Stalins murdered millions

[Blind groper]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03 ... lled-more/

Seth has this habit of claiming the dead millions in the Soviet Union under Stalin as a reason why everyone must have guns. His thesis is that if they had guns they could have resisted and deposed Stalin. Seth, of course, is wrong.

The reference above shows that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of about 6 million civilians. The Nazis by comparison, killed about 11 million non combatants, and another 1 million died as a result of the privations the Nazis put them through. Mao was responsible for many more deaths.

So, if people were armed, would that have made the situation better in Germany, the USSR, or in China?

The short answer is no.
Why not? Basically because those being killed off represented minority groups in those nations, and the majority of the people supported the regime. If everyone had guns, the likely result would be that those minorities would end up fighting the majorities who supported the regimes, and the death toll, and the toll of human misery would have been even higher. Bullets kill. They rarely save.

[Blind groper]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27654.html

This reference is to back up my OP. Stalin is still very, very popular in Russia. A survey in 2006 showed 47% of Russians viewed Stalin in a positive light and only 29% saw him negatively.

Since most Russians supported Stalin, arming his minority opposition would have been a very, very bad move.

[JimC]

You missed an apostrophe in the title.

[laklak]

Ve hef vays of dealink mit dropped apostrophes. Very effective vays, Ja?

[JimC]

Ve hef vays of dealink mit dropped apostrophes. Very effective vays, Ja?

Blind groper is from NZ, after all...

[Blind groper]

If the worst mistake you can pull me up on is a dropped apostrophe, I am bloody near perfect!

[JimC]

[Seth]

More historical revisionism from BG.

He said this "is not a complete reckoning of all the death that Soviet and German power brought to the region". Snyder identifies those victims killed as a result of "deliberate policies of mass murder" by governments, such as executions, deliberate famine and death camps. Snyder said that he "generally excludes from the count" deaths due to exertion, disease, or malnutrition in concentration camps; deportations, forced labor, evacuations; people who died of hunger as a result of wartime shortfalls, and civilians killed by bombings or other acts of war. The geographic area covered by the "Bloodlands" is limited to Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and western Russian regions occupied by Germany. Regarding the figures, Snyder noted, "again, my reckoning is on the conservative side." Source: Wikipedia

FYI, Stalin began killing people in 1919 and his regime long outlasted him. Your "source" is a very limited window into a specific area and a very specific time period that excludes, by the author's own admission, plenty of killing by Stalin and his successors, which leaves us right back at the most common count of some 40 million people.

However, even if it's only 30 million, or 20 million, or 12 million, or one million, or one hundred, or ten, or one, the point that all of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and every other despot and tyrant in history are cause not to disarm law-abiding citizens remains valid and true. The first thing that each of them did was to disarm the populace and keep them disarmed, which is the only way they were able to kill so many people.

So, fuck your incredibly myopic, disgustingly immoral and self-centered attempts to brush off and explain away the tens of millions of people who have died because people like you disarmed them and allowed tyranny and criminality to slaughter them wholesale. And your excuse for such barbaric dismissal of the rights and lives of others is to allegedly prevent 8000 deaths caused by criminals. But I don't think that's it at all. I think you revel in all that blood. I think you bathe in it and celebrate it and dance on the graves of the dead just like the Islamic terrorists and liberals, Democrats and the current fuckwit occupying the Oval Office we see today. I think you jump with joy and smile and pump your fist in the air every time some innocents are murdered by criminals or terrorists because you idiotically think that dead people support your narrow-minded, evil, cruel, despicable and ignorant opinions about guns. Your opinions are some of the most disgusting and reprehensible arguments I've ever in my life heard. Should someone comes to your home and do this to you and your family I will neither grieve nor lose any sleep over it, I'll consider it just desserts and an object lesson to others:

black eye avatar.jpg (20.69 KiB) Viewed 5195 times

And I hope that you do NOT die of it, so that you can suffer the consequences of your idiocy for the rest of your life.

[Seth]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27654.html

This reference is to back up my OP. Stalin is still very, very popular in Russia. A survey in 2006 showed 47% of Russians viewed Stalin in a positive light and only 29% saw him negatively.

Since most Russians supported Stalin, arming his minority opposition would have been a very, very bad move.

