Talk:Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV debate reopened

Would like to reopen the POV debate on the grounds that the "equivalence" of Nazism and Stalinism is being pushed in a one-sided way by this article, rather than a "comparison" being discussed. This "equivalence" is a popular propaganda tool among ex-soviet eastern-european states looking to exact moral revenge on the Soviet Union, supported by extreme nationalist theories and conveniently reducing those states' collaboration with the Nazis to the level of "just another atrocity in a confusing time" - thus negating their need to fully apologise and offer restitution. This article mentions nothing of the many reasons put forward by many academics and governmental sources for rejecting the equivalence, and it is quite clearly a POV political page mentioning only cherrypicked sources to discredit the idea that Hitler was worse than Stalin (this is the broad consensus wherever I check outside eastern european sources). The European Union declarations are not universally supported in the European Union, and this is not made apparent by the article. The fallacy that "westerners" know nothing of Stalin's evil and need "re-education" led to an attempt by some eastern european union states to suggest rewriting of school textbooks europe-wide. This was (of course) never implemented and never will be. This page mentions "1980s debate" in a very thin attempt to relegate the ongoing and very lively debate to that of "a couple of crackpots in the 80s". To anyone familiar with the current political situation in Eastern Europe, this article is a clear attempt to hide one-sided POV propaganda by giving it a pseudoacademic gloss, and from what I can see in the discussion here, the whitewash has been successful. The techniques used remind me of those used on the Prague Declaration page, heavily referenced imbalanced cherrypicked facts which are not fully explained to the uninitiated reader. For example - the Vilnius Declaration contained a raft of various measures besides the "equivalence" resolution, mostly completely unrelated to Stalinism/Nazism, and the whole package was voted on as a whole, and the official OSCE page doesn't even mention Stalinism/Nazism http://eurodialogue.org/OSCE-Parliamentary-Assembly-Adopts-Vilnius-Declaration - it is not mentioned because it is not very important to the OSCE, whereas in this article the OSCE is presented as a flagbearer for equivalence. Furthermore, Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania and at the heart of the push to equalise Stalinism and Nazism (the Prague declaration also originated in Eastern Europe and does not enjoy the wide support its initiators hoped for). While perhaps all the material on the page is fit for inclusion, it can only meet Wikipedia quality standards if it is completely rewritten to be neutral, and thousands of words of opposing views should be added for balance. Rather than attempt this huge task myself, I flag this page for POV and invite further discussion. Spitfire3000 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I notice that the lead is almost totally unsourced and says, "comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, or more broadly, the comparison of Fascism and Communism". It then coatracks into a comparison of fascism and communism, which correctly belongs in the Totalitarianism article. Nothing is said about the degree of current acceptance of the views presented in the article. TFD (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to tidy up the Vilnius Declaration (i also tidied up the VD page itself) and Black Ribbon Day paragraphs, but this only served to increase my feeling that a more extensive rewrite is needed in order to avoid POV problems. Agree that the leading paragraph is bizarre and the level of balance overall is well below Wikipedia standards. If this issue deserves its own page, perhaps "Equivalence of Nazism and Stalinism" would be a more appropriate title, and the majority of the page should be devoted to those mainstream historians who find the two regimes to be "comparable" but certainly not "equivalent". Apples can always be compared to oranges, both are basically spherical fruits picked from trees of similar heights, but this is a long way from the "equivalence" that the article is trying to insinuate into the mind of the uninformed reader. In fact, "Equivalence of Nazism and Stalinism" seems to be almost a "fringe theory" supported only by certain parties in power in certain EU member states who suffered at the hands of Stalin, and who have succeeded in adding articles to various minor Declarations, proposing commemoration days that most states do not adopt etc. I can chip away at various sentences to rebalance them, but the article as a whole is IMO political and not encyclopedic in nature, adding nothing that isn't already covered elsewhere or couldn't be covered elsewhere. I am not an experienced enough or brave enough Wikipedian to do anything drastic here, but I will of course lend my support to anyone who proposes major changes or deletion.Spitfire3000 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification for such a tag. The article contains referenced and highly relevant material, and there can be no dispute over either its factual accuracy or relevance. But the article was just a one-paragraph stub when I came across it and still needs much, much more work. What is said above on various issues looks mostly like personal opinions on political and scholarly developments, that are better presented in other channels than Wikipedia. It's our job to present facts as they are, in a neutral manner, not to politically "explain" them "to the uninitiated reader," i.e. adding our own non-neutral value judgements.

This article was decided to be kept following a debate over its notability half a year ago. The comparison of Nazism and Stalinism/Fascism and Communism is a major area of research in the field of totalitarianism studies and has been so for 60 years, and enjoys large political support in Europe and from various international organisations. The traditional communist view, i.e. that Stalin's regime was not totalitarian, not responsible for any crimes, occupations, genocides and so forth, is widely considered an extremist fringe theory in Europe since 1989 and is even criminalized in some countries. The mainstream view is that both stalinism and nazism were totalitarian ideologies that were responsible for a large number of crimes against humanity, and that the two regimes at times cooperated and shared a number of features/influences, which is one of the topics the scholarly field this article discusses is concerned with. Scholars in this field are particularly interested in how these regimes mutually influenced each other.

"Equivalence of Nazism and Stalinism" is not suited as a title for this article, because the scholarly field focuses on comparison, in its broadest sense, not only on a very narrow debate on "equivalence" (also, what does it mean to be "equivalent"? I seldom see this word used except by the opponents of any form of scholarly or political comparison, and of course by those who think Stalin's regime was not responsible for any wrongdoing). Tataral (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Few if any of the sources not compare Nazism and Stalinism. TFD (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are scholarly sources that examine the comparison. And let's not go into the ludicrous contention that anyone is equating Nazism and Stalinism, we've heard it dozens of times of times before, no one is making that contention. Happy New Year. 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC) [PetersJV]

It is not productive for you and Tatarai to comment on the motives of other editors. Whether or not there are "scholarly sources", no one has bothered to include them in this article. TFD (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The bibliography lists several sources published by university presses on the topic:

• Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
• Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
• Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.

So what do you mean by your statement: "Whether or not there are 'scholarly sources', no one has bothered to include them in this article"? --Nug (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All these sources are used for in the article is to support the assertion that scholars have compared nazism and stalinism and for a quote from Arendt in 1964. This article is merely cut and pasted from unrelated articles and does not use any material as sources. "Whether or not" btw means "regardless of whether".[1] TFD (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any comments on any motivations, only that many editors have before made the ludicrous contention (i.e., cast aspersions on OTHER editors) that Nazism and Stalinism were being (unfairly) equated, that such (unfair) equating was Holocaust denial, etc. If a scholar compares aspects of Stalinism and Nazism (propaganda, mass population control, etc.), how is that not using materials from sources? Let's not debate that sources don't exist when they do. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are the only editor bringing up holocaust denial as you acknowledged about. This article is garbage is that it is not sourced to studies comparing Stalinism and Nazism. TFD (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, rather than label other editor's good faith attempts at expanding the article "garbage". I've listed some scholarly sources, go for it. --Nug (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To continue this debate on the Prague Declaration (re: "does not enjoy the wide support its initiators hoped for"): The Prague Declaration per se and proposals set forth by the declaration enjoy broad political support in Europe, from governments, parliaments, the European Parliament, major political organisations and parties across the political spectrum, from The Greens–European Free Alliance to the European People's Party and its affiliates, such as the European Democrat Students who have made the entire declaration part of their general policy. According to Israeli academic Barry Rubin, the Prague Declaration is only opposed by "a tiny group of people"[2] (cf. fringe theory). No governments, parliaments or political organisations of any size bigger than some communist parties in Europe oppose it, and no really prominent politicians have opposed it either (the "tiny group" Rubin refers to includes a handful at best of rather obscure politicians who are no longer or were never influential, who despite years of waging, according to Rubin, "a relentless campaign", have failed to secure any significant support for their cause, not in Europe, not in Israel and not in America).

