The Lie of the 20 (or 40, or 60, or 80, or 110) Million: How Many People Did Stalin Kill?

In 1991, after the Soviet archives were opened, a wild debate raged in the journals for many years. The subject of the debate was how many people did Joseph Stalin kill. Most people assume that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million people at the very least. That figure is considered unassailable. Other figures of 40-60 million are considered to also be possible.
The fascist hero and traitor Solzhenitsyn said that Stalin killed 110 million people. We have little data about how many were killed by early Bolsheviks in peacetime. Much of their time was spent in a brutal Civil War and there were many deaths associated with that. There was also a brutal famine that occurred in the context of war. But all indications are that the Leninists were not responsible for a lot of deaths. I would be surprised if they killed 100,000 people in 10 years. From 1926-1953, we have readily accessible data however.

Executions           900,000
Anti-Kulak Campaign  400,000
Gulag                1,200,000
Total                2,500,000

I am leaving out deaths during wartime here, as we should not be counting those. However, there were some serious population transfers during World War which ended about 10 years later. The death tolls from these transfers were very high. Populations in the Baltics, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush and other Caucasian people were transferred, sometimes en masse, to gulags in Siberia. Death tolls were extremely high. I am not sure whether to include these totals, so I am leaving them out. Anyway, I do not have a good source for the deaths.
Surely there were executions and deaths in the gulags after 1943, but after Stalin died, the system was very much loosened up under Khrushchev and certainly under his followers. I doubt once again if there were 100,000 people killed between 1953-1989, a 36 year period.
I am also leaving off deaths due to famines because there is no evidence that these famines were artificially engineered. The most famous fake famine of all, the fake Holodomor, simply never even happened. What I mean was, yes, there was a famine, and many people died – 5.4 million in fact. But those deaths were not all in the Ukraine. Many died in the cities and 1 million died in Siberia. The death toll was higher in the fanatically pro-Stalin Volga than it was in Western Ukraine.
Even in Ukraine, the deaths were as high in the pro-Stalin East as in the anti-USSR nationalist West and Center. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that any “terror famine” occurred at all. There was simply a famine that occurred for a variety of causes, mostly a simple harvest collapse. Most died of disease instead of starvation. Much of the death toll was due to the kulaks.
The kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR to keep them from being turned over to the state. In the famine year, wheat fields were torched all over the Ukraine. Harvests were piled in the fields and left out to be rained on until they spoiled. Much of the crop failure was due to these dumbasses setting their fields on fire or piling harvests in the rain to spoil. They destroyed all their food crops, and then they sat around and said, “We ain’t got no food!” Duh. Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”
There was an armed revolution in the Ukraine with 20-30 armed attacks per day. Collective farms were attacked and set on fire. Workers in the collective farms would be shot and the women would be raped. This went on all through the years around the famine. The state crackdown was very brutal and that is why I listed 400,000 deaths during this time. If you want to count those 400,000 as “Holodomor” deaths, be my guest. But it ain’t no 6 million and there was no terror famine.
Look, if anti-Communists want to go on and on about Stalin killing 2 1/2 million people, please knock yourselves out. But they’ll never do that because it’s not sensational enough. You say the phrase “20 million killed in Communism” and everyone sits up and takes notice. You say Stalin killed 2 million and most will yawn and ask, “That’s all?” and turn back to the TV show.
This crap is all about propaganda. It’s not about real history or social science of any of that. It’s about lying for political purposes, which is what most of modern history is anyway.
How shameful that is.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

43 thoughts on “The Lie of the 20 (or 40, or 60, or 80, or 110) Million: How Many People Did Stalin Kill?”

  1. This argument makes total sense. However, the racist right will never buy into it – because either they believe they didn’t burn all those crops – or that burning those crops was the correct thing to do – totally ignoring the obvious consequences.
    Yeah, of course, if there is a “fuck you” backlash from right-wing farmers, then there will be mass starvation.

  2. Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”

    Yeah, but didn’t you say Zimbabwe was a justified state. Aren’t you a fan?

  3. Dear Robert
    Stalin’s record was by no means totally negative. At the end of his reign of almost 3 decades, the peoples of the Soviet Union were more literate, more prosperous and had longer life expectancy than when Stalin began his iron rule This happened despite all the death and destruction caused by WWII. Even if we reject the high number of deaths that can be attributed directly to Stalin, it can’t be denied that the price that the Soviet peoples paid for the progress that occurred under Stalin was too high. Stalin deserves one cheer and two boos.

