Talk:Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism/Archive 1

Problems with this article

The article provides an incomplete summary of the sole source it uses, and does not present any other views. There I will tag it for these problems. Please correct these deficiencies before removing the tags. There is btw little reason to create stubs of controversial topics unless one intends to expand them. TFD (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a stub, but it has great scope for expansion. --Martin (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that the stub is informative. BTW you may wish to provide a better description of the picture you added. It provides the false impression that Hitler and Stalin were photographed together. I wonder too how a Nazi propaganda picture helps readers understand the subject. TFD (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Composites are often used to illustrate the scope of a subject. I fail to comprehend how it in any way constitutes a "Nazi propaganda picture." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Issue

The words in the way they are used are undeniably a blatant attempt to remove any good will toward both of the regimes. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are of the opinion that these regimes deserve goodwill? Are you perhaps drunk? This is your excuse for reverting in a POV tag? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just the titles in the bibliography show ridiculous amounts of POV, labeling Communism as fascism (which are complete opposites), and attempting to call Nazism totalitarian, where it is obviously authoritarian. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The two regime types are compared by multipile sources, please explain clearly what you think is not neutral, waving your hands and saying all of it is hardly a response. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, your saying the titles of the books are POV? We can hardly change the titles of books can we? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read it and compare it to Communism and tell me the difference. Hint: The latter is much more neutral. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(adding) I'm saying you don't even need to open the books - Just looking at the title makes it drip with a point of view. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All those books appear to be from academic publishing houses, take it up with them if you do not like the titles of the books they publish. Your dislike of some book titles is not a valid reason for a POV tag. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to answer the other comment. Compare this article to Communism and tell me the point-of-view difference. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to read another article, this is a different subject after all, and of course wiki is not a reliable source. Please point out which part of the article content you believe is not neutral. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much the lead section. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm, like I said hand waving and saying all of it is not an argument, what about the text is not neutral given it is taken from a reliable source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags have been placed. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a reference for the cn tag, the unbalanced one I am unsure of, were do I find an opinion which says they are not the most murdereous? Such a source does not exist. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering your earlier question, I'm as drunk about as you are civil. Meanwhile, I suggest the language be changed, or another fact be introduced to create a net NPOV. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed it a little, what do you think now? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying "the histories of all East European nations can only be fully comprehended with some form of comparison of Nazi and Soviet rule" is presenting an opinion as a fact. Remember that it is permissible to have articles about opinions, but they should never be presented as facts. The way the article is written, including the bogus propaganda picture is that it screams out "Stalin was worse than Hitler!" without actually explaining why anyone would draw this conclusion. TFD (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In actuality, the article should clearly explain the following:

1. That the theory of totalitarian society had been proposed to describe both regimes.
2. That in 1980s some scholars and writers (Courtois, Rummel) expressed the ideas that Stalinism was more murderous than Nazism.
3. That the idea has been proposed (Nekrich and the "German school") that Stalinism saw itself as a natural ally of Nazism
4. That these two theories has been criticised by numerous scholars and the mainstream viewpoint is that despite numerous crimes of Stalinism, and the totalitarian nature of both regimes, there were numerous differences in their ideology and policy; the the Stalinist regime was not racist and genocidal by its nature, that there were no death camps under Stalin, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse any comparison higlights the differences as well as the similarities. The knee jerk reaction of TFD in applying various tags to a stub and Σ lamenting that this stub is "a blatant attempt to remove any good will toward both of the regimes" says a lot. There are quite a number of sources presented in the bibliography that does directly present such a comparison as their central topic without you having to formulate your proposed synopsis above. --Martin (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please strike out your incorrect representation of what I wrote. TFD (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My advice would be to write an article then post it. If you write a stub that incorrectly summarizes a source and presents a POV then it will attract criticism. Articles are supposed to be informative. What do you think a reader coming to this article would actually learn? TFD (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've written many more article than you, perhaps you ought to review WP:STUB. --Martin (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I would expect:

1. a comparison in the abstract = philosophies on leadership, leadership control structures, control of the populace, et al.
2. a comparison in methods = political repression, targeting ethnic or economic groups as enemies of the state, etc.
3. a comparison of results = overall comparisons which have been drawn as well as specific impacts on the populations of sovereign as of pre-WWII territories which were invaded by both parties, organized by double, triple, quadruple occupations (and including each party's use of propaganda against the other in the process, similarities and differences)

...and for it to be done without editors tagging the article as POV synthesis and engaging in the heaping upon of sensational invective of "equating" Nazism and Stalinim equals "Holocaust denial." Lastly, I would expect it to deal with specifics to Hitler's and Stalin's regimes. Wider comparisons of Fascism and Communism in the period leading up to and including WWII apply but should not form the core of the article.

