Total Deaths Under Communism

Joined Feb 2024
32 Posts | 8+
c h lvlucu
Is it really true that over a 100 million have died under communism, I've heard some even say 130 million that seem worse than the holocaust, it can't be true can it?
 
Joined Feb 2024
32 Posts | 8+
c h lvlucu
I mean under communist regimes coz of their ideas not because of invasion
 
Joined Oct 2013
5,486 Posts | 491+
Canada
Can you elaborate more? What would qualify as being due to communism and what's just normal death? And, if it's due to "ideas," are those ideas due to communism or due to specific individuals?

The 100 million number includes communist dead in wars (even against Nazi Germany) and uses the highest estimate. It is pointless and would be like saying non-communism killed 1 billion people.
 
Joined Mar 2012
6,553 Posts | 2,009+
Last edited:
Most of it comes from shady estimates of the Great Leap Forward, which is in itself a famine similar to the the Indian famines caused by Liberal Democracies. So if Communists caused the death of 100 million, then Liberal Democracies weren't much better with the famines that they were responsible since the late 19th century.
 
Joined Nov 2010
14,406 Posts | 4,143+
Cornwall
Most of it comes from shady estimates of the Great Leap Forward, which is in itself a famine similar to the the Indian famines caused by Liberal Democracies. So if Communists caused the death of 100 million, then Liberal Democracies weren't much better with the famines that they were responsible since the late 19th century.

The Great Leap Forward - if ever there were a more unsuitable name for anything I've yet to hear it 😀
 
  • Like
Reactions: robto
Joined Jun 2017
3,990 Posts | 940+
NYC
The typically cited number usually counts Nazi casualties and all sorts of deaths that had nothing to do with Communism as an economic system. Communism is a revolutionary system and as such will end up causing a lot of casualties in the beginning as it seeks to punish people for things done under capitalism. After all if there wasn't a great hunger for retribution there would never have been a revolution in the first place. That is not a permanent part of the Communist system.

But whatever the number I'm fairly confident Communisms casualty count is a small percentage of that of capitalism and all its adjacent systems. If we were to take the 100 million number at face value that number is probably far far south of capitalisms real number.
 
Joined Jul 2020
23,778 Posts | 9,439+
Culver City , Ca
The typically cited number usually counts Nazi casualties and all sorts of deaths that had nothing to do with Communism as an economic system. Communism is a revolutionary system and as such will end up causing a lot of casualties in the beginning as it seeks to punish people for things done under capitalism. After all if there wasn't a great hunger for retribution there would never have been a revolution in the first place. That is not a permanent part of the Communist system.

But whatever the number I'm fairly confident Communisms casualty count is a small percentage of that of capitalism and all its adjacent systems. If we were to take the 100 million number at face value that number is probably far far south of capitalisms real number.
Since there are now only arguably two Communist countries left and those countries that embraced communism such as the Soviet Union had only at most seventy four years of Communist rule we don't know what permanent communist rule is.
We do know that Communism in its relatively brief luf did kill quite a few people and Capitalist countries didn't shoot their people trying to leave.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
As for deaths, all of those people would have eventually died anyway, you know. Regardless of which system they lived under. Everyone dies.
 
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
I am thinking North Korea and Cuba. China got rid of Communism over forty years ago and became Fachist.
Leftyhunter

If a self-proclaimed Communist state doesn't count as Communist on the basis that it doesn't practice Communism (but merely have Communism as a goal), then North Korea and Cuba aren't communist either. Nobody achieved Communism.
 
Joined Feb 2017
1,811 Posts | 1,715+
Minneapolis
Is it really true that over a 100 million have died under communism, I've heard some even say 130 million that seem worse than the holocaust, it can't be true can it?
This is the kind of loaded question that makes me despair for humanity.

"Is it really true Frank beat his wife 20 times this year? Someone was telling me it was 30 times?"
"No, no, that's all an exaggeration. Frank only beat his wife 7 times."

Here, the question presumes the conclusion that Frank is a bad man who beats his wife. The OP's question presumes the conclusion that communism is a system that kills people. We're just not sure how many!

This doesn't mean communism shouldn't be examined with skepticism and scrutiny, but that's the approach we should take with any governmental system.
 
Joined Oct 2011
1,167 Posts | 656+
Croatia
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'under communism'. For example it wasn't really Stalins fault that Germany invaded
Not Stalin's personally, but it actually was Communism's and USSR's fault because a) Communism and its activities (specifically the 1917 -1923 revolutions) was one of major reasons for why Nazism appeared in the first place and b) without help and support from USSR in the 1919 - 1933 period and then in the 1939 - 1941 alliance, Germany will never have been able or willing to start the Second World War. And you have to realize that the Second World War and whole revanchism thing was not the uniquely Nazi idea: Germany began preparing for a new war basically as soon as it could (in 1919, as I said):

And it is not like the Soviets were unaware of these plans. In fact, they knew exactly what Germany was planning, were aiming to take advantage of the new global conflict to spread Communism, and thus did everything they could to help Germany rearm with the explicit design of causing said global conflict.

So I would say that when we discuss deaths caused by Communism, we should consider two categories:
  1. Deaths under Communism, which is deaths caused directly by the Communist regimes (so Holodomor, pogroms...).
  2. Deaths due to Communism, which is deaths caused by Communist activities that were not actually done by the regimes (support for various Communist insurrections in the 1917 - 1923 period, support for other regimes...), and these would include basically all deaths of the Second World War in Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Sep 2012
10,340 Posts | 4,400+
Bulgaria
.. in other words, the spread of communism lead to the rise of nazism in Germany, ergo nazism exists because of communism, ergo all the deadly consequences of nazi ideology, this nationalistic, militaristic, anti-semitic reaction to bolshevism are due to the communism, the origin all evil in this world. Ergo one should include all deaths of the WWII in Europe, Holocaust, political prisoners, Soviet POWs, all of it, to the black list of communism. Oh, they already did.
 
Joined Aug 2009
11,736 Posts | 5,403+
Athens, Greece
Communism and its activities (specifically the 1917 -1923 revolutions) was one of major reasons for why Nazism appeared in the first place
Yeah, it was the skirt that created the rapist.

without help and support from USSR in the 1919 - 1933 period and then in the 1939 - 1941 alliance, Germany will never have been able or willing to start the Second World War
If you're going to put the blame on all the rest, why focus on the Soviets and not, say, the Americans that propped up Weimar Germany and almost made her succeed, if not for the Great Depression (which was indeed a major cause of Nazi rising)? Why not the Anglo-French and the Versailles treaty, or all the facilitation in war debt repayment, and ultimately, cancellation to the greatest extent? Why focus explicitly on the Soviet-German non-aggression pact (a wholly different thing from an alliance), and not mention the appeasement policy too, or other diplomatic failures?

And it is not like the Soviets were unaware of these plans. In fact, they knew exactly what Germany was planning, were aiming to take advantage of the new global conflict to spread Communism, and thus did everything they could to help Germany rearm with the explicit design of causing said global conflict.
If you're going down the line of preposterous reasoning, why don't you blame everything on the German empire that allowed safe passage to Lenin through their territory in 1917? If they had prevented instead of facilitating his arrival to Russia in the hope of undermining the Russian government, maybe Communism would have failed to seize power in the first place. Distort logic and history, and anything goes - we can claim whatever pleases us, right?
 

Trending History Discussions

Top