The idea that the two totalitarian regimes should not be compared, or that stalinism was not a totaliarian and genocidal ideology responsible for crimes against humanity, appears to be a fringe theory, more or less exclusively found on the far left (i.e. in parties such as the Communist Party of Britain). In the years following 1989, there has been a stream of scholarly works comparing the regimes, some even arguing Stalinism was worse, while others have emphasized they were both evil in their own way. Other scholars have focused on how these regimes influenced each other. Simultaneously, there has been a political development in many European countries and at the EU level since the fall of communism, that has explicitly made this comparison official government and EU policy. Tataral (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While that is all very interesting, the issue is whether or not the article is POV. It is POV because none of the sources used actually discuss the comparison of Stalinism and Nazism. TFD (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Tataral has addressed Spitfire3000's original POV concerns with regard to the Prague Declaration, providing a source that shows only a "a tiny group of people" (therefore fringe) oppose it. On the other hand your objections appear to be more related to WP:OFFTOPIC rather than WP:POV. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Rubin, writing in an editorial in the Jerusalem Post does not say that the Declaration "is only opposed by a "tiny group of people" but that "the campaign... to oppose [the Declaration] has been waged by a tiny group of people". However here is how it is described in Reforming Europe: The Role of the Centre-Right (p. 245), a book published by Springer, put together by the Constantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy and praised by the European People's Party: "Indeed, parties in Western Europe, mostly socialist or liberal but also including some Christian Democrats and conservatives, often feel uncomfortable about any direct comparison between National Socialism, which is deemed unique in its genocidal aspects, and Communism or any other ideology. The fact that the Prague Declaration has so few signatories from the old EU Member States and their centre-right parties is highly significant in this respect."[3] TFD (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That article, which expressed the opinion of one German person and which is not a discussion of the Prague Declaration but only briefly mentions it in the context of the influence of anti-totalitarianism on EU policy, does not at all address the issue being discussed, and he appears to be badly informed. There certainly were prominent German signatories of the Prague Declaration (such as Joachim Gauck, who was nominated as President by the Social Democrats and Greens two years after signing the declaration, and who is, according to The Independent, "Germany's answer to Nelson Mandela"). There is an obvious and natural reason for most of the signatories being from ex-communist countries, namely the fact that this was a conference on communism organised in an ex-communist country. The European People's Party and its affiliates support the Prague Declarations and the EPP is the main force behind the many initiatives and resolutions in the European Parliament in support of the declaration; in fact the European People's Party's Robert Schuman Foundation was a co-organizer of the conference that led to the declaration. It's not like the EPP vouch for every sentence in a book even if someone employed by them recommended it or something. The book does not show that there has been any significant opposition to the declaration, only that most of the signatories of the final document of a conference in Prague were from ex-communist countries, i.e. people affected by communism (which is no surprise and which everyone already knew). For example, if a Holocaust conference took place in Jerusalem, a declaration was signed, and the majority (but not all) of the conference attendants were themselves Jewish, it would be ridiculous to interpret that as opposition to the contents of the declaration from non-Jews. Tataral (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the page remains POV. It is entitled "comparison" but is gives the unbalanced impression that the two systems were equal or near-identical. This is a point of view favoured by Eastern European countries, who (as Tataral has announced in many wikipedia pages) are working in the EU towards rubberstamping the idea that the two systems were equal, but who (as Tataral does not like me to add) are not achieving much success, mainly due to the obvious fact that the two systems were very different (a fact that a page purporting to compare the regimes should be pointing out more than it points out the similarities). The issue of Holocaust denial (or more accurately Holocaust obfuscation) comes into it when you consider the fact that governments such as that of Lithuania are very eager to advertise their suffering at the hands of the Soviets, but much less eager to deal with the fact that large numbers of her population collaborated willingly with the Nazis. It seems that the Lithuanian position is "Hitler and Stalin were equally bad so therefore we will talk a lot more about Stalin's evil than Hitler's" - a nonsense. Anyway, without going too far off topic, the point of view that Nazism and Stalinism can be viewed as very different should also be included on this page, or it should be deleted. The fact that it has survived a deletion attempt in the past does not mean it is immune from further attempts at deletion or substantial rewriting. In its current state, this article is classic POV disguised with cherrypicked references and a large dollop of Orwellian Platform of European Memory and Conscience propaganda, which is in actual fact just a group of right-wing governments on the fringes of European politics, being placated and generally ignored. Their insistence on equivalence is unsupportable and their point of view should not dominate this page.Spitfire3000 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that the initators of the Prague Declaration are not "having much success." This is only your unsubstantiated opinion. That article clearly shows that the initators of that declaration are having an enormous success. In relatively short time, the European Union and even Canada have proclaimed the remembrance day they called for, the EU has set up the educational institution they proposed with support of the European Parliament, EU Council and Presidency, and they are obviously working towards their other goals. The declaration has been endorsed by parliaments and major political groups in its entirety, and core ideas from the declaration are found in European Parliament resolutions and elsewhere. They also continue to enjoy the active support of at least half a dozen EU governments, while other countries may be less involved in the issue (there is not a single government opposing it, however). For a declaration signed mostly by parliamentarians, retired politicians, and historians, this is a major success, and not everything can be expected to happen overnight. What have the opponents achived in terms of support from parliamentary bodies, governments, or major political organisations? "governments on the fringes of European politics" is a self-contradictory sentence, and it's obviously clearly not a neutral point of view that goverments of large EU member states like Poland are supposed to be "fringe". Indeed, the voting in the European Parliament demonstrated that it is the opposing view that is fringe. The European Parliament proclaimed the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism not only with overwhelming support, but with support from members of all parliamentary groups (even the communist group, European United Left–Nordic Green Left). Tataral (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Lithuanian position is concerned, they might talk more about Stalin, but that might also have someting to do with the fact that the Soviets occupied their country for almost half a century, and that during this occupation, people would be persecuted for even mentioning these horrendous crimes determined to be genocide, and that Hitler's crimes got 100 % of the attention and Stalin's crimes (that affected many Lithuanians) got exactly 0 % of the attention. Where were the protests of the communists now protesting the Prague Process back then? And what about Russia's willingness to deal with crimes committed by its soldiers and officials during communist rule before, during and long after WWII? I don't see any criticism of that from the anti-Prague camp. Why single out Lithuania, a victim of half a century of occupation and horrendous crimes committed by the Soviet Union? Almost no countries at all "deal" with own wrongdoings or wrongdoings of its own citizens in such a way, but many countries are responsible for horrendous crimes, even western countries (such as France during the Algerian War). Lithuania does a lot more in regard to the crimes of both totalitarian regimes than France does in regard to its crimes during the Algerian War, or Russia does in regard to Soviet crimes, so why should Lithuania be singled out for criticism? Such criticism looks politically motivated. Tataral (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For some background reading - there is much comparison (not so much equality) here "One should be wary, of course, of any attempt to deal with Hitler and Stalin in tandem: every psychopath is unique, and comparisons can be unhelpful. Hitler's frenzy of murder lasted just four years and took place largely outside Germany. Stalin's murders came in waves over a period of twenty-five years, affected the 'homelands' even more than conquered territories, and can be seen as the resumption, after the lull of the mid-1920s, of Lenin and Trotsky's worse documented massacres between 1918 and 1921. If Hitler and Stalin were both gamblers, they played different games - Hitler staked everything on Blitzkrieg, Stalin played cold-blooded poker. Above all, Hitler lost and Stalin won." http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/rayfield_09_10.html Spitfire3000 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly in the article does it say "the two systems were equal or near-identical", as you contend? Of course there are obvious differences between the two, Nazis killed based upon race while the Stalinists killed based upon class, for example. You need to come up with more concrete suggestions for improvement, the quote you supplied is a good start, why don't you try and fix this article yourself? These sources could be used:

• Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
• Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
• Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.

--Nug (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is not to express our opinions about how Stalinism and Nazism compare. Glad you found some sources - you should have found them before you created the article. TFD (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't WP:DISHONESTly mis-represent my efforts, these sources have been in this article from the very beginning, as you well know[4]. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an enormous scholarship comparing these regimes back to the days of Hannah Arendt, so we are going to have an article on that scholarship/well-known field of study within the field of totalitarianism studies in any case. No one has said this article is perfect or finished (it's far from finished, it's just started). It's really a strawman you are arguing against here, because no one has said there were no differences at all. There were of course both differences and similarities. The most important ones were totalitarian rule, concentration camps, and the fact they were both responsible for the murder and genocide of millions of innocents. And who "won" (won what exactly? Killed the highest number?) is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If you are saying Stalin's crimes were OK because he also won a war (some of his crimes were related to that war, while other crimes had no particular relation to it), WWII, would Hitler's crimes have been OK if he'd won that war? And that argument is certainly complicated both by the fact that the Soviet Union itself condemned Stalin's crimes by the 1950s and removed the Stalin statues, and by the fact that the Soviet Union ultimately lost the long war, that country lost so thoroughly and became so discredited by its crimes and misrule that it doesn't even exist any longer, and defending the Soviet Union is universally considered unacceptable and politically extreme in polite society today (that does of course not apply in Russia, which recently returned to authoritarian rule and thus left polite society). Tataral (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of wasting my time with your opinions, why don't you improve the article. TFD (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading my reply to User:Spitfire3000, who has elaborated on a number of his opinions above, is voluntary. Instead of wasting our time with unproductive and irrelevant comments like that and continuing to complain about others' work on this talk page, why don't you contribute to this encyclopedia in a productive way? If you don't like the article, fix it yourself. I have already improved the article, but i didn't start it and I have no obligation to work on it except when I want. Tataral (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing whether or not the article is POV. I am not obliged to fix it. On the other hand, this is not the place to discuss your personal beliefs and opinions. Incidentally you have not improved the article. Here's one example. You added, "This comparison was mirrored by the social fascism theory advanced by the Soviet regime and Comintern, which equated social democracy with fascism (a term encompassing nazism, Italian fascism and a variety of other right-wing and centre-right ideologies in Soviet usage)." That is adding your own personal observation providing no sources.[5] Even worse, it is expanding a section comparing communism and fascism, not Stalinism and nazism, thereby making the article even more of a coatrack than it was before. TFD (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not obliged to fix anything at all, and you were the one demanding that I fix it. I am not the one who started discussing "personal beliefs and opinions", I have merely responded to "personal beliefs and opinions" discussed by Spitfire3000. The inclusion of the social fascism theory does hardly need any sources because it has its own article, but sources could easily be found. I have not added a single personal observation, but an uncontentious outline of well-known material which also has its own article. Incidentally, I have greatly the improved the article (compared to what it was), whereas you have just wasted our time on this talk page with unhelpful and unproductive comments. There is no clear disctinction between "comparison of nazism and stalinism" and "comparison of fascism and communism". The article needs to cover both. Nazism and stalinism are just regarded as subsets of fascism and communism (and in the eastern bloc, the term nazism didn't exist at all, everything was called fascism). Tataral (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "social fascism" is covered in another article does not mean it does not need to be sourced here. There is nothing in that article btw that says the Soviets included "centre-right" ideologies as fascist in this instance, more likely they included groups that you consider center-right but most people would not. Also, you need to show that someone has connected social fascism with the comparison of nazism and Stalinism, and explain what connection they made. Do you think that the comparisons are equivalent? TFD (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More likely they included groups which most people consider center-right, but you don't. For example, the governing parties of West Germany (cf. "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall", the official name from 1961 to 1989 of their Berlin Wall directed against West Germany). And before that, the (stalinist) Communist Party of Germany (whose policies were literally dictated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) used the term fascism for all of its opponents, including terms such as "Sozialfaschismus" and "Zentrums-Faschismus". The Communist Party of Germany viewed national socialism as "only one form of fascism", with social democrats, the Centre Party etc. representing other forms. See Heinrich August Winkler, Weimar im Widerstreit, p.142.

Instead of complaining about others and uncontentious, extremely well known material such as Soviet (with satelites)/communist usage of the term "fascist", why don't you improve the article? Tataral (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Horst Ehmke discusses Schumacher's communism (stalinism)-nazism comparison in relation to the social fascism theory (Mittendrin: von der grossen Koalition zur deutschen Einheit, Rowohlt, 1994, ISBN 3871340898). There is also a section on the German Wikipedia discussing this material.[6] Tataral (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK people, you've wasted enough time talking rubbish. Tataral - one more time i will try, briefly, simply, to explain. The article is heavily skewed towards demonstrating equality. It contains only "comparisons" which are "similarities", and contains no "comparisons" which are "differences". Your responses, and the response of others who are happy equating Hitler and Stalin for the shady reasons I have mentioned, is "edit it yourself". Well, originally I stated that I am not experienced enough to take on such a major edit, but that kind of attitude is against wikipedia policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold Seeing as you haven't offered any convincing reason why this page should be left declaring only similarities between Hitler and Stalin, I hope to find time to rewrite it. I am sure you will then magically find time to undo my edits and argue they are all irrelevant and inadmissible, whereas you can't find time to balance an imbalanced POV article that happens to agree with your POV. And that seems to be how Wikipedia works in the History Department Spitfire3000 (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read the article and I am left wondering where precisely in the article is text that, as you say, "contains only "comparisons" which are "similarities"". The article is marked as a stub, after all, and you are welcomed to develop it. It seems to me that you are approaching this with a bucket load of bad faith, which is somewhat unusual for a newbie. Have you edited Wikipedia previously as another identity? --Nug (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no imbalanced article here. There is a balanced, but clearly unfinished article covering some of the most important material. Tataral (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have taken up Tatarai's challenge and re-written the lead based on Geyer's introduction to Beyond Totalitarianism (2009), which is available on-line, and will move the existing lead to an overview section. In the intro, he discusses the history of the comparison between Stalinism and Nazism. I chose this source because it meets the highest standards for rs, including being written recently, and was recommended by Nug and Tatarai. I would welcome comments on whether I have accurately reflected Geyer's writing. TFD (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, this was a clear improvement of the introduction, but a couple of sentences do not look completely neutral. In any case, it's best to base introductions on more than just one source.