Only a murderous cocksucker who supports despotism, tyranny and genocide would argue that arming the opposition to a murderous despot is a "bad move." You see, the rights of that minority are not subject to a popular vote and never have been. They prevail regardless of how many vote to remove or disrespect those rights. If 47% of Russians approved of Putin slaughtering Ukrainians as Stalin did, then that 47% of Russians need to be as dead as Stalin, along with Putin, because they are evil and have no right to live because of their cooperation and support of despotic evil. Just as we hung Nazis we should, in that event, hang Putin and everyone around him and everyone who voted for him and everyone who approved of such genocidal actions in order to defend humanity against such evil.

If you lie down with pigs, then you get what they get when it comes time to clean up the sty.

[rainbow]

If you lie down with pigs, then you get what they get when it comes time to clean up the sty.

An argument for genocide.

[Blind groper]

What you consistently ignore, Seth, is that peaceful opposition to oppressive governments results in better outcomes, fewer deaths, less poverty, less human misery, than taking up the gun. Nations where people oppose using guns end up in a terrible mess of megadeaths, mutilations, poverty and misery. I have given you many examples.

The reason the peoples of China and Russia did not oppose Mao and Stalin was not lack of guns (after all, the IRA had a lack of guns, and look at how violent and vicious they were), but a lack of desire to oppose their leaders. The Chinese supported Mao, and the Russians supported Stalin. That support was misguided, certainly, but it was real.

[Blind groper]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

As the above reference points out, non violent opposition has become more and more common and is very effective.

There was even a non violent opposition in the USA which was very successful. I am talking of the internal opposition to the Viet Nam War, wich was, more than anything else, the reason America withdrew from Viet Nam.

Guns are NOT needed to oppose oppression. Guns lead to great harm. Non violent opposition is more successful, and does not cause the dreadful human misery of civil war.

[Seth]

If you lie down with pigs, then you get what they get when it comes time to clean up the sty.

An argument for genocide.

No, tyrannicide. Big difference.

[Seth]

What you consistently ignore, Seth, is that peaceful opposition to oppressive governments results in better outcomes, fewer deaths, less poverty, less human misery, than taking up the gun.

Until it doesn't.

Nations where people oppose using guns end up in a terrible mess of megadeaths, mutilations, poverty and misery. I have given you many examples.

And I have given overwhelming opposing examples showing that when diplomacy fails, arms are the only and last resort with which to oppose tyranny.

The reason the peoples of China and Russia did not oppose Mao and Stalin was not lack of guns

It was absolutely that. The people of China did oppose Mao, right up until the US bailed on its promise to provide gold so that the Kuomintang could buy weapons. And the Communists prevailed because they had more and better weapons. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

(after all, the IRA had a lack of guns, and look at how violent and vicious they were),

And did the IRA succeed in ejecting the English from Northern Ireland? No. Northern Ireland is still today a satellite state of England, by design and long, bitter, brutal oppression, genocide and a deliberate intent to "breed out" the Irish from Northern Ireland by stocking the area with Englishmen and Scotsmen and seizing the lands and goods of Irish aboriginals to disposses them.

but a lack of desire to oppose their leaders.

Which fails to explain why 40 million people were murdered by Stalin and his ilk for opposing them.

The Chinese supported Mao, and the Russians supported Stalin.

That's a Big Lie of monumental proportions.

That support was misguided, certainly, but it was real.

No, that support was not real, it was imposed at the barrel of a lot of guns held by the Communists to the heads of the populace who perforce "became" good little proletarians lest they be liquidated like the 40 million who went before them.

The fundamental lack of support for all Marxist regimes, particularly the Soviet Union, China and Cuba is demonstrated by the fact that every Marxist nation on earth strives (often violently) to keep its citizens WITHIN the boundaries of the communist state, as in the Berlin wall, whereas liberty-loving states like the United States need fences to keep people OUT.

If Marxism is so great, why do Marxists kill and imprison anyone who tries to defect? Chew on that for awhile.

[Seth]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

As the above reference points out, non violent opposition has become more and more common and is very effective.

Until it fails, as in Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Rhodesia, Burma, etc.

There was even a non violent opposition in the USA which was very successful. I am talking of the internal opposition to the Viet Nam War, wich was, more than anything else, the reason America withdrew from Viet Nam.

Er, that's hardly an example as no regime change occurred or was attempted.

Guns are NOT needed to oppose oppression.

Until they are.

Guns lead to great harm.

And to liberty.

Non violent opposition is more successful,

Unless it isn't.

and does not cause the dreadful human misery of civil war.

That is an absolute falsehood, as 100 million dead by the hands of Marxists proves.