As for the aforementioned good will, yes, Hitler built the Volkswagen and autobahn (one has to parenthetically mention Mussolini being credited with making the trains run on time as another accomplishment of Fascism) and Stalin did replace horses with tractors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a valid approach, which is also reflected in Geyer and Fitzpatrick's 2009 book Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. --Martin (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has mentioned "holocaust denial". However, if one creates a stub that misrepresents the source and presents a point of view, then expect that it will be challenged. TFD (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Provide evidence that this stub has misrepresented the source I cited, or refactor your statement. --Martin (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

YourThe article says, "both regimes were seen as more alike than not by many contemporaries", but fails to mention that Kershaw says they were "two different, and opposed, systems of rule. (This is itself somewhat unusual, since comparative political science tends to look for affinities rather than opposites....the totalitarian concept was used as an ideological tool in the service of the Cold War - often distorting reality and intellectually dishonest...." TFD (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My original stub was sourced to Szejnmann written in 2009, somebody else added the Kershaw's 1997 cite. Note more modern scholarship such as Szejnmann and Geyer & Fitzpatrick's 2009 book move beyond the totalitarian concept. I ask you to withdraw your accusation I misrepresented Szejnmann. --Martin (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, the stub was a team effort and your contribution was only part of one sentence that says, "the histories of all East European nations can only be fully comprehended with some form of comparison of Nazi and Soviet rule", which you incorrectly attribute to Claus-Christian W. Szejnmann (the author was Nicholas Terry, whose name actually appears on the page you cite.[1] However, you should explain the context of the quote, is he referring to comparing differences or similarities and is this his personal opinion or his assessment of the scholarly consensus? TFD (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your question is in and of itself a misrepresentation. Terry's statement makes no conclusions (the nature of your inquiry), nor is his a "personal opinion" (as opposed to a "scholarly opinion", per your inquiry). The statement is a simple statement regarding scholarship on the histories of the Eastern European nations, nothing more, nothing less. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@TFD. re: "No one has mentioned 'holocaust denial'." And I hope it will stay that way, that is the first (ludicrous) charge that is trucked out whenever Nazism and Stalinism are mentioned a breath apart or less. Perhaps we can now get down to content. Do you have any objections to what I would consider in scope to the article? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alas, preoccupation with nominations for article deletion perhaps. Rebooting below. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly comparisons

It might help to discuss what scholarly sources cover by way of comparative analyses to assist in structuring future content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Now we have "forgeries." I'll be waiting when there's some appetite to discuss content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Forged picture

A discussion thread has been started at WP:NPOVN#Forged picture concerning the use of the picture. TFD (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The proper word in English is "composite." "Forgery" indicates an attempt at deception. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism

If this article goes on to stay it should be neutral, and not turned into widely known and false revisionist accusations of Nazi Germany being equal to Soviet Union. One important fact is that Nazism was based on biological racism(something that was actually opposed by communism, SU and Stalin) and whole groups of people were classified as being non-human(untermenschen) with less rights than dogs for example(for example protection from medical experiments) and targeted for industrial extermination.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. And, since I don't like to make unsubstantiated statements, let me quote a reliable mainstream source:

"The Third Reich constitutes the supreme ex-ample, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge a second one. The regimes that commit genocidal actions are many and include western colonial states going back to the fifteenth century as well as particular cases in the Soviet Union under Stalin. But it is at this precise juncture that the absence of an explicit racial ideology in the Soviet Union becomes so critical. Racial ideology, when adopted and practiced by a state, necessarily entails the subordination of defined population groups and includes impulses toward ethnic cleansings and genocides. The absence of such an ideology acted as a brake on the Soviet regime's population politics, preventing the unfolding of a full-scale genocidal program along the lines of Nazi Germany. As a result, the state provided purged groups with provisions, however minimal; granted some of them ethnic institutions in the new places of deportation; and, after Stalin's death, could evolve into an authoritarian but not murderous regime, which even granted apologies and reinclusions to some of the groups purged in the 1930s and 1940s."

