324 Comments

I am continuously baffled that Stalin, Lenin, Mao et. al. are not held in the same regard as Hitler. I agree that comparing evilness is a fool's errand, but it's really strange how one genocidal dictator is okay and one is not. Those that deny that the Holodomor happened are just as bad as Holocaust deniers in my mind. But, somehow tankies are just called weird and largely ignored. I know this is mostly a Twitter (or X) thing, or at least social media at large, but it leaks into other areas of life too. I almost guarantee there are more Communist professors than Nazi professors and people would be much less likely to be fired if they said something like "I'm a fan of Stalin's work" than "I'm a fan of Hitler's work." It's a really strange phenomenon that has permeated the zeitgeist so much that even Chat-GPT has a hard time accepting that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia may have both been very evil places that should be cautionary tales and not instruction manuals.

Expand full comment

I"ve long wondered why Hitler stands so far above the Communists in the popular consciousness. These are my amateur historian theories:

1. Hitler and the Nazis left us tons of film and photographs. The raw footage creates a visceral reaction to the atrocities. By contrast, I've never seen a single image of Stalin's or Mao's atrocities. (Lenin was too early). I am willing to stand corrected.

2. Hitler exhibited brutal efficiency and purpose in his killing. The other butchers mixed in neglect (famine) along with various other methods.

3. Hitler announced what that he was going to murder people ("Final Solution"). The other butchers initially claimed to engage in some kind of political/social revolution and murder later became a byproduct that wasn't expressly announced.

Expand full comment

I’d add on to #3 that, among left-leaning people, communism is often viewed as a noble (if impractical) idea that unfortunately resulted in state atrocities when put into practice by the Soviets. So the principle of communism is seen as defensible, just poorly executed. Whereas the goal of eliminating minorities and creating a pure Aryan race is indefensible in both theory and practice

Expand full comment

Imagine the pearl clutching if someone argued that fascism was just poorly executed, and that real fascism has never been tried.

Expand full comment

People in the US don't even know what fascism is.

To wit, I recently watched "Succession" with my mom, and there's a presidential candidate who describes himself with verbiage like, "The spirit of the people has produced a leader."

I said, "Whoa, fashy!" and my mom (who considers herself politically educated) did not understand why my fash needle went to 11 on that statement.

I dunno if this is a worldwide problem, but at least in the US, there's this idea that teaching people what fascism is (or communism, or eugenics, or safe sex, or...) means somehow advocating for that position.

Expand full comment

Agreed. People generally just treat it as a synonym for “anything I can vaguely tie to Hitler”, but that’s not really any more correct than assuming “Communism” and “Stalinism” are identical.

Expand full comment

I've struggled for decades on how to handle this in a honest manner without unilaterally disarming myself in a debate. We need smaller terms that can describe ongoing government policy in historical terms that don't park themselves in popular notions of true evil. I should be seeing references to revanchism than fascism since the former is more specific and less parked on a popular notion of evil.

Expand full comment

well there are people that argue that, Francoists and the like

Expand full comment

Now there's a dude who made it out of the 20th century relatively unscathed, historically speaking.

Expand full comment

Neo-nazis do argue this to be clear! And yes pearls are clutched.

Expand full comment

Excellent point. It's hard to believe but there are still hard-liners who believe that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Castros, the Kims etc are rogues who perverted an otherwise wonderful concept/ideology. "It hasn't been implemented properly".

Expand full comment

I’m still waiting for someone to say “real fascism has never been tried.”

Expand full comment

It's more that the people missing Mussolini think he did a great job: https://unherd.com/2022/11/italy-still-mourns-mussolini/

Nostalgia about Nazism and fascism is also a thing in parts of Latin America for obvious reasons.

Expand full comment

There’s plenty of people on the reasonably mainstream right who’d defend forms of authoritarian ethno nationalism. They’d reject the label ‘Fascist’ as a pejorative but embrace much of the underlying ethos.

Expand full comment

I think that arguably is what Julius Evola (self-described "superfascist") was going for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

Expand full comment

Is it a wonderful concept? I’ve always been of the belief that those leaders did exactly what they had to do. Communism is a house of cards. It requires society to agree on a singular goal and work towards it. Unlike capitalism, which can allow for a certain amount of graft and still work even if janky- communism as a societal engine needs every part of it to be humming. All parts of its economy need to be tightly controlled. Which means you have to crack the skulls of the people who don’t want to tow the line. Full stop. There’s literally no option left in these regimes. Because communism doesn’t account for people just wanting things they don’t need. Which means yeah. Black markets. And if you don’t have a special police that can go in and shut down those black markets the whole thing unravels. Communism requires, by definition, an awful lot of prohibition. Prohibition leads to black markets. Black markets lead to crime since they end up being self policed plus they have to hide their dealings from the government. So they have to snuff out snitches.

