that while approximately 80 percent of European Jews perished during World War II, 80 percent of Italian Jews were saved.

In the months Rome was under German occupation, Pius XII instructed Italy’s clergy to save lives by all means. A neglected source for Pius’s actions during this time is the 1965 memoir But for the Grace of God, by Monsignor J. Patrick Carroll-Abbing, who worked under Pius as a rescuer. Beginning in October 1943, Pius asked churches and convents throughout Italy to shelter Jews. As a result — and despite the fact that Mussolini and the Fascists yielded to Hitler’s demand for deportations — many Italian Catholics defied the German orders.

In Rome, 155 convents and monasteries sheltered some five thousand Jews. At least three thousand found refuge at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Sixty Jews lived for nine months at the Gregorian University, and many were sheltered in the cellar of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Hundreds found sanctuary within the Vatican itself. Following Pius’s instructions, individual Italian priests, monks, nuns, cardinals, and bishops were instrumental in preserving thousands of Jewish lives. Cardinal Boetto of Genoa saved at least eight hundred. The bishop of Assisi hid three hundred Jews for over two years. The bishop of Campagna and two of his relatives saved 961 more in Fiume.

Cardinal Pietro Palazzini, then assistant vice rector of the Seminario Romano, hid Michael Tagliacozzo and other Italian Jews at the seminary (which was Vatican property) for several months in 1943 and 1944. In 1985, Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust Memorial, honored the cardinal as a righteous gentile — and, in accepting the honor, Palazzini stressed that “the merit is entirely Pius XII’s, who ordered us to do whatever we could to save the Jews from persecution.” Some of the laity helped as well, and, in their testimony afterwards, consistently attributed their inspiration to the Pope.

Again, the most eloquent testimony is the Nazis’ own. Fascist documents published in 1998 (and summarized in Marchione’s Pope Pius XII) speak of a German plan, dubbed “Rabat-Fohn,” to be executed in January 1944. The plan called for the 8th Division of the SS Cavalry, disguised as Italians, to seize St. Peter’s and “massacre Pius XII with the entire Vatican” — and specifically names “the papal protest in favor of the Jews” as the cause.

A similar story can be traced across Europe. There is room to argue that more ought to have been attempted by the Catholic Church — for the unanswerable facts remain that Hitler did come to power, World War II did occur, and six million Jews did die. But the place to begin that argument is with the truth that people of the time, Nazis and Jews alike, understood the Pope to be the world’s most prominent opponent of the Nazi ideology.

As early as December 1940, in an article in Time Magazine, Albert Einstein paid tribute to Pius: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.”

In 1943, Chaim Weizmann, who would become Israel’s first president, wrote that “the Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can to mitigate the fate of my persecuted co-religionists.”

Moshe Sharett, Israel’s second prime minister, met with Pius in the closing days of the war. Sharett wrote, “I told him that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews.”

Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel, sent a message in February 1944 declaring, “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”

In September 1945, Leon Kubowitzky, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, personally thanked the Pope for his interventions, and the World Jewish Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions.

In 1955, when Italy celebrated the tenth anniversary of its liberation, the Union of Italian Jewish Communities proclaimed April 17 a “Day of Gratitude” for the Pope’s wartime assistance.

On May 26, 1955, the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra flew to Rome to give in the Vatican a special performance of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony — an expression of the State of Israel’s enduring gratitude to the Pope for help given the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

This last example is particularly significant. As a matter of state policy, the Israeli Philharmonic has never played the music of Richard Wagner because of his well-known reputation as “Hitler’s composer,” the cultural patron saint of the Third Reich. During the 1950’s especially, the Israeli public, hundreds of thousands of whom were Holocaust survivors, still viewed Wagner as a symbol of the Nazi regime.

It is inconceivable that the Israeli government would have paid for the entire orchestra to travel to Rome to pay tribute to “Hitler’s Pope.” On the contrary, the Israeli Philharmonic’s unprecedented concert in the Vatican was a unique communal gesture of collective recognition for a great friend of the Jewish people.