(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)

The idea that Stalinism, by contrast to Nazism was intrinsically non-racist should be clearly explained in the article, and this source, along with others, should be used as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Paul Siebert for this quote. Fundamental differences do exist and need to be pointed out, especially if they are made by scholars. For instance I know of nothing similar to Generalplan Ost under Stalin--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Whole groups of peoples were classed as Kulaks, and were to be exterminated, I fail to see the difference between killing people due to the fact that they owned a goat or a horse or the religious creed they may have followed. What Siebert proposes above is to state that there is a difference between ideological slaughter and racial slaughter, there is no difference at all. Perhaps it is time the left wing apologists finally admitted they were wrong about communism and just say, yes it was a barbarous murderous ideology which was as bad as national socialism? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note The Last Angry Man has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley [2]. --TFD (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What I would look at is how scholarship characterizes demonizing or oppressing groups—whether religious, racial, economic, political—and what makes those similar or different based on circumstances and groups involved with regard to Nazism and Stalinism. Obviously the Shoah was an extreme and unique case; that does not speak to other similarities or differences. Clearly, both ideologies created "enemies" to be "eliminated" as being "impediments" to the fruition of the state's ambitions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Weitz can really project that a fascist Nazi state would not have also evolved after Hitler's (natural) death. Before/after Stalin and before/after Hitler is, to a degree, a mixing of the proverbial apples and oranges. We should make sure to limit ourselves to the period delimited by Hitler and Stalin being in their personal ascendancies and while in power. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Whole groups of peoples were classed as Kulaks, and were to be exterminated, I fail to see the difference The difference is obvious(even if the claim about "extermination" of Kulaks would be correct)-social groups do not encompass whole nations. Nations...do. Thus the scale and intensity of genocide is much, much higher and of different class. Children of political enemies in communist states would in most drastic cases taken away from parents and adopted by other people or educated by state."Re-education" was possibility(even if remote) for people from targeted social groups. Jewish infants were mass murdered by Nazi Germany and you couldn't stop being an "untermensch". While even under Stalinism a portion of prosecutors were of aristocratic heritage(and noted so in official records). Anyway the opposition to racism by Soviets and communists can be sourced, it was one of the underlining differences, while the fact that racism and racist war of extermination was founding stone of Nazi Germany's ideology is an obvious fact(but can be sourced as well if somebody has doubts...).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're failing to acknowledge that socio-economic groups can, indeed, be "exterminated." Nor did Soviet opposition to racism preclude institutional Antisemitism or the creation of a de facto caste system with non-Russian/Russian-speaking ethnic groups at the bottom of the ladder. Do you have any feedback on the article structure which I proposed might make sense? (Note it would include the theoretical opposition to racism.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I suggest you to stop soapboxing. The source I quoted draws a clearly distinction between the genocidal regimes (Nazi Germany and Kampuchea) and the regimes that committed genocide (the USSR and many other countries, including the Western democracies), which were not genocidal by their nature. The source is mainstream and reliable (if you disagree, try to contest that at RSN or NPOVN), and the above statement is directly supported by this source. You of course can theoretically bring the sources that tell the opposite, however, you haven't done that so far. In addition, even if these sources will be provided (and I have no doubts that you will be able to find some more or less reliable sources), please, keep in mind that (i) Weitz is reliable and mainstream, so the fact that some source states the opposite will not allow us to dismiss his viewpoint, especially is these sources are less trustworthy, and (ii) Weitz's conclusion has not been directly contested.