So. No those leaders didn’t pervert a good idea. Communism was never a good idea. It’s a lazy ideology that doesn’t want to wrestle with human desire in any kind of adult way. So yeah. Of course those leaders were brutal. They had to be. Peoples wants kept getting in the way of their beautiful, boring, sandbox. I’d argue they didn’t do anything wrong. In order to safeguard communism from dissent, black markets, immigration, poverty, free riders, bootleggers, etc you literally HAVE to have a pretty strong authoritative police state.

Otherwise it doesn’t work. And that’s the problem. Communism doesn’t work without brutally crushing the people who don’t want to be communist.

Expand full comment

see my comments above but soviet and chinese communism wasn't impractical. they rebuild collapsing societies sufficiently to resist their foreign domination and invasions. without the soviet reindustrialization the nazis would have dismembered russia and ukrain, and been much worse. so do you imagine russians had mo right to exist? ok, if so the nazis were ok right to siberia? it's a harsh world and europeans and americans comstanly invaded those countries.

Expand full comment

I mean the biggest is simply that Hitler *lost*. Nazi Germany didn’t just collapse under its own weight after several decades, it fought a huge war, was defeated, and was occupied. Its conquerors dug up their excellent records, literally put the leadership on trial, and generally did everything they could to ensure the Nazi system was brutally exposed, denounced, and demolished.

Lenin, of course *won* and then had the decency to die still a hero, and the Communist hagiography of him never really went away. Mao and Stalin’s legacies are more complex within their own systems, but still, their Parties carried on after them.

The Soviets had several decades to bury or at least recontextualize the worst atrocities of Stalin in particular before their fall (at which point there had been enough detente for long enough that the “winners” in particular were not in the mood for a repeat of Versailles or Nuremberg).

And the ChiComs of course are still in power.

Expand full comment

Makes a lot of sense. Hitler has no ongoing legacy being protected since the Nazi's have no political power, unlike the Communist countries.

And there was no equivalent to Nuremberg for the Communist butchers. If anything, the Chicomms have tightened their grip on power.

Expand full comment

The Nazis were horrendously brutal and violent in a way that sticks with you, and as you mentioned, we have ample photo and video evidence of many of those atrocities in part because Nazis were quite showy. You can’t unsee photos of Mengele’s “experiments” or piles of hundreds of emaciated dead bodies.

Dictators like Stalin and Mao inflicted terrible violence as well, but they tried to keep it hidden away and were protected by decades of strict censorship and party control. That made a huge difference. Much of the documentary evidence we have of the Holocaust comes from allied forces who liberated concentration camps. There are numerous Holocaust museums around the world and Holocaust victims have been able to publicly share their testimonies and have a significant cultural impact in the West. Concentration camps were preserved as learning experiences for the public.

On a governmental level, unlike Russia and China, contemporary Germany does not attempt to deny or conceal its past atrocities, to the extent that Holocaust denial is illegal.

The layman simply doesn’t have the same understanding of the horrors of the Soviet Union or Maoist China because the information isn’t as easily accessible or visceral as what we have about the Holocaust.

Expand full comment

I swear that if Nazi Germany had not happened and some author came up with the idea for it in a piece of historical fiction people would dismiss it for being too over-the-top and unrealistic. The Nazis were just so flagrantly, on-the-nose evil in a way you don't usually see in history. Most evil regimes try to be more covert and diplomatic about their ideology and actions. It reminds me of the famous British comedy sketch, "Are We the Baddies?":

"Have you noticed that our caps have actually got skulls on them?"

Expand full comment

The Anti-Humans episode of Martyrmade was horrifying. There needs to be a movie about the Holodomor.

Expand full comment

There is a pretty good film called Mr. Jones about the Welsh journalist who tried to expose the Holodomor--and the pushback he faced from the NYT et. al. I don't know if it would live up to Moynihan's accuracy test, but it's worth a watch! https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/mr-jones-remembers-when-stalin-weaponized-famine

Expand full comment

I think Moynihan mentioned it relatively recently, I remember being surprised I actually have seen one of the movies he referenced. Before watching that I didn't realize how much of a hand the NYT had in keeping the Soviet secrets away from American eyes. I have always heard that the news has only gotten worse and used to be better. This made me realize it's always been like this, we only just started noticing.