• "while New Left writers considered the United States itself to be totalitarian" (while this extremist fringe theory is relevant in other articles and possibly even somewhere in the body of this article, I question its relevance for the introduction)
• "the now obsolete models of totalitarianism" (some may hold the opinion that the totalitarianism theory is "obsolete", but my understanding is that this was an opinion predominantly held by left-wing academics and the "revisionist school", mainly in the 1980s (and maybe some even until the 1990s), but today, this theory again enjoys popularity, especially in Europe (cf. Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, a Czech government research institute founded in 2007) and strong political influence (The article by Roland Freudenstein (in the book Reforming Europe ) you cited above argues that "anti-totalitarianism from Central Europe has already had an important impact on the EU's present foreign policy and will continue to do so in the future.") As totalitarianism is a model employed today by respected research institutions, we should not label it "obsolete" (as this question is disputed), but we may discuss whether it is considered obsolete (preferably in the body of the article, not in the introduction). Tataral (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than assume Geyer was wrong, it might be better to look more deeply into his comments to ensure that they are reflected accurately. He says that the totalitarian model is "outdated" yet says that some modern scholars use the concept. So we need to determine what he actually meant. The New Left is significant because it was a major academic approach which challenged the existing orthodoxy and has influenced modern scholarhip, even though it too has become outdated. The popularity of the historiography of Furet, Courtois, Nolte, Rummel, etc. in Eastern Europe is notable, but is not the majority opinion in Western scholarship. My understanding of neutrality is that we must provide greater weight to Western scholarship. It also means that we cannot present any approach as definitive. I would suggest too that the best approach forward is to divide the article according to the different schools of thought, rather than to the specific topics addressed. So we would for example have a separate section on Eastern European scholarship. TFD (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we might believe that traditional totalitarianism and models thereof are dead, that does not mean they were not alive and well in the past and continue to be fully applicable to the past. Mentioning that some writers today believe the United States today is "totalitarian" is laughable—or points to today's non-obsolete model of "totalitarianism" as woefully misguided. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues. Is the source presented by Nug and Tataral reliable and have the facts presented in it been properly explained. If you challenge its reliability, we could post it to WP:RSN. If you think the facts have been incorrectly presented then please explain what Geyer meant - the lead I wrote is sourced to specific pages in his book. TFD (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have made a good start, however you have presented Geyer's viewpoint as if it was the definitive mainstream view, and thus you may have inadvertently given his viewpoint undue weight compared to other scholarship in the field. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

It was my impression that the author was outlining the historiography and explaining the various opinions presented in the past and in the book's articles, rather than explaining his own opinions. If you like we could ask at WP:NPOVN where this is factual information or opinion. If it is an opinion piece then perhaps you could provide a source that outlines the topic in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference from Geyer for structural historians. I think we need to be careful in using sources about either Stalinism or Nazism that do not specifically compare the two. That of course is the main POV issue about the article - that it uses sources that do not directly relate to the topic. TFD (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is Geyer's viewpoint of the historiography. This article is not called The historiography of the concept of totalitarianism or the Applicability of the totalitarian model in comparing Stalinist and Nazi regimes, and yet your lede seems to devote an inordinate amount of text to it. You seem to be missing the point of the article, which is the comparison of Stalinism and Nazism. Geyer's intro merely places the individual comparative studies into a particular framework, that does not invalidate previous frameworks. But that is irrelevant in any case, since this article is not about Frameworks for the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, but about the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism and the individual comparative studies contained within Geyer's book provides plenty source material. For example in the section "Conclusion: the pursuit of lethal utopias" on page 164, Browning and Siegelbaum conclude:

"Nevertheless, it seems incontestable that both regimes assumed the right to inscribe identity and impose categorization for the purpose of social engineering through exclusion and purification, and that they did so with unfettered use of force and violence. Aside from lacking all inhibitions about the use of violence, both regimes assumed they not only should but also could accomplish such ambitious projects of social engineering because their ideologies emphasized a key determinative factor – class or race – in making history."

This article should focus on the direct comparative aspects, not the meta-discussion about the historiographies or frameworks, and the lede should be a summary of that. --Nug (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a scholar outlining who Stalinism and Nazism has been compared as part of an introduction to a book presenting different viewpoints. You assume that Geyer is biased, then ask us to present the opinions expressed in one of the articles of his book as factual. It is better to use a source that explains the degree of acceptance of various opinions. Incidentally since you now think Geyer is biased, could you please steer me toward an unbiased book. TFD (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the topic of Geyer's book is the comparison of Stalinism and Nazism. The problem is that you have ignored the substantive content of the book and focused on Geyer's introduction and turned in lede into something more suitable for an article like The historiography of the applicability of the totalitarian model in comparing Stalinist and Nazi regimes. Focusing on the historiography of a topic serves to obscure the topic itself. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Geyer wrote his introduction in order to introduce the topic. Since the purpose of a lead is to introduce a topic it makes sense to use this source. Do you think that Geyer has obscured the topic and what bias do you think he is presenting? TFD (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If this article was called Synopsis of Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared then your approach of relying solely upon Geyer's book would have merit. However as explained before his book isn't the definitive view of the topic and it does not invalidate earlier works by Kershaw/Lewin or Rousso/Golsan, which you seemed to have overlooked. --Nug (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose Geyer's book because it was the most recent that you had recommended and provides an overview of the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. But since you have decided to reject it as biased I will turn to your next source, Kershaw and Levin. They write, "The Cold War had not encouraged comparison outside the framework of the totalitarianism concept and its assumption that comparison assumed similarity. The conference assumed no such imperative [and] was breaking new ground".[7] Seems to say the same thing. Do you have any rs that present the topic according to your personal POV? TFD (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said peviously, this article is not called The historiography of the concept of totalitarianism or the Applicability of the totalitarian model in comparing Stalinist and Nazi regimes, and yet you seem to continue to focus in on the applicability of the term "totalitarianism" regardless of the source. How about focusing on the actual topic, the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. I think we can say in the article that both regimes assumed the right to inscribe identity and impose categorization for the purpose of social engineering through exclusion and purification, and that they did so with unfettered use of force and violence. In Geyer's book Browning and Siegelbaum say this point of comparison is incontestable. --Nug (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is their conclusion, now please provide a source that says there is consensus support for it. You do not seem to understand that in social sciences there is seldom consensus on anything and finding a source that supports your POV and presenting it as objective truth will not result in a neutral article. Instead we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing that is missing from the introduction now is the comparison as used in political discourse, which is probably older and more influential than the topic as a scholarly field of study. For example the Social Democratic Party of Germany very explicitly compared the ideologies already in the 1920s, and today there is a new political trend in Europe to compare the regimes in government (particularly in the new accession states)/EU policy. Tataral (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Weimar Republic mudslinging is noteworthy and may not even be relevant. I could find very little about it, here (p.78) is one source. Where did you read about it? TFD (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring only to the Weimar Republic, but to comparison of Nazism and Stalinism in political discourse generally, most recently in relation to the ongoing Prague process (one of the results of which is the adoption of the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism). I disagree on the Weimar Republic, the Weimar Republic is where nazism originated and where nazism, communism and other ideologies confronted each other, and where the ideologies were first compared, the Weimar Republic is very interesting in historical terms. The "rotlackierte Nazis" quote by Kurt Schumacher is very famous. Tataral (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Geyer's book does not mention either. Do you have any sources comparing Stalinism and Nazism that do? That would help to determine their significance. BTW, the term Stalinism is ambiguous. Are we referring to the Soviet Union and Europe under Stalin's rule or are we including modern Left parties as well? TFD (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Enjoying the debate, seems to be productive despite incessant use of sofixit. I want to write some more background here, because Tataral often asks why I focus on eastern europe and the Baltics in particular.

“What the Estonians are most afraid of is the international press or audience would become aware of this Nazi collaboration, this non-logical action. They have two views of history, one for domestic consumption and one for the international audience. For the international audience, you will only hear about Soviet influence, but the domestic audience includes the Waffen SS story”, said Petri Krohn. http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/10/uk-newspaper-mysteriously-retracts-nazi-collaboration-piece/

I know this is far from encyclopedia-grade material, but it fits with my personal experience and in part explains why I struggle to find secondary sources written in English in these "hitler/stalin" edits. Another example i witnessed is the Lithuanian Parliament website announcing a Holocaust memorial year on its english version, but a commemoration of "great losses" in its Lithuanian version (the word holocaust not appearing in the title). And of course the popular and centrally-located "Museum of Genocide Victims" in Vilnius, Lithuania only recently added a small Holocaust exhibit which is low on information about Lithuanian collaboration. The "Genocide" they prefer to talk about (on three floors) is that of the "Lithuanians" by "Stalin". They treat the two issues as far from "equal" - the line taken by government and press and majority of the public is broadly that talking about Stalin's horrific crimes is much more important than talking about the Holocaust. How convenient. All this i could "sofixit" - but it would take hours, so I am just adding the info to Talk to explain that my motivation is observation of events, not supporting a "fringe" or "russian" or "jewish" perspective ... i am none of those things. The truth is the truth, presenting evidence of it on Wikipedia is difficult and fascinating. "Moreover, many Holocaust scholars are uneasy with the fact that some politicians in the Baltic States, especially Lithuania, want to label the Soviet deportations and purges experienced by the Baltic people after WWII as genocide. A concept feared by them is one of “double genocide”, which would effectively mean that the Nazi genocide (against Jews) equals the Stalinist one (against Lithuanians, for example, in Lithuania’s case). For example, the museum to commemorate the victims of Stalinist terror in Vilnius is called The Museum of Genocide Victims. Such terminology only complicates matters and appears to be counter-productive. http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/2010-24/Grajauskas.pdf Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review Spitfire3000 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Baltic Jews and Gentiles were taken away by both Nazis and Soviets packed in cattle cars to their deaths. That Hitler was methodical and targeted Jews in particular made the Holocaust unique. Stalin took Jews and Gentiles and didn't care. Well, actually he sent the Jews to the worst camps because Stalin was a virulent anti-Semite. The rest of it is not any less genocidal on the part of either power. There is no dichotomy of Baltic positions on history. I suggest you stick to reputable sources not associated with Estophobic fringe groups. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, this talk page is about improving the article, not for presenting our personal opinions. TFD (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian sources

Russian scholars, commentators, and politicians, reject attempts to equate Soviet Russia with Nazi Germany, characterizing them as revisionist history. This needs to be elaborated on in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.155 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions of defamatory material