In any event, your soapboxing is hardly helpful, especially the idea that Hitler's regime would evolve. That, independent of real intention of the user who wrote that, too strongly resembles Nazi apologetics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think arguing over "genocidal" versus "commits genocide" is a distinction that will get us anywhere. Either there were regimes which killed lots of people or not, we should leave how we characterise that to what reliable sources say, not our interpretations of the nuances of mass murder. I did not say Weitz was unreliable; what I said was that we should limit our content up to the death of Hitler and the death of Stalin; how and why things changed after that is as much a reflection on individuals as on a system and outside our area of interest. I don't challenge the merits of Weitz's conclusion, only that a lot more went on after Stalin's death than a system progressing and evolving on its own. That a system changes does not automatically imbue characteristics of that system. It might be interesting to contrast Weitz's notions of the evolution of post-war/"post-Stalinism" if you will with, say, Spain and Franco (i.e., evolution of the fascist state), but that's outside of our scope. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Phrases like "Nazi apologetics" are what is not helping here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

lack of relevant literature

This article refers to a book comparing Hitler and Stalin and there is plenty of "totalitarianism" literature from the Cold War. But there does not appear to be any literature with a direct bearing on the topic. Suggest editors research topics before creating uninformative stubs that lead to reams of talk page discussion. TFD (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sufficient books that deal with comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism that there is no impediment to creating useful and detailed content (e.g., the one I cited in the lead). If anyone cared to discuss content we'd make progress. I take it you're not responding to my inquiry above regarding article content structure because you don't think there's anything to write about? (Not entirely a rhetorical question.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've re-posted the structure question below, please feel free to respond. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your source Kershaw & Lewin's [3]Stalinism and Nazism], pretty much says what I just wrote. (Incidentally, when you quote from a collection of essays, you should credit the writer as well as the editors.) TFD (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source I added is Rousso, H., Golsan, R. eds. Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared. University of Nebraska. 1999. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Perhaps this was just being lost above. One possibility (tweaked slightly from above):

1. a comparison in the abstract = philosophies on leadership, leadership control structures, control of the populace, et al.; this would also include platforms, documents such as the Soviet Constitution ("Stalin's" version), etc.
2. a comparison in policies and methods = political repression, targeting ethnic, religious, or economic or otherwise identifiable groups as enemies of the state, etc.
3. a comparison of results = overall comparisons which have been drawn regarding the citizenry of their respective states as well as specific impacts on the populations of sovereign as of pre-WWII territories which were invaded by both parties, organized by double, triple, quadruple occupations (and including each party's use of propaganda against the other in the process, similarities and differences)

Obviously "comparison" includes similarities and differences. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to focus at #3 too much: even quite different regimes can conduct similar expansionist policy. For instance, both absolutist Russia and democratic Britain were colonial powers and conducted equally expansionist policies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We focus on #3 to the degree which sources do. #3 has garnered more scholarly inquiry since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the purpose of #3 is not to create a comparative list starting with the number of dead. For once it would be good to work on serious scholarship, not jostle endlessly over who is more facile at a hatchet job. To Anonimu, below, potential structure for an article is not WP:SYNTH. Any decent article requires an outline and structure. I'm just looking at what would be useful for the average reader to make the topic accessible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So you basically want another original Wikipedia synthesis? Anonimu (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I argue against synthesis. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment was regarding Peters' proposed "structure".Anonimu (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The neutral way to write the article would be to summarize the intro to a book about the subject, e.g., Kershaw's intro. Otherwise this article will just be another POV embarrassment. Already it reads like the Cold War propaganda that Kershaw criticizes, and is uninformative. TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is more recent scholarship than Kershaw's book, which was written in 1997. Szejnmann and Geyer & Fitzpatrick's books were written in 2009 and the stub was a summary of upon the introductory paragraphs of Nicholas Terry's work from Szejnmann's book. As for Paul's comments, I don't think we can arbitrarily exclude point three if it is reflected in recent scholarship. --Martin (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact I just received a copy of Geyer & Fitzpatrick's book and the table of contents is similar to Vecrumba's proposed scheme:

1 Introduction: After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared, Michael Geyer with assistance from Sheila Fitzpatrick

Part I: Governance

2 The Political (Dis)Orders of Stalinism and National Socialism, Yoram Gorlizki and Hans Mommsen

3 Utopian Biopolitics: Reproductive Policies, Gender Roles, and Sexuality in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, David L. Hoffmann and Annette F. Timm