Hundreds of other memorials could be cited. In her conclusion to Under His Very Windows, Susan Zuccotti dismisses as wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even devious the praise Pius XII received from Jewish leaders and scholars, as well as expressions of gratitude from the Jewish chaplains and Holocaust survivors who bore personal witness to the assistance of the pope.

That she does so is disturbing. To deny the legitimacy of their gratitude to Pius XII is tantamount to denying the credibility of their personal testimony and judgment about the Holocaust itself. “More than all others,” recalled Elio Toaff, an Italian Jew who lived through the Holocaust and later became Chief Rabbi of Rome, “We had the opportunity of experiencing the great compassionate goodness and magnanimity of the Pope during the unhappy years of the persecution and terror, when it seemed that for us there was no longer an escape.”

But Zuccotti is not alone. There is a disturbing element in nearly all the current work on Pius. Except for Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope, none of the recent books — from Cornwell’s vicious attack in Hitler’s Pope to McInerny’s uncritical defense in The Defamation of Pius XII — is finally about the Holocaust. All are about using the sufferings of Jews fifty years ago to force changes upon the Catholic Church today.

It is this abuse of the Holocaust that must be rejected. A true account of Pius XII would arrive at exactly the opposite to Cornwell’s conclusion: Pius XII was not Hitler’s Pope but instead was the closest Jews had come to having a papal supporter and at the moment when it mattered most.

Writing in Yad Vashem Studies in 1983, John S. Conway, the leading authority on the Vatican’s eleven-volume Acts and Documents of the Holy See During the Second World War, concluded, “A close study of the many thousands of documents published in these volumes lends little support to the thesis that ecclesiastical self-preservation was the main motive behind the attitudes of the Vatican diplomats. Rather, the picture that emerges is one of a group of intelligent and conscientious men seeking to pursue the paths of peace and justice at a time when these ideals were ruthlessly being rendered irrelevant in a world of ‘total war.’”

These neglected volumes which the English reader can find summarized in Pierre Blet’s Pius XII and the Second World War “will reveal ever more clearly and convincingly” as John Paul told a group of Jewish leaders in Miami in 1987 “how deeply Pius XII felt the tragedy of the Jewish people and how hard and effectively he worked to assist them.”

The Talmud teaches that “whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world.” More than any other twentieth-century leader, Pius fulfilled this Talmudic dictum when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other Pope had been so widely praised by Jews, and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was, genuinely and profoundly, a righteous gentile.

7 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, France, Germany, History, Israel, Italy, Jews, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nazism, Netherlands, Poland, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, War, World War 2

India as an Imperialist, Expansionist Settler-Colonial State

Eurasia E Zine writes:

Its not well known that British India comprised only about half of the sub continent at the time of Independence. During partition of India, a murderous civil war was unleashed between the Hindus and Muslims when the British agreed to the creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan and what is now Bangladesh. After Independence from Britain (mostly the former Mughal states) the Indian Union spearheaded a war of territorial expansion during which it forced, coerced or invaded the more than 550 independent Princely states including Kashmir and Hyderabad, as well as Goa and Pondicherry.

The Nizam of Hyderabad, the largest state in the subcontinent, appealed to Britain to become an independent nation within the Commonwealth but his request was refused by the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten whose wife Edwina was reputedly having an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru. The invasion of Hyderabad state by Operation Polo was on par with Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia. India is a mosaic of culture and language that has been homogenized by Hindutva or Hindu fundamentalism.

Even now, Indian troops are occupying Kashmir against the will of the people. Indian nationalists were pro German and supported the Axis powers during WW2 and Hindutva and RSS brown shirts are ideologically fascists whose agenda is modeled on that of the Italian fascist Mazzini.For this reason, India should not be allowed to buy uranium or develop nuclear weapons.

So India is a settler-colonial state, an expansionist and imperialist state that likes to wages wars of aggression and expansion to conquer other states, steal their land, annex them to itself, and then settle them with Indians. Wars of expansion are now called Nazi-type wars. They were frequent in the old days, but since WW2, they have been banned. You are no longer allowed to seize territory in any war, even if the other side started it. Wars of territorial expansion no matter who started are banned by the UN Charter and international law.