Expand full comment

Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands contains horrific descriptions of people being shot en masse, often for being Jewish and other ethnic minorities, by official Soviet order. I think those among us who give Stalin (et al.) a pass tend to be either ignorant or willing to minimize what self-avowed communists did because the communists persecuted and killed so many people *in addition to* Jews.

I.e., I agree with the journalist whose piece started the controversy, and I wish I didn't understand exactly why he got run out of his job for stating the historically obvious.

Expand full comment

IIRC Snyder also explains how/why Soviet atrocities & even Holocaust events were hidden for so long--no free press, locked archives not opened until after 1991, not to mention terror state. Soviet policy was to deny Holocaust on its territory. Or maybe I read that in an amazing memoir about how the Soviets literally paved over a mass grave site in Kiev.

So not only do we have tankies today, but I can testify to the soft soap treatment of “existing socialism” in academic circles throughout 1980s--my ex was an avowed Leninist then (Lenin’s heroic legacy was tarnished by Stalinism but that didn’t undermine Lenin’s brilliance). Vague anti capitalism will always be with us!

Expand full comment

I've been meaning to read that for a while, especially given the war, but have kept glossing over it whenever I pick up a new book. Your other reply gave me even more reason to pick it up. I've been trying to figure out a way to frame this without whataboutisming, so that might help.

Expand full comment

P. S. The conclusion of Snyder's book is a really admirable example of how to make the case for the evils of Soviet deeds without seeming to gloss over the evils of Hitler's regime.

Expand full comment

You are missing the biggest one in that we fought a war with hitler.

Expand full comment

Truth. Another poster pointed out that thousands of American soldiers actually set foot in Germany and the occupied countries to get a firsthand view of the Nazi atrocities. They were able to walk around and take photos. No American soliders have ever set foot in the former USSR or Red China to witness the butchery of Stalin and Mao.

Expand full comment

And Stalin was "on our side." People tend to forget that, but I wonder if it subliminally feeds into our views of them both even now.

Expand full comment

All of those theories seem correct to me. I think having Auschwitz as a monument to this great evil helps bolster the standing of the Nazis above the Soviets. There aren't any monuments, at least no large ones to my knowledge, in Ukraine that show the extent of the calamity.

Also, the Soviets actively made sure that there was no mention of any of these mass murders (with some help from western journalists, unfortunately) so the numbers are much more shrouded in mystery.

I think the last point also has also lead to the "no true communist" argument (tankies are a different breed, obviously) since there are so many different brands of communism. Somehow though, all them end up in the same dark place. Strange.

Expand full comment

Isn’t it obvious it’s just that none of them really hurt the people who write the most popular history books? If Stalin had invaded France and bombed England he would stand in the same stead.

Isolationist authoritarians are never going to achieve the same international hatred as expansionist authoritarians. Like... duh?

Expand full comment

Drew Magary unironically said that the Oppenheimer movie should have had more Japanese people in it.

If we had nuked Germany, would there be people arguing that the dead German citizens should have been given airtime?

The Japanese were the enemy in WWII. They were every bit as bad as the Nazis and they have never apologized.

Americans view "good" countries and "bad" countries through a very distorted lens.

Expand full comment

“ the Oppenheimer movie should have had more Japanese people in it”

They were in the prequel.

Expand full comment

Yeah an opening with the rape of Nanking would have been interesting if we are just taking about making a political piece instead of a movie.

Expand full comment

Wait. Why should there have been more Japanese people? They were part of the Axis.

Expand full comment

Well they weren’t exactly isolationists. Their neighbors just didn’t happen to be the history book-writers of the Western world

Expand full comment

Of those mentioned who was really an expansionist? They were all more broadly interested in internal control than external conquest.

Expand full comment

*Raises hand from a country formerly behind the Iron Curtain occupied by the Soviets for 40+ years*

Expand full comment

Oh yeah I forgot about you guys for some reason. You should write more history books of the kind they sell in airports.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jul 28, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

You’ve managed to pack in four falsehoods in a pretty small number of words.

