Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Completely non-sensical paragraph
Under the section entitled "Debate over famines", it is implied that this is an actual argument:

''Historian Jon Wiener and journalist and Labour aide Seumas Milne, have criticized the emphasis on communism when assigning blame for famines. In a 2002 article for The Guardian, Milne mentions "the moral blindness displayed towards the record of colonialism", and he writes: "If Lenin and Stalin are regarded as having killed those who died of hunger in the famines of the 1920s and 1930s, then Churchill is certainly responsible for the 4 million deaths in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943." Milne laments that while "there is a much-lauded Black Book of Communism, [there exists] no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record." Weiner makes a similar assertion while comparing the Holodomor and the Bengal famine of 1943, stating that Winston Churchill's role in the Bengal famine "seems similar to Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine." Historian Mike Davis, author of Late Victorian Holocausts, draws comparisons between the Great Chinese Famine and the Indian famines of the late 19th century, arguing that in both instances the governments which oversaw the response to the famines deliberately chose not to alleviate conditions and as such bear responsibility for the scale of deaths in said famines. Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and Dylan Sullivan suggest that the number excess deaths during the apex of British colonialism in India rise to around 100 million, which is greater than all the famine deaths that have been attributed to communist governments combined.''

Now, it's difficult to say if either these arguments are bad arguments, or just not arguments at all. Obviously, bad-but-relevant arguments are indeed necessary; it's wrong to remove cited arguments just because you believe they are bad. But these arguments are so distant from the point - that, in debating famines, one must employ the logical fallacy that the British also caused famines (extreme whataboutism) - that we ought to consider if these arguments are really arguments at all; i.e., hardly relevant to "debate over famines" because there is no commentary on the communist countries at all, only that other empires did worse. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You're 100% on spot as it comes to whataboutism of this paragraph, but there's a few users here who will defend it so fiercely that nobody even wants to engage anymore. Which is kind of sad. Cloud200 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that this seems rather out of place. They have little to do with discussing/refuting the topic at hand and more to do with just saying other disasters have happened, too. If there's less indictment of the colonial record then its something for its article, not this one. Who cares about Hickel and Sullivan's assertion that more people died in the Raj - what does it have to do with this? Suggest removing this wholesale. — Czello (music) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed Cloud200 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling them whataboutism isn't saying they are not arguments but that they are bad arguments. The determination that they are whataboutism should be cited to reliable sources and added if they are found.
 * I do not think however it is whataboutism. Since famine figures are used by anti-Communists to win ideological points, it may a valid argument that the regimes they support have comparable records.
 * Ironically, Mkucr is itself whataboutism designed to compare Communism unfavorably with Nazism. Nazism led to 50 million deaths, Communism to 100 million. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, 10 million Ukrainians died in the Holodomor. TFD (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "it may a valid argument that the regimes they support have comparable records"
 * You're making assumptions and ignoring the fact that the USSR itself was a colonialist regime. 98.118.115.80 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The material in question clearly contains arguments made in the reliably sourced literature about this topic. Whether the arguments are persuasive should be left to the reader to decide.
 * Moreover, the material proposed for deletion contains direct comparisons of mass killings under communist and colonial regimes, for example: Winston Churchill's role in the Bengal famine "seems similar to Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine." and Historian Mike Davis ... draws comparisons between the Great Chinese Famine and the Indian famines of the late 19th century, arguing that in both instances the governments which oversaw the response to the famines deliberately chose not to alleviate conditions and as such bear responsibility for the scale of deaths in said famines. There you have a comparison of leadership roles and government policies within the broader context of late 19th/20th century history. That can't be reduced to vulgar whataboutism, and luckily we now have a section where it is better suited. I propose restoring a modified version of the reverted text in the comparisons section, roughly as follows: Historian Jon Wiener and journalist and Labour aide Seumas Milne, have criticized the emphasis on communism when assigning blame for famines, saying there is "moral blindness displayed towards the record of colonialism." Milne laments that while "there is a much-lauded Black Book of Communism, [there exists] no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record." Weiner makes a similar assertion while comparing the Holodomor and the Bengal famine of 1943, stating that Winston Churchill's role in the Bengal famine "seems similar to Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine." Historian Mike Davis, author of Late Victorian Holocausts, draws comparisons between the Great Chinese Famine and the Indian famines of the late 19th century, arguing that in both instances the governments which oversaw the response to the famines deliberately chose not to alleviate conditions and as such bear responsibility for the scale of deaths in said famines. Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and Dylan Sullivan suggest that the number excess deaths during the apex of British colonialism in India rise to around 100 million, which is greater than all the famine deaths that have been attributed to communist governments combined. Unbandito (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The communist famines are not merely compared to the British and imperialist-induced famines of the 20th (and prior) century. They are outright dismissed for the reason of discourse; with no reflection on "communist famines", and instead using the supposed argument from discourse to dismiss famines in communist regimes whatsoever by saying different regimes of different ideologies did so also. A comparison would involve comparing communist and imperialist famines (elements of which I think should be kept), not employing the supposed notion that other famines are relatively ignored, thus outright dismissing famines in communist regimes.
