Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Postby EtienneSC » 8 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:06 pm)

The following article summarises some Left wing responses to Stéphane Courtois' The Black Book of Communism (1997, Harvard, 1999): ... ash-nazis/
It says for example:
As for violent deaths, according to the Soviet Union's meticulously kept archives, which were opened after the collapse of the USSR, 799,455 people were executed under the rule of Joseph Stalin between 1921 and 1953. There is no question that this is a horrific number. It is also an order of magnitude smaller than the claims of The Black Book of Communism and its adherents, who add zeros when they see fit.

The contrast with Holocaust revisionism is striking here, where reliance on actual German records (e.g. the Auschwitz death books) is criticised and multiplied-up guesstimates are preferred.

More generally, the ability to maintain a moral dichotomy of "Left = good, Right = bad" and to maintain one-sided righteous indignation in the face of a mixture of assertions pointing in all directions is remarkable.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3558
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Postby Hektor » 8 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:19 pm)

Just briefly: If you go to that 799,455 figure on the page, it actually allows you to go to an online book from which it is quoted. There is however no footnote or source for this given there. The book was btw. written by a Seumas Milne. He's the spin doctor for Jeremy Corbyn's British Labour Party and someone who praised Soviet Communism for its achievements.

As for the Soviet Archives they have the advantage of being continuously in Soviet/Russian possession. So no big possibility of meddling there by a hostile side. However that also means that some people that had a motive to cover their own tracks from the Stalin era would have had access in terms of retrieval and change to them. So I'd be careful to give it that a final say.

That said. The complex of Bolshevism in Russia still needs first hand research on many levels - After that one can do some revisionism of course.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Postby Lamprecht » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:01 pm)

That's violent deaths and executions. What about the Gulags?
According to Wikipedia, 18 million passed through the Gulags and 1.6 million or more perished.
And what about the Holodomor?

There are a lot of things which would not be included in that figure. I do not vouch for any particular estimate because I have not done the research.

For USSR death estimates we can somewhat rely on population/census figures, unlike for the "Holocaust" because Jews could simply not identify as Jews. But total population counts are different. Although I also do not trust USSR census figures.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm

Re: Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Postby HMSendeavour » 8 months 1 week ago (Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:00 pm)

The arguments i've seen have been very piss poor.

They ignore the fact that there's actually two volumes of this book and seemingly never address it.

As for the first book that is so well known I found out about the controversy but didn't know much about the actual "arguments" used until I came into contact with one Marxist, and he just rattled off the wikipedia critique with a few embellishments, such as claiming that ALL the authors came out and "denounced the book" as if they suddenly had a revelation that it was HERESY! And they'd lied to defame the "good names" of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin! (suddenly I fail to see how Hitler attacking the Soviets couldn't been anything other than a service to humanity).

The usual "arguments" go like this:

1. Well actually Capitalists have killed more people so Communism is good
2. Actually Hitler killed more because he started world war two and is responsible for all those casualties (yet they actually make this "argument")
3. "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union" (apparently that's NOT what Gulags were, how do they figure that?)

It's all pretty weak shit. Not to mention hypocritical. The wiki states for example:

Historians Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty have criticized Courtois[23]:178 for failing to draw a distinction between victims of neglect and famine and victims of "intentional murder"

Which is so fucking hypocritical it begs belief. The exact SAME distinction SHOULD be made when it came to German actions in the east and preserving foodstuffs. As in, the Germans not having much food for themselves, fed their people back home and their soldiers before POWs and the Western inhabitants of the Soviet Union, however, this utilitarianism and ruthless logical pragmatism is overlooked for the more favourable anti-german mythology of "exterminating the Slavs". Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the claims made on that issue of the Second World War know quite well that the "evidence"doesn't exist and there's no mention whatsoever about exterminating anyone, only the mention of possible casualties it's a joke.

But we MUST go easy on the Marxists apparently, yet we all know the reasons for this. The entire controversy about this book is Marxists trying to deny their criminally genocidal political views, while in the same breath morally grandstanding about the Hoax that is the refuted Holocaust narrative.

To illustrate this I would like to recommend this paper titled "Nazism And Communism: Evil Twins?" ( written by French New Right Nationalist and academic thinker Alain de Benoist, Alma Master at the University of Paris.

