NationStates Jolt Archive

In World War 2, the Finnish president Ryti was faced with a tough choice: Communists, or Nazis? Decline alliances, have your country invaded by Commies, violently. Ally with the Commies, have your country incorporated into the Soviet Union, somewhat more peacefully. Ally with the Nazis, and allow half of the country to be kept by the Nazis. Ryti chose the Nazis. The result was that a Commie invasion was prevented and sovereignity maintained, but Hitler ordered the destruction of the Nazi-held Lapland when Finland broke the alliance and agreed upon peace with the Soviets.

This is the historical background for the question: If you were facing imminent destruction, and had to choose between Stalinist Communists and Nazis, which would you choose? There is no winning option; concentration camps for minorities and other "undesirables" are standard in both systems. (We don't need to imitate the particular case described above.)

How about both? The Commie-Nazi's are an elite force and their motto is "We Purge Everybody". Recognize.

Communists, since they don't hold any belief about superior races or any of that stuff.

Communists, because they're awesome like that.

Communism! Communism! Über Alles!
Über alles in der Welt!

Or something...

Nazis, because at least there is some economic freedom (compared to Government-Takes-All commies).

Communism is a beautiful ideology that sadly has proved to be too utopic for this world.

Fascism is an ideology that revolves around nothing but hatred.

The choice should be easy.

That's like asking if I would rather be mauled to death by terriers or trapped in a telephone booth with a incontinent hippo.

If there were a "niether" choice, I would've picked it.

I would pick the Nazis. If only just to kill as many dirty commie hypocrites as I could. Those communist f#$kers stole everything my family had after the revolution and executed 9 of my relatives for refusing to blindly support the Communist party...I would pick up an STG 44 and kill as many of them as I could with no mercy whatsoever.

And BTW heres to all you commie pricks on this forum :upyours:

commies :mp5:

I would pick the Nazis. If only just to kill as many dirty commie hypocrites as I could. Those communist f#$kers stole everything my family had after the revolution and executed 9 of my relatives for refusing to blindly support the Communist party...I would pick up an STG 44 and kill as many of them as I could with no mercy whatsoever.

And as we all know, the Nazis never harmed a soul :rolleyes:

I would pick the Nazis. If only just to kill as many dirty commie hypocrites as I could. Those communist f#$kers stole everything my family had after the revolution and executed 9 of my relatives for refusing to blindly support the Communist party...I would pick up an STG 44 and kill as many of them as I could with no mercy whatsoever.

And BTW heres to all you commie pricks on this forum :upyours:

commies :mp5:
Excuse me, but I believe that counts as a flame.
Flaming is verboten here, and could warrant consequences if continued. Please refrain from flaming in the future.
Just a friendly reminder.
Thank you.
:)

That's like asking if I would rather be mauled to death by terriers or trapped in a telephone booth with a incontinent hippo.

If there were a "niether" choice, I would've picked it.

the telephone booth option

I am a Communist and would choose Communism any time. Socialism is the only way forward for the human race and the only way to end the exploitation of the weak by the powerful which has poisoned our world for so long. Workers of the World Unite!

And as we all know, the Nazis never harmed a soul :rolleyes:

I understand your sarcasm, but the Communists in the USSR and PRC have killed close to 100 million. Almost twice the number that died in all of WW2.

And as we all know, the Nazis never harmed a soul :rolleyes:

I know what the Nazis did......and I dont care, the communists are still far worse (they made the first concentration camps and killed 20 million Russian Christians just for believing in God) and besides "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I would pick the Nazis. If only just to kill as many dirty commie hypocrites as I could. Those communist f#$kers stole everything my family had after the revolution and executed 9 of my relatives for refusing to blindly support the Communist party...I would pick up an STG 44 and kill as many of them as I could with no mercy whatsoever.

And BTW heres to all you commie pricks on this forum :upyours:

commies :mp5:


I completly agree my white brother! :) :cool:

I understand your sarcasm, but the Communists in the USSR and PRC have killed close to 100 million. Almost twice the number that died in all of WW2.

I recognise that Communism has been abused by dictatorial, violent regimes so far, however that approach is directly opposed to the true ideals of what Communism are all about. As a Communism sympathiser, I am willing to apologise for and disapprove of these terrible acts of violence any time. I don't think you'll ever find a Fascist who will truly disapprove of what happened in the concentration camps, since it's pretty much what the whole ideology is about.

Right-Wing America would happily kill anyone who sympathises with Communism, even though most of us haven't done anything to harm anyone in our entire lives. The reason he gives is that a Communist regime killed his family members for political differences. Now explain to me: what makes him better than that regime?

No. Simply, no.

I would pick the Nazis. If only just to kill as many dirty commie hypocrites as I could. Those communist f#$kers stole everything my family had after the revolution and executed 9 of my relatives for refusing to blindly support the Communist party...I would pick up an STG 44 and kill as many of them as I could with no mercy whatsoever.

And BTW heres to all you commie pricks on this forum :upyours:

commies :mp5:

Consider this a formal warning. Any more flaming from you, and your access to this forum may be temporarily revoked.

OK guys let's stay focused here. The choice is between Nazis and Soviets (they were not communists). Admittedly it was one of the shittiest choices of all time. I would probably pick the Soviets because it is my understanding that their gulags were not quite as bad as the Nazi concentration camps.

I know what the Nazis did......and I dont care, the communists are still far worse (they made the first concentration camps and killed 20 million Russian Christians just for believing in God) and besides "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

How can you say you don't care about the murder of around 20 million innocent Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other people the Nazis didn't like? Your figures about the USSR are completely exaggerated although it is true that the Stalinist dictatorships have been responsible for several million deaths. This cannot however be blamed on the Communist ideology which is based on human rights, equality and the liberation of all exploited people. Nazism is an ideology completely based on the ideas of hatred and racial superiority and can be directly blamed for the holocaust.

I am a Communist and would choose Communism any time. Socialism is the only way forward for the human race and the only way to end the exploitation of the weak by the powerful which has poisoned our world for so long. Workers of the World Unite!


communism will not work. Why humans! i want it to work but it will never work. why u think marxs said a revolotion was needed? would anyone give up all there stuff for the better of all? Hell no! why? people are naturally greedy, thats y capatilism works much better. makes human fight to be "better" and get "more". don't let people think it has to do anything with freedom. b/c no matter wat when u have anyone looking over u, judging u, and making rules for u, then u will never truely be free and from birth to death this is wat happenes to all humans one way or the other. don't understand, then go drink 10 smir offs and read the patricit act and the communist metaphesto why....... it makes more cents........ not really but it wouldn't hurt :D

If I had a choice between Facists/Nazi or Stalinists I would choose stalinist, though stalinists are not much better then Nazi's.

don't understand, then go drink 10 smir offs and read the patricit act and the communist metaphesto why....... it makes more cents........ not really but it wouldn't hurt :D
Wait, are you saying that they Patriot Act is a good representation of capitalism?
Cause it's not. A better suggestion would have been the Constitution.

Wait, are you saying that they Patriot Act is a good representation of capitalism?
Cause it's not. A better suggestion would have been the Constitution.


nope saying if u think ur free ur shit free here there and everywhere

Europaland:
I am a Communist and would choose Communism any time.
Yes, but the choice here wasn't Nazism vs the Communist ideal .. it was Hitler vs Stalin. Proabably a marginal choice for Stalin for me. In reality I would have taken the coward's way out and choosen exile in the US. I like living.

In World War 2, the Finnish president Ryti was faced with a tough choice: Communists, or Nazis? Decline alliances, have your country invaded by Commies, violently. Ally with the Commies, have your country incorporated into the Soviet Union, somewhat more peacefully. Ally with the Nazis, and allow half of the country to be kept by the Nazis. Ryti chose the Nazis. The result was that a Commie invasion was prevented and sovereignity maintained, but Hitler ordered the destruction of the Nazi-held Lapland when Finland broke the alliance and agreed upon peace with the Soviets.

This is the historical background for the question: If you were facing imminent destruction, and had to choose between Stalinist Communists and Nazis, which would you choose? There is no winning option; concentration camps for minorities and other "undesirables" are standard in both systems. (We don't need to imitate the particular case described above.)

If I was Ryti I would of done the same thing he did.

Europaland:

Yes, but the choice here wasn't Nazism vs the Communist ideal .. it was Hitler vs Stalin. Proabably a marginal choice for Stalin for me. In reality I would have taken the coward's way out and choosen exile in the US. I like living.

Although I am opposed to Stalinism and all totalitarian governments I would always choose it above Nazism which is the most evil ideology in history and is based on the disgusting idea that one race is superior to another.