A user Zloyvolshe has been trying to introduce defamatory material to this article, including the labeling of living individuals as "revisionist historians" (they are not widely regarded as such). The same user also deletes relevant material without explanation, while adding an unnecessary and irrelevant polemical blockquote that adds nothing to the article, fully in line with his other POV and BLP violating edits. Right now is my policy to revert the disruptive edits by this user on sight. Tataral (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He added the description to the extremely controversial historian Ernst Nolte. "Revisionist" btw is not a pejorative term, slthough it is often incorrectly used that way. The problem with this article however is that it does not correctly present the weight that the various theories hold. The views of Nolte and his allies are not widely accepted in mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While Nolte may have been somewhat controversial in Germany in the 1980s, he is not universally regarded as such and neither is the other historian who was mentioned, who is introduced in his article as "a conservative German historian [who] was influential as a military and diplomatic historian [...] was probably the leading West German historian of his generation". They are both known as conservative historians who reject the pro-Soviet approach. The term "revisionist" was clearly used in this case as a defamatory term for somebody the user didn't like. This is not the article on Nolte, and we don't need to label him either as "revisionist" or as "the highly respected" historian as some see him. Introducing him as an historian suffices. (In Central and Eastern Europe, it's the ones insisting on Soviet crimes not being very serious, viz., Nolte's opponents, who are widely regarded as revisionists). In this article, we don't discuss Nolte's views on everything, but merely use one sentence to point out that he and others compared the concentration camp systems in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the 1980s. That's not undue weight at all, and I strongly doubt that the idea that one should compare, from an historical point of view, these camps, is "not widely accepted". In fact numerous other modern historians (among them Stéphane Courtois) have done exactly that, and demonstrated how the Nazi concentration camp system was originally to a significant extent adopted from Soviet methods. This is not the same as saying the camps were identical at all times, but a question of how these camp systems emerged as a method of political oppression, highly relevant to this article. If somebody rejects even the idea that one should study the camp systems comparatively, I'd like to see solid empirical research and not empty and unsubstantiated political polemics ("Courtois attempts to substitute the memory...", really, she knows what Courtois thinks?). Tataral (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andreas Hillgruber's facebook page says, "At his death in 1989, the American historian Francis L. Loewenheim said: "Andreas Hillgruber was probably the leading West German historian of his generation - a scholar of indefatigable energy and fierce independence, a scholar of weighty judgment even if one did not always agree with him". Other historians were more hostile, with the British historian Richard J. Evans taking the view that Hillgruber was a great historian whose once-sterling reputation as a historian was in ruins."[8] The source used for this article describes Nolte and Hillgruber as "national conservatives".http://books.google.ca/books?id=fU5joQ4yFsUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false] "National conservative" is a reference to the pre-war conservatives, who were not allowed to re-form as a party under denazification policies. You need to get away from the view that there are only two ways of seeing history - pro-Soviet and national conservative. The overwhelming majority of scholarship rejects both approaches. TFD (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Facebook is not an RS. 2) Neither Nolte nor Hillgruber are regarded as revisionists, except among the far left 3) This is not the article on neither Nolte nor Hillgruber, so discussing their views on everything or the reception of their work in detail is basically irrelevant here, although, as you note, the opinions vary based on political orientation. 4) The idea that one should compare concentration camp systems, the only issue that is relevant as far as Nolte and Hillgruber are concerned in this article, is the mainstream viewpoint supported by many other scholars. 5) The rest of what you write is a strawman. There are indeed two ways of seeing history that is relevant to this discussion, pro-Soviet and non-pro-Soviet. This has nothing to do with "national conservatism," it's the liberal, centrist, mainstream point of view. There is nothing "national conservative" about the scholarly comparison of Soviet and Nazi crimes, although the Kremlin of course constantly made such accusations during the Cold War. Tataral (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes on Hillgruber's facebook page appear in the Wikipedia article you just quoted. The first is sourced to his NYT obituary.[9] The second is sourced to Evans' book In Hitler's Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past, p. 123. You wrote above, "it's the ones insisting on Soviet crimes not being very serious, viz., Nolte's opponents, who are widely regarded as revisionists", thereby implying that one must choose between these two extremes. It does not matter to me whether we call Hillgruber's views "revisionist", as Jurgen Habermas did, or merely "controversial", so long as we do misrepresent them as mainstream. TFD (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Habermas is a Marxist, i.e. he belongs on the far left. He also presented an award to the hugely discredited "pro-Israel polemicist and amateur historian" Daniel Goldhagen. More importantly, he is the main opponent of Nolte. The opinion of Habermas, as an opponent of Nolte, is not in any way relevant to how we introduce Nolte in this article -- or should we describe Habermas' in Nolte's terms in any article that mentioned Habermas? As the article on him notes, "Davies concluded that revealations made after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe after 1989-91 about Soviet crimes had discredited Nolte's critics" (Davies, Norman (2006). No Simple Victory. London: Penguin Books. p. 470). So Habermas is discredited in this regard according to Davies. Let me reiterate: The article says: "Works by historians such as Ernst Nolte, Andreas Hillgruber and others in the 1980s compared the policies of Hitler and Stalin, and drew a parallel between the concentration camp system in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany". It accurately summarizes Nolte and Hillgruber's work on this particular issue, final stop. It doesn't say anything about whether their work (i.e. "compared the policies of Hitler and Stalin") is "mainstream", although, of course it is. Tataral (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Habermas is not an historian, a communist studies scholar, or a scholar of any relevant field. He's a philosopher, and has, to my knowledge, no expertise on Soviet crimes, which is an empirical, historical field of study. Tataral (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Habermas is a sociologist, and his views on Hillgruber's "revisionism" are mentioned in the NYT obituary. It does not matter what one's political views are, it is how well one's views on specific issues are received - in this case they are at least notable. Norman Davies btw is a fairly controversial historican himself who was denied tenure at Stanford for alleged anti-Semitism allegedly minimizing anti-Semitism in Poland. (Just like Nolte.) No need to take my word for all this, but if you go to Google books and search for the Nolte, Hillgruber, Davies, etc., you will find that they represent a minority view. That does not mean they are wrong. Today's revisionism may become tomorrow's orthodoxy. I just find it POV to present their views as if there is consensus that they are universally accepted. TFD (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, the article doesn't say anything about anyone's views being "universally accepted", it presents the views of Nolte and Hillgruber as Nolte's and Hillgruber's views, nothing else, just like it presents the views of Wievriorka as Wievriorka's views. When we are talking about the idea that one should compare Soviet and Nazi crimes, this always, from the days of Hannah Arendt, was an accepted mainstream position, although contested by the Soviet bloc and those on the left. After 1989-1990-1991, things have changed, and there has been a stream of new works on Soviet crimes that have demonstrated that this is a valid and relevant comparison. The debate in Germany in the 1980s has simply no validity in today's Europe (especially Central and Eastern Europe), where the official government position of many EU governments is that comparison is necessary and valid, and as Davies noted, Nolte's critics were proven wrong. (also, in Germany, the distinction between sociology and philosophy is rather unclear, and I have seen no evidence of Habermas having any expertise whatsoever in the field of Soviet crimes, Soviet and Communist Studies, (comparative) studies of totalitarianism etc., which are all major well-etablished areas of research. His views appear to be dated political polemicism from Germany only, the relevance of which does not extend to other countries in Europe, especially not Central and Eastern Europe. But even Germany's new president appears to support what Nolte and Hillgruber said in the 80s and many others are saying today.) Tataral (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arendt's "totalitarian" paradigm was widely accepted in the early Cold War period and New Right modern historians have tried to revive it. But it is not mainstream thinking. And again your manichean view of the world divided between followers of Nolte and left-wingers is wrong. TFD (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only say you are incorrect in this regard; it is not only mainstream thinking, it is the officially accepted position in much of Europe. The totalitarianism approach has always been a valid and accepted paradigm in Soviet and Communist Studies in the western world, and has nothing to do with "new right". Those who opposed it during the Cold War were individuals who were often sympathetic to the Soviet bloc, in some cases even financed by the Soviet bloc which spent huge amounts on influence operations, and after 1989, they have largely been discredited. Tataral (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean in Eastern Europe. It is not the mainstream view in scholarship generally. Here is a link to an article in The Nazi Germany Sourcebook, called "The revisionism of the New Right": "The most amibitious attempt at a conservative revision of the history of National Socialism was undertaken by the historian Ernst Nolte.... In the succeeding decades...he moved to a steadily more positive interpretation of National Socialism.... He went so far as to suggest that the Holocaust was provoked by fear of communist atrocities...." You may believe that the mainstream academic scholarship is written by Marxists supported by the Soviets, and you may be right, but we cannot reject it on that basis, because of the neutrality policy. If you object to the policy, then I suggest you change it. In the meantime, since the article violates the policy, it is POV. TFD (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't violate any policy (now), that's a made-up claim. I don't object to any policy, you are the one apparently objecting to a policy. I, for one, point out that the article has to be based on policy, including BLP, NPOV etc. Your quotation is fully irrelevant to this article or the issue discussed above. And the Czech Republic is located in the middle of Europe, is part of EU and NATO and is considered a full democracy (unlike Russia, which is considered authoritarian). The mainstream academic scholarship on totalitarianism, in the well established field of totalitarianism studies, generally supports the ideas of the authors who discussed this in the 80s, and most that scholarship today is found in Central and Eastern Europe, including at the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes which represents the mainstream view in Europe today, the view which could also be called the EU view. We have sources stating that the other side in the 80s debate have been discredited since 1989. Tataral (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing that the Czech Republic is central Europe therefore the comment about Eastern Europe is not applicable. I have explained policy etc. and if it is not adequate to persuade you then I see no further utility in this discussion. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, the idea that some institute (as whole) by default reflects a mainstream view, as well the idea that mainstreamness is determined by the physical location some particular author is somewhat new for me.

In addition, small geography lesson. If we speak about Eastern Europe, other parts are Western Europe, Northern Europe and Southern Europe. Central Europe is a quite different category, and it would be correct to say that, whereas Czech republic is a Central European state, it is located in Eastern Europe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never said any such thing. And if you look up the article on the Czech Republic, it says the Czech Republic "is a landlocked country in Central Europe". Eastern Europe is a misleading category today. In any event, what we are talking about here is whether the totalitarianism approach as used by Hannah Arendt and used today is "mainstream". The thing is, that this approach is officially and very actively endorsed by half a dozen or so EU governments, by resolutions of international bodies (including of the EU), and even by Germany's new President who signed the following: "Im Kalten Krieg senkte sich erneut der Schatten des Totalitarismus über das östliche Deutschland und Osteuropa. Die Vereinigten Staaten blieben fest an unserer Seite. Wieder war es Amerika, das unserem geteilten Land nach 1989 dabei half, sich in Frieden zu vereinigen"[10] Of course, numerous scholars in the fields of Soviet and Communist Studies, totalitarianism studies supporting this approach can also be found. So there is ample evidence to suggest that this is the mainstream approach, at least in today's Europe. Tataral (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(out) It must be pretty clear to you that when I mentioned "Eastern Europe", I was referring to the former Communist countries. If your case is weak, do not try to bolster it by using disingenuous arguments. BTW, your quote has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The mainstream view is opposed to Communism. But it is not pro-Nolte either. I don't see Germany re-writing the text-books about the Second World War. And even if they did, we rely on scholarship not politicians to determine what is mainstream. TFD (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, your case is the weak case, my case is the strong case. You commented upon what I "meant", so let me clarify: I meant in Europe in general, as evidenced from votes in the European Parliament and adopted EU policy. This is simply the mainstream view in Europe. And when the European Union and national governments make policy on history, what is the mainstream view largely becomes a political decision, although there is of course plenty of scholarship supporting the totalitarianism approach. I also have no idea what you are talking about regarding Nolte, as we have been through numerous times, this article is about comparison of Nazi and Soviet crimes only, Nolte is just one voice who said something on this in the 80s, numerous other scholars have followed. What you are discussing is not of any relevance to this article. Tataral (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your case, obviously, is weak, because you fail to understand a very simple thing: Wikipedia does no expresses the viewpoint of any government. All documents adopted by European Parliament, United Nations Organosation, Kin Il-Song, Mao, Hitler, Roosevelt, or the US Congress are just primary sources, which, as a rule, can be used in Wikipedia in a very limited amount of cases. Going back to Nolte, the statement that he is a "revisionist historian" is not a defamatory statement, but just a well sourced statement. For example, these two reliable sources clearly and unequivocally describe Nolte as a revisionist historian:

1. Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf. War, violence, and the modern condition. European cultures. Volume 8 of European Cultures - Studies in Literature and the Arts Series. Walter de Gruyter, 1997 ISBN 3110147025, 9783110147025, p. 134
2. David H. Hirsch. Paul de Man and the Politics of Deconstruction. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Spring, 1988), pp. 330-338Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The viewpoint Nolte was trying to advocate is definitely not mainstream, see, e.g. Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353, or Eric D. Weitz. Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we follow BLP and NPOV. That's it. The totalitarianism approach is the mainstream viewpoint supported by modern scholars (Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1997) and endorsed by the European Parliament and Germany's new president. The opposite is a discredited point of view (Davies, Norman (2006). No Simple Victory. London: Penguin Books. p. 470). One could call it revisionist. Tataral (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the New Right historians who tried to revive cold war paradigms have not gained acceptance among scholars or Western polticians (including liberals, conservatives, and christian democrats). BTW Norman Davies is a fairly controversial historian himself who was denied tenure at Stanford for alleged anti-Semitism allegedly minimizing anti-Semitism in Poland. (Just like Cf. Nolte.) Courtois was criticized for his introduction to the Black Book by the main contributor, Nicolas Werth. Before you run off all the names again - Furet, Applebaum, Rummel, Pipes, etc. - their views are controversial. TFD (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And my point, for the 10th time or so, is that this is not the article on Nolte or any of the other guys in the band. This article uses one sentence to mention Nolte and another historian comparing Soviet and Nazi crimes in the 80s, which is the topic of this article. Your idea that the totalitarianism approach is something "new right" historians "tried" to "revive" is simply wrong and ridiculous, as evidenced by the mere fact that leading research institutes are founded by EU governments explicitly to conduct research in this field (studies of totalitarianism), such as the Czech Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes. Even in Germany there is at least one such government-funded institute, the Hannah Arendt Institute for the Research on Totalitarianism which opened 19 years ago. There is no question that this is an approach used by many scholars today and is the accepted paradigm in EU policy. Tataral (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, by no means Courtois is a mainstream source. His introduction to the BB had been a subject of extensive criticism (see, e.g. Andreas Umland. Book Review: 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus. European History Quarterly 2000 30: 287). With regard to the European Parliament and Germany's new president, you should go to the WP:NPOVN and ask if they can be considered as secondary or primary sources. The most probably, the answer will be "primary".

With regard to discredited point of view, you failed to address the arguments from the sources provided by me, so the references to Norman Davies are irrelevant: by contrast to him, the authors cited by me are established scholars, and their opinions is definitely mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to address any of your straw men, cherry picked obscure sources which are not any more reputable than the ones I mentioned (probably less) and which are hardly, if at all, relevant to the sentence being discussed. Tataral (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no choice: you have to address them properly, as our policy requires.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have to spend more time on your irrelevant straw men. Tataral (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference to straw man and cherry-picking is supposed to be supported by some concrete facts, otherwise it is just a simple personal attack. By no means that makes your position stronger. Care to elaborate on your allegations?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you now proceed to engage in personal attacks too. It doesn't make your already weak case stronger. Everyone reading this discussion can see your many straw men (e.g. "mainstreamness is determined by the physical location some particular author"…, your ridiculous and incorrect idea about "primary sources" for something I didn't even use as a source) Tataral (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw., Courtois, Davies are both established, highly recognized scholars in this field. Tataral (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What personal attacks?! Examples, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You pull out a book written by a historian accused of anti-Semitism minimizing anti-Semitism in Poland, not even published in academic literature, that says Nolte, who lost his academic post for his teachings on the Holocaust, has been proved right, and expect us to accept this new history as having become acceptable. TFD (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He is a highly recognized scholar, as the article on him makes clear. You continue to produce falsehoods that violate BLP on two living individuals: Your assertation that Davies has been accused of anti-semitism is not supported by any sources and the article doesn't mention that. Your assertation that Nolte "lost his academic post for his teachings on the Holocaust" is not supported by any sources or supported by the relevant article. Claims like that demonstrate precisely why articles in Wikipedia are based on reliable sources, neutrality and BLP, not on unsourced slander. Tataral (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not interested in doing your research for you. Go to their Wikipedia articles and follow the links. TFD (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles don't support any of your claims. The Davies article says nothing about him being accused of anti-semitism. It mentions that two individuals have accused him of "minimising historic antisemitism", which is something very different from being "accused of anti-Semitism" (also, an accusation is of course not necessarily true). The Nolte article says he retired at 68 years old, the usual age, from his chair and is now Professor Emeritus.Tataral (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, on Davies, he is not an "alleged" anti-Semite. From Stanford's press release regarding Davies' tenure lawsuit: "Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti- Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust. Davies' supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939." The Holocaust in Poland is a particularly controversial topic characterized by polarization and misinformation. For example, I attended a Polish-Jewish forum where a Jewish attendee asked, "Do you think the Poles would establish death camps today?" He was unconvinced when he was informed that Poles where the first victims in Hitler's camps and didn't run any camps themselves. So unless you have incontrovertible proof of Davies being an anti-Semite, keep allegations out of the conversation and stop smearing sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I recently found (btw, totally by accident, I didn't look for this type sources specifically, I even didn't know about such an phenomenon) the source that blame Polish state anti-Semitism in the Holocaust (DAVID CYMET. Polish state antisemitism as a major factor leading to the Holocaust. Journal of Genocide Research (1999), 1(2), 169-212.

"The failure to take into consideration Poland's pre-war antisemitic policy and its war-time record blocks the way for a deeper understanding of the Holocaust. Such a mutilated version of the Holocaust has only been circulated out of ignorance or to clear yesterday's partners in the Holocaust. It is the version of the Holocaust which post-war Poland strives to perpetuate to clear its name in the eyes of the world and which serves it well, among other things, to hold on to the loot that was plundered from its 3,500,000 murdered and exiled Jews."

Therefore, the idea that the Poles suffered as much as Jews is at least questionable...--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying that something has been "alleged" does not require incontrovertible proof of the truth of the allegations. However, as you have just repeated, he was accused of "minimiz[ing] historic anti-Semitism in Poland and tend[ing] to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust". I have re-worded my previous comments. TFD (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize this debate: The totalitarianism approach is supported by all democratic forces in Europe, from Greens and Liberals to Conservatives/Christian Democrats. For example by the new German president as noted, and by Hans-Gert Pöttering, who as President of the European Parliament, drawing on Hannah Arendt, emphasizes that she "developed on the scientific basis criteria to describe totalitarianism and she described the communist totalitarianism and the totalitarianism of national socialism saying both totalitarian systems are comparable and terrible."[11] Pöttering doesn't say anything about this theory being "revived". As we have established, Germany has at least one government-funded research institute for totalitarianism studies, the Hannah Arendt Institute for the Research on Totalitarianism (founded by the Landtag of Saxony in 1993), as has the Czech Republic (the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, founded by the Czech government in 2007) and other countries. The renowned British historian Norman Davies argues that those who opposed the comparative approach in the 1980s were discredited after 1989 (Davies, Norman (2006). No Simple Victory. London: Penguin Books. p. 470). Davies recounts the 1980s debate, writing:

"Ten years later, in The European Civil War (1987), the German historian Ernst Nolte (b. 1923) brought ideology into the equation. The First World War had spawned the Bolshevik Revolution, he maintained, and fascism should be seen as a "counter-revolution" against Communism. More pointedly, since fascism followed Communism chronologically, he argued that some of the Nazis' political techniques and practices had been copied from those of the Soviet Union. Needless to say, such propositions were thought anathema by leftists who believe that fascism was an original and unparallled evil."

• On 25 January 2006, the Council of Europe adopted the Council of Europe resolution 1481 which "strongly condemns crimes of totalitarian communist regimes".
• In 2008, the EU presidency and the European Commission organised the European Public Hearing on Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes.
• On 2 April 2009, the European Parliament adopted the European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on European conscience and totalitarianism, condemning totalitarian regimes (co-sponsored by the European People's Party, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, The Greens–European Free Alliance, and the Union for Europe of the Nations).
• On 3 Julu 2009, the OSCEPA adopted the Vilnius Declaration which states that "in the twentieth century European countries experienced two major totalitarian regimes, Nazi and Stalinist, which brought about genocide, violations of human rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity," urges all OSCE members to take a "united stand against all totalitarian rule from whatever ideological background," and condemns "the glorification of the totalitarian regimes, including the holding of public demonstrations glorifying the Nazi or Stalinist past."
• Since 23 August 2009, the bodies of the European Union observe the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, as a Europe-wide remembrance day for victims of totalitarian regimes[12][13].
• In December 2009, the European Union adopted the Stockholm Programme, its current five-year plan within the fields of justice and home affairs, which states that "the Union is an area of shared values, values which are incompatible with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, including crimes committed by totalitarian regimes."