 * "The emphasis on communism" is criticised, followed by absolutely no refutation - not even a reference (and so barely a relevant argument) - of such an emphasis, only an obscene, completely off-topic deflection to other regimes. That might be a criticism of those who criticise communism and defend the British Empire, for instance, but that pretty clearly a huge strawman. "no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record" has got nothing - absolutely nothing to do with the merest reference of criticising "the emphasis on communism". A patently extraordinary statement to include.
 * "....greater than all the famine deaths that have been attributed to communist governments combined" - again an obscene deflection, especially - especially considering most of the "communist" famines occurred in a period from 1919 to 1961, (the majority of the second world's existence, barring modern China and 4 others); the British Empire lasted hundreds of years.
 * I think that Mike Davis' argument is relevant as it actually makes comparisons in the first place, not with a whataboutist effort to dismiss the famines, or something of the sort. So I support all of his content. Milne is not an historian nor an academic, another reason for excluding his non-argument. So my conclusion would be to include Davis, exclude Milne, and remain very skeptical of Hickel and Sullivan's arguments - again, not because of their quality, but of their sheer relevance in the first place concerning "mass killings under communist regimes". Zilch-nada (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And furthermore ""moral blindness displayed towards the record of colonialism" doesn't make any sense as the Marxist-Leninist states described in this article were frequently colonialist themselves, e.g., the Soviet Union (as another editor pointed out above). Zilch-nada (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's probably good to explore the differences between where the initiatives of a Communist regime and commmunism-related initiatives were a major cause of the deaths vs. those other types of deaths where the main assertion is failure to help. But giving all of this space to an obviously biased writer who is basically just making a whataboutism talking point rather than undertaking such an analysis is IMO a bad way to approach this and not good content for the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not see the problem with the argument being whataboutism. Essentially mass killings under Communist regimes is used as an argument in favor of capitalism. It would be as if when comparing Coke and Pepsi, we could mention how many calories Coke had but not Pepsi. TFD (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IMHO the subject is just about what it is, including as made more specific by the result of the big AFD.  So IMHO it's not about being an argument in favor of capitalism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that the editor of the Black Book of Communism or the Victims of Communism foundation have any ideological motive despite their clear association with the extreme right? There's a lot that has been written about their political objectives. The French Right for example used Courtois' arguments to defend Vichy France and to recast the Resistance as the real traitors. TFD (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD, the core policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPA apply to talk pages as well as articles. Insinuating that a group of academics are associated "with the extreme right" without any sources to back it up violates those policies. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A substantial amount of sources have been cited, which are archived, about Stéphane Courtois's introduction to the Black Book of Communism. Two of the contributors were so upset they tried to get their contributions removed. Richard J. Golsan wrote about it in "Stephane Courtois and the Black Book of Communism: Historical Revisionism and the Black Book of Communism Controversy."
 * There's no secret that the leadership of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is dominated by figures from the American Right, such as Lee Edwards.
 * A Canadian newspaper published an article about their Canadian branch: "Victims of communism memorial received donations honouring fascists, Nazi collaborators, according to website." TFD (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "You don't think vegetarians have any ideological motive despite their association with the extreme right? Hitler for example used arguments against animal cruelty to promote vegetarianism." GerhardFahrtenbuch (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the BBOC and VOC creators do have agendas. That's not really what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that, in an article about mass killings under communist regimes, what should be talked about primarily is literally mass killings under communist regimes, and secondarily, topics such as the historiographical methods used in the analysis of such mass killings. The quality of the very analyses is important, and so criticisms of the BBOC etc. are necessary, but it seems even more derivative and further from the primary point not to criticize what the BBOC et. al mentions, but arbitrary things that they don't mention; i.e., "The BBOC and other controversial yet famous anti-communist texts are so much more famous than texts criticizing British colonialism. Let's criticize British colonialism!" That's the tangentiality - whataboutism - that I am referring to. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mkukr is itself a whataboutism response to the the Holocaust. It's called the double genocide theory. Nazism killed 50 million people, communism killed 100 million. The Holocaust had 6 million victims, the Holodomor had ten million. Therefore the European Right was justified in supporting Nazi Germany over the greater evil of the Soviet Union.
 * And of course the academic community rejects this type of logic and there is no literature that tries to tie Communist mass killings together in the same way that Holocaust studies tie together Nazi mass killings.
 * OTOH whataboutism "can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative."
 * In this case Mcukr argues that communism is inherently homocidal yet followers of other ideologies act in the same way given the same circumstances. For example, mass killings of Chechens occured under successive tsarist, communist and capitalist regimes in Russia. Experts attribute these mass killings to counter-insurgency rather than ideology.
 * Furthermore it is relevant when comparing two alternatives (in this case communism and capitalism), that information be provided about both. A comparison of the healthiness of Coke and Pepsi for example would be misleading if information was provided for only one product. TFD (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The notion of there MKUKR in-and-of-itself "is itself a whataboutism response to the the Holocaust"?