Firstly, there’s always been people highly critical of Churchill, if anything the valorisation of one part of his long career over is a relatively recent thing. By ‘modern historians’ you at best mean a pretty small sub set of historians and even then the number of those who’d get even vaguely close to ‘histories greatest monsters’ is minuscule. Churchill did some appalling things, leading Britain during WW2 shouldn’t mean those things are erased. Good luck finding any historian who said the Blitz as ‘redeemed Hitler’. The one thing the world will never be short of is left over straw.

You might want to remember that the first thing Brits did after the war was boot Churchill out of office in a landslide.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jul 30, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

More left over straw I see.

For starters it was the British people who stood alone against Hitler not merely Churchill.

At no point did I or indeed do I think any credible historian play down Churchill’s leadership, but it’s truly bizarre to think that should make everything else he did go away or excuse any other appalling things he did, which he has always been criticised for.

I see you’re not even going to try and defend the ridiculous idea that ‘modern historians’ see him as ‘histories greatest monster’.

If you want to see things in childishly simplistic terms I guess that’s your business, but serious should and will look to give account to all aspects of someone’s life and present a nuanced picture.

Expand full comment

Winston Churchill valuing the lives of the British over their colonial possessions. Monster!

Expand full comment

By colonial possessions do you mean like... the people of Bengal???

Expand full comment

I just want to add that there is proof Holodomor was intentional, in that when the famine started they purposefully did nothing to fix it.

Expand full comment

I think it's simpler than that.

Millions of refugees poured across Europe fleeing Germany. And Europe (and US) were actively engaged in a very much not Cold War resulting in millions of deaths.

I think it just comes down to the society we live in being more impacted directly. So there's a more salient living memory.

Expand full comment

Also. Millions of westerners because they were in the army saw the results of Hitlers policies. The average westerners would have a much harder time actually seeing what Hitler did. Also. Hitler killed in the name of superiority. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot killed to create equity

Expand full comment

I do tend to think it's a team thing. The left has a weird habit of giving leaders passes if they claim to represent left wing politics, such as Chavez or Castro, and the institutions of higher learning tend to lean left. It's so weird, like if Pioget had done exactly the same things but claimed to be socialist, many would see him as a hero.

Expand full comment

Hitler was also stupid enough to declare war on basically everyone.

Expand full comment

There were/are a lot of American Communists running cover for the atrocities of the Soviet Union and the CCP. Plus, there have never been any really good movies about the terrible things they did.

Expand full comment

Correct. Instead, some of those Stalinists were purged and blacklisted in the 1950s are today they are held up as heroic resisters to right wing fanaticism. The bad guys are the liberals who fought to remove Communists trying to blow up civil society like Elia Kazan. The good guys are the Stalinists who were so cruelly treated by being blacklisted from Hollywood. Oh the naïveté!

Expand full comment

Yeah. It’s funny. The whole red scare is an interesting thing. Moynihan at the fifth column always likes to bring up. “Yes McCarthyism was wrong. But also yes there were a lot of communists actually trying to actively plant spies and propagandize at the same time.”

This is the martyr syndrome in effect. People love a good martyr. And when they guy martyring people (in this case blacklisting, ruining careers etc) is such an unlikable douche as McCarthy then all of the sudden people just inherently take the side of those being persecuted, even if they’re honestly not that much better than the asshole.

McCarthy ironically did more to soften communism than any of those dictators ever could. Because he made them the poor victims. And people love lifting up the poor victims.

Expand full comment

Mr. Jones is supposed to be good. I’ll have to put in my serious brain & finally watch it sometime.

Expand full comment

It's quite good, although it spends more effort on depicting the debauchery of Walter Duranty's Moscow parties than I think was necessary. (You couldn't, for example, show it in an American high school history class, which I think is a huge mistake if your goal is to influence public perception of historical events via film.)

Expand full comment

This has fascinated me for years. One thing I would add to all the comments so far is that there is an intellectual basis for communism which is entirely lacking in nazism. Marx wrote books and founded an intellectual school. You can still read his stuff and gain insights into politics, economics and history, even as you accept that what solutions he proposed would never work. No one apart from a historian of the third Reich or an actual Nazi is going to read Mein Kampf. So Marx has always had disciples who are serious people, who have positions in universities or who write books and newspaper columns that people actually read. And I think they've been inclined to avert their eyes from the crimes of the regimes supposedly founded on his principles as a result.