Pp. 119

The debate concerns these two questions. The notion that communism can be regarded as inherently criminal and virtually exterminationist continues to generate intense opposition, but no less so than the notion of the comparability of communism and Nazism. Courtois has been attacked for even broaching these two subjects. The attacks have been so violent that some authors have not hesitated to speak of the Black Book as an “intellectual deception” and “propaganda” (Gilles Perrault), a “mess” (Jean-Marie Colombani), “a gift to the National Front at the
time of the Papon trial” (Lilly Marcou), “the gruesome accounting of wholesalers” (Daniel Bensaid), “an ideological tract” (Jean-Jacques Marie), “a fraud” (Maurice Nadeau), “the denial of history” (Alain Blum) and even “negationism” (Adam Rayski). Revealing in this regard is that Courtois has been reproached for having written that: “the death by starvation of an Ukrainian kulak child as a result of the deliberate famine orchestrated by the Stalinist regime rates the same as the death by starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto during the famine brought about by the Nazi regime.” What is scandalous, however, is not this sentence, but the fact that it was even questioned. Philippe Petit went as far as to write that “all deaths do not have the same value.”5 Unfortunately, he did not provide any criteria to distinguish between victims of the first rank and those of the second. The fact that today it is still unclear whether a crime is a crime or whether all the victims have the same value says much about the spirit of the times.

And there it is. The lives of Jews are WORTH MORE than those of European gentiles. They admit this, they defend this, and they hate books which questions this, or rather, books like the Black Book that don't AT ALL question the Holocaust narrative but simply put into perspective the orthodox view of National Socialism with that of Communism. This kind of comparison is one that the Jews of the Academic world, most often Marxists themselves it seems, cannot bare to see.

Benoist also notes on the first page:

this work attempts to provide an accurate account of the human cost of communism in view of the documentary evidence available today. The estimate is around 100 million dead — four times the body-count of Nazism. These figures are not really a revelation. From Boris Souvarine to Robert Conquest and Aleksander
Solzhenitsyn, many authors have dealt with matters such as the Gulag; the famines deliberately provoked by the Kremlin (which in 1921-22 and 1932-33 killed in the Ukraine five and six million people respectively); the forced
deportations, between 1930 and 1953, of seven million people within the Soviet Union (kulaks, Volga Germans, Chechens, Tatars and others from Caucasus); the millions killed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, etc. By comparison, the Black Book’s figures are rather conservative.1


The intense interest in the Black Book is due to the fact that it is based on accurate documentation from the Moscow archives, now open to researchers. This is why the figures have not been questioned. Based on this documentation, some reviewers conclude that “the balance sheet of communism constitutes the worst case of political carnage in history,”2 or “the greatest, the bloodiest criminal system in history.”3 Thus, the debate has not been about the facts themselves, but their interpretation. According to Courtois, communist regimes everywhere have “raised mass criminality to the level of a veritable system of government.” From this, one can infer communism did not contradict its principles when it killed people, but followed them — in other words, that communism was not just a system which committed crimes, but one whose very essence was criminal. As Tony Judt put it,4 today no one can dispute the criminal nature of communism. It should be added, that communism killed many more people than Nazism, it killed over a longer period of time than Nazism, and it began doing so before Nazism. “The methods used by Lenin and systematized by Stalin and those who emulated them,” writes Courtois, “are not only reminiscent of Nazi methods, but preceeded them.” This alone calls for “a comparative analysis concerning similarity between a regime which, since 1945, has been regarded as the most criminal of the century, and the communist system, which up to 1991 retained its international legitimacy, is still in power in some countries, and has supporters throughout the world.”

The last thing I will add is a mention from the book "Hitler: Stalin's Stooge" by James B. Edwards where he not only affimrs the fact that Stalin wanted to invade Europe, that Hitler acted preemptively, but that Stalin STARTED World War Two. He also mentions the Communist deathroll which he estimates along with others lies at around 130 million.

Communism kills 130 million Hitler Stalins Stooge.PNG

I don't have the exact page number as I was only able to view a preview of the book here:
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm

Re: Revisionism of the Black Book of Communism

Postby HMSendeavour » 5 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:41 am)

If you're a younger person (I don't mean to offend) you've probably heard of TikTok. I like to scroll through it and see what is said by the public. I came across one very self confident and foolish person.

See Video:

He is a Communist and Antifa (not surprising) so it makes sense he would spout this establishment garbage.

I have invited him here to this thread to debate, I hope others would do the same.

First off. The 100 million figure for Communism is accurate. Nobody, not even the Black Book thinks that SOVIET Communism has killed 100 million. 100 million is an aggregate figure and is no doubt larger for reasons that have been already stated.I'm wondering whether he's referring to the Russian Soviet figure not aggregate Soviet figures because he states that the real figure is "40 million" which intuitively seems pretty unlikely and low. For example, the Great Chinese famine killed 15-30 million in and of itself, the world Communist death toll CANNOT be 40 million. Only taking extreme liberties and denying Gulags/Mass Executions or pawning off deaths to the Germans or Democratic allies could get a figure so low.

He admits that even the "rebuked" 100 million stat is actually 96 and asks for the 6 million.

I mean. Sebastian. We're also asking where the 6 million figure came from :lol: . And I don't think Sebby here would disagree with that figure or the absolute necessity of that figure. We can pretty much declare that Seb is a hypocrite on this point alone, as it isn't likely he'd "deny" the Jewish Holocaust.


I think this comment is funny. "written by the victors". Liked by the dude who made the TikTok.