 * It's also funny how you didn't address my argument about references to British colonialism being not only whataboutist but derivatives of derivatives of derivatives. You are seriously denying the existence of this article; that any notion (though cited thoroughly) of "mass killings under communist regimes" relates to double genocide theory? Seriously, have a break. I think you might genuinely want to reflect on what you have said there.
 * "In this case Mcukr argues that communism is inherently homocidal" - no it doesn't. It analyses the excess deaths - particularly mass killings, for supposedly systemic reasons under "communist" regimes. This article discusses the importance of "communism" in such regimes that committed mass killings, offering opinions both for and against its importance; you are clearly of the latter opinion, but it's just that - an opinion; only one side of the story.
 * In fact, "yet followers of other ideologies act in the same way given the same circumstances" is a particularly clear example of parrotting your own opinion. Cite your sources. What is even more pathetic is that you suggest that this article as a whole is unjust because you agree with only one side of the opinions presented in this article. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "A comparison of the healthiness of Coke and Pepsi for example would be misleading if information was provided for only one product" - what a juvenile analogy. This article is about mass killings under communist regimes, not about comparisons between capitalism and communism. Additionally, the paragraph I picked out from Milne et. al does not refer specifically to "capitalism", but "colonialism" as a cause for Bengal famine etc. So your notion of a binary in this debate is likewise completely OR. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mkukr is itself a whataboutism response to the the Holocaust" - just coming back to seeing such an obscene remark. Seriously strike this negationism, minimalisation out. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "And of course the academic community rejects this type of logic and there is no literature that tries to tie Communist mass killings together in the same way that Holocaust studies tie together Nazi mass killings." - Communist mass killings are tied together by proponents of the notion of MKUCR. Hence, this article.
 * "...in the same way that Holocaust studies tie together Nazi mass killings"; uh..., because Communism is an ideology spanning dozens of state ideologies historically, whereas Nazism refers almost entirely to a single state? Many academics do "tie Communist mass killings together"; hence this article. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so late to respond. As stated at the top of this page, "This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it." TFD (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there were many significant arguments in the last discussion that very much acknowledged that "many academics do "tie Communist mass killings together". Zilch-nada (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that many participants in the discussion made that claim, it's just that they didn't provide examples. If such a body of literature existed, then there would not be opposition to the article. It could then explain why these authors tied the mass killings together, why others rejected these claims and the degree of acceptance both sides had.
 * Even fringe sources, such as Victims of Communism, don't actually explain what the connection is, it's just a given.
 * The closest I could find was comparisons of mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. TFD (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bradley's Human Rights and Communism (Cambridge History, 2017) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-communism/human-rights-and-communism/91A64EB79E8AF87CC589035623572949
 * The Black Book of Communism is a mainstream book, regardless of controversy.
 * RJ Rummel's many works on Communism. Still controversial, but not irrelevant.
 * Three immediate examples I can see already in the bibliography. You will find references to mass killings in all three. The point is, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, much of the discourse surrounding "Communism" relates to mass killings. The likes of Hickel, Davis, and others (who focus on anti-anti-communist type views) are still contributing to such a discourse. If you think that MKUCR is a whataboutist response to the Holocaust - a fascist talking point of sorts - then believe what you want to believe. For example, there is an article on Cultural Marxism which thoroughly discredits "Cultural Marxism": you do not need academic support of a theory, only discourse, for it to be written about. This is an article on MKUCR which has sources both in support and opposition - in relevant, sourced discourse - of the very thesis. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Historiography info missing?
I think a section dedicated to historiography of this subject is needed. After all, the latest AFD nomination was closed as "no consensus". Attempts to change the title has failed numerous times. Furthermore, the topic has been under arbitration remedies and barely studied by academics. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be possible. Can you cite any review articles that outline the literature? That btw is the reason many editors have found the article unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A source on this page appears to cite Wikipedia
I've seen a claim that the book, Red Holocaust, by Steven Rosefielde cites Wikipedia articles in its text. Naturally, I wanted to double check this myself and it appears to be true. I'm impaired by the fact I don't have access to the full book, but here's a preview of it too where you can see the Wikipedia pages together with other references. Inclusion of it on this page likely violates WP:CIRCULAR and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. These Wikipedia citations also don't include the date they were accessed or what version of the article they were from, further making them problematic. Keep in mind the book was published in 2009. Given that I see this source used in a couple different areas on this page and this page's controversial history, I didn't want to remove it myself without discussing it with the other editors. I looked through the Talk Page Archives to see if the issue had been discussed before, and it doesn't appear to have been. Forgive me if I missed it, given the endless discussions that have occurred here. I have to admit, I would be a bit surprised if this issue hasn't been broached before. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't require that WP:Reliable sources use only WP:Reliable sources. And WP:Circular prohibits using mirrors of Wikipedia and so is really not applicable to this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with North8000. The only other case where it might be important is if a source is used for a fact that the source cites to a Wikipedia article. TFD (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)