Yes, but the choice here wasn't Nazism vs the Communist ideal .. it was Hitler vs Stalin.
Whoops.
I voted based on ideal vs. ideal.
Grr.

Although I am opposed to Stalinism and all totalitarian governments I would always choose it above Nazism which is the most evil ideology in history and is based on the disgusting idea that one race is superior to another.

Amen.

I think the choice is pretty easy.

Communists.

Read Marx and Engels, then read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (that is, if you really dare to go through the terrible grammar in it), and it should be pretty clear. Marx and Engels never wrote anything about wiping out people. But when you take Hitler? Ouch. He said long before he became chancellor that "the ultimate goal must be the extinction of the jews". Point taken I guess.

Communism is a great idea, but well, as some people already said it, it just doesn't work because of the humans. Just like Sir Thomas More's Utopia won't work.

In response to questions about British support for Stalin's Soviet Union during World War II Winston Churchill said, "If Hell were to declare war on Germany today, I would at least give the devil a favorable mention in Parliament tomorrow."

I guess I would side with Communist Russia to fight Nazi Germany, but keep in mind that the communist government of the Soviet Union is responsible for killing at least 62 million of its own people, eclipsing the Nazi's 21 million. Add to that the 38 million killed by the communist Chinese and it adds up to a pretty shitty political system.

In hindsight Finland made the right choice by allying with Hitler. After WWII, even though the Nazis lost, Finland was forgiven for its alliance with the Nazis because Finland acted honorably, protected its minorities from Nazism, and refused to participate in the Nazis' siege of Leningrad and other acts of aggression. Finland was driven to ally with the Nazis because Stalin illegally and ruthlessly invaded Finland, and after the war the Allies recognized that Finland had the right to defend itself against Stalin's invasion. Stalin himself was impressed with Finland's refusal to join Germany's attack on the USSR, and praised the Finns' honor and bravery.

If Finland had chosen to submit to the USSR, they would have been impoverished by Stalin's totalitarian political and economic policies (which are NOT truly communist). Instead, Finland got out of WWII on the Allies' good side, did not become a satellite of the USSR, became part of NATO, and today Finland is one of the more prosperous countries of the world.

I'd just shoot myself and get it over with. Or put up a futile resistence. I'm an undesirable.

In hindsight Finland made the right choice by allying with Hitler. After WWII, even though the Nazis lost, Finland was forgiven for its alliance with the Nazis because Finland acted honorably, protected its minorities from Nazism, and refused to participate in the Nazis' siege of Leningrad and other acts of aggression. Finland was driven to ally with the Nazis because Stalin illegally and ruthlessly invaded Finland, and after the war the Allies recognized that Finland had the right to defend itself against Stalin's invasion. Stalin himself was impressed with Finland's refusal to join Germany's attack on the USSR, and praised the Finns' honor and bravery.

If Finland had chosen to submit to the USSR, they would have been impoverished by Stalin's totalitarian political and economic policies (which are NOT truly communist). Instead, Finland got out of WWII on the Allies' good side, did not become a satellite of the USSR, became part of NATO, and today Finland is one of the more prosperous countries of the world.



wow i like u, u didn't hate on communism, u defended finland, brushed off the alliens with germany. wow :D :fluffle:

<SNIP> became part of NATO <SNIP>
Can't really agree with this... yet. Up till that point I thought you were a Finn. :)

Whoops, my bad, they did not become part of NATO. I'm American btw. :)

Meaning:

communism will not work ... why? people are naturally greedy, thats y capatilism works much better.

Oh PURLEEZE ... not that old saw again! Look people naturally want to masturbate in public, but people have this amazing thing called Civilisation, which is basically a way of restraining what people naturally are.

I am not saying that communism could work, btw, it's just that this old worn out argument is too ridiculous to be left unanswered. By this very logic capitalism would not work either, because capitalism is based upon the notion of private property, and respect for the property of others is most certainly against human nature.

Just look at the two year old who says "mine" (for which read "I want it"), without any concept of "yours." I'm not familiar with a single country anywhere in the world where people so naturally respect private property that laws protecting property are not required. Indeed we are forced to go so far against human nature as to lock up property violators in prisons, can you believe that?

Neo-Anarchists:

I voted based on ideal vs. ideal.

Well one out of two ain't bad ;)

I've heard it said that while every attempt to create a communist society on earth has failed to approach the ideal, the Nazi regime embodied the ideal of the NSDAP perfectly.

The black or the red Nazi's? Hmmm...doesn't realy matter which you choose. Eitherway your screwed.

Look people naturally want to masturbate in public...

What an interesting circle of friends you must have.

Pledge neutrality, and get guarantees of protection from the western allies.

Just so I'm clear, the Finns came out still a sovereign state and were not too much the worse for wear by keeping an alliance with Germany? The alternative being willing or unwilling status as a satellite for the USSR? Sounds like they made a good, pragmatic decision there, unless I'm missing something. I mean, if there was no other option besides those.

I am not saying that communism could work, btw, it's just that this old worn out argument is too ridiculous to be left unanswered. By this very logic capitalism would not work either, because capitalism is based upon the notion of private property, and respect for the property of others is most certainly against human nature.

Just look at the two year old who says "mine" (for which read "I want it"), without any concept of "yours." I'm not familiar with a single country anywhere in the world where people so naturally respect private property that laws protecting property are not required. Indeed we are forced to go so far against human nature as to lock up property violators in prisons, can you believe that?

Actually laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work in reality, but...restrained mild socialism (Like in the US, or possibly a little bit to the left of it) and law enforcement are what is typically advocated.

People are greedy. They steal stuff and violate the right to property. It's illegal. This doesn't say anything about a right to property.

Just so I'm clear, the Finns came out still a sovereign state and were not too much the worse for wear by keeping an alliance with Germany? The alternative being willing or unwilling status as a satellite for the USSR? Sounds like they made a good, pragmatic decision there, unless I'm missing something. I mean, if there was no other option besides those.
I'd have to agree here though, even though I'd much rather maintain neutrality, the Finns survived this better than most other European nations.

It also occurs to me that any requests for protection from other Western Countries would be futile, because neither the Soviets not the Nazis are likely to give half a damn what the Allies think, and it's not like they (the allies) have a lot of troops to spare, what with trying to take the rest of Europe.

They both suck ass. Personally, I'd go neutral and tell both to f*ck off. Facism fell quickly and I wouldn't want to be on the Wests bad side after the war.

Andaluciae:
People are greedy. They steal stuff and violate the right to property. It's illegal. This doesn't say anything about a right to property.
Sure it does. It says that an innate respect for the right to private property is unlikely to be hardwired into the human creature, and that this right requires the force of law to . The point being that there is nothing inherently natural about capitalism as it was practised in C20th America. (Or as it will be practised in C21).

... restrained mild socialism (Like in the US ...
ROFL. Sure 'socialism' is an umbrella term covering a range of systems, however using it in connexion with the contemporary situation in the US is stretching things a bit too far (though it may work a treat for right-wing shock-jocks). Remember the modern welfare state was the largely invention of conservatives in their battle against socialism (for which see the career of Otto von Bismark for example).

Andaluciae:

Sure it does. It says that an innate respect for the right to private property is unlikely to be hardwired into the human creature, and that this right requires the force of law to . The point being that there is nothing inherently natural about capitalism as it was practised in C20th America. (Or as it will be practised in C21).
People kill. Does that mean there is no right to life? People oppress, does that mean there is no right to liberty? No. Your logic is fatally flawed.


ROFL. Sure 'socialism' is an umbrella term covering a range of systems, however using it in connexion with the contemporary situation in the US is stretching things a bit too far (though it may work a treat for right-wing shock-jocks). Remember the modern welfare state was the largely invention of conservatives in their battle against socialism (for which see the career of Otto von Bismark for example).
Did I ever say some level of socialism is a bad thing? Hell no, it's a check on businesses. But to take it too far is tyranny.

Communism is a beautiful ideology that sadly has proved to be too utopic for this world.

Fascism is an ideology that revolves around nothing but hatred.

The choice should be easy.

Exactly.

well. lets consider for a moment, that, for one, the Nazis could actually finish an idea. i say this, because hitler wanted to exterminate jews based on the perceived threat they held as a superior people, and nowaday, any neo-nazi you talk to just wants to beat up a black or mexican person, 6 guys to one. it is obvious that if that is what fascism evolved into, and we now have to choose, i would pick the Nazis. it would not be too hard to defeat a bunch of ignorants still trying to get past being bullied in high school, right?

