The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! the black book of communism is bunkin Politics

billbatard

Like a lot of stuff we are fed all this rubbish about how bad communism was was exaggerated to scare us into never trying it again 

Is the Black Book of Communism an accurate source?

ImNotMarshalZhukov

32 points·1 year ago·edited 1 year ago

In short, not really. The Black Book of Communism, written by Stephane Courtois has been called into question on multiple different grounds.Some critics have objected to the book's depiction of communism and nazism as being similar, others have criticized the approach the book takes to assigning blame of deaths, and still others, most notably J.Arch Getty, for its lack of distinction between famine deaths and intentional deaths. But in terms of factual accuracy, the book is, according to most experts, off the mark.

1: Death tolls in Maoist china: The death tolls associated with maoist china are considered by most sinologists to be inaccurate. The book lists Mao's china as being responsible for 65 million deaths, particularly in regards to the Great Chinese Famine. this number is considered by most sinologists to be not-accurate. According to Leslie Holmes, the number is closer to 15 million excess deaths, which is substantiated by Chinese statistics. Similarly, the deaths attributed to the cultural revolution is assumed to be overstated, as the cited figure of 5 million is most likely closer to 400,000

2:In regards to the soviet union, the pattern of inflation remains consistant. No better is this illustrated then the Holodomor. The Holodomor, or the soviet famine of 1932-1933 was, according to most experts, both much less devastating then Courtois makes it out to be. In the book he cites a figure of 7 million famine deaths, while modern analysis estimates the death toll to be ranging from 1.8-2.5 million deaths. This is supported by soviet archival evidence, which shows a death toll of 2.4 million deaths. Furthermore, academics ranging from Robert Conquest to J Arch Getty would agree that the famine at the very least did not arise from malicious intent, but rather as a combination of environmental conditions and damage from Stalin's collectivisation of agriculture(although the importance of the two factors in regards to one-another is highly disputed) In regards to gulag deaths, which the book pins at about three million, an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov shows a death toll of slightly over a third of that amount. In regards to NKVD executions, Getty estimates slightly under 800,000 executions (however, this number also fails to account for commuted sentences and according to Austin Murphy, this number can be reduced even further to just above 100,000)

I am unqualified to comment on the death tolls given for latin america and africa, so I will refrain from doing so.

Lastly, there is some evidence to doubt the intentions of the author. Courtois defines any person who died unnaturally under communism as being "a victim of it", which most would consider disingenuous. Two of the books contributors have rennounced their association with the book, and a formal criticism was written about it by historian Peter Kenez. According to historian Peter Kenez,, the book should simply be considered an "anti-communist polemic", and on a separate occasion asserted it contains historical inaccuracies. Harvard university press even retracted its edition of the book, claiming it had remedial math errors. Werth and Margolin specifically felt that Courtois was obsessed at arriving at the 100 million death toll, and in the process drastically overestimated many figures. Overall, no matter your position on communism, most academics would agree that one would be better off avoiding the black book. If you absolutely insist on continuing its use as a source, it could only really be called an inflated count of people who died concurrently to communism, not because of it

The fashionable attempt to equate communism and Nazism is in reality a moral and historical nonsense. Despite the cruelties of the Stalin terror, there was no Soviet Treblinka or Sobibor, no extermination camps built to murder millions. Nor did the Soviet Union launch the most devastating war in history at a cost of more than 50 million lives - in fact it played the decisive role in the defeat of the German war machine. Lindblad and the Council of Europe adopt as fact the wildest estimates of those "killed by communist regimes" (mostly in famines) from the fiercely contested Black Book of Communism, which also underplays the number of deaths attributable to Hitler. The real records of repression now available from the Soviet archives are horrific enough (799,455 people were recorded as executed between 1921 and 1953 and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its peak) without engaging in an ideologically-fuelled inflation game.

The fashionable attempt to equate communism and Nazism is in reality a moral and historical nonsense. Despite the cruelties of the Stalin terror, there was no Soviet Treblinka or Sobibor, no extermination camps built to murder millions. Nor did the Soviet Union launch the most devastating war in history at a cost of more than 50 million lives - in fact it played the decisive role in the defeat of the German war machine. Lindblad and the Council of Europe adopt as fact the wildest estimates of those "killed by communist regimes" (mostly in famines) from the fiercely contested Black Book of Communism, which also underplays the number of deaths attributable to Hitler. The real records of repression now available from the Soviet archives are horrific enough (799,455 people were recorded as executed between 1921 and 1953 and the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its peak) without engaging in an ideologically-fuelled inflation game.

https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7n6ql2/is_the_black_book_of_communism_an_accurate_source/

MayCaesar

Hitler's regime was quite a bit softer than Stalin's. While Hitler definitely mistreated many minorities and supervised some sick horrors, under him most Germans enjoyed a somewhat serene life. In Soviet Union, on the other hand, people lived in the atmosphere of absolute horror, and the quality of life was abysmal.

As far as atrocities towards other nations go, in terms of organised pillaging, the Nazi regime was more ruthless, while in terms of spontaneous decision-making, the Red army far outdid their competitor. Hitler's army was pretty well organised, and there was relatively little random pillaging and marauding. Soviet army was much more chaotic; it is estimated by some historians that up to a half modern Germans were born as a result of the Soviet invasion of Germany - make of it what you will.

All in all, both of those regimes were monstrous enough to talk about morals when comparing them. But history is written by the victors, so the losers of the World War 2 are vilified far more than one of the winners, while objectively the Third Reich, Soviet Union and Japanese Empire should have all been tried in Nuremberg simultaneously. Those three were quite a handful, and it is a pity that one of them managed to get away as a result of corrupt international politics.