>Red killing was to enforce ideology. Nazi killing WAS the

>>3251572
They're both bad because any ideology that requires killing to further itself isn't a very good ideology.

by nodding your head and not having a who was more evil contest

>>3251572
"not true" easy as that.
Whoever said that killing was the nazi ideology?
More POWs and civilians died due to the soviets advancing and not the other way around.
>>3251577
Basically any ideology in the world you naive mong. killing is essential. killing is natural.

>>3251572
Because it's not true. In order to establish a new utopia they wanted to desstroy the old order including a large number of population, which makes murder inseparable from ideology.

>>3251572
Gagilions, gorilions, I just imagine how western "historian" shoveling hand deep into his ass to drag this numbers from it

Because Communists were successful, they topped out. The Nazi's were not so they could not kill as many as they wanted.

>>3251584
This.

>>3251583
>Whoever said that killing was the nazi ideology?
>Basically any ideology in the world you naive mong. killing is essential. killing is natural.
Sounds pretty contradictory to me.

Also,
>More POWs and civilians died due to the soviets advancing and not the other way around.
Wait, are you saying the advancing Soviets killed more people than the nazis did? [Citation needed].

I don't know, but you'll want a better infographic.

Stalin purges amount to several millions but not 23 million. Comprehensive work like Snyder's puts Hitler far ahead, so you'll have to tackle his actual research and have more than an infographic.

You're also using the extent high end for Mao, and desu the middle of the road estimates are bad enough. However, people can point out that China had massive famines on a similar scale in the decades before Mao solidified his rule. The Great Leap was actually the last of these.

>>3251572
>Leopold
>dictator

>>3251601
I need to find the right text but I'm pretty sure Lenin ordered the destruction of the entire village (at least one) and the death of its citizens to further his goal because he thought that you have to shake things up. Revolution and stuff. I need to find it.

>>3251609
If Snyder meant civilian casualties killed because of Hitler there's no way he killed more than Stalin. Unless he just meant years 1939-1945.

>>3251614
How exactly would that prove that advancing Soviets killed more POWs and civilians that nazis did? Are you aware of how many POWs and civilians the nazis killed?

>There were an estimated 7,000,000–12,000,000 casualties during the war, mostly civilians. The Russian Civil War has been described by some as the greatest national catastrophe that Europe had yet seen.[11]
Keep in mind that this entails the general datholl and not that attributed to the Soviets.

Statistics, demographic studies, that would make a better case for your claim.

File: Koning Leopold II.jpg (213KB, 1072x1420px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1072x1420px

Leopold did nothing wrong, lazy niggers should have sapped more rubber.

>>3251572
Mostly made up numbers based on nothing.

>>3251618
Nazi war crimes amount to roughly 12-14 million civilian victims (including starved Soviet POWs). Outside of Holodomor (6-7 million people) Stalin did not kill that many people. Of course our data is incomplete because many Soviet archives were quickly closed after Yeltsin opened them in early 1990s, but we know enough to estimate that 20 million killed in gulags is an exaggeration.
Before the war the highest mortality rate in certain Syberian camps was 8%. On average it was 1-2.5%.

A lot of people died in gulags during the German-Soviet war. They mostly starved to death because there was no way to supply the camps.

>>3251618

No, entirely.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

You have to understand that 23 million was never based on graves, confessions, or archives. It was an extrapolation of flawed census data.

People knew horrors had gone on. They also had ideological reasons to inflate the scale, and not look too closely. Not to mention, an honest evaluation was impossible until the collapse of the USSR.

>>3251572
You could be really snarky and pull the Muslim defense.

"X is the ideology of peace. Anybody who kills in the name of X is no true X-ist."

>>3251611
he wasn't here in belgium, he was over there in the congo...

File: 1495925930900.jpg (118KB, 1021x573px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1021x573px

>>3251599
This right here baby.
If given the time the Nazi's would have killed just as many if not more people than the Communist regimes. They are equally evil.

>>3251657
The difference is that there are actual sects of Muslims who are peaceful and don't kill anyone.

>>3251661
He wasn't the architect of the system there and his advisors kept him in the dark.

>>3251666
Yeah, but the idea that Islam is "the religion of peace" is bullshit of the highest calibre.

>>3251642
I'm not supporting this evil cunt, but 15 million is also a made up number. I hate pop-history it cheapen and simplifies great tragedies into dumb memes and infographics.

From Wikipedia:
>Since the first census of the Congolese population was made in 1924,[f] there is a consensus among historians that accurate predictions of the population fall or number of deaths is impossible.
It's literally impossible to say how many people were killed as a result of his policy.

If I really had to choose I'd say communists are way more dangerous.They were able to survive longer, successfully infiltrate their enemies, their tactics were more brutal, and it's basically impossible to make any sort of long lasting deal with them.

I guess personal opinion. Maybe it's just the fact that the West is so lenient towards their crimes that pisses me off. It's like you don't have to worry about nazis anymore and they're not gonna be back in style no matter how much /pol/ wants it to be true. It's a dead horse that had a spectacular downfall. No such thing when it comes to communism (maybe 1920?).

>>3251671
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/05/monarch-profile-king-leopold-ii-of.html

How guilty was Leopold II?

>>3251688
That's also true.

>>3251655
>It was an extrapolation of flawed census data.
Sounds like what a Stalin apologist would say.

>>3251618
I meant to write in >>3251636
>Keep in mind that this entails the general death toll, entailing both military and civilian deaths by both sides and not that attributed to the Red Army specifically
I brought up the Russian Civil war since you mentioned Lenin and assumed that by 'Soviets' you meant the Red Army during such war although I had thought you were talking about advancing Soviets during WWII at first, if the poster I asked a citation from was you.

>>3251711
>Stalin apologist
Or a historian. Maybe he killed more, we don't know this. There is no proof in existing sources that 20 million people died in gulags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolyma
This was the most infamous Soviet gulag camp.

>It is therefore impossible to provide final figures on the number of victims who died in Kolyma. Robert Conquest, author of The Great Terror, now admits that his original estimate of three million victims was far too high.[citation needed] In his article Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century,[26] Matthew White estimates the number of those who died at 500,000. In Stalin's Slave Ships, Martin Bollinger undertakes a careful analysis of the number of prisoners who could have been transported by ship to Magadan between 1932 and 1953 (some 900,000) and the probable number of deaths each year (averaging 27%). This produces figures significantly below earlier estimates but, as the author emphasizes, his calculations are by no means definitive. In addition to the number of deaths, the dreadful conditions of the camps and the hardships experienced by the prisoners over the years need to be taken into account. In his review[27] of Bollinger's book, Norman Polmar refers to 130,000 victims who died at Kolyma. As Bollinger reports in his book, the 3,000,000 estimate originated with the CIA in the 1950s and appears to be a flawed estimate. This number is also estimated by the last survivors.

>>3251732
What is this 'flawed census data' you speak about?