I like this quote from Robert Conquest, who researched Stalin for more than fifty years: "They're still talking absolute balls. In the academy, there remains a feeling of, "Don't let's be too rude to Stalin. He was a bad guy, yes, but the Americans were bad guys too, and so was the British Empire.""

Expand full comment

I'll agree that there wasn't much intellectual basis for Nazism-qua-Nazism (which was largely defined by whatever Hitler happened to be interested in at the moment), but there was a very active Italian fascist intellectual movement led by Giovanni Gentile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile), which the modern left simply by and large pretends didn't exist.

Expand full comment

The biggest lie intellectuals tell is that Marx was an intellectual. Marx couldn’t philosophically hold the jocks of his contemporaries.

I’ve never read a philosopher more desperate to flatter his audience than Marx. He is basically begging to be liked by the “Everyman”. Same way every huckster, pseudo-intellectual does. He tell his audience “no. Of course it’s not YOUR fault. It’s this system. Right? Yeah. Nothing you did got you into this horrid state. Noooo. It’s this ‘other’ thing.”

He literally begs his audience to like him.

Expand full comment

My grandmother was a committed Communist who hated Stalin with a passion - this was in Poland after the war. My mom remembered this and hated Stalin too. Then she met some American history or political science person who said that basically Americans manipulated him in to doing things and he is unfairly maligned.

I think Hitler is more maligned because Mao and Stalin basically killed their own people. Also their goal was not extermination. Regardless the end results are the same.

Expand full comment

I don’t think Stalin tried to exterminate *races* but he absolutely tried to exterminate *classes of people*. The Holodomor wasn’t a racial purity project, but brutally suppressing a source of potential political challenge (relatively wealthy kulaks in Ukraine) was clearly seen as a positive outcome for him.

Expand full comment

They also were clearly trying to destroy cultures re forbidding the teaching of local languages, history, cultural events, etc. There was also definitely ethnic race factors involved in who was seen as more valuable/not as human.

Being less organized about working people until they died and being open to them potentially not dying right now if they manage impossible agricultural feats isn’t really a big humanitarian step. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Expand full comment

That’s a good point.

I guess part of the perception isnjust that the Nazis were so much more - blunt and efficient about it? As in Star of David patches and gas chambers vs. starvation-by-bad-central-planning.

Expand full comment

"killing their own people"

Eddie Izzard has a great bit on that:

https://youtu.be/Bk_pHZmn5QM

Expand full comment

> But, somehow tankies are just called weird and largely ignored.

When was the last time tankies marched in the streets en masse?

I think it's because Nazi's are pretty visible and active. Consistently.

Having cut my teeth in the doldrums of the radical left academia (tongue in cheek if not obvious)....I strain to think of a single Stalin apologist. There were a fair share of socialists and some communists. But even the communists student groups were more of the Anarcho Communist flavor and definitely didn't advocate or approve of the mass genocide from Stalin.

So, I just don't think it's that common in practice aside for a bunch of numb nuts who probably haven't even read The Communist Manifesto.

A guy in a bar in Seattle isn't enough to change that, I don't think.

Expand full comment

Maybe that’s because many of those leftist academics were Lenin apologists. They sincerely believed that had Lenin lived longer, the Stalinist horror would not have happened. They’re wrong--Lenin taught Stalin how to do it. Their insistence that Stalin wasn’t a true communist, that he’s the reason the USSR finally failed, etc., would be hilarious if it weren’t such an article of faith among academic leftists (eg Stephen Cohen and his ilk).

Expand full comment

"When was the last time tankies marched in the streets en masse? I think it's because Nazi's are pretty visible and active. Consistently."

This is quite silly -- Neo-Nazis and similar groups rarely manage to get even 100 people together for their rallies and they are virtually always outnumbered by counter-protesters by at least 10-to-1. To the extent you perceive Neo-Nazis as "pretty visible and active," that's because they receive massively disproportionate media coverage compared to any groups of comparable size and influence.

Expand full comment

When I was in CA, they had semi-regular nazi protests or presence. No, they weren't super large, but they were active.

Also, when I went to punk shows, nazi's were almost always present.

In prison, there were Nazi gangs.

But...I can't say I've ever seen anything like that for tankies. I know of no Tankie gangs, or marches (small or large), or really anything.

Sure, just my experience. But Nazis are something I ACTUALLY had to worry about at times and in multiple scenarios....but I don't think I've ever met a sincere tankie....certainly not a whole group of them.

Expand full comment

I don't understand your point; when was the last time Nazis marched en masse either?

