5 ms·

Stalin's genocide was larger.

declan 12y ago
>Stalin's genocide was larger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll Mao Zedong is believed to be responsible for 34,300,000–63,784,000 deaths and Joseph Stalin for 23,000,000–60,000,000.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  Ok, point taken. But at least I was correct in saying "a caricature" rather than "the caricature." Man, that's a lot of people.
- Russell91 12y ago
  Yea, Mao Ze Dong wasn't the same thing though. It's estimated as many as 60 million people died in China from hunger. Many others died from the civil war (Cultural Revolution). There may have been some genocide but the term doesn't apply as well as in Germany/Russia.
  - andr3w321 12y ago
    Yes but people were dying from hunger as a direct result of the policies that Mao implemented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine He is largely responsible for these deaths even if he didn't personally exterminate them.
    - Bootvis 12y ago
      But presumably there was a different intent behind Mao's actions. It seems to me that the goal of central planning was prosperity, not death.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        Yes, true, but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent. As has often been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
        drjesusphd 12y ago
        So are you saying that when climate change happens, if it's as bad as many scientists fear, then modern US conservatives will take up the mantle of "largest genocide in history"?
        lutusp 12y ago
        I doubt they'll volunteer for that label. Maybe they'll be viewed as the Catholic Church is now viewed with respect to the trial of Galileo in 1633.
        drjesusphd 12y ago
        > but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent And where is this written as Canon? Politics is also performed with imperfect predictions of the future. If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy. Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point.
        lutusp 12y ago
        >> but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent > And where is this written as Canon? In the minds of the survivors. > If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy. History doesn't see it that way. People don't see it that way. Hitler and Stalin are equally reviled, even though Hitler's genocide was intentional and Stalin's was a side effect of "good intentions" -- a Communist revolution. > Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point. Like Mao and Pol Pot? Both were able to explain their programs as "for the good of the people", and both pursued their programs long after their effect was perfectly clear.
yk 12y ago
You may be able to find a specific definition of genocide, which makes that statement true. But in a very narrow definition of genocide as targeted extermination policy, as well as in a very broad definition, where a large part of the people who died in WWII would count against Hitler, this is not true. For a discussion on the historiography see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/#fn-* http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-...
corpselord420 12y ago
famine isn't the same thing as genocide

>Stalin's genocide was larger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll Mao Zedong is believed to be responsible for 34,300,000–63,784,000 deaths and Joseph Stalin for 23,000,000–60,000,000.

chatmasta 12y ago
Ok, point taken. But at least I was correct in saying "a caricature" rather than "the caricature." Man, that's a lot of people.
Russell91 12y ago
Yea, Mao Ze Dong wasn't the same thing though. It's estimated as many as 60 million people died in China from hunger. Many others died from the civil war (Cultural Revolution). There may have been some genocide but the term doesn't apply as well as in Germany/Russia.
- andr3w321 12y ago
  Yes but people were dying from hunger as a direct result of the policies that Mao implemented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine He is largely responsible for these deaths even if he didn't personally exterminate them.
  - Bootvis 12y ago
    But presumably there was a different intent behind Mao's actions. It seems to me that the goal of central planning was prosperity, not death.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      Yes, true, but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent. As has often been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      - drjesusphd 12y ago
        So are you saying that when climate change happens, if it's as bad as many scientists fear, then modern US conservatives will take up the mantle of "largest genocide in history"?
        lutusp 12y ago
        I doubt they'll volunteer for that label. Maybe they'll be viewed as the Catholic Church is now viewed with respect to the trial of Galileo in 1633.
      - drjesusphd 12y ago
        > but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent And where is this written as Canon? Politics is also performed with imperfect predictions of the future. If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy. Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point.
        lutusp 12y ago
        >> but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent > And where is this written as Canon? In the minds of the survivors. > If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy. History doesn't see it that way. People don't see it that way. Hitler and Stalin are equally reviled, even though Hitler's genocide was intentional and Stalin's was a side effect of "good intentions" -- a Communist revolution. > Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point. Like Mao and Pol Pot? Both were able to explain their programs as "for the good of the people", and both pursued their programs long after their effect was perfectly clear.

yk 12y ago

You may be able to find a specific definition of genocide, which makes that statement true. But in a very narrow definition of genocide as targeted extermination policy, as well as in a very broad definition, where a large part of the people who died in WWII would count against Hitler, this is not true. For a discussion on the historiography see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/#fn-* http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-...

corpselord420 12y ago

famine isn't the same thing as genocide