Part II: Violence

4 State Violence – Violent Societies, Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth

5 The Quest for Order and the Pursuit of Terror: National Socialist Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union as Multiethnic Empires, Jorg Baberowski and Anselm Doering-Manteuffel

Part III: Socialization

6 Frameworks for Social Engineering: Stalinist Schema of Identification and the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, Christopher R. Browning and Lewis H. Siegelbaum

7 Energizing the Everyday: On the Breaking and Making of Social Bonds in Nazism and Stalinism, Sheila Fitzpatrick and Alf Ludtke

8 The New Man in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, Peter Fritzsche and Jochen Hellbeck

Part IV: Entanglements

9 States of Exception: The Nazi-Soviet War as a System of Violence, 1939–1945',' Mark Edele and Michael Geyer

10 Mutual Perceptions and Projections: Stalin’s Russia in Nazi Germany – Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union, Katerina Clark and Karl Schlogel

--Martin (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So you create an article, decide what will be in it, then do the research. Unfortunately, the sources do not present the POV in the stub. TFD (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So? Instead of sniping, is it possible for you to enter into a constructive discussion as to the scope of the article, or is that too difficult for you? --Martin (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, your sarcasm and sniping continue to be most unhelpful. I for one see no issue with the sources I have read and the stub; for example, I noted that the availability of post-Soviet archives has stimulated scholarship—and while the occupations of Eastern Europe form an essential basis for comparison, that does not dispose the article per se to advocate mutual interchangeability. With deference to some of Paul's arguments, the Allies all occupied separate portions of Germany after the war; that occupation existed does not imply any equivalence between parties.

Nor is what I have proposed as an outline something I simply pulled out of a body cavity. I've noted my disagreements with Paul Siebert's proposed structure elsewhere as being too esoteric, as limiting comparison to scholarship on the fringe (so-called "German School" which I thought was more related to foreign policy, however, have not read up on it) which is then intended to be criticized by mainstream scholarship, followed by a focus on differences and not similarities—as similarities would have been debunked via discrediting the afore-mentioned German school. That may be a bit blunt of a summary, however, I do perceive Paul's proposal as seeking to debunk similarities and to focus on differences between the individuals and regimes. However, irrespective of the seemingly vast editorial gulf between us, that is at least a discussion of content. I asked you a direct question when I proposed an article structure. Should I continue to await your comments on my proposed outline? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

See Also

I restored the see also section which had been removed for no obvious reason, it has again been removed without any edit summary whatsoever, would Anonimu care to explain why he has removed this section. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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".[4] 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"[5] (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."[6] 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[7]. --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.[8] 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.[9] 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".[10] 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)

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)

"Red Holocaust"

The article contains the sentence "The term Red Holocaust has been used by some scholars since the late 1990s to refer to communist genocides". Who are "some scholars"? Rosefielde wrote a book that was not peer-reviewed, but rather reflects his own private opinions. He doesn't represent a consensus, and even notes in his book that people disagree with his thesis (see p.256 of his book):

"Some may reject this exploded definition [Red Holocaust] because it tarnishes communism with a fascism...There was a Nazi holocaust, but allegations of a Red Holocaust are misplaced.

Are there any scholarly sources in Russian that use such terms? If not, then this needs to be qualified as "some western authors, particularly Rosefielde, use the term 'Red Holocaust'"

I searched on Google Books and Worldcat, and the only result that matches "Red Holocaust + Soviet" in the English language is Rosefielde's book. I could not locate any book reviews on Worldcat, indicating that academia doesn't think too highly about his work. Therefore, Rosefielde would have to be described as fringe. He is not a noteworthy scholar on this stuff, but is instead an expert on economics. This is what his academic career consists of, which is far beyond the scope of this article:

Efficiency and Russia's economic recovery potential to the year 2000 and beyond. Cambridge University Press. 2009

Russia in the 21st century : the prodigal superpower. Cambridge University Press. 2005

"Performance and Strategies of Banks in Transition Economies" . Comparative Economic Studies . 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.155 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Codrin.B has submitted a request to ARBCOM to ban User:Anonimu for conduct among other things in his editing of this article.[11] TFD (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)