Expand full comment

Charlottesville is the largest I can recall in the last few years. Given....it was a coalition between Nazi, Klan, and white nationalist groups.

My point is that Nazi's are just more "present" in US culture than Communists or tankies.

I mean seriously, when was the last time a Tankie ran for US state governor and almost won? Neo-Nazi's have in my living memory.

Expand full comment

Can you recall another one? A smaller one?

"My point is that Nazi's are just more "present" in US culture than Communists or tankies. "

Yeah, in popular media maybe. How many Nazis do you know in real life? While the tankies stand there with their red t-shirts and picket signs, without anywhere near that kind of (deserved) aggressive criticism.

"I mean seriously, when was the last time a Tankie ran for US state governor and almost won? "

I have no idea, they don't report when that happens. They do report when it happens with a Nazi. See the problem?

Expand full comment

I tried not to associate with the Nazi's that I encountered. So I didn't "know" them.

But I encountered plenty of Nazi's. Plenty of them at every punk show I went to. Occasionally show up at house parties. My friend had his nose rearranged (required lots of surgery) by a Nazi because he said something about the racist rhetoric he was going off on. I didn't need the media to report on the Neo-Nazi that ran for governor because I lived in the state and it was mind blowing they almost won. As in, they were a front runner in the runoff for a while.

This in multiple cities and states. Not as if I was just in a tiny hot spot.

And I'm just counting actual Neo Nazis. Not even white nationalists or white supremacists (the old definition...as in "white people are genetically and culturally superior", not the new I'm not even sure what it means definition). Or confederate flag waving generic racists.

And while you might say "well, you just hung out where nazis' were." I would disagree. I also frequented many of the areas you'd expect tankies to be. Academic circles, open mic beatnik style coffee shops. Radical environmentalist circles (direct action, yada yada). Engaged with literal Communist student and activist groups.

If you're in certain scenes, like punk, Nazis are something you actually have to be aware of. Like gangs if you're into underground hip hop. You have to tread carefully when they're around. Tankies? Except for a couple of vague memories of solo weird guys with Che shirts, it seriously just wasn't a thing at any venue I can recall.

"Can you recall another one? A smaller one?"

Smaller ones are pretty frequent. When I was in LA they happened semi-regularly. I'd say once or twice a year. Generally you'd hear of them by word of mouth "hey, avoid XXX street today. Probably terrible traffic, some nazi rally or something". They're totally outnumbered by counter protester usually.

But I never had to reroute my commute or plans due to Tankie protestors.

Can you name any tankie rallies? A large one? Small ones? I'd assume they'd at a minimum be locally reported if they disrupt traffic or murder a couple of people.

Expand full comment

Your comment has inspired intelligent dialogue.

Good job.

Expand full comment

The Japanese military in the 19th century were absolutely worse than the Nazis were by nearly every measure, but no one in the West talks about it. Koreans and Chinese know better.

Expand full comment

An old friend of mine recently got very angry that people were comparing Stalin to Hitler. Apparently, Hitler having kept capitalism makes him even worse because capitalism is necessary for racism yada yada yada. Plus, Stalin committed his crimes in order to get rid of capitalism, so I guess they were saying that Stalin had good intentions so killing all those people wasn't that bad.

As an aside, one of the reasons that the Chechens do not want to be part of Russia Ardakhar Genocide. During and after World War II the soviets deported the Chechens and Ingush to Central Asia and forced them to work without adequate shelter or food.

Expand full comment

I agree. The number of communist apologists also apalls me. I've heard everything from ' that many people weren't killed' to ' they would have died anyway' (about mao's policies) to 'that wasn't real communism'.

It's obscene seeing the same people who cry about police brutality and systemic issues think that a military state is the best solution, so long as 'we the good people are in power'. So naive

Expand full comment

My take is that a lot of the reason is how their acts came to light. Hitler lost a war that the US and West were fully committed to. Before the US entered the war, there were Nazi apologists, but they were all swept aside by incredibly powerful forces. Pretty much everyone had immediate relatives who were involved in the war and didn't want to hear about how Hitler was misunderstood.

Stalin's crimes weren't widely known in the West until The Great Terror was published in 1968. By this time, he was dead. There were far more people in academia who had an interest in continuing to minimize Stalin's crimes than there were family members of his victims. Communism continues to be a system that people failed rather than a system that failed people.