I think this clearly demonstrates what is the mainstream position on totalitarianism, and what is the fringe position. Tataral (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. And what concrete edits do you propose based on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't propose a single edit based on that. I merely refute the nonsensical claims of the article somehow being biased by straightforwardly and accurately describing the opinions of various authors as it does now in the sections "1980s debate" and "Political controversy". I'm not the one being difficult by insisting on continuing a meaningless discussion based on the incorrect claim that the entire totalitarianism paradigm is a phenomenon of "new right" historians when it is in fact the government and EU supported historical paradigm and what could be called the European consensus position. Tataral (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He proposes removing relevant quotations [14] from historians who actually address the topic, rearranging the text, and removing "revisionist" from Nolte and Hillgruber, who are widely described as such (see here). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you are the one proposing adding BLP violations to the article, rearranging the text in a POV and unproductive way, adding lengthy irrelevant rhetorical blockquotes which add nothing to the article, while deleting relevant material. I'm merely restoring the stable version before you started adding BLP violations. Tataral (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, I reverted to a good version by an IP from a California University whom you reverted, following which you repeatedly accused me of vandalism. There is no BLP violation in describing Nolte and Hillgruber as revisionists when that's literally the way they are described in dozens of works by reputable academics from the world over. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated the BLP policy and added BLP violations to the article. I have merely restored the stable, neutral version not violating the BLP policy. And no, your version is not "good", but POV. A propaganda statement by the Putin regime was moved to the top of Political developments, where it doesn't belong chronologically, but the intention seems clear. The rest of the edits were equally POV. Tataral (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, to write about some living historian that he is "revisionist" when the reliable source directly supports this claim is hardly a violation of BLP. If you disagree, let's go to WP:BLPN and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a BLP violation because it is 1) a defamatory label and 2) the minority position and the position of the (far) left as Davies noted and 3) completely irrelevant to the topic of this article, nothing of this is controversial in today's Europe, it's EU policy (i.e. "compared the policies of Hitler and Stalin"). The mere fact that you can find/cherry pick some obscure books by opponents containing defamation, doesn't mean this is the universally accepted position, and we also have sources describing them simply as historians (as the one cited above). A quick Google book search easily demonstrates that they are both overwhelmingly only described as historians, not "revisionist". We could easily find books containing highly negative descriptions of their opponents too, should we go around and add negative labels to all articles where they are briefly mentioned even when the negative label is completely irrelevant to the topic? Also, in addition to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV also applies to this article, so we don't use one-sided labels and weasel words. In this particular case I also note that neither of the two relevant articles describe the historians in such terms, and both establish that they are established scholars who also have received significant support and praise. They are historians, so we introduce them simply as such. Tataral (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral. If you propose no concrete change to the current article's text, we should probably stop this discussion per WP:SOAP. However, if you are not satisfied with what the article says now, please, explain us how do you propose to improve it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I myself am not satisfied with the way the subject is presented in the article. Thus, it is quite necessary to explain that direct comparison of Nazism and Communism (in its Stalinist version) presented in the Black Book was dictated by the Vichy syndrome of some French intellectuals, who, such as Courtois, were devoted Stalinists/Maoists in the past. For source, see, e.g. Donald Reid. In Search of the Communist Syndrome: Opening the Black Book of the New Anti-Communism in France. The International History Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 295-318.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, The term Historical revisionism is not defamatory, it merely denotes that one challenges orthodoxy. However the term is sometimes applied to holocaust deniers, which of course Nolte & co. were not. TFD (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for us to use any other description than historian when only briefly mentioning two historians in this article. It is by no means agreed upon what is "orthodoxy" when it comes to totalitarianism. The position of German leftists in the 80s has never been the mainstream position in Soviet and Communism Studies or research on totalitarianism, it appears more to be a minority view, and could be called revisionist with the same logic. Tataral (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you are describing the world in Manichean terms. The pro-Soviet view was never mainstream. Cold War theories were popular during the Cold War, and were revived in Eastern Europe but have not re-entered the mainstream. TFD (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What you call Eastern Europe, and what's generally called Central and Eastern Europe, makes up half of Europe and is by definition mainstream. Few people in Western Europe have strong opinions on totalitarianism anyway, so the dominant view in Central and Eastern Europe is therefore the mainstream European position, supported by the EU and by government-founded research institutes in countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic dedicated specifically to the totalitarianism approach in the tradition of Hannah Arendt. Tataral (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That type of argument is made frequently in climate change and evolution articles. But what is mainstream in Wikipedia is not defined by how many people believe something or how passionately, but on contemporary scholarship. TFD (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about acceptance of 'totalitarianism' category this is what A. James Gregor says: "To this day, the concept totalitarianism subsumes all these political systems. Upon its appearance, some rejected the concept as a product of the cold war, but its evident cognitive merits prevailed over what were essentially political objections. Totalitarianism, as part of the interpretation of fascism has survived and prospered. Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism are all considered to share institutional and doctrinal features that now include some variant of nationalism, statism, antiliberalism, militarism, elitism, the leadership principle, episodic mass-mobilization, ideocracy, and irredentism." (A. James Gregor Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time). Also, Gregor's book The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (Yale University Press, 2004) should be useful source for this subject. -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Since 1989, the totalitarian concept, which was virtually dead, has enjoyed a comeback especially among New Right academics and Eastern European (and French) politicians. But that is not to say that the views of Gregor, Nolte, Davies, Applebaum, Furet, Courtois, etc., have majority support. (Gregor btw was a leading advocate of the totalitarian theory during the Cold War.) Read for example Geyer's Beyond totalitarianism, which is available on-line, and explains the historiography. TFD (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Nobody suggests that these regimes are not discussed as totalitarian or that the comparison is not made. The question is more about the claims, sources, and due weight. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, in quoted passage Gregor doesn't talk about his personal view but is talking about what other experts think about subject and is saying that this is a view of majority ("some rejected the concept as a product of the cold war, but its evident cognitive merits prevailed over what were essentially political objections"). What exactly Geyer says? -- Vision Thing -- 09:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I summarized what Geyer wrote here. It is referenced to pp. 18, 16, 4-9, 7, 19 of the introduction to his book, Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism". The book can be see on Amazon[http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Totalitarianism-Stalinism-Nazism-Compared/dp/0521723973#reader_0521723973] and the full intro is available on-line. Whether or not Geyer supports any of these views is irrelevant, he is explaining the degree of acceptance they have. TFD (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Only first ten pages of intro are available on-line and unless I missed something they don't support view that totalitarianism viewpoint is obsolete like you stated in your version of the lead. I tried to search Amazon version for "obsolete" and it found 0 results. Page 16. to which you sourced that statement also doesn't talk about it. -- Vision Thing -- 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Even the pages you can access say that the totalitarian model has been largely abandoned. "This research-oriented, scholarly community remains, for the most part, in a posttheoretical and posttotalitarian mode." (p. 8) "Empirical historians mainly worked over and disposed of older concepts and ideas of totalitarianism". (p. 9) TFD (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

From those quotes it seems that Geyer talks about subset of scholars (empirical or research-oriented), not all scholars. Gregor talks about majority of all scholars. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Modern scholarship is research-oriented. TFD (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

Rather than an entry in a popular encyclopedia, this reads more like a tendentious, pseudo-scholarly article.

This addition by R-41 is problematic. Basically, all it does is promote the works of some controversial authors like Furet and Werth, whose works are far from representing a consensus on the subject at hand.

R-41's tendentious edit contains the following about the countries' policies on the family:

"Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany promoted reproductive policies through coercive and incentive means, and both sought to promote motherhood through propaganda and designed policies to increase the birth rate - such as Stalin's Soviet Union's banning of abortion."

Is this article supposed to compare the philosophical principles of the Russian Communists and the German Nazis, or discuss their governing record? Because this isn't made clear. The U.S., England, and other countries did not have legalized abortion at this time - did this mean that there equal to or comparable to Nazi Germany?

In some European countries today, there are material incentives for families to have babies: The “baby bonus,”... is structured to root new citizens in the town: a mother gets 1,500 euros when her baby is born, then a 1,500-euro payment on each of the child’s first four birthdays and a final 2,500 euros the day the child enrolls in first grade. Do such policies in European countries today make them comparable to the Nazis?

Stalin's Falsifiers of History and many other works of history and social science compare the behavior of the western capitalist countries with Nazi Germany. Should there then be an article called "Comparison of Bourgeois Democracy and Nazism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.175.157 (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Both Furet and Werth are notable enough to be included into the article. However, the criticism of their views is also quite notable. In my opinion it is quite necessary to include the viewpoint that Stalinism and Nazism had much in common, along with the criticism of this viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all the anon editor has instantly assumed bad faith calling my edits "tendentious" without even having any conversation with me at this point, that is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Second of all removing the quote by Hitler from 1934 that shows him speaking admirably about Bolshevism's revolutionary qualities and inserting another quote where he is denouncing Marxism is selective interpretation - it is appropriate to have both quotes, but to remove one quote and add another is not appropriate. Lastly Furet and Werth is a reliable source that is accepted in academic study, I agree with Paul Siebert that criticisms of Furet and Werth's interpretation can and should be added, I am not currently aware of those criticisms but I will support them being added.--R-41 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitler on Bolshevism

An editor has re-inserted a long passage attributed to Hitler which is used to back up a claim that "Hitler spoke admirably about the revolutionary qualities of Bolshevism".[15] The claim was made by Francois Furet and the source is Hermann Rauschning's disputed recording of private discussions with Hitler. To give greater prominence to this passage than Hitler's better known statements and actions (including jailing Communists) is POV. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of what is known about Hitler's statements in his final days in his bunker in 1945 are also attributed by what others recorded him as saying. What is your evidence that Raushning's recording of his private conversation is "disputed"? Who has disputed it?--R-41 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 29: "Hitler Speaks is now considered to be fraudulent".[16] TFD (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I recall, Raushning had been recognised as a non-reliable source during another discussion. Let's be consistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. While his views may not be universally accepted, his works are reliable sources for facts. Reliability depends on the publisher, in this case the Cambridge University Press The reference is a factual statement about what other writers believe, not a statement about what the writer believes. If he was wrong, fact-checking should have found it and if they missed it look for a publisher's correction. TFD (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bio-politics

Basically the Bio-politics subsections identifies no similarities between the two whatsoever. Nazi Germany actively pursued eugenics, while the Soviet Union did not, and the two countries had radically different health systems. This would stick much better into the Differences section, so if there aren't any objections, I'll move it there. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the key similarity was the connection of reproduction policies with the ideological goals of the state, the section makes that clear. That said, the the "differences" section reads more like its about the relations between the two regimes, while the "similarities" section could be renamed to "comparison" which would address your concerns. --Nug (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed section about differences

This section contained no comparison on the regimes/ideologies. It contains only 'stalin did this', 'hitler did that'. May be I am an idiot, but please list here a single sentence from this section which is comparison. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes there were diffrences, but no body even started listing them. Like, Nazists massacred other peoples, while Stalinists massacred their own peoples. Germany was capitalism, USSR was socialism state capitalism. Nazi ideology was based on racism, Soviet ideology was based on "proletarians of all world, unite", or how was it. And so on. Does annyone bother to do someting useful here? Staszek Lem (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this article has problems. If we want to mention similarities and differences we should use sources that discuss them, rather than ourselves juxtaposing information about the two, which is original research. An editor restored your deletions and I welcome his response. TFD (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are barking on the wrong tree. My deletion was exactly against random juxtaposition of facts. You still did not answer my questions: what exactly was compared in the deleted sections. For example there was a (well-referenced) sentence "Hitler and the Nazis identified Communists as their enemy." What kind of "difference" is this? That "Stalin and Stalinists identified Communists as their friends?" I am kidding, but where are your serious arguments? Wikipedia is not a random collection of miscellaneous facts. An article has a subject. Please explain how this sentence serves in Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. When you are done, please explain me how the text "The Nazi regime tried to aggravate Soviet-Finnish relations" is "difference between Stalinism and Nazism". May be "Soviet regime tried to improve Soviet-Finnish relations"? No? Do you want me to list all 9 sentences here? Staszek Lem (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In actuality, I am not sure I was right when I restored the deleted text: it was really poor. There is plethora of sources discussing difference between Communism and Nazism, however, some work is needed to separate the sources that compare Stalinism and Nazism. I need some time to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having common sense. Yes, it is important to refer to serious sources, otherwise there is a danger of trivia of the level "hitler had narrow moustache, whereas Stalin had a broad one". Staszek Lem (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, when drawing differences, it would be good to do this separately for ideological differences and differences in political organization, (and possibly other broad aspects). Staszek Lem (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Else narrow interpretations are meaningless. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

Staszek Lem, before ranting and raving about my comments you should have read them. I agreed with you but now resent being accused of barking. If you want to return to your points however, the fact that Nazis opposed Communism and vice versa is a significant difference. More importantly however, my point which you missed was that it is unimportant what differences we see, rather we should report the differences that the literature explains. TFD (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeas I've read and understood your comments, obviously made as a general-purpose mentoring, rather than looking into an essense. You were responding to my initial comment, so I assumed they were addressed to me. Of course, your comment is technically correct. But... where in the article I added any text "ourselves juxtaposing information"? And you even proceed with teching me about how to wirte wikipedia wih references. Hence "barking wrong tree" expression, in my mediocre understanding of English it was supposed to mean that I am not guilty of whatever accusation was yours. You did not bother to agree/disagree with me, only "welcomed" my opponent, so my "ranting and raving" was not about your touchy persona, but about article content', to further clarify the meaninglessness of the deleted section. Finally, an editor restored my deletions and you are welcoming his response. Who are you? The owner of this article? It was me who was welcoming his response, since he asked me to explain myself in the talk page, and I dutily did so, and it seems we are happy with each other. Now, do you want to discuss the essence of the article or your hurt feelings?