    1. JAMES
      What about the Famine in the Ukraine? Economic proof of the perils of Centralized Planning.

      1. Dear Jason
        Well, the introduction of central planning in agriculture was certainly a disaster. However, once state-run agriculture was in place, there were no further famines. Nobody argues that Soviet agriculture was very efficient, but it did the job of feeding the inhabitants of the Soviet Union.
        There has been much ballyhoo about the import of grain by the Soviet Union in the seventies and beyond. That was mainly feed grain. With rising prosperity, the peoples in the Soviet Union started to consume more meat, milk and eggs, and this give rise to a growing demand for feed grains. At the same time, the Soviet Union was exporting food grain to its COMECON partners.
        Anti-communist propaganda about the Soviet Union could be quite tiresome. If it had been true, the inhabitants of the Soviet should all have been freezing and starving in the dark. The Soviet Union was not a great economic success, but it wasn’t a complete disaster either. There was economic progress, but it wasn’t as fast as in some other countries, and it came at the cost of an authoritarian system. On balance, communism was a failure, but it was a relative failure. There is a difference between an objective assessment of communism and Cold War propaganda.
        Regards. James

        1. Sweden or Norway would make better examples, in my opinion. The problem is that such a system has to have a rigorously enforced immigration policy or refugees will enter and abuse it.

  4. The thing with terror is that it works beautifully. Hence the perverse motivation. Ohh I recollect that the Americans were the ones who actually started the nuclear arms race.

  5. Early stage of communism wasn’t so good, but early stage of capitalism wasn’t pretty either… Ask Charles Dickens.

    1. An early stage of capitalism is the chimpanzee.
      The most ruthless greedy males and attractive amoral females get the biggest piece of the pie.
      Anthropologists who study apes have documented this.

      1. CRAIG Nightmare At Many Stages
        Capitalism has been a horror at various times in history-Yee mentioned Dickensian England. The US during the Depression. Philippines at this very moment.

        1. ROBERT
          Visit the essentially pure Capitalism countries of much of the developing world that as raw a form of capitalism as you’ll ever encounter. No holes barred, dog eat dog, cannibalistic Capitalism. I’ve been there.
          Invariably some alien group always hijacks these places-Aryans in India, Chinese in Southeast Asia, arguably Jews in America-and then the rest of the population gets a smaller piece of the pie.
          No matter what anybody says about the Gulf Arabs they managed to redistribute the profits of oil in Dubai or Bahrain to the extent that NO CITIZEN is without a house and a car and three meals a day. You’ll never see a homeless Arab woman in Dubai. You’ll see plenty in America.
          I’m a welfare capitalist not a pure Communist. Like Canada or Australia. I believe that minimum wage has to be waged and the wealthy taxed equally to the middle class.
          I’ll add that in my global wanderings it seems that whether Jews in America, or Chinese in Southeast Asia, or Normans in England for that matter eventually some group hijacks a piece of the pie in pure raw capitalism (Ironically the most flaming liberals in America ARE Jews).

        2. Mr. Lindsey
          You’d have to been in Bangladesh or Manila where nobody gives a solitary shit about anything but money and there is no middle class to see the end game.
          Socialism works better in a homogeneous population. I’m convinced of that. Norway was nicer when it was all Norwegian than when it was discovered by refugees.
          Also I am unconvinced that Centralized planning works all of the time.

        3. “some alien group always hijacks these places-Aryans in India, Chinese in Southeast Asia, arguably Jews in America”
          I’m glad to see TRASH finally admits Jews in America are the same thing as Chinese in Southeast Asia, although somewhat reluctantly.

      2. Uninhibited capitalism is awfully bad. There has to be something for everybody, even the pretty common folks. Social inequalities, as a matter of fact, can not be eliminated but they can be checked and made tolerable.

  6. Capitalism is the most the vulgar and basic system in the world-it functions on supply and demand which is the natural state ugly state of the animal. It functions on greed, lust, selfishness and vanity. Because these are the natural states of the human psyche capitalism has been around since Greece was young.
    Communism, collectivism and socialism are much more complex. They were not invented until the peak of capitalist abuses in Europe and China about 100 years ago.
    Simply telling animals that the most ruthless attractive women and greedy amoral males will get the biggest share of the pie is a political system anybody can understand.
    Democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism but the two are separate systems.