Expand full comment

I’ve been binging on New Discourses pod where James Lindsey is doing a deep comparison of wokeness to Maoism. I was never a strong history student, but this stuff is fascinating and incredibly disturbing.

Expand full comment

I've tried getting into that podcast, but I often just glaze over when I listen. I did like his episode on Gnosticism, though, and thought it was a super interesting look at where we are right now, so I might give that one a try.

Expand full comment

Post war American culture explains a lot. Don’t forget the enormous influence of Hollywood and post war TV. Countless movies about WW2 with nasty Nazis and fanatic Germans. TV shows from Combat, Rat Patrol to Hogan’s Heroes. Also many novels with Swastikas on the covers. Your friends in school putting a finger under their nose and raising their arm to say “Sieg Hiel”. You too. Nazis had the best uniforms too. German panzers were considered cool and evil.

As for Stalin and Mao? No movies. No TV shows. No novels. Once the opposition to the Vietnam War got going, Mao was considered cool like Che Guevara. Sex drugs and rock and roll took over. Communists just wanted peace and love. Everyone was too high to think more deeply.

So here we are. We still hate Nazis the most. And those hot black uniforms!

Expand full comment

A small point I'd like to make is that leaders are exalted or demonised depending on who won the war and what narrative they want to set at the time. For example, Winston Churchill if a saviour to the West yet he wilfully killed 2 million Indians by rerouting food produced in bengal for the war effort. He didn't do it because he wanted to kill Indians but he was indifferent and in fact despised them. Another 2 million Indian soldiers enlisted to the war in an effort to be able to feed their families and their contributions to the war isn't even acknowledged. sure he didn't do that to kill Indians specifically but what he did was as evil as mao, though he killed less people. 🤷‍♂️ yet he's still beloved by the west

Expand full comment

then your mind is confused by delusions of american exceptionalism. lenin stalin and mao were trying to restore collapsing societies that were under constant foreign militay pressure, and ready to dismember their countries at every opportunity. they were rebuilding under the worst military and economic pressure. the only governments who could have resisted the constant european and american invasions had to be the harshest most military ones. your argument is like beating a child for decades then wondering why they are so mean when they finally gorw up and are bigger. maybe if the usa stopped it's comstant wars against russia and china, and many others they could settle into peaceful development. chinese military strength is the only reason they have been able to become the world economic leader. so do you imagine they could have done that with a liberal democracy? not a chance. the usa and europeans plundered china into collapse for a century and would have continuted. same for russia. yes it was a hars government, but unless you think they have no right to exist then it is unreasonable to expect anything but the harshest and most military government to arise when invaded from all sides.

but communist professors. bulls*** fantasy. parentti said he was the only marxist professor he knew. but rationalizers for permant american war and permannent european war. they are every where.

Expand full comment

How have US or European invasions got anything to do with Stalin’s purges in 30s or the Holodomor, or the atrocities and disastrous policies that lead to tens of millions of deaths in the Great Leap Forward or Mao’s attempts to defeat internal enemies by launching the Great Leap Forward?

I’m also unclear how the changes Deng launched in the 80s have much to do with military opposition to external invasion?

You criticise American exceptionalism, but it seems to be the height of Western exceptionalism to think all things are merely a response to external Western influence.

Could China have become the force it did without Maoist repression? It’s obvious something we can never know, but for all the fact the Sth Korea & Taiwan took decades to emerge as liberal democracies they never descended to the levels of atrocities that Mao inflicted on China.

Expand full comment

They didn’t invade Europe or bomb London or Pearl harbour. It’s really that simple.

Expand full comment

They did invade Europe. The USSR started WWII as a secret ally of the Nazis, they divided up Europe in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and, after both sides had invaded Poland, further refined in the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty.

There is a lot of truth that being an ally of the US during WWII did a lot for the Soviet's image in the West, but it's also pretty undeniable that socialists in the West were effective in minimizing the crimes of the Soviet Union. So much so that people forget that the Soviets in fact invaded Europe.

Expand full comment

So ... I'm not European. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Expand full comment

Honestly, yes, people care more about cultures they’re closer to and have more of a relationship with. Sorry? Like, I care more if my cousin gets hit by a car than a stranger?