Andaluciae:
People kill. Does that mean there is no right to life? People oppress, does that mean there is no right to liberty? No. Your logic is fatally flawed.
It is not my logic, but your reading/comprehension skills that are flawed. Where do I say (or even imply) that there is (or ought to be) no right to liberty, life or property? My point is merely that there is nothing inherently natural about capitalism as it was practised in C20th America. By the same token there is nothing inherently natural about these rights, they are the gifts of civilisation.

Did I ever say some level of socialism is a bad thing? Hell no, it's a check on businesses. But to take it too far is tyranny.
No. Did I ever say you did? What I did say is that in applying it to contemporary America you are streching the term too far, and that welfare is not the equivalent of socialism. Neither are all checks on business socialism.

Communists, because if there's a chance mankind might get it to work, I want to be a part of it!

It is not my logic, but your reading/comprehension skills that are flawed. Where do I say (or even imply) that there is (or ought to be) no right to liberty, life or property? My point is merely that there is nothing inherently natural about capitalism as it was practised in C20th America. By the same token there is nothing inherently natural about these rights, they are the gifts of civilisation.
I happen to fundamentally disagree with you that there are no natural rights, although I didn't fully read your previous statement. My fault, just bouncing back and forth between several threads.

No. Did I ever say you did? What I did say is that in applying it to contemporary America you are streching the term too far, and that welfare is not the equivalent of socialism. Neither are all checks on business socialism.
The accepted definition of socialism is government control of the economy. What I'm saying is that the US has socialist elements in its economy, such as the TVA. Not that the US economy is socialist.

Finland did end up having to send soldiers, amunition, and food supplies to Hitler's cause, but it might have been the best choice for Finland.

But for the world in its entirety Communism/Socialism are much more beneficial then Nazism. The Communist regimes killed people who did not support them. The Nazi regimes, besides killing several million Communists in Germany and USSR, killed people who were born to be of a particular race or nationality. Communist regimes were definately more beneficial to humanity than the Nazist ones.

Edit: I am surprised World War II was forgotten so quickly and our (young) generation even considers siding with the Nazis.

Andaluciae:
I happen to fundamentally disagree with you that there are no natural rights
OK, there's a bit of a strawman happening here. 'Natural rights' does not necessarily) mean the same thing that people are naturally hardwired for capitalism, for which reason communism cannot work. Which, (without claiming that communism can work), was the position I was arguing against. Now I happen to disagree that there can meaningfully be 'Natural Rights,' but since they are really not relevant to what I was originally saying I won't pursue that.

The accepted definition of socialism is government control of the economy.
That definition is neither universally accepted nor accurate.

Socialism: from each by his ability, to each by his work
Communism: from each by his ability, to each by his need

Nova Eccia:
The Communist regimes killed people who did not support them.
Were you to study the career of Stalin, I think you would find that he killed considerable number of communists (Just off the top of my head I think Stalin was a bigger commie killer than Hitler). I think the theory was something like, revolutionary political changes being rare, if you wipe out everyone close enough to you, you stay in power. Hitler, of course was not immune from liquidating (NSDAP) party members either. Nor was being a Baathist in Sadam's regime any guarantee of longevity.

I am surprised World War II was forgotten so quickly and our (young) generation even considers siding with the Nazis.

HEAR HEAR!

I understand your sarcasm, but the Communists in the USSR and PRC have killed close to 100 million. Almost twice the number that died in all of WW2.


The commies had more time to work at it, Hitler had only WWII.

Not knowing the future I'd have picked communism, but only by a narrow margin. Knowing the future I'd have picked the Nazis, because they were pretty short lived.

Communism is a beautiful ideology that sadly has proved to be too utopic for this world.

Fascism is an ideology that revolves around nothing but hatred.

The choice should be easy.

Dude, have you been talking to my highschool history teacher? Just kidding, but you bring up a valid point (not the point of this thread, but a valid one, nonetheless). In its escence, communism is utopian. Saying "Stalin's Communism" is practically an oxymoron, as soviet marxist communism took one of the fundamental pieces of communism and made the rest the way it needed for it to work in the situations they used it in.
Communism isn't fundamentally evil, but Stalin's Communism was quite evil, bad, wrong, and all that shwag.

Pledge neutrality, and get guarantees of protection from the western allies.
LOL Yeah. Those guarantees worked wonders for Czechoslowakia. :D

LOL Yeah. Those guarantees [from the western allies] worked wonders for Czechoslowakia. :D

Yes. And Poland enjoyed theirs too.

Finland did end up having to send soldiers, amunition, and food supplies to Hitler's cause, but it might have been the best choice for Finland.
Actually, it was quite the contrary. Yes, some Finns fought in the SS Viking division, but those were volunteers. You see, we had/have barmy people here too. In no way were they sent to fight for Hitler.


The example (premise if you will) in this thread may be a bit misguiding. You'd really need to know all the special circumstances to assess if it was a right choice for Finland to make.

The Finns indeed had strong moral support from the west in the FIRST war against the Soviets. Afterall, Stalin requested Soviet Union should have military bases in Finland and some areas just given to SU. Furthermore, it was the Soviets who attacked unprovokedly to finland in 1939.

Like this wasn't enough, Finland, Poland and the Baltic states were divided in spheres of influence between SU and Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact. In 1939 Germany didn't give shit about Finland's fate - they had a non-aggression pact with the Soviets.

SO: it was BEFORE the Germans ever arrived to help Finland, when the line was drawn - Soviet Union was Finland's enemy.


Despite the urges from the western powers to carry on fighting, Finland was forced to sign the armistice in 1940. After the Winter War Finland had to give the areas first requested by Stalin. This was better still compared to what happened to the Baltic countries; they were now part of the Soviet Union.

Naturally our politicians thought Winter War was just a prelude, and the Soviets would try again... So what to do? Germany had run over France and had GB pinned down AND now fought the Soviets... Who to ask help from? Not very hard to answer in my opinion. It wasn't choosing over two isms, it was trying to stay alive.
[end rant]

(in no way did i try to answers to the dumb question of "Would you rather choose the IDEAL form of communism over Nazism/fascism" i've seen discussed here)

Communists, since they don't hold any belief about superior races or any of that stuff.

Marx may not have, but Stalinist USSR wasn't exactly equitable in its treatment of ethnic difference.

as Trilateral Commission ryti realy made a good choice.. though finland isnt that prosperous i would choose nazis for i belive in fasism even though it would mean killing innocent "lower races" idon't belive any people are less worth i just think non of em ar forth a f**k and of course i'd rather see my own race rule than others .communism would be best thing in this world if it were to work (kinda like bittorrent) but i think it can never work in this world - finnish fasist-

Marx may not have, but Stalinist USSR wasn't exactly equitable in its treatment of ethnic difference.

I disagree, it was perfectly equitable. If you disagreed with the regieme you were killed, be you russian, polish, catholic, jewish or muslim. It made no difference who you were. Hence no discrimination...

Marx may not have, but Stalinist USSR wasn't exactly equitable in its treatment of ethnic difference.
Yeah, I already pointed out somewhere that I accidentally made my decision on the basic ideal instead of on the situation like i was supposed to. I suppose I'd still go with the Soviets, though.

I disagree, it was perfectly equitable. If you disagreed with the regieme you were killed, be you russian, polish, catholic, jewish or muslim. It made no difference who you were.

The gypsies actually experienced a lessening of persecution. Go figure.

The gypsies actually experienced a lessening of persecution. Go figure.

*Goes but fails to figure*

Maybe Stalins mum put in a good word for them. Its hard to believe such a cruel, heartless dictator was such a mummy's boy as Stalin was.

SO: it was BEFORE the Germans ever arrived to help Finland, when the line was drawn - Soviet Union was Finland's enemy.


Just in case, if someone didn't know it already (bunnyducks certainly knows :))
Finns knew what was it like to live under Russian (soviet) lead. We got our independency only 22 years earlier. I'd say any option was better than Stalin and loosing our independency.

I'd choose the commies over the Nazis anyday - I'd rather have my individuality stripped from me (commie) than force-fed some BS nationalist identity (Nazi)

I would choose to allie with the nazi's.

Not becasue I would agree with their political filosophy, (i reject both stalinism, bolshevism, even good old communism as a basic concept, on a same level as my rejection for the racist ideas and blut-und-boden-thinking)..

But the main ground for bonding with the nazi's is that they actually supported a greater soevereinity for their allies, States like Italy, the French Vichy-gouvernement, Bulgarya, Spain and Turkye all were allowed to have a great own influence on internal policy, and were hardly interferred, even in occupied nations like Belgium and Denmark the Regime was rather soft (on teh other hand, the regime in the netherlands and Poland and the Ukraine was very restrictive, and even more aggressive than the Stalinistic occupation, but those were countries that had openly resisted Nazi-invasion).

I would suspect that a axes with the germans would be the best way to be able to keep a country like Finlands' independance; on the other because the Germans lost and the russian maybe won, but the english were close enough, they managed even to keep the independance after WW2,
You could consider that quite lucky, if the Germans would have won, or even just conquered most of russia and the ukraine, They would have had an enormous influence on Finnish politics, in such a way that you could hardly reffer to it as a souvereign country, more a satelite-state

what is going on ?? i cannot believe my prior post in this forum was not mob attacked by the stormfront. wow. maybe i inflicted some guilt and/or shame.

I recognise that Communism has been abused by dictatorial, violent regimes so far, however that approach is directly opposed to the true ideals of what Communism are all about. As a Communism sympathiser, I am willing to apologise for and disapprove of these terrible acts of violence any time. I don't think you'll ever find a Fascist who will truly disapprove of what happened in the concentration camps, since it's pretty much what the whole ideology is about.
How nice of you to box us into a little category, with only the slightest Idea of our Ideology. Portugal Italy Spain and Japan got by fine. More then any communist state did.

I'd pick Nazis, not for Ideological reasons mind you (Naziism is a crime) but merely because, while both were insane, Hitler was predictably so. As long as your not of a race he hates or openly challenge him, or live in another country. Hitler probably wouldn't harm you. Stalin was known to kill some of his loyalist subjects from his paranoia. Hitler was in no way better, indeed he was worse, however he at least can be delt with in a vile, though patterned manner. There was no way to gain Stalins trust.

*Goes but fails to figure*

Maybe Stalins mum put in a good word for them. Its hard to believe such a cruel, heartless dictator was such a mummy's boy as Stalin was.
Are you kidding? The last time he was ever seen with her, he called her "an old whore" in public.

Actually, the Nazis were evacuating their forces from Lapland to Norway (still held by the Nazis) in a total peace. Finland and Germany had made a pact to "play" a war for the time the Nazis were in Finland after the war ended. The f#&)¤)g commies saw that Finland was not actually in war with Germany and they threatened to attack Finland again if the finnish troops didn't open fire on the germans. That's the real reason why Lapland was burn't.
Believe me. My history number's 9.

I disagree, it was perfectly equitable. If you disagreed with the regieme you were killed, be you russian, polish, catholic, jewish or muslim. It made no difference who you were. Hence no discrimination...
There's this small area of land in Caucasus. It's on the side of Russia and the russians have tried to turn it into a russian area for the last 100 years. It hasn't worked and the freedom-fighters are still in war with Russia. Do you really think it doesn't matter for the russians if you're a chechnian?

Communists, because if there's a chance mankind might get it to work, I want to be a part of it!
Communism works only in an bug-colony with a collective mind.
Are you a bug?

Just look at the facts:

-Stalin died not so long after WWII. He was a heavy drinker.
-Hitler was born in mountainous Austria (healthy inviroment). He always seemed more healthy.

So Hitler would probably have reigned longer than Stalin. A few more years with more needless killing.

-Chrutshev succeeded Stalin and brought his cruelties to light. He more an advocate of peace than Stalin ever was.
-Nothing indicates who would have carried on the German empire after Hitler's demise but if they where as bad as the fanatics of the Kristalnacht, I'd rather have the devil himself.

Lots of uncertainty on this one, but I think you can guess the Nazis would only continue their destruction.

-The USSR fell in 1991, and that meant freedom to many countries that are now NATO members, European Union countries and finding a better balance.
-Nothing shows how long Nazi Germany would have continued if it survived WWII. But one thing is sure: If they survived, that could only be because they conquered the Allies. And then the whole world would be part of the Axis.

Once again, nothing to show and tell. But it does not take a lot of insight to know what the Axis wanted. Nevermind the fact the USSR wanted more than the world to. We're talking about what would have been here.

-The Communist doctrine speaks of utopia, equalty, peace, everything. Very ambitious, very unrealistic, but much more noble than everything less than Communistic.
-Nazi-ism and even Fascism speak only of fanatical nationality and patriotism. These things are dangerous, just government tools to occupy the minds of citizens and press them to be loyal and willing to sacrifice their lives for something that would not do the same.
And of course, they have a Roman-esque desire to make blood flow. They really think war is good for the body and the nation. The actively search for enemies to crush, just for fun.

I guess it is clear that at least Communist dictatorship does not show a dark intent. The Nazis where full of it, and would have murdered all non-German Europeans, all Africans, Arabs, Asians and exterminate countless of cultures just because they thought they don't matter.

I would rather join hypocrits than openly savage barbarians with no regard for the sanctity of life. I say Nein to Nazis!

Actually, the Nazis were evacuating their forces from Lapland to Norway (still held by the Nazis) in a total peace. Finland and Germany had made a pact to "play" a war for the time the Nazis were in Finland after the war ended. The f#&)¤)g commies saw that Finland was not actually in war with Germany and they threatened to attack Finland again if the finnish troops didn't open fire on the germans. That's the real reason why Lapland was burn't.
Believe me. My history number's 9.
My compliments to your history teacher. You are right. And due to this episode, Finland was treated so lenietly after the war; ALL parties declared war with Finland in one point or another... First Soviet Union, then later Great Britain (well, they had to - there was no fighting though) and finally Germany.

Meaning:

Oh PURLEEZE ... not that old saw again! Look people naturally want to masturbate in public, but people have this amazing thing called Civilisation, which is basically a way of restraining what people naturally are.

The point is that greed is a human condition and you can't legislate it away via communism.

It's not really about how "natural" something is, it's a response to communist theorizing which, seem to FORGET this natural tendency of humans to want for themselves as much as they can.

I am not saying that communism could work, btw, it's just that this old worn out argument is too ridiculous to be left unanswered. By this very logic capitalism would not work either, because capitalism is based upon the notion of private property, and respect for the property of others is most certainly against human nature.

No, because "respect for the property of others" is hardly as drastic a change to human nature as "elimination of greed." Elimination of a bedrock foundation emotion is what is against human nature, the creation of civilized social rules (while it may be non-natural) is not quite so much against human nature. Then again it depends on what those rules are...

Just look at the two year old who says "mine" (for which read "I want it"), without any concept of "yours."

That's really why communism fails, actually... it tries to make a society where all 2 year olds say "yours" or "ours" when referring to... anything.

Just look at the facts:

-Stalin died not so long after WWII. He was a heavy drinker.
-Hitler was born in mountainous Austria (healthy inviroment). He always seemed more healthy.

So Hitler would probably have reigned longer than Stalin. A few more years with more needless killing.

-Chrutshev succeeded Stalin and brought his cruelties to light. He more an advocate of peace than Stalin ever was.
-Nothing indicates who would have carried on the German empire after Hitler's demise but if they where as bad as the fanatics of the Kristalnacht, I'd rather have the devil himself.

Lots of uncertainty on this one, but I think you can guess the Nazis would only continue their destruction.

-The USSR fell in 1991, and that meant freedom to many countries that are now NATO members, European Union countries and finding a better balance.
-Nothing shows how long Nazi Germany would have continued if it survived WWII. But one thing is sure: If they survived, that could only be because they conquered the Allies. And then the whole world would be part of the Axis.

Once again, nothing to show and tell. But it does not take a lot of insight to know what the Axis wanted. Nevermind the fact the USSR wanted more than the world to. We're talking about what would have been here.

-The Communist doctrine speaks of utopia, equalty, peace, everything. Very ambitious, very unrealistic, but much more noble than everything less than Communistic.
-Nazi-ism and even Fascism speak only of fanatical nationality and patriotism. These things are dangerous, just government tools to occupy the minds of citizens and press them to be loyal and willing to sacrifice their lives for something that would not do the same.
And of course, they have a Roman-esque desire to make blood flow. They really think war is good for the body and the nation. The actively search for enemies to crush, just for fun.

I guess it is clear that at least Communist dictatorship does not show a dark intent. The Nazis where full of it, and would have murdered all non-German Europeans, all Africans, Arabs, Asians and exterminate countless of cultures just because they thought they don't matter.

I would rather join hypocrits than openly savage barbarians with no regard for the sanctity of life. I say Nein to Nazis!

There's one finnish site that shows what the world would look like if the Nazis had won the war. Finland was their ally so our great country would also be twice bigger. :(

I know what the Nazis did......and I dont care, the communists are still far worse (they made the first concentration camps and killed 20 million Russian Christians just for believing in God) and besides "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"



The first concentration camps were actually a British invention and were used during the Boerwar in Zuid-Afrika. And like Finland, Poland also became independent, again, after the first World War. And when Poland was crushed between Germany and Russia, it was promised help that it didn't receive. After the Germans were defeated the allies cowardly gave Poland as a relation gift to Soviet-Russia and it was once again robbed of its independence. The Polish who always are in an ongoing competition against the Russians was once again at their mercy.

Back on topic. As much as I'm disgusted by Nazism and Facism, I must agree with the choice of the Finns. It was the sensible thing to do.

A lot of if's in your post Water Cove.

I chose the Nazis because
A] They worshipped the gene pool of the Finns, being Scandinavian Aryans and all
B] They would have been less interested in mobilising all the factories and working population into the Fatherland to support the war effort
C] Under the Soviets there would have been huge purges of the “bourgeois” which had pretty much become code for any community or ‘class’ that threatened dissent including landowners, the middle class and the government
D] A degree of autonomy was going to be preserved; the Russians had tried for yonks to clasp onto Finland
E] The Nazis were damn crazy. Surely America was to join the war and mighty, mighty Russians would hopefully repeat history and defeat the Germans after which would come liberated, if played the right way without soviet tanks driving them out

Ally with the Nazis, and allow half of the country to be kept by the Nazis. Ryti chose the Nazis. The result was that a Commie invasion was prevented and sovereignity maintained, but Hitler ordered the destruction of the Nazi-held Lapland when Finland broke the alliance and agreed upon peace with the Soviets.


Allow me to correct you. The USSR did not invade because of a alliance with Germany. The Finland-Russia war was because of the allways desputed Ladoga area. The Russians took heavy casualties against the verry mobile skitroops and copied them and used them later also with great succes in against Germany.

The "winter war" or the USSR invasion took place before Finland joined Germany in her fight against te USSR in 1941 and became an allie.

BTW, Marshall Mannerheim did a great job with his few forces. Nice blue swastika you guys had, it turns like the old India (hindu) swastikas to the left, wich means "life", when it turns to the right, it means the "sol niger" (black sun) and means "destruction". You should not have left such a great symbol.

Nice blue swastika you guys had, it turns like the old India (hindu) swastikas to the left, wich means "life", when it turns to the right, it means the "sol niger" (black sun) and means "destruction". You should not have left such a great symbol.
Finnish airforce and tank troops used the original swastika 1918-1944. Had to give it up cos the nazis picked it up later and tarnished its reputation. And it wasn't reversed here, it just rested in it's spike, unlike the german one. Just a symbol though.

EDIT: I better add a link. It's both in Finnish and English... a great chance for you to brush up your Finnish. :)
http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/hakaristi.htm

i don't believe in a superior race but you are dumb and pathetic if you don't believe in individual superiority. The nazis screwed germany and stalin communism screwed russia. They killed about the same amount of people. I choose Miekism. Its a mixture of fascism despotism and theocracism.

Just look at the facts:

-Stalin died not so long after WWII. He was a heavy drinker.
-Hitler was born in mountainous Austria (healthy inviroment). He always seemed more healthy.

So Hitler would probably have reigned longer than Stalin. A few more years with more needless killing.

-Chrutshev succeeded Stalin and brought his cruelties to light. He more an advocate of peace than Stalin ever was.
-Nothing indicates who would have carried on the German empire after Hitler's demise but if they where as bad as the fanatics of the Kristalnacht, I'd rather have the devil himself.

Lots of uncertainty on this one, but I think you can guess the Nazis would only continue their destruction.

-The USSR fell in 1991, and that meant freedom to many countries that are now NATO members, European Union countries and finding a better balance.
-Nothing shows how long Nazi Germany would have continued if it survived WWII. But one thing is sure: If they survived, that could only be because they conquered the Allies. And then the whole world would be part of the Axis.

Once again, nothing to show and tell. But it does not take a lot of insight to know what the Axis wanted. Nevermind the fact the USSR wanted more than the world to. We're talking about what would have been here.

-The Communist doctrine speaks of utopia, equalty, peace, everything. Very ambitious, very unrealistic, but much more noble than everything less than Communistic.
-Nazi-ism and even Fascism speak only of fanatical nationality and patriotism. These things are dangerous, just government tools to occupy the minds of citizens and press them to be loyal and willing to sacrifice their lives for something that would not do the same.
And of course, they have a Roman-esque desire to make blood flow. They really think war is good for the body and the nation. The actively search for enemies to crush, just for fun.

I guess it is clear that at least Communist dictatorship does not show a dark intent. The Nazis where full of it, and would have murdered all non-German Europeans, all Africans, Arabs, Asians and exterminate countless of cultures just because they thought they don't matter.

I would rather join hypocrits than openly savage barbarians with no regard for the sanctity of life. I say Nein to Nazis!

Stalin killed about the same as hitler and himler (if i spelt it correctly)
Basically if you were a subhuman the germans would kill you
Stalin just killed who ever he thought was a traitor who was basically everyone.
Stalin was corrupt. The communist you're thinking of is Vladimir Lenin

opportunist :p

me? Watch where you point your ists and isms

The whole process of choosing was rather awkward as Finland was crushed between a rock and a hard place. Hence, Finland really chose neither.
At the end of the war Ryti did something rather altruistic. He made a personal promise to the Nazis that Finland would be their ally. Then, when the Finnish troops had stopped the major advances of the Soviets (using German equipment) Ryti left office and his successor, general Mannerheim, signed a peace treaty with the Soviets, claiming that whatever Ryti promissed does not bind him.
One of the major points in the treaty was that all German troops should leave Finland immediately. These, however, were reluctant to leave and fearing another Soviet attack the Finnish army chose to open fire on them. The retreating Germans burnt most of the major towns in Lapland as a revenge.

The Continuation war can be considered one of the crappy wars a country can get into, because Finland was drawn into WWII by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, one they had no influence in what so ever and then left with only bad allies.
Even the The United Kingdom declared war on Finland, an occurence which is considered to be the only time two democratic countries declare war on each other. The conflict between the UK and Finland never caused any casualties though, as British troops never set their foot on Finnish soil.

Just look at the facts:

-Stalin died not so long after WWII. He was a heavy drinker.
-Hitler was born in mountainous Austria (healthy inviroment). He always seemed more healthy.
Hitler may have potentially had many serious diseases such as syphilis and Parkinsons.

-Chrutshev succeeded Stalin and brought his cruelties to light. He more an advocate of peace than Stalin ever was.
Yet continued Stalin's Murderous policies.
-Nothing indicates who would have carried on the German empire after Hitler's demise but if they where as bad as the fanatics of the Kristalnacht, I'd rather have the devil himself.
Except that of His Potential heirs, none liked the Idea of the Holocaust. Most of them that it was a waste of time and money.

And of course, they have a Roman-esque desire to make blood flow. They really think war is good for the body and the nation. The actively search for enemies to crush, just for fun.
Bigotry ahoy!

I guess it is clear that at least Communist dictatorship does not show a dark intent.
If you count killing 9/10ths of the population "Not dark intent"

Nazi at least i personaly will still be alive. The nazis would overun you neway in the begining they were way to powerful. Might as well go french and pick the more powerful for the time being.

NAZI'S! The Nazi's should never have died out, not that they have, but they should never have died out in the public eye or the eye of the world. Personally I say "Bring back the Nazi's!", they had a lot of good idea's, most of them actually. Do you believe society can learn from it's own mistakes? I do, and therefore I believe that if the Nazi's came back they would easily succeed in their idea's.
Nightsrose :mp5:

Just look at the facts:

...I guess it is clear that at least Communist dictatorship does not show a dark intent.

Hmmm.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Russian government under communism? 62 million.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Chinese government under communism? 32 million

100 million people killed by their own government in just two communist countries. That is two-and-a-half times the number of people killed by the Black Death in 14th century Europe. The story was the same, albeit with proportionately smaller numbers, in Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe.

You are right. The Communist dictatorships went beyond dark intent to an even darker reality.

Hmmm.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Russian government under communism? 62 million.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Chinese government under communism? 32 million

100 million people killed by their own government in just two communist countries. That is two-and-a-half times the number of people killed by the Black Death in 14th century Europe. The story was the same, albeit with proportionately smaller numbers, in Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe.

You are right. The Communist dictatorships went beyond dark intent to an even darker reality.

As I have said before these figures are a complete exaggeration and they are nothing more than fascist propaganda. To say that 62 million people were killed in the USSR is absurd and the population actually increased at a similar rate to most European countries while Stalin was in power despite the second world war which affected Russia more than any other nation. The figure for China is more believable but was a result of starvation due to the failure of some of Mao's policies and was not deliberate mass murder. It cannot however be denied that a few million people have been deliberately killed by the Stalinist dictatorships but as I have also said before this has absolutely nothing to do with the Communist ideology which is based on equality, social justice, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation.

Excuse me, but I believe that counts as a flame.
Flaming is verboten here, and could warrant consequences if continued. Please refrain from flaming in the future.
Just a friendly reminder.
Thank you.
:)

You're so cool.

NAZI'S! The Nazi's should never have died out, not that they have, but they should never have died out in the public eye or the eye of the world. Personally I say "Bring back the Nazi's!", they had a lot of good idea's, most of them actually. Do you believe society can learn from it's own mistakes? I do, and therefore I believe that if the Nazi's came back they would easily succeed in their idea's.
Nightsrose :mp5:

There still are Nazi Parties, as there should be in a free world. (There should also be Communist Parties, Socialist Parties, and etc.)

Something I find rather ironic is that Socialists/Communists and Nazis are tended to be viewed as different things, when the Nazi party started out as a Socialist Party.

Oh well, it's interesting what they've become?

Personally, I would have to know more about his situation, and then take whatever one seemed most tactical, without thinking about ideologies or morality, at least at that time.

Wait, are you saying that they Patriot Act is a good representation of capitalism?
Cause it's not. A better suggestion would have been the Constitution.
The Constitution is not in any sense a representation of capitalism. It is a representation of republican democracy.

there Is No Better Choice! They End Up Being The Same Thing!

Hmmm.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Russian government under communism? 62 million.

The death toll for the number of its own citizens killed by the Chinese government under communism? 32 million


Actually, it's more like Russia: 40 million; China: 90 million. So you can up your tally, there.

As I have said before these figures are a complete exaggeration and they are nothing more than fascist propaganda. To say that 62 million people were killed in the USSR is absurd and the population actually increased at a similar rate to most European countries while Stalin was in power despite the second world war which affected Russia more than any other nation. The figure for China is more believable but was a result of starvation due to the failure of some of Mao's policies and was not deliberate mass murder. It cannot however be denied that a few million people have been deliberately killed by the Stalinist dictatorships but as I have also said before this has absolutely nothing to do with the Communist ideology which is based on equality, social justice, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation.
Actually, it's more like Russia: 40 million; China: 90 million. So you can up your tally, there.

Dr. R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii, author of dozens of books, and finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize, has spent a career researching and writing about Democide - death by government. He has written two dozen books and over 100 professional articles on the subject.

According to Rummel Soviet Democide between 1917 - 1991 breaks down thus:

Death by terror - 8,298,000
Death by deportations - 4,349,000+
Death in Concentration Camps - 39,464,000
Death by forced famine - 7,833,000

Total citizens of USSR killed by their own government - 61,911,000

Rummel breaks down Chinese deaths by historical periods, but it is important to understand that the figure of 38 million Chinese killed by their government does not include the 27 million people who starved to death due to Mao's mismanagement of Chinese agriculture in the early 1960s.

Europaland, I have no idea what fascist propaganda you are refering to, but if you have sources I am willing to look them over. The same holds true for your information as well, Alomogordo.

You are welcome to review my sources.

Dr. Rummel's official website, with research, curriculum vitae, methodology, as well as information on site credibility, is found at:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

...It cannot however be denied that a few million people have been deliberately killed by the Stalinist dictatorships but as I have also said before this has absolutely nothing to do with the Communist ideology which is based on equality, social justice, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation.

This observation deserves a separate comment. The main thrust of Europaland's argument is that Stalinism, not Communism, is responsible for the murder of citizens by their own government. A look at the people killed throughout the history of the USSR and in other countries refutes that contention.

People Killed by their Communist Government in the USSR (1917-1991)

Russian Civil War - 3,284,000
Period of Lenin's New Economic Policy 1923 (NEP) - 2,200,000
Collectivization, 1929 - 11,440,000
Great Terror, 1936 - 4,345,000
pre-WWII - 5,104,000
WWII - 13,053,000
post WWII until 1954 - 15,613,000
post Stalin, 1954-1991 - 6,872,000

While it is true that Stalin is the greatest killer of the 20th century and possibly of all time, the Soviet Union killed its own people in massive numbers from its inception until its demise.

Other Communist governments who murdered their own people

Communist China - 38 million, plus another 27 million killed by Mao's agricultural policies
Communist Cambodia - 2.4 million
Communist Vietnam - 1.7 million
Communist North Korea - 1.66 million
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia - 1.17 million

According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, "Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed."

Communism has had a chance to show its mettle in the 20th century. Whatever its supposed ideals and aspirations in every instance in which it has been put into practice it has proven to be a brutal, oppressive, anti-humanist regime.

What few people fail to realize is that Stalin and the commie leaders were just as evil as Hitler and the Nazis. Both used dictatorships and Stalin planned to continue the extermination of the Jews once the war had ended (that is a fact; it is in numerous books and has been frequently repeated on the History Channel, backed by documentary evidence). Stalin also killed more of his own people than the Nazis did in order to 'weed out traitors.' The two government types are equally as bad.

What few people fail to realize is that Stalin and the commie leaders were just as evil as Hitler and the Nazis. Both used dictatorships and Stalin planned to continue the extermination of the Jews once the war had ended (that is a fact; it is in numerous books and has been frequently repeated on the History Channel, backed by documentary evidence). Stalin also killed more of his own people than the Nazis did in order to 'weed out traitors.' The two government types are equally as bad.
No, communism is not as bad as Naziism. Stalinism was not proper communism.

The Nazis seem like the lesser of two evils. They were both whacked, but at least the Nazis had a habit of leaving limited sovereignty to their client states. The communists left none. Eastern Europe was part of Russia in all but name after WWII.

No, communism is not as bad as Naziism. Stalinism was not proper communism.

I do not want to get into comparing who is more evil, but if you are going strictly by body count communist governments are responsible for 110 million deaths (90% by just two countries - the USSR and the PRC) vs. 21 million killed by the Nazis.

I wanna point something out right here, it is impossible to compare the two parties as a TRUE communistic societies never existed. Soviets? Totalitarianists with a socialist spark nothing more. Observing this the comparrison cannot be made until a true Marxian Society is formed free of social class.

I wanna point something out right here, it is impossible to compare the two parties as a TRUE communistic societies never existed. Soviets? Totalitarianists with a socialist spark nothing more. Observing this the comparrison cannot be made until a true Marxian Society is formed free of social class.

I keep hearing this cop out that "true" communist societies have never existed. Well then, let it be understood that when we refer to "communist" the term means those governments of the former Soviet Union, the PRC, North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Cuba who call themselves communist.

You can call them purple rutabagas for all I care, but the rest of the world has no trouble identifying these governments as communist even if a few apologists for this failed system are too myopic to see that.

This misguided assertion has been addressed:
...It cannot however be denied that a few million people have been deliberately killed by the Stalinist dictatorships but as I have also said before this has absolutely nothing to do with the Communist ideology which is based on equality, social justice, democracy and an end to all forms of exploitation.
This observation deserves a separate comment. The main thrust of Europaland's argument is that Stalinism, not Communism, is responsible for the murder of citizens by their own government. A look at the people killed throughout the history of the USSR and in other countries refutes that contention.

People Killed by their Communist Government in the USSR (1917-1991)

Russian Civil War - 3,284,000
Period of Lenin's New Economic Policy 1923 (NEP) - 2,200,000
Collectivization, 1929 - 11,440,000
Great Terror, 1936 - 4,345,000
pre-WWII - 5,104,000
WWII - 13,053,000
post WWII until 1954 - 15,613,000
post Stalin, 1954-1991 - 6,872,000

While it is true that Stalin is the greatest killer of the 20th century and possibly of all time, the Soviet Union killed its own people in massive numbers from its inception until its demise.

Other Communist governments who murdered their own people

Communist China - 38 million, plus another 27 million killed by Mao's agricultural policies
Communist Cambodia - 2.4 million
Communist Vietnam - 1.7 million
Communist North Korea - 1.66 million
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia - 1.17 million

According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, "Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed."

Communism has had a chance to show its mettle in the 20th century. Whatever its supposed ideals and aspirations in every instance in which it has been put into practice it has proven to be a brutal, oppressive, anti-humanist regime.

How about both? The Commie-Nazi's are an elite force and their motto is "We Purge Everybody". Recognize.

And only McBain could kick serious CommieNazi ass :D

"Go UNICEF Pennies! Help the puny children!"

Nazism. It is better than any other government type on the face of this Earth.

Hitler had the right idea. Kill all those unworthy f@#$%rs and leave the world as one superior race incapable of making a bunch of f#$%ing mistakes.

Nazism. It is better than any other government type on the face of this Earth.

Hitler had the right idea. Kill all those unworthy f@#$%rs and leave the world as one superior race incapable of making a bunch of f#$%ing mistakes.

Chances are that even you would be considered inferior in some way. Alcoholism, Racial Background, Genetic Disorders, Sexual Deviations etc. to name but a few. I bet you as a person have something in your family or personaly that wouldn't quite mix with what you consider a superior race. You've already displayed your lack of intelligence for starters that seems like a big mistake to me, perhaps you should go kill yourself and make everyone a lot happier.

Communism or Nazism. Obvious unless your a right-wing war-monger like so many here.. On the one hand, you have a genocidal pool of hatred ready to exterminate any opposition to the government, whilst on the other hand you have a political theology which could essentiallly good.

Communism or Nazism. Obvious unless your a right-wing war-monger like so many here.. On the one hand, you have a genocidal pool of hatred ready to exterminate any opposition to the government, whilst on the other hand you have a political theology which could essentiallly good.

I agree both Communism and Nazism could have represented vastly different things and therefore we wouldn't be talking about them. Nazism could have stood for economic growth in Germany, a strengthening of alliances with Britain and France etc. Nazism could have been something positive for Europe in the sense that if Jews weren't persecuted and there was not the violent aspect of it. Nazism could just be another political party that nobody cared about. But because it was involved with so much evil it takes on negative associations just as Communism does. I think that both theologies could have worked and without using violence. They had a tremendous capability to do good in their countries but unfortunatly they didn't turn out to well.

neither. I'd choose to commit suicide before I am taken by either one of them. The Nazis killed jews, and the Communist killed anyone that practiced any religion. I like my freedom. I don't want my children to be taken away from me when I have them and put in some school where they are brainwashed. I don't believe it right to tear families apart like that. I also like to practice my religion without fear of being shot in the back of the head if I was found out. That's why Communism sucks. Nazism sucks for a lot of the same reasons, and that they wanted to control the world and all. Like I said, neither, I'd kill my self first :sniper:

This observation deserves a separate comment. The main thrust of Europaland's argument is that Stalinism, not Communism, is responsible for the murder of citizens by their own government. A look at the people killed throughout the history of the USSR and in other countries refutes that contention.

People Killed by their Communist Government in the USSR (1917-1991)

Russian Civil War - 3,284,000
Period of Lenin's New Economic Policy 1923 (NEP) - 2,200,000
Collectivization, 1929 - 11,440,000
Great Terror, 1936 - 4,345,000
pre-WWII - 5,104,000
WWII - 13,053,000
post WWII until 1954 - 15,613,000
post Stalin, 1954-1991 - 6,872,000

While it is true that Stalin is the greatest killer of the 20th century and possibly of all time, the Soviet Union killed its own people in massive numbers from its inception until its demise.

Other Communist governments who murdered their own people

Communist China - 38 million, plus another 27 million killed by Mao's agricultural policies
Communist Cambodia - 2.4 million
Communist Vietnam - 1.7 million
Communist North Korea - 1.66 million
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia - 1.17 million

According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, "Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed."

Communism has had a chance to show its mettle in the 20th century. Whatever its supposed ideals and aspirations in every instance in which it has been put into practice it has proven to be a brutal, oppressive, anti-humanist regime.

That adds up to over 119 million!!! I didn't know it was that bad! Anything that kills like that can't be good.

This observation deserves a separate comment. The main thrust of Europaland's argument is that Stalinism, not Communism, is responsible for the murder of citizens by their own government. A look at the people killed throughout the history of the USSR and in other countries refutes that contention.

People Killed by their Communist Government in the USSR (1917-1991)

Russian Civil War - 3,284,000
Period of Lenin's New Economic Policy 1923 (NEP) - 2,200,000
Collectivization, 1929 - 11,440,000
Great Terror, 1936 - 4,345,000
pre-WWII - 5,104,000
WWII - 13,053,000
post WWII until 1954 - 15,613,000
post Stalin, 1954-1991 - 6,872,000

While it is true that Stalin is the greatest killer of the 20th century and possibly of all time, the Soviet Union killed its own people in massive numbers from its inception until its demise.

Other Communist governments who murdered their own people

Communist China - 38 million, plus another 27 million killed by Mao's agricultural policies
Communist Cambodia - 2.4 million
Communist Vietnam - 1.7 million
Communist North Korea - 1.66 million
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia - 1.17 million

According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, "Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed."

Communism has had a chance to show its mettle in the 20th century. Whatever its supposed ideals and aspirations in every instance in which it has been put into practice it has proven to be a brutal, oppressive, anti-humanist regime.

Are you mentally insane? It's not physically possible that that many people died in the Soviet Union! If that many had died, it would have driven the Soviet population far below the population of the United States. However, as we can plainly see, the combined population of the former Soviet republics is somewhat higher than the US's.

Actually, it's possible that 119 million were killed over a period of time. Notice: period of time. One fell swoop, then yes, Russia's population would have hit a major dip.

As for me...I'd think I'd pick Nazis.

Actually, it's possible that 119 million were killed over a period of time. Notice: period of time. One fell swoop, then yes, Russia's population would have hit a major dip.

As for me...I'd think I'd pick Nazis.

I was referring to the 55-62 million people claim were killed during the Stalin era in the Soviet Union.

Are you mentally insane? It's not physically possible that that many people died in the Soviet Union! If that many had died, it would have driven the Soviet population far below the population of the United States. However, as we can plainly see, the combined population of the former Soviet republics is somewhat higher than the US's.That's garbage. Those numbers should be taken as conservative estimates. The rough totals are usually generated by taking population projections and comparing them to actual populations. In any case, you had a good chance of dying either way. Maybe it's the Austrian blood in my veins, but I feel Hitler provided the better chance at staying alive. In any case, it's worth noting that, with the exception of the communist countries that so many people claim existed, but few even make a pretense of proving, every communist country we have ever seen behaved to a lesser (most) or greater degree (Romania) like Stalin's Soviet Union. We know what a Nazi country looks like (Nazi Germany). For all the talk about communist countries being better than anybody else, no communist state has ever proved it. Like Churchill and others said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form ever tried."

In any case, you had a good chance of dying either way. Maybe it's the Austrian blood in my veins, but I feel Hitler provided the better chance at staying alive.

Going by that view, it really just depends on your race, religion, and political views as to which one is more likely to kill you. I'm 1/2 Asian, 1/2 white, atheist, and communist, so I'd definetely go for the Soviets.

i had to choose between commies and nazi id go with.......... hippies peace man

I'd have to go with the Soviet Union. Both suck, but at least Marxism's goals are much nobler, even if the USSR quit trying to reach them early on.

Look Hitler and Stalin were two sides of the same coin. If you sat both of them together in a room the and left economics off the topic in political discussion they would agree with each other in every other area. Stalinest soviets and nazies were the same thing considering the hindsight of the ww2 situation.

Consider this a formal warning. Any more flaming from you, and your access to this forum may be temporarily revoked.

If what he is saying is true he wont care that you may ban him from a forum.

Stalinism is not the same as Communism. He overturned many Marxist beliefs. If you asked people to choose between Nazism and Stalinism it would possibly be quite different to Nazism and Communism. Furthermore, the poll results will probably be slightly untrue anyway, as about 2/3 of the population drop history at GCSE, and therefore only have a keyhole education which focuses largely on Nazi monstrosities. Not criticising, just pointing stuff out, please don't snap at me.

Not criticising, just pointing stuff out, please don't snap at me.
*snap*
*snap*
Ha!
So there!
:D

[/threadjack]

Look Hitler and Stalin were two sides of the same coin. If you sat both of them together in a room the and left economics off the topic in political discussion they would agree with each other in every other area. Stalinest soviets and nazies were the same thing considering the hindsight of the ww2 situation.

When you get to the extreme ends of the political spectrum, although they hate each other it's quite surprising how close they actually are to each other.

This observation deserves a separate comment. The main thrust of Europaland's argument is that Stalinism, not Communism, is responsible for the murder of citizens by their own government. A look at the people killed throughout the history of the USSR and in other countries refutes that contention.

People Killed by their Communist Government in the USSR (1917-1991)

Russian Civil War - 3,284,000
Period of Lenin's New Economic Policy 1923 (NEP) - 2,200,000
Collectivization, 1929 - 11,440,000
Great Terror, 1936 - 4,345,000
pre-WWII - 5,104,000
WWII - 13,053,000
post WWII until 1954 - 15,613,000
post Stalin, 1954-1991 - 6,872,000

While it is true that Stalin is the greatest killer of the 20th century and possibly of all time, the Soviet Union killed its own people in massive numbers from its inception until its demise.

Other Communist governments who murdered their own people

Communist China - 38 million, plus another 27 million killed by Mao's agricultural policies
Communist Cambodia - 2.4 million
Communist Vietnam - 1.7 million
Communist North Korea - 1.66 million
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia - 1.17 million

According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, "Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed."

Communism has had a chance to show its mettle in the 20th century. Whatever its supposed ideals and aspirations in every instance in which it has been put into practice it has proven to be a brutal, oppressive, anti-humanist regime.
Are you mentally insane? It's not physically possible that that many people died in the Soviet Union! If that many had died, it would have driven the Soviet population far below the population of the United States. However, as we can plainly see, the combined population of the former Soviet republics is somewhat higher than the US's.

Statistics is a wacky world, isn't it?

Keep in mind that these 62 million Soviet deaths took place over the entire 75 year history of the U.S.S.R. For perspective, the population of the world still went up every year through the 1940s, even with all the combined deaths of World War II. In fact the only time the population of the world ever took a dip was a brief span in the mid-14th century due to the Black Plague.

Our perception of death is relative. The Americans killed during the Vietnam War - all 58,000 of them - left a scar on this nation we still have not recovered from. Yet, the same number of Americans die every year-and-a-half on American highways and it is barely a news story. In essence we have had 15 Vietnam Wars since the actual one ended, but it has left no major impact on our policies or attitudes toward automobiles.

Our perception of death is relative.

I don't feel like reading the whole thread- I'd ally myself with the nazis.

Communist every time. Fascism changes too much for my liking.

Commies, because they kick massive Nazi ass...with out commies the nazi punks would have killed off the whole of the european jewry! :mad:

I am a Communist and would choose Communism any time. Socialism is the only way forward for the human race and the only way to end the exploitation of the weak by the powerful which has poisoned our world for so long. Workers of the World Unite!

Good luck with your economy.. if workers run your businesses you will not optimize.

Some people are better than others at starting and running businesses... the business world needs such people. Take them away and you will be left with ineffective, inefficient businesses and said poor economy. Rather than hating the entrepreneur, how about thanking him for CREATING the jobs for those workers?

Would they have jobs without such people? Nope... unless they enjoyed farming their own land (which they can't afford) or maybe joining a guild and repairing shoes or painting.
----------------------------

as for the question posed by this topic, i would choose Nazis. While I do not approve of some of their right-wing social policies or their left-wing economic policies, they are no worse than social policies of Communist Russia (no free press, speech... the Gulag, etc.) and there is a bit more financial freedom with national socialism than there is with communism.

I'd pick neither.

I'd do exactly what the Haitian slaves did frequently in their Revolution (and it worked against the Spanish and French)...burn everything you've got, leave nothing behind except crap..and RUN FOR THE HILLS! Then when things calm down, send recon in and then wear them thin with guerilla warfare.

Commies, because they kick massive Nazi ass...with out commies the nazi punks would have killed off the whole of the european jewry! :mad:
Punk ain't no religious cult
Punk means thinking for yourself
You ain't hardcore cos you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head

Nazi punks
Nazi punks
....
Nazi punks...

Sorry, I should stop wailing Dead Kennedys songs.

[/threadjack]

I would go for Communism personally.
There are many, many people alive now in this world who are only alive simply because it is illegal to kill them. An example is each and every American citizen that voted for George W. Bush in the election, assuming the votes weren't fixed. Did anyone stop and think that maybe Dictatorship is not such a bad thing, provided the Dictator does not try and purge entire races off the planet.

Russia was once of course the larger part of the Soviet Union/USSR/CCCP, which made it one of the world's superpowers because the state controlled all the businesses and their profits, therefore they could easily build up and maintain a strong army. Now, Russia is reduces to a hollow shell of it's former self, with rich businessmen owning all that had made Russia strong - oil and natural resources.

This is a shame because the USSR was the only really powerful Anti-American country.

I choose Communism because all that Capitalism is a refined, revised, and more effective form of Nazism.

I don't think I could make either choice in good conscience. I'd have to fight either or both to the death.

Nazi, because I'd rather be anything apart from a communist
:fluffle: <----commies :sniper: <----- me

Communist

Why? because there is no slaughtering people just because of their own race or religion (like Nazis). No believing there is a superior race (like Nazis). and Communism doesn't suck major donkey balls (like Nazis)

COMMUNISM RULES!!!!! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Nazi, because I'd rather be anything apart from a communist
:fluffle: <----commies :sniper: <----- me
Communist

Why? because there is no slaughtering people just because of their own race or religion (like Nazis). No believing there is a superior race (like Nazis). and Communism doesn't suck major donkey balls (like Nazis)

COMMUNISM RULES!!!!! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
Hmm.
It seems there is some odd allure to the sniper smily.
Let me try!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: GO TEH COMMIES!! YEH!!

Communist

Why? because there is no slaughtering people just because of their own race or religion (like Nazis). No believing there is a superior race (like Nazis). and Communism doesn't suck major donkey balls (like Nazis)

COMMUNISM RULES!!!!! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I was going to open with Are you DUMB? but, realizing that would be a flame of some sort, and as there is to be no real flaming here, I instead rebut as follows:

If you would bother to read any of the previous posts, you woud find that not only every point that you brought up is not only incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble of looking foolish.

since you insist on skipping to the end, I will summarize some of the salient points of this argument:
NAZI | COMMIE
1. people killed ~6mil | ~30mil
The Nazi Camps Killed :politicals, jews, homosexuals, gypsies.
The Russian Gulags Killed : Pretty much the same as nazis, but substitute christians for gypsies (it's too cold in most of the motherland for them)

2. Private property: yes, encouraged | no, discouraged
3. Troop Strength: Tactics, Toughness | Numbers
(see the movie enemy at the gates for a better example)
4. Party Rise: election | revolution
5. State religion: encouraged, aryianism | discouraged- athiestic

I could go on, but there's not much point. and don't start that crap about socialist vs... the nazis were socalists. hence the shortening of National Socialists (Mousollini was a Facist, attempting to be like the roman dictators.- read the root of facist- faces )

so, please, while I find both ideologies troublesome, and while everyone is entitled to their own opinon, I will side with patton, and take the Nazis over the communists any day... comrade ( however, the tsarists would be a much different story, I think!)

Communist

Why? because there is no slaughtering people just because of their own race or religion (like Nazis)...

As had been documented within this thread time and again Communist governments have been the greatest killers of their own people in the 20th century. They have collectively killed 110 million of their own citizens (this does not include wars), compared with the 21 million killed by the Nazis. Both are brutal, repressive, evil systems of governments, however the communists have proven themselves the most brutal, repressive, and evil.

Commies, no exceptions, Nazis are based on hate, with Communism everyone is just extremely oppresed, and at least with Communism there are good intentions you, you cant say that about Nazis.

How about both? The Commie-Nazi's are an elite force and their motto is "We Purge Everybody". Recognize.

Thats an oxymoron.

Nazis are far right wing, commies are far left wing. And going even farther right wing we find the anarchists.

Thats an oxymoron.

Nazis are far right wing, commies are far left wing. And going even farther right wing we find the anarchists.
His post was a joke.

Also, anarchists are right-wing? I hadn't guessed...

so, please, while I find both ideologies troublesome, and while everyone is entitled to their own opinon, I will side with patton, and take the Nazis over the communists any day... comrade ( however, the tsarists would be a much different story, I think!)

Interesting choice. Go Czarism!!!

:eek: :sniper:

By the way, good use of facts, and excellent choice of a guide (Patton).

Thats an oxymoron.

Nazis are far right wing, commies are far left wing. And going even farther right wing we find the anarchists.

Really, so the Commie-Nazi's is an oxymoron? Well no shit.

Look people, communism treats people as equals, now consider the number of people killed to population in USSR, and the same for DOUCHEland. Nazi persecuting asses

The enemy of my enemy is my friend as well, and aside from all this the Nazis never took all of Finland into Hitler's Empire therefore they were still relatively loose...more or less a confederation, and if ti wasn't like this they wouldn't have been able to seek that seperate peace. Germany could have destroyed Russia anyway if it wasn't for Hitler's bumbling and errors, so Hitler is the only idiot. He makes Germany look bad and gives the stigma all germans are Nazis when in fact -Not all Germans were Nazis...and not all Nazis were German- Nazi doesn't mean kill jews, it was a brilliant economic and social political party that helped rocket Germany out of the depression and gain back her dignity and her strength. If Hitler wasn't a lunatic the jews would probably have been spared extermination because everywhere in Europe there were progroms and nights such as Kristalnacht, so Germany wasn't doing anything unheard of blaming the problems on the jews. And if the didn't kill the jews and used some in their military programs...we'd all be speaking german. Don't forget, Einstein only came here because of Hitler.