So what we have here from you? You wrote "fact that Nazis opposed Communism and vice versa is a significant difference". This expression is a logical blunger, although it has its point. Opposing each other in general is hardly a difference; it may be a possible manifestation of the percieved difference. And the (neglected) purpose of the article is to explain whether there was any difference that made them oppose each other. They could have opposed each other just because of power struggle, and it may be that "Nazis opposed Communism" because they both wanted to rule the whole world, and in fact this "N opposed C" speaks more for similarity rather than for difference. Staszek Lem (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Political controversy" section

It begins with: This issue has long provoked political controversy . Which issue? The short section gives no clues. It looks like during ruthless editing the text lost some coherence. Whoever remembers what it was about, please clarify. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I merged it into another "polictical" section, so that the phrase makes sense (maybe a new one) now. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Also, as a non-native English speaker, I don't quite understand the subtlety of the construct "has long provoked". How can one say this differently? Staszek Lem (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Article structure

The article must be restructured to draw a better distinction between actual comparison and scolarhip about the comparison, in the sense of distinction between politics and politology. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, even more deep restructurisation is needed, because the article is very confusing. Most sources used in the article discuss the difference and commonalities between Nazism and Communism in general, not Stalinism. Therefore, I am not sure all of them are being used here legitimately. We need to explain better what Stalinism is, and what is the difference between it an Communism. Thus, whereas Communism is intrinsically internationalistic, Stalin was a Russian chauvinist, and his empire was gradually drifting to Russian nationalism (which was not so obvious by the moment of the Great purge). Similarly, whereas there were no anti-Semitism under early Communists, strong anti-Semitism started to develop under late Stalin. As a result, we need to discriminate between actual Stalinism (Stalin's dictatorship that was restricted with earlier concepts of Communism, and did not allow extreme manifestations of brutality) with ideal Stalinism (an ideology that developed by the end of Stalin's rule). Which of these two the article discusses?

By the way, in contrast to Stalinism, no such dichotomy between ideology and practice existed in Nazism: they were doing what they proclaimed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For the beginning, I propose to discuss the following source; David Wedgwood Benn. On Comparing Nazism and Stalinism. The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia by Richard Overy (International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 82, No. 1, Perspectives on Emerging Would-Be Great Powers (Jan., 2006), pp. 189-194). In this review article the author discusses Overy's "The Dictators" (the source, which is absolutely relevant to this article, and which appeared to be totally ignored), and express several own ideas. Interestingly, he seem to identify more differences then similarities between these two regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot even begin to start a meaningful discussion on the subject, since I have only some vague ideas. I find your remarks about nationality issue interesting. However to trace the Soviet developments in full, I'd suggest to remember that Soviet totalitarianism was not restricted to Stalinism period. Basically, Stalinism was brutal period of Soviet-style Communism. Khruschtschov's "thaw" was not at all about giving up the power. Moreover Late Brezhnevism saw to "rehabilitaiton" of Stalinism. In this context it is interesting to note the evolution of Rissian chauvinism into the new "Soviet people" ethnos, which was declared to be a "melting pot" of the nationalities, but somehow under the domination of Russian language and Russian culture, basically assimilation al all into "Russian elder brother". I.e. essentially it is "nazional idea", but implemented in a different way. Since Soviet Communists didn't have crazy biological ideas, the cultural assimilation sufficed, and the first step was to eliminate cultural elites of other ethnoses. Stalin did it brutally, but his two successors did their best as well. Please do not consider at the above rant as an original research, but rather as an argument in favor of going beyond the superficially restrictive "Stalin-only"-"Hitler" juxtaposition. Otherwise I am afraid I am of little help on the subject. I am only accidentally involved with this article, noticing it being severely neglected. Tschüss, Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No worry, pane Stanislaw. I myself have to read more on that subject before starting to work on this article. By the way, do you plan to continue to work on it, or this our discussion is of academic interest only?

In any event, I believe you will not mind me to make some comment on your last post. Firstly, regarding cultural assimilation, you are not right: in early Soviet Union, the national policy implied no assimilation. For example, many nationalities got their own alphabet, and this program was sponsored by central government. The only nationalism that was suppressed during that period was Russian nationalism, because the leaders correctly recognised that it is the major tool to destroy multinational empire. BTW, "melting pot" is the American term. I am not aware of the examples of its usage by Soviet officials.

Regarding "elimination of cultural elites", I am not sure I know many examples of such elimination under Khruschev and Brezhnev. They were more concerned about few political dissidents.

Regarding totalitarianism, such authors as Overy believe this concept is a dramatic oversimplification, an can hardly be applied to the USSR as whole during all periods of its history.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding cultural assimilation, I though it goes without saying that pre-Stalin Soviet Union was a different country, a beginning of a social experiment, and hardly called totalitarian. I agree that "tot-sm" is oversimplification in the same way as, say, "democracy". Yes melting pot is americanism. I don't quite remember the corresponding sovietism, but there surely was one. About Soviet culturecide, I know not much either, except I recently reviewed a new article, Chronology of Ukrainian language bans. Language of science of education was 90% Russian. Catholic church was heavily oppressed in favor of "truly Russian" Orthodox one. "Few political dissidents" were few who allowed themselves to be noisy, mostly Jews, who knew the West will help them, and several really few who were famous and also knew that the West will know about them. Most others were quietly repressed by KGB without trace upon the slightest signs of possible nationalism or any other opposition. Another example, a couple days I revewed an article about a litvak writer Icchokas Meras, who was forced to emigrate once he started writing something not very soviet. (These and some other examples I don't remember off my head are the base of my opinion about continued cultural represssion: I didn't really study the issue on purpose.) Poles officially did not exist in Belarusian SSR: half million of them were officially "Catholicized Belarusians".[17] Meanwhile Belarusin language have been dying off itself. Ukrainian language was derided. Funny thing: the derisive Russian term for Ukrainian language was/is "mova": which is actually Ukrainian for "language". And so on. But again, this is but a tangential rant, hardly useful for the purpose of the current article. Answering your question about working on the current article, this would require a serious research for which I have no time. My work in wikipedia is picking on obvious missing or misplaced or disorganized things with bare minimum of brain effort. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re pre-Stalin USSR, I totally agree, however, since the fact that pre-Stalin USSR was a different country is not obvious for many others, I thought that was necessary to articulate clearly. Glad to see that you share my views.

Re 90% Russian in Ukraine, I didn't read about that, however, one my friend is Ukrainian, he speaks fluently both Russian and Ukrainian (and loves both languages equally), and he believes the situation with Ukrainian language was ideal in late USSR (much better then now, when people are forced to switch to redundantly Polonised Western Ukrainian dialect). That is not my opinion, I just transmit what he is saying.

Re other languages, the tendency of "small" languages to gradually die is a global trend, and I don't see how Communists accelerated this process (as compared with what would have occurred under market economy and bourgeois democracy).

Re "nationalism or any other opposition" Ihmo, the key word here is "any other opposition": they were repressed because they opposed (really of allegedly) to existing political system. The fate of Russian nationalists was the same.

Re Catholicism, as far as I know, all religions were suppressed more or less equally, although the church that was more likely to be controlled from abroad was treated with greater suspect.

Re rants, I don't think so. It is very useful for better understanding of each other's views. Thank you for your explanations. That may be useful in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Stalinism vs Communism

Why the article is called "and Stalinism" and not "Communism". In Hannah Arendt's book she never used word "stalinism" and referred to to the USSR ideology as "communist". The communist parties around the world also called themselves "communist", rather than "stalinist", starting with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The "Black book" is of "communism", not "stalinism". Also there was no "stalinism" in USSR before Lenin's death in 1924, but there were many repressions and atrocities, just like after Khrushchev's Secret Speech in 1956. Name of the article is inconsistent with its content and the sources it cites. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point about Arendt and Courtois (Black Book of Communism). It looks like Kurt Schumacher mentioned "communists" rather than "Stalinists" as well, and I've changed the picture caption accordingly. However some of the other sources referenced in the article do cover "Stalinism" rather than "Communism". For example, Geyer (2009) is used heavily in the article. I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps keeping the article at "Stalinism" but noting when a cited source talks more about "communism" and how much such a source actually refers to "Stalinism". Another solution would be to replace "Stalinism" with "communism" (capitalized?) in the title and devote a section to authors who only compare Nazism with Stalinism and not communism in general. Since this is a controversial topic, I would recommend making a page move request and getting consensus before moving.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism → Comparison of Nazism and Communism – Many sources referenced in this article refer to communism and make no single mention of "stalinism" (Hannah Arendt, Kurt Schumacher, Stephane Courtois, George Orwell and probably more). Using the "stalinism" name results in unfounded reduction of scope to Stalin's rule (1924-1953), while events used for comparison (terror, concentration camps) were happening long before and after Stalin. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose as Communism is a very broad subject which encompasses numerous variations including Stalinism, Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, etc. If the sources used within the article are considered inappropriate then new sources should be found or an explanation given as to why the sources are appopriate. Also, Stalinism does not refer only to the era of Stalin's rule, rather it is both an ideology and a style of government. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You correctly listed all the major ideologies that were base for 20th century's communism implemented in Soviet Union. It was ruled by Communist Party of the Soviet Union that referred Marxism–Leninism as its ideology (same for satellite countries). This is why Arendt was right, when she writes about totalitarian communism, and this is why this article is wrong when it cites Arendt and arbitrarily changes subject of her critique to stalinism. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Once again it appears that what we're really discussing here is whether or not certain references are appropriate for use in sourcing this article. If so, I can't see how that would justify a change in the title which would vastly alter the scope of the article. Rejectwater (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If majority of the sources mention communism, then the article is about communism. And if the title is irrelevant, then the easiest way to fix it is to change the title, not get rid of the majority of sources. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The title is not irrelevant; it sets out a narrow scope for the page of comparing Nazism to Stalinism. Is the article itself a comparision of Nazism v Stalinism specifically or a comparison of Nazism v. Communism in general? Rejectwater (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think I have been particularly clear with what I am getting at here. Look at the bibliography: of seven works, four are titled as comparing Stalinism and Nazism. One compares Fascism and Communism; being broader in it's scope I find no reason why it would be unthinkable to find applicable information in that source. The other two are more general references, one for the Holocaust and the other with "European identity". Given that I still feel we're good with Stalinism in the title. As far as the few mentions of Arendt are concerned, I disagree that the presence of these in the context given necessarily broadens the scope of the page. I am sorry if I am beating a dead horse here, I just wanted to make sure that a lack of clarity on my part is not leading others in circles. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose it isn't a comparison with Communism. If you're doing that, why not just expand it to Comparison of fascism with communism ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment The issue is complicated because there have been many (I think) high quality academic works comparing, in various combinations, Hitler, Nazism, or Fascism on the one hand with Stalin, Stalinism, the Soviet Union, Communism, or Socialism on the other. There is also the fact that authors comparing the more general categories (e.g. Nazism with Communism in Arendt) make wide use of examples from more specific cases (e.g. Stalin’s Soviet Union). It really takes someone widely read in these works to sort it all out, but it does appear to me that there is enough scholarly work comparing Nazism with Stalinism for a stand-alone article. There also appears to be enough scholarly sources for separate articles on comparisons between Hitler and Stalin, Fascism and Communism, etc. These articles would have a lot of overlap in the examples and sources used, but would have different focus and scope.

