Commissars

[Jazz]

As has been mentioned above, professional historians have tried to make sense of the numbers and arrive at conclusions on the roles of key characters like Hitler and Stalin. In Bloodlands for example, the total has been attributed with twice as many civilians deaths being due to the actions of the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany, than to that of Stalin.

Perhaps you think the work of professional historians is irrelevant, but there are those who accept that their work is valid and has consequences for the modern world.

The work of historians is extremely relevant when discussing motivations, decisions, and outcomes. Indeed, even reporting numbers around the human toll can be relevant if done objectively.

Splitting hairs as to how many corpses go on who's ledger is petty and not relevant.

 

[PresterJohn]

The work of historians is extremely relevant when discussing motivations, decisions, and outcomes. Indeed, even reporting numbers around the human toll can be relevant if done objectively.

Splitting hairs as to how many corpses go on who's ledger is petty and not relevant.

And that has been my whole point, the numbers are too large and vague to make that possible. You have a sense of the scale and proportion but there are definitely no "precise numbers" to be had. This in itself is a more substantial fact with obvious implications for the regimes than the actual attempts at deriving accurate numbers. But some people do seem to want to go into that much detail and I am very wary of them. I have openly questioned motives for doing so when I have seen this. The same goes for those people who want to disregard the work of the professionals. What is their motive? In the end it is bound to be political. Otherwise, many "Russians" died, and commissars helped.

 

[PresterJohn]

The work of historians is extremely relevant when discussing motivations, decisions, and outcomes. Indeed, even reporting numbers around the human toll can be relevant if done objectively.

Splitting hairs as to how many corpses go on who's ledger is petty and not relevant.

And consider this comparable question. How many civilians were killed in the USA (not including territories) as a result of enemy action in WW2?

Is it petty and irrelevant that this number is known very accurately, to within a few individuals perhaps, or does it just reflect on the greater social differences between the the different combatant nations, alongside their geography and that of the conflict?

And is it fair to say the questions are not comparable at all unless you include the territories of the USA at the time. Possibly, I don't know the status of the Philippines.

 

[GeorgeBates]

 

[Robin Reeve]

Par for the course. The Russians killed more of their own than the Nazis did.

Just as a reminder, this was the statement which started the present discussion.
I questioned its veracity, unfortunately asking about precise numbers, which was the tree that hid the essential debate : the validity of the statement.

All in all, this statement has not been proven right, precisely on the grounds of unsufficient evidence - an argument held up by PresterJohn himself which actually unvalidates his initial claim.

So why does one make such a non factual statement?
What purpose motivates it?
What is it meant to say?

I am more interested in those aspects than in a grim comparison of the numbers of victims of two monstuous totalitarian regimes.

 

[PresterJohn]

Just as a reminder, this was the statement which started the present discussion.
I questioned its veracity, unfortunately asking about precise numbers, which was the tree that hid the essential debate : the validity of the statement.

All in all, this statement has not been proven right, precisely on the grounds of unsufficient evidence - an argument held up by PresterJohn himself which actually unvalidates his initial claim.

So why does one make such a non factual statement?
What purpose motivates it?
What is it meant to say?

I am more interested in those aspects than in a grim comparison of the numbers of victims of two monstuous totalitarian regimes.

And as I said at that time, if you accept the Russian losses as 25-30 million and the losses caused on the Russians by the Germans as having an upper limit of about 14 million then somewhere in the middle the numbers are going to be at worst that only half of the total casualties experienced by the Russians were caused by the Germans. Now I note that you don't accept those numbers and instead say 20 million for the Russian losses, and this would indeed mean relatively more losses were caused by the Germans, maybe at a rate of two to one. From the numbers being promoted by some historians though, your value seems low. You can stick with the low value, but it seems to be old and out of date, and casts the Stalin regime in a better light than it is entitled to. That is what it is meant to say.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I am facing a logical problem.
When I asked how you could make your statement, you rejected my question because of my unfortunate mention of "precise numbers".
And the discussion went along the idea that nobody can tell.
Now, you come with numbers and you say that I don't accept them.
Ι am not accepting or rejecting any numbers: I am just questioning the validity of your initial statement - which does not mean I think that it is not true.
That I found it astonishing, however, is true. Thus the question, which wasn't loaded as you seem to believe.
The 20 million number is not mine. It is what you usually read about WW2.
I have no problem to say that I am not a specialist.

And, to be very clear, I do consider that Stalin's regime was an abominable and criminal one and that, in the long run (from its beginnings to the death of the dictator) it murdered much more people than the Nazi regime (which was horrible too, my family having paid the high price to its attempt to destroy the Jewish people). I certainly am not trying to "redeem" one system in comparison of the other one.

 

[PresterJohn]

Okay, as far as numbers go, do you think it is reasonable to do a search on the internet for WW2 Russian/Soviet losses and just note all the numbers that are available in the first twenty or thirty hits. What we are talking about is the spread of those results. And then pick a few in the middle and see what sort of credibility they have. Do a similar thing, although I expect less hits, for German losses caused (rather than taken). Is it reasonable to use this sort of sampling to arrive at what the numbers might be without using references that are not otherwise available?

Otherwise it's a matter of listening to talks given by some historians that have been uploaded to various portals, but may not be quoting their own work. This would perhaps be less acceptable because it involves things like "I heard Glantz say" etc.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Robin, you're being trolled. That's not your fault, but you can stop providing opportunities for further nonsense.

 

[PresterJohn]

Robin, you're being trolled. That's not your fault, but you can stop providing opportunities for further nonsense.

Well that is certainly in line with Glantz being irrelevant.

 

[PresterJohn]

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Estimates_of_Soviet_war_dead_by_Western_scholars

This is not meant to be conclusive but is a representation of the variability researchers have found. The 20 million number is in there, but so are bigger numbers. And the trend is for the more modern numbers to be bigger.