Expand full comment

Bogi's from Eastern Europe - I'm guessing Poland? Stalin literally invaded Poland in 1939.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Jul 29, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

But the fundamental issue isn’t ‘how do we rank evil’ as it’s a pretty childish question tbh, but the fact there remains schools of people who are apologists for Stalin & Mao. There’s three different strains, 1.The outright liars, the people who are in many ways analogous to Holocaust deniers. 2. The ‘you can’t make an omelette...’ types that cling to the idea that the ultimate project was worthwhile and its sad these awful things happened and yes there were mistakes, but but but...’ 3. The scales balancing types who will point to Soviet Industrialisation and defeating Hitler or advances in education & healthcare under Mao and say well, what they did was a net positive or that we need acknowledge the ‘good things’ as if it lessens the mass murder.

The autobahn’s are pretty awesome, but I no one credible would ever run that argument.

The 1s are moral monsters the 2s & 3s are simply intellectually dishonest.

What influence they have beyond a very small group of true believers is questionable as I’m pretty reluctant to see Twitter leftists as much beyond a cult of the self righteous and stupid.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Jul 30, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Your comment highlights so many of the problems with current political discourse.

Whether Tankies have zero influence is moot, but we’re not just talking about Tankies.

It’s telling that you blithely describe MAGA types as ‘neo fascist’ despite that being in the kindest terms a hyperbolic and not particularly historically accurate use of the term ‘fascist’ (It’s entirely possible to recognise the illiberal and authoritarian tendencies whilst acknowledging that using the word ‘fascist’ is both inaccurate and unhelpful. All it does is reduce to a relatively meaningless boo word), yet would I imagine laugh at suggestions that the people pushing a reductive and essentialist version of identity politics and who have clearly inserted the underlying ideological ideas of various academic theories into the mainstream and even into the way institutions are run are ‘Marxists’ or ‘Neo-Marxists’.

If you’re going to play fast and lose with definitions to attack opponents you can complain when your ideological opponents do the same thing.

Again, I think the idea of trying to decide if pushing an illiberal, anti humanist, anti universalist version of the left isn’t as bad as a Illiberal authoritarian version of the right and is the ‘real’ problem is childish and entirely missed the point.

Expand full comment

Many would argue that leftists have far more institutional control in this country (academia, media, etc) than neo Nazis.

Expand full comment

Given that ‘leftists’ doesn’t necessarily mean someone who’d have anything positive to say about Lenin, Mao or Stalin I’d hope so.

Everyone from AOC to Bernie would possibly happily embrace the label ‘leftist’ and even if you vehemently disagree with them it’s absurd & offensive to make any comparison to neo Nazis.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Jul 30, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

You talk about a sense of proportion and then spam us with a bunch of stuff that’s supposed to show that the ‘American right wing’ (unsure if you mean the entire GOP, all Conservatives or merely Trumpists or you can’t be bothered making any distinctions) are literally fascists.

You could have saved yourself a lot of words, because I have a strong enough grasp of political definitions to know that whatever appalling aspects of authoritarianism Trumpists may embrace calling them ‘fascists’ simply isn’t a serious argument. Actually, I think they’d love nothing more than to have the American left call them fascists as what greater ammunition to argue that the left is unhinged and lost touch with American people.

Also, no of course I don’t think AOC & co are ‘Marxists’, but it is pretty clear that there are aspects of certain ideological positions that draw on critical theory/Frankfurt School idea who were Marxists.

However the bottom line is both side just chuck around terms in ways that are truly embarrassing.

Expand full comment

I am usually Team Katie with the low stakes back and forths on the pod, but I hate the AI images man. Something about them is so creepy and disgusting! Can we have the cover photo be cute pictures of Moose instead (if Getty Images are too boring)?

Expand full comment

She clearly thinks the bit is hilarious, and maybe it was once or twice. But at this point it’s just lazy, and I mean that literally - you can usually manipulate AI prompts to give you something actually pretty accurate, something so wrong it’s funny, or so wrong it’s horrific. But I’m guessing these vaguely disturbing uncanny valley things are just literally the first thing spit out by the prompt.

Expand full comment

I think it’s more “I think this is funny” versus laziness (considering the amount of effort she puts into the reporting on this podcast and elsewhere), but I’m a sensitive smol bean and don’t like gross images (they are literal violence against my eyes). I still can’t listen to that old episode about mukbangs because the cover art of some dude housing a huge amount of pasta is too much for me.

Maybe they can go back to furry art. That was a fun era.

Expand full comment

I mean I think she does genuinely think it’s funny, but even if it is, repeating the same joke 50 times gets dull.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jul 28, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

or elementary kids.

Expand full comment