It is appropriate to use examples and concepts from e.g. Arendt’s work comparing Nazism with Communism in the article comparing Nazism with Stalinism. However they need to be phrased in such a way that they both address Stalinism and are true to the original source. So the edits here [18] and here [19] are steps in the right direction in that they accurately portray what the sources say, but they need to go further to make an explicit connection to Stalinism (assuming they are used in an article comparing Nazism with Stalinism). I’m not familiar enough with Schumacher to do this for his quote, but for Arendt, it might be worded thus:

Hannah Arendt's seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), describes and analyzes the two major totalitarian movements of the twentieth century, Nazism and Communism, making heavy use of examples from Stalin’s Soviet Union.

This article appears to require a lot of work to correct statements that are not faithful to their sources while maintaining their pertinence to the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Black Book of Communism

It is problematic to cite Courtois given the controversies of The Black Book of Communism, which is not an academic book but rather a popular book from a commercial publisher (Robert Laffont) that arose in the context France's partisan politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.155 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Very true. That bit of propaganda has been rejected by some of the people who worked on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bloodlands should be used here

The book and its critics is basic.Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done Agreed that it should be in the "See also" section at the least. Already having established itself as a seminal work, I think it merits a brief section under "History and scholarship of the comparisons" of its own accord. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.booksandideas.net/Timothy-Snyder-and-his-Critics.html

http://defendinghistory.com/30081/30081 Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A former Nazi camps prisoner has published a book [20] about history of concentration camps, including Soviet ones.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added a NPOV tag. This article is poorly researched and constructed. The Nazis and Soviets almost always saw themselves as bitter enemies. Hitler even stated that his National Socialist state was a "diametrical contradiction" of the Soviet Union. Alan Bullock states that "...more divided than united the ambitions of [Hitler and Stalin]". He also states that despite their similarities, the two regimes were "distinctly different" and he goes into detail on those differences in this book. This article obscures that and presents them as essentially the same. It also cherry-picks information to create a misleading picture. For example it discusses the "anti-semitism" of the Bolsheviks with facts about their persecution Jewish religion. Nevermind, that Lenin and the Bolshevik regime officially opposed anti-Semitism and their treatment of the religion of Judaism was connected to their atheism and such persecutions were extended to all religions. It also tries to further the claim that the two regimes are the same by quoting Goebbels comparing Hitler to Lenin in 1925. No mention of the fact that Goebbels later denounced Lenin as the founder of Bolshevism which he saw as the greatest threat to Western civilization. I'm afraid this entire article needs a complete rewrite for the NPOV to no longer be an issue. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this article look like a Synthesis WP:SYNT, the sources need to be verified. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Has got what to do with the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism? Or Hitler killing himself? Please explain why that belongs in the article Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is comparing Hitler's government with Stalin's government. It seems pertinent to me to mention somewhere, by the way, those two governments once fought each other to the death, and it was one of the deadliest wars of all time. How does that not seem pertinent to you? Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well every one knows there was a war, but I'm not seeing how that equates to a comparison of their respective ideologies Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of Nazism was about victory through military success. If you don't understand the basic tenants of Nazism, perhaps you should just be reading this article, rather than editing it? Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 00:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is about comparisons between the two, it's not about "The whole point of Nazism" Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Its been 5 days since you said that ^, but I still don't know what it means. The only thing I can really make out is that you were mocking me for the way I spoke. Someone else has re-added the NPOV tag you tried to remove, so I could be right in thinking you aren't right in what you're saying. If you are going to claim that this article was written honestly, please can you explain what the "scope" of it is, if it isn't just about making the Soviet Union look bad through unflattering Nazi comparisons? Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The article scope is explained in the first sentence "comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism, in which they have considered the issues of whether the two ideologies were similar or different" It is about ideologies, and no, I was not mocking you, I was quoting what you wrote Darkness Shines (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And the point of this

Edit is? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Darkness Shines: What you're asking isn't making sense to me. The section was titled "Antisemitism and genocide" and I added the notable fact that the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust. Do you seriously think that should be taken out? I have answered your questions. Please can you answer mine for a change. The only reason you're even able to post here right now is that Floquenbeam took pity on you. It's not your intellectual brilliance you have to thank. You need to remember that. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 22:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You added uncited crap, I'm pretty sure Hitler did not kill six million Jews, he may have given the order but you already know this, your just being disruptive to make a point. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The article contained 7 paragraphs of "comparison" between Nazism and Stalinism on the subject of antisemitism and genocide that only mentioned the Holocaust as something to blame Stalin for. It is a disgrace that it has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia for so long. Before you intervened, I was considering taking the whole section out it was so bad. As well as the Holocaust, another thing that section misses is that the Nazis started a war with the Soviet Union, with the aim of killing and enslaving millions of its inhabitants after stealing their land. I guess that didn't fit the conclusion the authors of this article wanted to present. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 15:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing anywhere in the article were the Soviets are blamed for the holocaust, can you point it to me please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that because you haven't read the article yet? We have been talking about the section "Antisemitism and genocide". The bit where it attempts to pin blame for the Holocaust on Stalin is the last paragraph. Until I added the sentence you tried to remove, the most it had to say about Nazi responsibility for any mass killings of any sort was the phrase "Hitler's Holocaust" (which Stalin was apparently involved in). Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Woops, earlier I said 7 paragraphs of "comparison"...on the subject of antisemitism and genocide. Actually there are only 4, for some reason I was looking at the previous section "Political violence and violent societies" while counting. Not sure why I did that. Although that section is pretty bad as well. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 12:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Soviets handed Jews over to the Nazi's, and as such were an accomplice as the article says, still not seeing were Stalin is being blamed for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Merging proposal

I propose to merge Totalitarian twins to Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism.The reason is almost same as discribed in the deletion template on Totalitarian twins.--北谷2 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I have no objections. Welcome to merge content of Totalitarian twins here and make Totalitarian twins a redirect if no one else objects. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I object. Regimes do not have to be creature of the ideology. A 'twin' could be an individual, totalitarian regimes existed before Nazi-Stalin, aside Nazi-Stalin, and will continue to exist after Nazi-Stalin into the future, tentatively speaking. You may as well merge [Horseshoe Theory] into here too. In layman's terms: It's a term not a philosophy.67.45.97.4 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

Darkness Shines removed the NPOV tag claiming that "no reason" was given for it. A reason was given, and it was archived. See archive 2. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? If it's archived that tells me the dispute is over, if you add a tag I'm pretty sure you're meant to explain what 'you think' is wrong, not wave vaguely at a conversation from last year. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are archived when they get too big. Not when a dispute is over. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not seeing any problems so why not explain them, tags are not meant to remain as a badge of shame after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I brought the archived section back. LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is heavily biased, only books are sourced too which is a problem if you dont own them. What i notice is that the article only tries to find similarities rather than distinctions, Fascism and Communism indeed have similarities given that they emerge from the same material bases who were failed capitalist societies, but the goals and ideologies are like night and day. The Nazis believed in eugenics, the Soviets in equality of man. Hitler privatized more than any german leader before him, he didnt nationalize any company after he came to power, the link between german capitalists and his rise to power is well documented but there isnt an article about that for some reason?--Crossswords (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So, what improvements do you suggest? My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed because there was no response here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Pointless as it will no doubt be restored by the usual apologists Darkness Shines (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course this page can be improved, but simply placing the tag as a badge of shame is simply unconstructive and disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be there as the article does not present a fair or balanced analysis of the relative qualities of the Nazi and Soviet governments. You seem to have acknowledged in what you said that there is bias in this article, so I don't understand why you are objecting to the tag. It's odd because it appears you are Russian, and Darkness Shines is British, and yet you are both defending the Nazis. Did they not bomb where you live? Woscafrench (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes - in response to the message you left on my talk page, this article is biased in the Nazi's favour and you are trying to hide from the reader the concern many people have raised about this bias. That is how you are defending the Nazis. Woscafrench (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I'm Irish, and the Article is a comparison of two totalitarian regimes who killed people by the millions, I'm not seeing how it is biased in havoyr of National Socialism, and why not fix this perceived bias which you this exists? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh right, for some reason I had assumed before you were from the north of England. I don't really understand the question I think you're asking, since you have been repeatedly removing my edits to this article. You may as well ask me "why have I let you win an edit war?". Perhaps I'm just too nice, I don't know. If you still can't see any bias, do take some time to read the section "Antisemitism and genocide". If you still can't see any bias, try and find the bit in that section which describes the Nazi's involvement in antisemitism and genocide. Woscafrench (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't check all sources cited in this section, however cited books by Pipes which I read do make such comparison of two regimes in great detail. There is huge number of similarities, including genocide of ethnic minorities. You are probably not familiar with the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said that there weren't similarities between the two regimes. I said the article is biased in the Nazi's favour (for example it barely mentions the Holocaust, or the fact that the Nazis started WW2). Since Darkness Shines has been indefinitely blocked perhaps you could weigh in on an argument we were having. Do you think it is "off topic" to mention the Great Patriotic War when comparing Nazism and Stalinism? Woscafrench (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to add something about Nazi Germany, you are very welcome. But I am not sure what it is exactly (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? it is mentioned already), and remember that it should be referenced to RS that make comparison of the both regimes. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The only reliable sources I know of that compare Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union are focused on the war between those two nations. Which is why I asked if you thought the war was on topic. Perhaps you are too young to remember, but it was quite a big deal at the time. It seems a little strange to have 8,000 words of text and not mention it. Woscafrench (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not on the subject of the page, unless some RS make comparison of the systems and mention the Great Patriotic War (rather than the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) in this regard. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Woscafrench. Moreover, the whole "Antisemitism and genocide" must be rewritten. For example, it starts with the totally odd statement:

"Not long after the 1917 October Revolution, the Soviet Union undertook practices to break up Jewish culture, religion and language. "

That is totally incorrect for two reasons: (i) Stalinism is a regime that existed only after Stalin took full power (by killing majority of old Bolsheviks). That means this statement is irrelevant. (ii) The section equates the term "Judaism" and "Jews". That is not correct, especially for late Russian Empire and early USSR: most ethnic Jews were not religious, and they supported (and organized) repressions against Judaism in the same extent (or even more passionately) than ethnic Russians did against the Orthodox church. We do not speak Stalinism was anti-Russian because it destroyed churches, why do we say the same about Jews? Not only Jews (as ethnic group) were not repressed in early Stalinist society, they were allowed or even encouraged to use Yiddish for education, and so on.

I would say, Stalinism was judophilic until 1947. By saying so, I don't mean Stalin himself was not antisemitic. He definitely was. However, taking into account Stalinism officially adhered to Marxism that was immanently internationalistic. That is a core feature of Stalinism: being another version of Russian imperialism, Stalinism had to mimic Marxism (because it had never had its own well articulated ideology), which applied significant restrains on what Stalin was doing. Only at 1947 Stalin decided he was strong enough to openly proclaim state anti-Semitism and stated to implement it.

17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

PS By the way, this source is interesting [21]