The resemblance with Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Tojo’s Japan are instructive. All of these were fascist and militarist states that sought to have empires or expand their national territory in one way or another by conquering other lands. These lands and peoples were to be exploited for their resources and labor an settled with settler-colonists. But the main principal is “Lebensraum” – living room – the desire for more territory, for territorial expansion. Although it is dubious whether India is a fascist country and I doubt if it is a racist fascist (National Socialist or Nazi) country, the similarities with other ultranationalist states that waged wars of aggression and expansion is most disturbing.

The fact that the vast majority of Indians apparently see nothing wrong with being an expansionist imperialist country that wages wars of aggression, territorial acquisition and expansion is possibly even more disturbing.

What the heck is wrong with these people?

29 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asian, Britain, Colonialism, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, History, Imperialism, India, Italy, Japan, Kashmir, Law, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, NE Asia, Political Science, Regional, Settler-Colonialism, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

It Was 70 Years Ago, But It Could Have Been Yesterday

Painting from World War 2 Liberation of Debaltsevo.

Painting from World War 2 Liberation of Debaltsevo.

70 years ago, the great Red Army antifas liberated the city of Debaltsevo from the Nazi beasts who had invaded Holy Rus from the west. The painting above commemorates that event.

History will soon repeat itself, as the Novorussian antifa forces are liberating Debaltsevo once again from Nazi barbarians who invaded Holy Rus from the West, the way they always do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Eurasia, Europe, European, History, Russia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Why the “Stalin Killed 20-40 Million People” Line Is Not True

Sam writes:

The Macon Telegraph says,”…It is estimated that between 20 to 40 million people, mostly Russians, were killed by Stalin during his dictatorship (1924-1953)…”

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin
By Timothy Snyder

“…unlike the Germans, the Soviets killed a greater number of civilians during peacetime than during war…”

Museum of Communism FAQ

“…So many millions perished within the Gulag Archipelago for so many reasons, or for no reason. With a minimum of 5,000,000 slave laborers from 1931 to 1950, and a minimum death toll of 10% per year – both improbably low figures – one can conclude that Stalin’s camps claimed a minimum of 10,000,000 victims, and easily two or three times as many….”

“…grain in 1932 in the Ukraine was for the first time taken from the peasants and stored in urban granaries: officials realized that once starvation set in the peasants would try to eat the seed grain. The Ukrainian-Russian border was carefully guarded to keep Russian grain out of the famine-stricken Ukraine and starving Ukrainians out of Russia. Government grain stockpiles were available, but unused.

This mixture of ruthless methods resulted in the starvation deaths of about 7 million people: 5 million in the Ukraine, 1 million in the North Caucasus region, and 1 million elsewhere. On top of this, a similar collectivization campaign carried out against the nomads of Kazakhstan led to 1 million further deaths…”

So 17 million not counting executions.

Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century

Estimates high and low. Scholars beginning to rest on 20 million at lowest.

Everything written above about the Holodomor is not true. Anyway the death toll was just as high in the staunchly pro-Soviet Rostov and Lower Don District. Did the USSR deliberately starve its own staunchest supporters. 1 million died in Siberia. Did the USSR deliberately starve 1 million people in Siberia. Many died in Soviet cities, including Moscow. Did the USSR starve its own urban citizens? What for?

Less grain actually taken in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for stealing all the grain. More grain was actually requisitioned back in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for the “they would not give them any food” argument. All over the USSR, people were moving around here and there, trying to escape famine conditions and get to a place where the food was more plentiful. They tried to stop all of this internal migration by putting checks at the borders, but it didn’t work very well. They especially wanted to stop people from migrating out of Ukraine, as then they would have no rural population in their grain belt to grow grain.

The next year, 1933, was a bumper harvest. If they were trying to starve people, why have a famine one year and a bumper harvest the next? Makes no sense. In the previous five years, the kulaks had killed half the livestock in the USSR. This was a big reason for the famine right there. And in Ukraine, people were setting their mature grain fields on fire. They would harvest all of their grain and pile it in a big pile in a field until it got rained on, and then it would mold.

The Ukrainians had an insurgency where they were attacking collective farms, killing the workers, raping the women, killing all the livestock and setting the crops on fire. In early 1932, there were 20-30 armed attacks occurring every day in the Ukraine. So as you can see, this was all happening in the background of a civil war.