    1. Well, it’s the same thing. Capitalism went through Renaissance, Reformation and started after Revolution when capitalist no longer lorded over by Church and King. Simply trading with others isn’t capitalism.

      1. YEE
        That was the beginning of middle-class when people were able to leave the land and trade in the cities in Europe.
        But by then mercantilism was in full-swing with the Silk Route and so on.
        So its really hard to put a date on the emergence of capitalism.
        My point is probably that capitalism is a much more base and less artificial system.
        Socialism is much more complex (Centralized planning etc) because it attempts to regulate human excesses such as exploitation of the poor laborer, prostitution, rent-seeking, opportunism, racism etc.

  7. YEE
    Capitalism is the basic primitive state of the human being.
    Communists tend to associate it with Democracy but it reached one of its historical peaks in Britain interacting with the class system of the Victorian age.
    Capitalism in itself is not a political system but merely an interaction between supply-demand and whatever system exists at that time.
    Unchecked by any sense of social conscience I agree that it is awful and usually leads to resentment against some group like Jews, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Normans in Medieval England, Koreans in the Black American ghetto.
    Because capitalism evolved out of human history its a Darwin model-survival of the fittest, most cunning, most amoral, most greedy, whatever.
    Communism and socialism-which is more realistic-are much more complex systems to sustain because human impulses have to be suppressed.

    1. There’s a difference in definitions, then.
      Our textbook puts capitalism after feudalism as a social system.

      1. YEE
        Of note most of the Communist countries never went through a long period of pure raw capitalism. Russia and China were still semi-feudal countries when Communism took hold.

  8. YEE
    That’s Marx’s definition but my point is the capitalism kind of emerges from human instinct.
    Communism and socialism are more advanced and less natural human states that are inherently more difficult to manage.

    1. That ain’t a lie. A bit exaggerated possibly .
      Hitler was fanatically against the Jews on the ideological level. He clearly intended to kick them out of the German Lebensraum. He stated that clearly in Mein Kampf. The only trouble was that the German Lebensraum kept on growing at an exponential rate as long as he was in power. After the initial successes of the Wehrmacht, he was convinced about the German conquest of almost the entire world in the distant future in which the Jews would be complete outsiders and racial parasites. He had to get rid of the Jews for his Aryan master race. In his mind, he was clearly the Messiah of his Aryan master race.

  9. YEE Analogy
    Similar, but with sharp differences:
    Jews on average are nowhere NEAR as much wealthier than other whites as Chinese are than Malays in Southeast Asia. On average they are better-educated and more urbanized than say, Native Americans, so they tend be in the higher-earning brackets. But the vast difference between the Chinese and Malays in Southeast Asia is not as prevalent. There are poor Jews and rich Christians.
    Chinese often break laws and even wantonly commit crimes in Southeast Asia because they can bribe their way out of it. Starting a drug war in the Philippines for example. Or threatening me on one occasion. They will resort to violence and gangsterism. Jews in America won’t.
    Chinese in Southeast Asia thus far have not asked for any outright support for the Fuji Province in terms of tax money in the Philippines.
    This is the complaint of whites in America about Jews.
    Jews are often indistinguishable from other whites. Partly from intermarrying for centuries.
    Chinese in the Philippines on the other hand are an alien lighter-skinned race that come off as colonists more than citizens.
    Jews are not THAT MUCH more intelligent than other whites. On average there might be a 10 point verbal IQ difference (Thought to have been the result of being developing market trading skills over the centuries) over whites. So they are “good talkers”. Their other IQ is lower in some ways. Especially to Asians.
    Chinese have an average IQ of 107 and the Malay has an average IQ of 86. That is the difference between nearly borderline-retarded and quite sharp (When you talk to Filipinos you get an idea of how dim they are).
    Jews have no moral compass over other whites in terms of social pathology. In fact many have addictive personalities.
    Chinese are not nearly as base and promiscuous and impulsive as Malays. The Malay has a bad character: they lie, steal, sell their bodies etc. The only real epidemic among Chinese-Filipinos is gambling.
    Jews supposedly are involved in a campaign of media manipulation and derive most of their influence through popular culture of the basest sort-namely porn although Japanese are close behind in their desire to produce hideous pornography.
    Chinese on the other hand are really just merchants in Southeast Asia. Fuji peasants unlike Jews show no particular flair for show business so this avenue of influence is not as strong.
    They try to stay out of politics besides bribing whoever suits their interests for the most part.
    Overall I’d say that Chinese in the Philippines have much more wealth and influence than the Malay in comparison to the Jew to the Christian in the United States.

