7 ms·

> In hindsight Stalin was a bad dude That's a great understatement for the single guy responsible for an amount of deaths 10 times greater than WWII casualties

> In hindsight Stalin was a bad dude That's a great understatement for the single guy responsible for an amount of deaths 10 times greater than WWII casualties. edit: number typo

throw2455 8y ago
That is untrue.
- aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  Yep, it’s only around 2x as many.
  - gcatalfamo 8y ago
    The public count was over 60million deaths (he moved entire populations from a country to another), without accounting for all those not coming from direct orders but caused from small villages militia in an era of speech and thought repression. 1984 was written at that time, after all.
    - throw2455 8y ago
      5x seems like a good approximate however, long-term consequences of the genocide against the russians are huge, e.g., the population size would be comparable to the one in the US
- gcatalfamo 8y ago
  If people die of famine during your reign and not from a direct kill order, that doesn't make it not your fault.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
nkozyra 8y ago
I think that was awkwardly worded, but seemed to be expressing the stance of the US in 1945. I don't think it's entirely accurate, though. Yes, the US had to align with USSR, yes the public face was he was our ally, but the US was already aware he was a "bad dude." In fact, the US would have no reservations kicking off a public campaign to that end immediately following the war.
- throw2455 8y ago
  "Yes, the US had to align with USSR" to take 50% of the cake while paying 5%.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    I don't think you're engaging in good faith here.
    - throw2455 8y ago
      HN guidelines include "Assume good faith". Please do.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Charles Lindbergh's views that the US should stay out of the war, allow Germany and Russia to fight each other to exhaustion, then show up to mop up the weak remainder of the military, seem rather prescient...
- sverige 8y ago
  Actually, Patton proposed marching the US Army to Moscow in the immediate aftermath of the Nazi surrender but was pushed out of active leadership, in part for suggesting that. For some reason, Americans (then and now) are a little defensive about Stalin's legacy of mass murder on a scale greater even than Hitler. It's inexplicable.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    I don't think we're saying different things.
free652 8y ago
So 85 millions died in ww2, that's not even casualties. How did you get to 850 millions?
usaphp 8y ago
> 10 times greater than WWII casualties Any actual data on that? As far as I know it was exaggerated a lot, and real numbers show different view: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-wh...
dang 8y ago
No matter how bad Stalin was, please don't post unsubstantive flamebait to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> In hindsight Stalin was a bad dude That's a great understatement for the single guy responsible for an amount of deaths 10 times greater than WWII casualties. edit: number typo

throw2455 8y ago

That is untrue.

aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
Yep, it’s only around 2x as many.
- gcatalfamo 8y ago
  The public count was over 60million deaths (he moved entire populations from a country to another), without accounting for all those not coming from direct orders but caused from small villages militia in an era of speech and thought repression. 1984 was written at that time, after all.
  - throw2455 8y ago
    5x seems like a good approximate however, long-term consequences of the genocide against the russians are huge, e.g., the population size would be comparable to the one in the US
gcatalfamo 8y ago
If people die of famine during your reign and not from a direct kill order, that doesn't make it not your fault.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

nkozyra 8y ago

I think that was awkwardly worded, but seemed to be expressing the stance of the US in 1945. I don't think it's entirely accurate, though. Yes, the US had to align with USSR, yes the public face was he was our ally, but the US was already aware he was a "bad dude." In fact, the US would have no reservations kicking off a public campaign to that end immediately following the war.

throw2455 8y ago
"Yes, the US had to align with USSR" to take 50% of the cake while paying 5%.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  I don't think you're engaging in good faith here.
  - throw2455 8y ago
    HN guidelines include "Assume good faith". Please do.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Charles Lindbergh's views that the US should stay out of the war, allow Germany and Russia to fight each other to exhaustion, then show up to mop up the weak remainder of the military, seem rather prescient...
sverige 8y ago
Actually, Patton proposed marching the US Army to Moscow in the immediate aftermath of the Nazi surrender but was pushed out of active leadership, in part for suggesting that. For some reason, Americans (then and now) are a little defensive about Stalin's legacy of mass murder on a scale greater even than Hitler. It's inexplicable.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  I don't think we're saying different things.

free652 8y ago

So 85 millions died in ww2, that's not even casualties. How did you get to 850 millions?

usaphp 8y ago

> 10 times greater than WWII casualties Any actual data on that? As far as I know it was exaggerated a lot, and real numbers show different view: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-wh...

dang 8y ago

No matter how bad Stalin was, please don't post unsubstantive flamebait to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html