Bloodlands is a terrible book, and Mr. Snyder is a hardline anti-Communist. His statement that Stalin killed more in peacetime than he did in wartime while Hitler killed more in wartime than he did in peacetime is irrelevant. Hitler didn’t kill many people before he went to war. So what? Is there something special about peacetime killings versus wartime killings? What’s  the difference. Stalin killed more in peacetime than Hitler, so he’s worse? That’s an argument?

The Macon Telegraph is wrong. There were no 20-40 million killed. Megadeaths is wrong. There were no 20 million minimum killed. Caplan the libertarian is wrong. There were no 17 million+ deaths.

Here are the figures for peacetime deaths from 1926-1953:

Executions:          900,000
Deaths in the gulag: 1.2 million
Anti-kulak campaign: 390,000

How do we know those figures are correct? Because they are from the Soviet Archives, that’s why. With the fall of the USSR in 1991, the Soviet Archives were opened for the first time and available to historians. For the next decade, historians argued about the figures in the archives, which are listed above. Yes, the Soviets kept track of every execution and every death in gulags. Or at least deaths per month or deaths per year. Like the Germans, they wrote it all down.

There have been many arguments against the figures above. Most of them boil down to, “Commies lie. The Soviets were Commies, so they lied. Therefore the figures are no good.”

There are some better arguments that the figures do not include the population transfers during World War 2. Another interesting argument is that the gulag figures are not good because the gulags tended to release people, if at all, when they were in very bad shape, and they often died soon after and were not counted.

I have not kept up on the debate.

The people throwing around the figures of 17+, 20+, and 20-40 million do not know what they are talking about. All of those figures were calculated by the West before we had access to the Soviet Archives. It turns out that the earlier Western figures were wild exaggerations, basically untruths, which were written up and used by the West as Cold War propaganda. The West had no idea how many people were killed by Stalin or the USSR, so they just came up with one wildassed guess after another. All of the figures above are discredited because those people are not the experts who are studying the matter.

The only place where rational people are discussing how many died during the USSR is among Sovietologists in the history journals. The debate began in the early 1990’s and may be ongoing for all I know, but I do not think the Archives figures have been successfully challenged yet.

6 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Caucasus, Cold War, Death, Eurasia, Europe, European, History, Modern, NE Asia, Near East, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Who Was a Bigger Killer – Stalin or Hitler?

Shawnomatic writes:

Serious question: Stalin killed more people & was more evil than Hitler, so why is having a “Stalin” mustache okay but a “Hitler” one is bad?

Stalin didn’t kill more people than Hitler.

For the Stalin years, the following figures are recorded for peacetime deaths:

Executions:          900,000
Deaths in the gulag: 1.2 million
Anti-kulak campaign: 390,000

Total:               2.49 million

Half of the gulag deaths occurred during World War 2 when there was also a high death rate in the general population due to food and medicine shortages.

Now those figures do not count the figures for those killed during World War 2, some of whom were civilians. They also do not include the deaths during the population transfers of entire nationalities during World War 2. But those numbers cannot possibly be very large.

Stalin killed those people over a period of 28 years, so that is 2.3 million over 28 years, or ~88,4561/year.

Hitler killed many more than that.

Hitler directly killed 15 million people during his death camp and other extermination policies. Only 6 million of those were Jews. Others were other nationalities. 3 million people, or 10% of the population of Poland, were killed. 1/3 of the population of Belarus was killed. 1/4 of the population of Ukraine was killed. 10% of the German population itself was killed due to the wars he started. 27 million Soviets were killed. Among young Soviet man aged 18-24, 95% of them were killed. Furthermore, Hitler did this in a brief period of time – 1940-1945 – 5 years. Hitler killed at least 15 million over a 5 year period, for a figure of 3 million/year.

So it is 3 million/year versus 80,000/year, so Hitler killed 37X more people per year than Stalin did. Even using conservative estimates, Hitler killed 6.52X more people than Stalin and he did it over a much shorter period, in only 20% of the time Stalin took.

7 Comments

Filed under Belarus, Death, Europe, European, Germany, History, Modern, Poland, Regional, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2