    1. I think the biggest difference between Chinese and Jewish merchants is that Jews try to change the society to suit them, Chinese don’t.
      This has a root in Chinese culture. Merchants had very low social status in the past, no chance to get any political power. We were a country of farmers ruled by bureaucracy, merchants were unimportant.

      1. YEE
        “Changing Filipinos”
        Colin was an Australian guy who moved to the Philippines and met a Filipino woman in a bar. They had a child together. As soon as this Filipino woman was out of the delivery room she was back in the bars drinking and leaving Colin to look after their son. He built a nice house, bought her a car and tried to convince her to stop drinking and selling her body. She simply got tired of it and plunged a knife into him, seriously injuring him (Filipino women often use knives in attacks, I knew another foreigner from Cyprus who was stabbed 13 times by his Filipino lover). Then she went back to the same bar to drink to sell her body some more.
        Filipinos CANNOT change whatsoever. This is the mistake that foreign males make when they marry them (Foreign males married to Chinese-Filipino women do not have any problems at all). Their IQ is too low and their instincts are primitive. In addition to being dim, they have a bad character. They lie, steal, have children out-of-wedlock. Out of 1000 you might get 1 intelligent and decent Filipino.
        Chinese long accepted this. Jews consider themselves Americans and fight in wars and run for public office (Usually as Socialists ironically) and pay taxes. Chinese-Filipinos do none of these things.
        Jews tend to be involved in the arts. Chinese in the Philippines sell stuff. They are shopkeepers. They stay out of politics. What’s the point?

      2. YEE
        One Chinese Filipino explained to me that Malays were a prehistoric people and likened them to an old model computer with a limited Ram Drive.
        They can only comprehend so much and “change” is impossible.

  10. “Jews are often indistinguishable from other whites. Partly from intermarrying for centuries.”
    That is not accidental. That is the ploy the Middle Eastern Jews have had been using very successfully to penetrate the non-Jewish societies in general and the Gentiles in particular for a very,very long time. What’s worse, they convert their Gentile brides to Judaism.
    Of course, they take wholesomely local names and even the surnames without abandoning their Jewish faith.
    That’s your real Jewish I.Q.!

    1. MAYUR
      I’d compare Chinese-Filipinos to Parsis for an Indian analogy.
      Jews never amounted to jackshit in India.
      St Thomas Christians of Kerala are genetically Jewish and they are well-off down there but they do not mean much outside Cochin.

      1. They are Christians for all practical purposes if they really are who you say they are.
        Let us not talk about the rarest of rare.

  11. YEE
    I’ve never met a Filipino woman as intelligent as you in my three years in Cebu.
    Fuji peasants in the Philippines might have an IQ of 105. Filipinos have an IQ under 90. That’s the difference between sharp and quite dim.
    Jews have a higher verbal IQ that is higher than other whites. That’s about it.

    1. Jew dogs ain’t White at all. They are the Middle Easterners who have had penetrated and sucked the non-Jewish societies dry with astonishing sophistication and ease.
      They are the ones who actually deny Jesus in totality, in addition to the Hindus.
      Even the Indo-Aryans and the Slavs are far more White er Germanic than them.

        1. They are Indian Christians for all practical purposes then. Even Israel won’t take them back.
          Jews do exactly what non-Indian Muslims do here to the Hindus …..make merry at the expense of the Gentiles.

      1. What did Jews ever accomplish in India? Not much. St Thomas Christians are genetically Jewish and are well-off in Kerala but not running the country.

        1. Too bad for them that they gave up their native faith i.e. they forgot who they really are.
          A Christian is always a Christian anywhere, full of compassion, kindness and forgiveness for his fellow beings.

  12. The fact of the matter is is not what Nazis believe but the fact that Stalin actually killed 20 million people which he did! He murdered them through starvation because he didn’t have enough food to provide he killed them through sending them to the gulag deportation because of their political beliefs he buried them in the ground Russia is a huge geographical place he murdered his opponents everywhere and anywhere in Russia. I could go on. Socialists hate Stalin the Anti-Stalinist Left hates Stalin. He was a hero because he saved the world from the Nazis but he was a villian and a terrorist towards his own people if they failed him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)