The irony really. Antifa who think like this will then claim with complete rapacious certainty that the Germans killed 6 million Jews and 5 million others! That they killed 20 million Russians and started a war against an "innocent" Soviet Russia! That the Allies never lie and "see what the historians said Hitler is baaaad!". But when you talk about the orthodox Communist narrative somehow then, and ONLY THEN are historians sadistic liars and conniving capitalists who want to tarnish Communism and Socialism! These people are truly pathetic and cannot win a debate when challenged because it's dishonest from the start.

The fact of the matter is that Communism died a failure, it died with a whimper. No victors were involved except the triumph of nature of a system doomed to fail. Unlike National Socialism or Fascism which had to be destroyed because of its lasting popularity.

Robert Harris many years ago rebukes this idea that historians have ANY bias against Communism or Socialism whatsoever. In fact, they love it, the universities love it, the students love it and they'll do anything to make sure The Reds go untarnished. All for the sake of the PHONEY Holocaust cabal:

The West prefers its dictators red


Brovkin's idea was to produce several volumes which would, he wrote, "explain how and why a monstrous system of mass terror came into being, developed, and ultimately was phased out". The editor of the Yale series was enthusiastic ("I strongly support your work and your point of view"), but on August 19 he wrote to Brovkin to tell him that he couldn't do the books after all.

The reason, it now emerges, was that Brovkin's academic peers on the Yale advisory panel thought he was too hostile to the Soviet Union. When the editor circulated Brovkin's proposal for consideration he was admonished by one colleague for "its excessively anti-Bolshevik tone . . . I have no doubt that the system was repressive and that millions suffered and died at its hands. But do you really want to publish three volumes of documents that do nothing else but beat this fact into the reader's consciousness?" It would, he said, "piss off a lot of people". Another shocked Sovietologist insisted that the Gulag prisoners were in any case only sent there "in accordance with the laws of the land".

As The New Republic points out, this is not an isolated incident of "historical correctness". Brovkin has been unable to find a full-time teaching post anywhere in America, while historians who are more sympathetic to the old Soviet Union are everywhere ascendant: historians like Robert W Thurston, who argues that "Stalin was not guilty of mass first-degree murder from 1934 to 1941"; Professor J Arch Getty of the University of California, who numbers the victims of Stalin's purges in "thousands" rather than the widely accepted millions; Mark von Hagen of Columbia, who described the Gulag as containing "the kinds of criminals who are incarcerated in every viable state"; Donald J Raleigh, who bemoans recent attempts "to demonise Vladimir Lenin"; and Sheila Fitzpatrick of the University of Chicago, who applauds the "high social mobility" of the Stalin era.

The point about all this is not so much that these historians are wrong (although I think they are) or that they are entitled to their views. It is that they all, in their various ways, offer apologies for, or seek to excuse, aspects of a murderous system that killed more people than Hitler's.


And who could forget the Marxist Richard Evans who wrote the glowing biography of the Stalin apologist JEW Eric Hobsbawm!?

If we’re returning now to the subject of Hobsbawm, it’s because another famous historian, Richard J. Evans, FBA, FRSL, FRHistS, FLSW, has published an 800-page biography of him. Evans is best known for his three-volume history of the Third Reich – which has been described as definitive – and for his court testimony defending a writer’s characterization of David Irving as a Holocaust denier. In all his writings on Hitler’s regime, Evans has made it clear that he is not a fan. He sees Nazism for the evil that it is. He does not buy into the notion that, in writing about a Nazi, you can set aside his Nazi beliefs, or contextualize them or relativize them, depicting them as just a minor or incidental part of his personal makeup. You can’t conclude that, his Nazi convictions notwithstanding, the most important thing about him is that he was a devoted husband and father, a good friend and neighbor, a man who loved his pets and was, as the British say, clubbable. No, a Nazi is, first and last, a Nazi. Evans understands that.

Confronted with the case of Hobsbawm and Hobsbawm’s Communism, however, Evans is able to take a totally different approach. In a blistering review of Evans’s book for the June issue of the New Criterion, yet another historian, David Pryce-Jones (who, as it happens, is also an FRSL), laments that Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans “look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.” Describing Hobsbawm as “the foremost Communist apologist in the Britain of his day,” Pryce-Jones observes that if Hobsbawm had been a Nazi, “Evans surely would have thrown his doctrine back into his face. Instead, he defends the indefensible with this hagiography.”

See More:

Evans, who we all know was the liar who was payed 700,000 bucks to attack David Irving as an "impartial historian" in the 2000 libel trial. He later published 3 volumes on the Third Reich which the left just adores for it's utterly orthodox, but equally wrong portrayal of Hitler and his Reich. Of course, a filthy maggot like Evans is somehow just "objective" to these same communists even though that CLEARLY isn't the case with his treatment of the two regimes in Russia and Germany.

There is, and only ever has been a bias AGAINST National Socialist Germany and Fascism in General.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests