NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had to choose between Nazism and Communism which one would you choose?

I'd first die before choosing between them.

Real communism? Or Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism or some other variant that isn't actually really communism?

Does Nazism necessarily include racism?

Or was that just Hitler?

Are Nazism and Hitler inseparable -- what I mean is, is there no Nazism without Hitler?

I'd first die before choosing between them.Ok, so you're standing at the pearly gates, and st. Peter ask you: Do you want to be a communist or nazi?
What do you say? (You already died, so you can't first die again.)

Super-power, my view is the reverse of yours: I'd first kill before choosing between them.

i guess when i mean Nazism i mean WW2 hitlers nazism with racism

and when i mean Communism i mean the War Communism of Stalin where the government owns everything

Communism. Definitely.

Ok, so you're standing at the pearly gates, and st. Peter ask you: Do you want to be a communist or nazi?
I tell him neither :)

There is one party in communism, one party in communist countries.

In order to keep that party in complete power (sans competition), various liberties must be taken away or curbed.

So real communism... requires the totalitarian aspect.

Act up, you go to the gulag, or the killing fields, or take one to the back of the head (China). Mao and Stalin made Hitler look like a humanitarian. That's "real Communism."

i'm assuming you're talkin about stalinism rather than communism. in which case i would emigrate.

i think that it is important to realize that racism is only one issue its the one issue i wouldnt support it but if i HAD to choose between the 2 i would choose nazism over communism any day.

Well, they both suck.
But I have blond hair and blue eyes, so Nazism wouldn't suck that much for me personally.

yeah, Nazism by a hair. I dislike both vehemently -- Communism for its hatred of business/entrepreneurialism/drive/maximization of talent... Nazism for its arbitrary hatred of people who aren't like the ruling group.

But Nazism's economic system is a bit closer to my own -- personal economics is far freer with Nazism.

im really suprised that so many more people are choosing Communism Over Nazism. i would have thought it would have been split down the middle. Any thoughs on why?

im really suprised that so many more people are choosing Communism Over Nazism. i would have thought it would have been split down the middle. Any thoughs on why?

yes, this is (by and large) a liberal forum that is, therefore, more likely to be sympathetic to the extreme evil on the left (communism) than the extreme evil at the top of the Y axis (Nazism).

ya fargland i voted nazism for the same reason that you did the economic stance of naizms is much closer to mine than commmunism is.

im really suprised that so many more people are choosing Communism Over Nazism. i would have thought it would have been split down the middle. Any thoughs on why?

Because people don't really like to relate themselves to regimes which purge whole ethnic groups, even if their social reforms were quite good, as long as you were a white male right-winger, who had 3 children and blonde hair.

And they lost World War two, which nobody really wants to relate themselves to.

well Stalin killed alot more people in his Purge than Hitler... thats another reason that id vote nazism

although hitler killed people because the were gay or jewish or a communist.....he didnt kill nearly as much just had tons of documents on the killings so its really talked about

im really suprised that so many more people are choosing Communism Over Nazism. i would have thought it would have been split down the middle. Any thoughs on why?People associate communism with socialism and naziism with pure evil.

However since we're talking about stalinism, it's arguably much worse than naziism. (And from a practical view point, if you place the choice at the start of WW2, then as Nazi you have a good chance of being free in 5 years, while as communist you face another 50 years of oppression)

Because people don't really like to relate themselves to regimes which purge whole ethnic groups, even if their social reforms were quite good, as long as you were a white male right-winger, who had 3 children and blonde hair.

And they lost World War two, which nobody really wants to relate themselves to.

Mao and Stalin killed people for saying "No"

Is vicious suppression of the freedom of speech easier to accept than blind racism?

(i'm implying nothing, just posing the question)

http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/others/mcbain2.gif

What about Commienazis?

http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/others/mcbain2.gif

What about Commienazis?

hehe

Nazunists

[IMG]What about Commienazis?Seeing how well nazis and commies get along, I think they'd beat themselves up about it..

Well there's a lot more anti-semitism in nazism (duh), Lenin wanted to end anti-semitism and I have a slavic, jewish-sounding surname. So nazis (and Stalinists) would send me away to a gulag, so I'd choose commie (if it was Leninist/Trotskyist). But if I had to choose between nazism and stalinism I'd emigrate.

Seeing how well nazis and commies get along, I think they'd beat themselves up about it..

Which is the perfect solution to end both lunatic groups in one swoop.

Communism vs fascism would have been a better topic.

Mao and Stalin killed people for saying "No"

Is vicious suppression of the freedom of speech easier to accept than blind racism?

(i'm implying nothing, just posing the question)

So did Hitler. The original concentration camps (usually disused jails + factories) were made for political dissidents.

I voted for Nazism. NOT because of the racist crap, but because of the flag, the Panzers, WW2, you know.

So did Hitler. The original concentration camps (usually disused jails + factories) were made for political dissidents.

yeah, Hitler was a beast.

Is vicious suppression of the freedom of speech easier to accept than blind racism?

Well yes. If it's illegal to say something, don't say it. But you're kinda screwed if you belong to a persecuted race because you can't stop being black, arab, gay, jewish etc.

Frangland.That is NOT real communism.
Communism where the fundamentals of equality are introduced,but some form of democracy is still kept.
Communism cannot work without some form of democracy.
I.e. you can nationalise big industry, but there is no point in doing that to small corner shops.It wouldn't work.
Communism has never been properly tested. Everywhere "communism" has come to power, it has been corrupt.

I voted for Nazism. NOT because of the racist crap, but because of the flag, the Panzers, WW2, you know.

Meh.

T-34 > Pzkpfw-V
Hammer & Sickle > Swastika
Conquering Berlin > Being conquered in Berlin

I voted for Nazism. NOT because of the racist crap, but because of the flag, the Panzers, WW2, you know.

Have you ever seen any of the parades in Red Square?

Those are pretty good. And why are you supporting WW2?

sorry for not being clear on the issues. i meant War Communism the form of government under Stalinistic russia where the Government owns everything and the "democracy" is a one party system just like in Germany where your options were a nazi and another nazi for your representative.

and the nazi reps didnt get much power at all after the enabling act

You do know that Nazism does not mean that you are a racist?

True Nazism (though I do not practise it) is where you believe almost religiously in Totaltarianism. Being a so-called "Extremist Totaltarian" is called "Being a Nazi". I mostly find people relate Nazism to the Holocaust in Poland. Not that they shouldn't, but killing Poles isn't what Nazism is about. Another form of Nazism is following legislation that betters the State, whatever the cost (Hitler's View).

And Communism, well that form of Gov't is frankly the best form there is in my opinion. It utilizes everyone to make the entire country stronger. The only thing about Communism that doesn't work is the Human psyche, since Communism is frequently ruled by a Government that isn't very plural, those few seem to put the excess funds into their personal bank account. Corruption, among other things, is the bane of Communism (so it couldn't work in North America :P just jokes people). Cons of Communism are that it offers little in the way of choosing your preferred job and if you don't like it then thats too damn bad. True Communism works, in theory.

Frankly its all about your political views, and as was said, this is a largely Liberal forum.

sorry for not being clear on the issues. i meant War Communism the form of government under Stalinistic russia where the Government owns everything...

Nah: the Government do not own everything - 'the people' do. This is a glaring error.

T-34 > Pzkpfw-V
Depends on the version. :p

no the soviets of the USSR and the government owned everything that's a glaring error. Yes the Ideal Communism the people own everything but under War Communism they did not.

Frankly its all about your political views, and as was said, this is a largely Liberal forum.
It's also one where we value our definitions, so reread your post and read:
a) http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/mussolini-fascism.html
b) "Mein Kampf" by Hitler.
c) Any given communist literature, perhaps "Das Kapital" (or "Communist Manifesto", if you wanna be a pleb).

no the soviets of the USSR and the government owned everything that's a glaring error. Yes the Ideal Communism the people own everything but under War Communism they did not.

Nope, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. To criticise the government is acceptable within communism, but to criticise the people is totally counter-revolutionary: therefore the constant claims that 'the people' owned everything.

Depends on the version. :p

Fine, T-34(76), 1937 version would get killed by a Pz4. But most versions of the T-34 were pretty good.

Fine, T-34(76), 1937 version would get killed by a Pz4. But most versions of the T-34 were pretty good.
He said Panzer V. Which is the "Panther", and that was a very good tank indeed, after its initial problems were solved.

i like how you put 'the people' in qoutes cause thats not really what it was... Lenin's Vanguard of the people theory just blows that idea of the USSR out of the water.

Depends on the version. :p

Heck, even with the bottom of the line 76mil versions you are still able to field sufficient waves of them to outnumber the more expensive and mechanically fragile German tanks... fancy-schmancy Zeiss optics are going to help little if you can't even traverse your turret fast enough to track the onrushing mob (see Kursk, obviously).

Frangland.That is NOT real communism.
Communism where the fundamentals of equality are introduced,but some form of democracy is still kept.
Communism cannot work without some form of democracy.
I.e. you can nationalise big industry, but there is no point in doing that to small corner shops.It wouldn't work.
Communism has never been properly tested. Everywhere "communism" has come to power, it has been corrupt.

If democracy exists and the gifted people no longer feel like supporting the non-workers... entrepreneurs want to go into business for profit's sake... etc.

Do they have a choice?

No, they don't, if communism is to be preserved.

Freedom of speech and financial freedom are seriously limited in communist states.

reasons:

a) If speech is free, dissent will flourish -- because the people who could prosper on their own would whine to the heavens about their inability to try their wings... as communism would hold them in mediocrity. Communism keeps the cream from rising. There are other possible motives for people to speak out against communism -- the rights to own property and go into business are but two (well, one big reason).

b) This might not be right, but I think that communism came into being as a way to elevate the unskilled, stupid, below-average human being... to manipulate people so that what makes us unique no longer applies. The dumb/lazy/unlucky/weak are raised up at the expense of those who can flourish on their own. It's a manual leveling of the playing field, and it is done at the expense of freedom. Economic equality is praised while economic freedom is vanquished.

blah blah, i'm blabbing. apologies.

He said Panzer V. Which is the "Panther", and that was a very good tank indeed, after its initial problems were solved.

Rubbish armour on the sides of the turrets though, and the Soviet tactic of deploying their vehicles in ludicrously large concentrations was able to exploit this. As with all the big Panzers the allied doctrine* primarily depended upon killing them with a thousand pinpricks - and it only takes one lucky shot out of the superior number of guns that you would be able to field to brew up a big cat.


* US excepted, due to their on paper doctrine of using tank destroyers against the tanks and their own tanks as infantry support, however, in practice the same principle applies - they were still able to field excessive numbers of Ronsons against the P-V and PVI's.

c) Any given communist literature, perhaps "Das Kapital" (or "Communist Manifesto", if you wanna be a pleb).

I'd suggest The German Ideology myself.

well Stalin killed alot more people in his Purge than Hitler

yes, becuase Hitler didn't have enough time to

What about Commienazis?

Hitler was defeated thank to the sacrifice of communists. It was the Red Army which broke Hitler's army, it was the communist resistance networks who disrupted the nazi war effort.

In respect for all the comrades who gave their lives to free the world from nazism, I ask you apologizes. Comparing nazi and communists is the worst insult you could ever write. I repeat: I ask for apologizes.

In the city I came from, on the 52 who died fighting the nazi, 41 were members of the communist party, and it's the same all around France. What you are saying is just disgusting, like this whole thread.

Our comrades courageously gave their blood and whistood torture to defeat Hitler. We don't deserve such an infamous thread.

Definitely communism.

Which would you prefer, a *really* painful death, or a *very* painful death?

Leaning slightly towards communism. Just slightly.

Real communism? Or Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism or some other variant that isn't actually really communism?

I am tired of hearing people ask that question, THere is no such thing as real communism, just doesnt work.

Hitler was defeated thank to the sacrifice of communists. It was the Red Army which broke Hitler's army, it was the communist resistance networks who disrupted the nazi war effort.

In respect for all the comrades who gave their lives to free the world from nazism, I ask you apologizes. Comparing nazi and communists is the worst insult you could ever write. I repeat: I ask for apologizes.

In the city I came from, on the 52 who died fighting the nazi, 41 were members of the communist party, and it's the same all around France. What you are saying is just disgusting, like this whole thread.

Our comrades courageously gave their blood and whistood torture to defeat Hitler. We don't deserve such an infamous thread.

You deserve an even more infamous one. The suffering you ideology has wrought on this world is equal to, if not worse, than that of Nazism.

I am tired of hearing people ask that question, THere is no such thing as real communism, just doesnt work.
That's why I took Nazism, in any case, that did work.

I'd vote Commies.

In it's pure form, Communism is not corrupt. It just winds up that way.

Nazism, on the other hand, is not only pure evil in my eyes, but is also unfounded. Hate people because they aren't white? Why?

EDIT:

T OLET YOU ALL KNOW, I DO NOT SUPPORT EITHER.

That's why I took Nazism, in any case, that did work.
Common misconception... no it didn't work. Nazi Germany was statistically bankrupt in 1939.

Its disturbing to me how anyone could choose nazism over communism.

I voted for Nazism. NOT because of the racist crap, but because of the flag, the Panzers, WW2, you know.How nice, because the racist crap is usually what you get.

I voted communist. This is based on my grandfather's observations. The communist regime in the DDR was slightly less oppressive than the Nazi regime of the 3rd Reich.

I voted for Nazism. NOT because of the racist crap, but because of the flag, the Panzers, WW2, you know.
You gotta be fucking kidding me.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.Too early to tell, only two posts.

Nazism and Communism; both ideologies thrive off of authoritarian psychology, and both are responsible for the deaths of millions in the name of their respective ideologies. Hmmmm.....

I would not vote at all, since if I voted for the losing party, I would get sent to a death camp; and I would probably get sent to a death camp if I voted for the winning party anyway (especially under Nazism, since I'm Jewish).

Even if one party took control of the government by a majority rule (God forbid), the other one would become a violent resistance movement that would tear the country into civil war. I wouldn't want to have had any hand in whatever occurs because of this "election".

both are pretty bad, stalinist russia or hitlers germany. but at least the USSR started otu with good intentions

I would kill myself, because they are both the definition of evil.

One question. How did "in-betweens" fare under Hitler? I mean people who weren't blond, blue-eyed Aryans, but not one of the hated races either. Just ordinary, brown-haired, brown-eyed, white guys.

Not that it would change my opinion of Nazism, just a self-interest question.

One question. How did "in-betweens" fare under Hitler? I mean people who weren't blond, blue-eyed Aryans, but not one of the hated races either. Just ordinary, brown-haired, brown-eyed, white guys.

Not that it would change my opinion of Nazism, just a self-interest question.Well, you could get sent to a concentration camp if your boss said you didn't work enough. Or if you were a painter on a day that someone painted "Down with Hitler" on a wall.

Nazism and Communism; both ideologies thrive off of authoritarian psychology, and both are responsible for the deaths of millions in the name of their respective ideologies.

However, authoritarianism is essential to Nazism, whereas it is optional within communism. Of course, to state the obvious, historically authoritarian communism has vastly overshadowed anti-authoritarian communism.

I loath both, but I voted for Communism, because it has been shown that communism can exist without being brutally despotic - the poster child for this being the Vietnamese government, which has never been especially rough on it's own people.

The four attempts at fascist government (of which Nazism is merely a variant), Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Peronist Argentina and Franco's Spain, were all brutal, murderous and vicious to the very people they purported to protect.

Well, you could get sent to a concentration camp if your boss said you didn't work enough.

Well, since I'm posting this from work, I'd probably be better off under communism. :p
Or if you were a painter on a day that someone painted "Down with Hitler" on a wall.

I'd probably be screwed either way. Odds are I'd be the one to paint "Down with Hitler/Stalin" on the wall. :p

Communism by a long margin - even if it was pseudo-communism like in Russia or - even worse - like in China. It would still not come remotely close to the atrocities done by the Nazis during WWII.

I'd start my own political party, get a few other moderates and fairly reasonable people together, and assuming no-one else does the same, I'd walk the election.

And as long as I can get it running before the last free election for far too long, it should work.

For the Communists, almost certainly.

Nazism - 12 million deaths

Communism - 100 million deaths

If I had to pick the least evil of the two, it would be the top choice

But I probably won't vote at all, or I would form a new party, and be the third and more safer choice

Nazism - 12 million deaths

Communism - 100 million deaths

If I had to pick the least evil of the two, it would be the top choice

But I probably won't vote at all, or I would form a new party, and be the third and more safer choiceCommon fallacy. You forgot to calculate deaths per year.

Nazism. At least with the Nazis you could tell whose side you were on, between Stalin's officer purges, party purges, enemy purges, paranoia purges, doctor's plots, invasions, etc, you could never tell who was gunning for you.
Plus, it would be a nice little bit of nostalgia to march up and down the street in one of those nice little uniforms.

Does Nazism necessarily include racism?

Or was that just Hitler?

Are Nazism and Hitler inseparable -- what I mean is, is there no Nazism without Hitler?

Technically speaking, yes. One of the major components of the Nazi party extreme nationalism. Now, that doesn't mean that you necessarily have hatred for other races, just that you don't want other races in your country(The Germans for instance wanted to purify the German race). Now, it doesn't have to be as extreme as Hitler, but it is still a component of Nazism.

That being said, Communism. If done well and right, it has a great deal of potential.

Nazism - 12 million deaths

Communism - 100 million deaths

If I had to pick the least evil of the two, it would be the top choice

But I probably won't vote at all, or I would form a new party, and be the third and more safer choice

Um. Not only are you not looking at deaths per year, but you are doing some pretty selective counting of deaths caused by the Nazis and ridiculously broad counting for the communists.

I'd love to see you explain your figures.

EDIT: Consider: The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.

sorry for not being clear on the issues. i meant War Communism the form of government under Stalinistic russia where the Government owns everything and the "democracy" is a one party system just like in Germany where your options were a nazi and another nazi for your representative.

Well, as neither of those really emulate the actual doctrines of either system... I'll have to choose neither. Now, if we're talking about two systems that actually try to emulate the doctrines of either, I'd say communism by a hair. Nazism wasn't nearly as bad as how Hitler manipulated it, and same goes for Communism and any number of "Leaders", however Nazism is racist by nature(Although not nearly as much as under Hitler). So, Communism if by that.

Really, though, I'd prefer death over living under either one of those two.

Consider: The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.
War, like fucking, requires two partners, each equally dedicated to the cause of effecting the other, and so trying to plant the military death toll on one side is pointless (especially with the modern tendency to string military pacts all over the place).

War, like fucking, requires two partners, each equally dedicated to the cause of effecting the other, and so trying to plant the military death toll on one side is pointless (especially with the modern tendency to string military pacts all over the place).

So the Nazi's aren't responsible for the military death toll of the war in Europe?

What about the civilian death toll?

I think it's funny that everyone says Communism is great (even though it has never worked) but that it has never been purely tested, and that it is the human factor that prevents it from working. Uh, if you're setting up a government for humans run by humans, the human factor would probably be one of the top factors to consider when forming the government.

I voted Nazism, but both suck, and I would probably be killed rebelling against whomever won. (Even though with blond hair the Nazis would probably leave me alone more and my name is kinda Germanic).

I don't care. They're both basically the same thing. Probably choose whatever is easier to overthrow.

I find Communists easier to get along with, so I'm picking Communism.

I think it's funny that everyone says Communism is great (even though it has never worked) but that it has never been purely tested, and that it is the human factor that prevents it from working. Uh, if you're setting up a government for humans run by humans, the human factor would probably be one of the top factors to consider when forming the government.

Look up the Paris Commune. It does work. Just generally not when people decide to hold onto absolute power(Which is a temptation almost impossible to resist). It can work on small-scale localized levels, however it gets a bit messy on a national level. And usually, when people "form" communist governments, they tend to not have the people's interests at heart to begin with, or they quickly become delusional with power. It's nature to abuse power. Also, the people are easily tricked into believing that a leader is "for the people" if the person is charasmatic enough about the issue, and are all to willing to give absolute power. The problem with Communism isn't the system itself, it is how it is run. Run well, works well(which it has done before). Run poorly(Usually involves the national level), works poorly.

[/QUOTE]

Well, if you look at things carefully, many people can give up many things to live a much different and harsher life. Look at monastic life - what makes people take up their futures, lives and possessions to become monks? Belief and faith.

So if people have faith in the government they are in, it will work as long as they have it. It's all in choice - the reason why Communism failed is because it was forced. You have to agree to it, and stick with it.

No vote from 4 persons:

1) Me

2) Ikke

3) Moi

4) Ich

Meh.

T-34 > Pzkpfw-V
Hammer & Sickle > Swastika
Conquering Berlin > Being conquered in Berlin



Did you know the Soviets lost 300,000 men in just the taking of Berlin? They lost 20,000,000 people in the entire war as well.

Also, German tanks > all. The Germans still have one of the best tanks in the world, the Leopard tank.

The hammer and sickle is the only thing the Sovs have going for them there... I like that.

Assuming, as the OP says, it's Stalinism vs Hitler's Nazi Party, and assuming that we're talking about voting in a free election, and seeing as how there's no real difference between them:

I'd start a third party and campaign like mad against both of them.

If my party lost, I'd emigrate immediately and become an ex-pat activist against the winner from outside the country.

One question. How did "in-betweens" fare under Hitler? I mean people who weren't blond, blue-eyed Aryans, but not one of the hated races either. Just ordinary, brown-haired, brown-eyed, white guys.

Not that it would change my opinion of Nazism, just a self-interest question.
You mean ordinary, brown-haired, brown-eyed, white guys like Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, etc? They did pretty well, actually.

(I'm sure I'm misspelling some of those names, but even if there was someone to apologize to, I wouldn't.)

Hmm, that's a tough one. The Nazis had Wagner, but the Commies had Shostakovich. On the whole, though, I at least agree with some of the basic principles of the later while having next to nothing in common with the Nazis other than meeting the ethnic standards. As such, I'd have to go with the Commies.

War, like fucking, requires two partners, each equally dedicated to the cause of effecting the other...

No war is more like rape than just general fucking. A peculiar case of both sides trying to rape the other, but nonetheless...

Did you know the Soviets lost 300,000 men in just the taking of Berlin? They lost 20,000,000 people in the entire war as well.

Yes, and they were vile and unpleasent bastards who operated systematic rape on the road to Berlin, but the end result is that they did not lose the war.

Also, German tanks > all.

As feats of engineering, possibly, but that very same precision also meant they were hellishly expensive to support, fuel and repair. End result: other nations were able to overwhelm them with individually less complex tanks and destroy them. Ergo, Shermans, Fireflies, T-34s and the like > Nazi tanks.

The Germans still have one of the best tanks in the world, the Leopard tank.

The current German tank has little to do with Nazism though, does it? Other than its heritage, obviously.

Also, German tanks > all.
According to the History Channel that is not so. The Soviets' heavy tank was the most powerful until the end of the war, when the German tanks just caught up. Also according to the History Channel, the Soviets' tanks were so far superior to the German tanks that the Soviets thought the Germans were hiding something (The two sides agreed to show eachother their tank factories to promote trust and steal ideas).

According to the History Channel that is not so. The Soviets' heavy tank was the most powerful until the end of the war, when the German tanks just caught up. Also according to the History Channel, the Soviets' tanks were so far superior to the German tanks that the Soviets thought the Germans were hiding something (The two sides agreed to show eachother their tank factories to promote trust and steal ideas).

Well, the Soviet tanks were never really "superior," but by the end of the war they had definately caught up in effectiveness. When Operation Barbarossa started, for every one German tank that was destroyed, six Soviet tanks were lost. But by 1944, Soviet tank losses were roughly equal to German tank losses. The main problem the German faced was with with logistics, which severely crippled their armoured might.

The Tiger tank had 100 mm (4 inch) thick armour, with one of the most effective guns in the war, the 88 mm cannon. The Sovet Union had no way of countering the firepower of the 88 mm, so they developed anti-tank guerilla tactics (molotov cocktail ring a bell? :p ).

The Soviet T-34 did play a crucial role in the outcome of the war however, especially when the Soviets turned the Germans around at Stalingrad and Kursk and were able to supply their army with thousands of tanks.

Did you know the Soviets lost 300,000 men in just the taking of Berlin? They lost 20,000,000 people in the entire war as well.

Also, German tanks > all. The Germans still have one of the best tanks in the world, the Leopard tank.

The hammer and sickle is the only thing the Sovs have going for them there... I like that.

Yes, the most important things to look for in a country is quality of its tanks and its flag.

Well, the Soviet tanks were never really "superior," but by the end of the war they had definately caught up in effectiveness. When Operation Barbarossa started, for every one German tank that was destroyed, six Soviet tanks were lost. But by 1944, Soviet tank losses were roughly equal to German tank losses. The main problem the German faced was with with logistics, which severely crippled their armoured might.

The Tiger tank had 100 mm (4 inch) thick armour, with one of the most effective guns in the war, the 88 mm cannon. The Sovet Union had no way of countering the firepower of the 88 mm, so they developed anti-tank guerilla tactics (molotov cocktail ring a bell? :p ).

The Soviet T-34 did play a crucial role in the outcome of the war however, especially when the Soviets turned the Germans around at Stalingrad and Kursk and were able to supply their army with thousands of tanks.
True, the Soviets lost allot of tanks at the start of their war. But how do you think the Germans would have faired if they had the same 1 hour of instructional time (if they were lucky) that the Soviet soldiers had. Also, while the Soviet tanksdid have thinner armour, the metal they did have was put to better use (until the Germans figured out how it worked). The Soviets put the armour on the tank at an angle so that an on coming shell would either deflect or pirece the metal at an angle at an angle such that the shell has to penetrate more metal to get throughthe armour.

Yes, and they were vile and unpleasent bastards who operated systematic rape on the road to Berlin, but the end result is that they did not lose the war.
Not the frontline troops though. They were just as disciplined and orderly as all frontline troops have to be.

The problem was the troops of the second and following lines. As my now deceased sister of my grandmother could attest too.