Ir al contenido principal

Los muertos por el comunismo son más de 100 millones

So, how many did Communism kill?

UPDATED: The historical reality of communist oppression is being ignored. But the truth must not be buried

Khmer_rouge
The killing fields of Cambodia
Robin_shepherd
Robin Shepherd, Owner / Publisher
On 5 October 2013 07:56

Why isn't the Black Book of Communism on the curriculum of every school in Europe? Because it isn't exhaustive enough? Because its authors lack credibility? Because there is still more to be understood and researched on the matter?
At more than 850 pages of carefully sifted evidence by a group of top-level scholars from a variety of countries and disciplines, the Black Book is as solid a piece of scholarship as any other you'll find being taught in our schools.
Is it definitive? How could it be? Communist regimes went to great lengths to conceal their crimes, and one of the most oppressive of all, North Korea, still exists to this day. What the book does is use the best available evidence to give a sense of the scale of what we are dealing with.
In introducing the Black Book, lead author Stephane Courtois, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in Paris, offers the following rough breakdown of the numbers of people that communism killed:
USSR -- 20 million
Vietnam -- 1 million
North Korea -- 2 million
Cambodia -- 2 million
Eastern Europe -- 1 million
Latin America -- 150,000
Africa -- 1.7 million
Afghanistan -- 1.5 million
Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000
In total, this is not far short of 100 million deaths at the hands of a single ideology. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (As an aside, my personal view is that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews was the greatest single crime of the modern era, while communism was the greatest criminal system.)
To be sure, these numbers are approximations. Courtois gives a figure of 20 million for the Soviet Union. Alexander Yakovlev, formerly the chairman of Russia's Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, estimates the numbers executed or done to death in prisons and camps for purely political reasons at 20-25 million.
But, in his book A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, he reminds us not to forget the 5.5 million victims of famine in the Civil War and the 5 million in the artificial famine of the 1930s. Other respected authorities offer even higher numbers.
What should be clear from the Soviet Union and beyond is the staggering scale of what we are being asked to internalise.
Apologists have adopted a number of strategies -- beyond outright denial which lasted for decades. One of the most popular and enduring is that we should not spend much time on the crimes of communism because Western countries have also committed crimes, most particularly when they had their empires.
To say that this is disingenuous is an understatement. Even if it were true that Western countries had committed similar crimes -- which it most certainly isn't -- why would that be an obstacle to discussing the crimes of communism? Jack the Ripper isn't any the less of a killer because Ted Bundy was too.
But more importantly, Western imperialism was no more oppressive, and in many ways it was a good deal less oppressive, than any of the other imperialisms throughout history. The British Empire was the first ever to abolish slavery, for example. In any case, imperialism isn't a blueprint for societal governance. It isn't in the same category as ideologies such as communism, fascism, Nazism or even liberal-democratic capitalism anyway.
This is all easy to pin down, which brings us back to the question posed at the beginning of this piece: Why isn't the Black Book of Communism on the curriculum of every school in Europe?
The answer is not all that difficult to get to. The reason why the crimes of communism are given so little societal prominence is that very large sections of Western political society were supporters of or apologists for the Leftist ideology that gave rise to those crimes.
To talk openly about the history of communism is to talk openly about the history of the Left. And even among those who were not communists themselves, vast swathes inside the Leftist tradition stayed far too close to the communists for comfort.
It's their very dirty big secret, and although they can't do much these days about tracts such as the Black Book of Communism lying on the dusty top shelves of our public libraries, they'll be damned if they're going to start handing them out to children in the classrooms.
Of course, I am using the school curriculum issue as a proxy for a wider reluctance fully to come to terms with one of history's darkest chapters. The angry reaction of the British Left this week to the Daily Mail's discussion of Labour leader Ed Miliband's Marxist father suggests that that reluctance is as deeply embedded as ever.
Robin Shepherd is the owner/publisher of The Commentator Follow him on Twitter@RobinShepherd1
[UPDATE: On Facebook and via emails, it is quite amazing how much hostility there has been to this piece, mainly from British readers. You would be astounded at what I'm accused of: supporter of Apartheid; closet fascist; you name it! Well, I guess it shows why there's still a major issue to confront here...]
Read more on: communismHow many deaths is Communism responsible for?Guardian apologists for communismDeath toll of communismthe evil of communism, and Romanian Institute for Investigating the Crimes of Communism

Comentarios

Entradas más populares de este blog

Pepe Mujica mató a un policía por la espalda

Contra Pepe Mujica Todos lo alaban por sus “frases profundas”, por su aspecto humilde, porque anda en un carro destartalado... bueno, no todos: uno de los mejores escritores argentinos nos cuenta acá por qué el ex presidente uruguayo no le simpatiza para nada. Marcelo Birmajer * Mi primer problema con Pepe Mujica es que no le entiendo nada cuando habla. Habla con la boca cerrada. Arrastra las palabras como si no quisiera soltarlas, como un jugador de ajedrez que se queda con la ficha en la mano porque teme dejarla en tal o cual casillero y eterniza el movimiento, enervando al contrincante. Me pasa con él como con las películas españolas en la televisión, que solo las entiendo con subtítulos. Pero a Mujica no lo subtitulan, lo aplauden, aunque estoy seguro de que quienes lo aplauden tampoco entienden lo que dice. Lo aplauden porque tiene pinta de pobre, porque tiene un perro con tres patas, porque no tiene la menor relevancia en el mundo; pero en ningún caso

Partidos políticos sordos, ciegos y usurpadores

Miguel Henrique Otero Con sólidos argumentos políticos y legales, a los que cabe sumar otros provenientes del más elemental sentido común, organizaciones no partidistas, académicas, especializadas y autónomas, expertos de indiscutible calificación, y también veteranos políticos y otros en ejercicio -muchos de los cuales han sido críticos con relación a ciertos aspectos relativos a la gestión del gobierno interino- expresaron en días recientes que la decisión de una mayoría de la Asamblea Nacional de sustituir la figura del presidente encargado, ejercida hasta ahora por Juan Guaidó Márquez, para reemplazarla por la de una especie de gobierno parlamentario es un error. Un grave error que, para peor, no tiene antecedentes en el desempeño republicano de Venezuela. Hay que considerar, como primera cuestión, tal como hace el impecable comunicado que el Bloque Constitucional de Venezuela publicó el 24 de diciembre, que la usurpación se mantiene. Que Venezuela no ha dejado de estar en una situ

Una izquierda de derecha

Lluis Bassets Así como hay una derecha suicida, también hay una izquierda ignorante. Nada sabe ni nada quiere aprender del pasado. Tampoco sabe que la guerra sucede a la política cuando la política deja de funcionar. Ni que la paz, tan deseada, no llega por un clamor convocatorio, sino porque quien vence en la guerra tiene poder y pericia para imponer un orden más justo, de forma que nadie utilice la fuerza de nuevo para resolver los contenciosos inevitables que se producen entre países y gobiernos. Ignora que la Unión Soviética fue el mayor imperio europeo, y quizás del mundo, entre 1945 y 1991.  Y que lo fue bajo la flagrante mentira de la patria socialista, defensora universal del proletariado.  O que las libertades europeas se mantuvieron y se mantienen en la mitad del continente, al igual que en 1945 se recuperaron de la invasión hitleriana, gracias a la alianza con Estados Unidos. Cree los embustes de Putin sobre la mayor catástrofe del siglo XX, que no fue la desaparición de la