[Transcript]
Ever notice how Hollywood has a billion anti-Hitler movies, but not a single one against Lenin, Mao, or Stalin?
Maybe it’s time to notice that stuff.
@grok is this true
Hollywood has made far more films about Hitler than Lenin, Mao, or Stalin, with over 112 about Hitler versus 23 about Stalin, and fewer for Lenin and Mao. This is likely due to World War II’s global impact and the Holocaust’s resonance with Western audiences, making Hitler a more compelling subject. Films like The Death of Stalin (2017) and Animal Farm (1954) do critique communist leaders, so claims of “none” are inaccurate. Cultural factors, Cold War sensitivities, and marketability explain the disparity. Hitler’s regime offers a clear narrative, while Stalin’s atrocities were less cinematic. Still, some films address these figures, just in smaller numbers.
Answer without any whataboutism, who killed more? Hitler or Stalin? Hitler or Mao?
Based on historical estimates, Stalin likely caused more deaths than Hitler, with around 20 million compared to Hitler’s 11–17 million. Mao’s policies led to the highest toll, estimated at 30–45 million, far exceeding Hitler’s. These figures include direct killings and policy-driven famines, but exact numbers vary due to differing methodologies.
Ever notice how your spellcheck does not even know that Dekulakization is a word
(Source.)
Hollywood also has less than a handful of films about Lt. Gen. Lothar von Trotha, Enver Pasha, Talât Pasha, Benito Mussolini, Emperor Hirohito, Ion Antonescu, Ante Pavelić, Ngô Đình Diệm, Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Yahya Khan, Suharto, Roberto D’Aubuisson, Efraín Ríos Montt, and numerous other antisocialist paskudnyaks responsible for dozens of thousands of innocents dying needlessly, yet I never see anticommunists crying about their lack of media representation. (Gee, I wonder why.)
If Hollywood were under the control of Judeo-Bolsheviks, The Passion of the Christ and Chernobyl would have failed right out the gate, Salvador would have been a smashing success at the box office, and nobody would ask ‘Who?’ when you mention Symon Petliura. Film companies focus on Adolf Schicklgruber because it is a safe investment based on previous successes, and an anticommunist film about a Lenin, Stalin, or Máo would perform poorly in the Russian and Chinese markets. The mindlessly hyperinflated bodycounts misattributed to communists are irrelevant.
And finally,
Holocaust films generally lack commercial success. Indeed, approximately 440 features have grossed more than Schindler’s List and Inglourious Basterds (2009), the highest-grossing Holocaust films in history; in contrast, Crocodile Dundee (1986) and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015) have outgrossed those Holocaust film icons. The Pianist (2002) does not even approach the all-time top thousand grossing films.
(Source.)
Hollywood does something far more dangerous with Stalin, Mao and Lenin, compared with Hitler.
They do not make movies about them, but there’s plenty of movies and series where the characters will refer to communism as evil, usually with an off-hand matter-of-fact statement, often outright equating communist leaders (especially Stalin) to the story’s villain or to other evil people in history (e.g. Hitler), and then quickly move on to whatever else is going on in the film. This is extremely prevalent, especially when the film revolves around espionage, international intrigues, political dramas, science fiction, historical films, etc.
This is way more dangerous than films dedicated to them (and the liberal propaganda against them), because the audience is focused on something else. Their defenses are down, and propaganda seeps in. The confidence with which such statements are made, from characters that the audience usually has spent the last hour or so empathizing with, reinforces the acceptance of the audience. And these occurrences are often enough, that over time, the audience takes it for granted that communism is evil, that Stalin, Mao and Lenin killed way more people than Hitler and that they should treat communism as a joke.
On the other hand, western movies about Nazi attrocities are not made to criticize the Nazis as such. It’s actually very rare to see the Nazi ideology being connected to the attrocities being committed. Almost universally, one can see that the Nazi characters are evil, but not that they are evil because they are Nazis. Only that they are sadistic, abusive psychopaths. Usually, there’s going to be at least one Nazi/German character that is shown to be a somewhat decent human, who either objects to the attrocities, or accepts them as a necessary step to saving Germany, or is outright oblivious of any attrocities and is just misguided. Film-makers might intend to show that even good people can fall for Nazism, but at least some of the audience are likely to take it that Nazism isn’t necessarily that bad. It just attracted the wrong kind of people who gave Nazism a bad name.
Doubly so, when western movies focus on Western European battles, where Germans (and Italians when they appear) are shown to be tragically heroic, fighting for the other men in their units, and eagerly missing their families back home. It’s extremely rare to show major German characters in such movies participating in attrocities. If any attrocities are performed, they are usually perpetrated by unnamed characters who often appear only to perform the attrocity and then go away, while our heroic Germans are dumbfounded and sad.
There’s also the matter for how Hitler or high-ranking Nazis are portrayed. Often as outright crazy or delusional, almost always as bubbling fools but somehow charismatic at the same time. The film Downfall is especially guilty here, as it often tries to present Hitler in a sympathetic light, a tragic figure that got swept away by hubris.
All of this might not be done intentionally. Film-makers might be going in with the best of intentions and are just trying to balance making a good film, with presenting an anti-fascist message, their own liberalism, the studio’s desire for money, and political pressures from various sides.
However, the result of this contrasting presentation leads to a simple sub-conscious conclusion: Communism should be dismissed outright as evil, inhuman and foolish. No need to talk about it. No need to examine it. There’s definitely no good role models to look at. Every communist is as evil as the dictator Stalin. Fascism though, requires thought and discussion. Every facet of fascism should be examined. Sometimes good people become fascists after all. Maybe fascism isn’t so bad, it’s just the people who represented it made mistakes or used it for their own personal villainy. We shouldn’t assume that just because someone is a fascist they are inhuman, or even bad people.
I think this is fairly often the case with how anti-communism works too, that it focuses on individuals over communicating a coherent picture of the ideology. One of the classic anti-communist talking points is, “It sounds good on paper, but in practice, it always leads to atrocities.”
And I think it is a symptom of the idealism worldview where evil comes out of “humans being corrupted”. This gets coupled with beliefs like “power corrupts” and then it’s a flimsy line drawn between the two for any given enemy of the western empire. “The bad people are bad because they obtained too much power and became corrupted, but us humble westerners have a Democratic ™ system with Checks and Balances ™ where we balance power between the private and public sector, so that no one individual holds too much of it.” In reality, this is just a gangster state design (such as in the case of the US) owned and controlled by private interest groups. It’s made out like it’s some kind of bulwark against the “temptations of power” that “lead to the worst evils in history.” In reality, it has spearheaded some of the worst atrocities in modern history and maybe in all of human history, and makes it harder to hold any one person accountable because of the nature of its more loose-weave and dynamic wink and nodding of horrible acts.
So much of it comes down, in other words, to flipping the script in classic DARVO style. Goes back to civil/savage colonial narrative and evolved from there. The abuser becomes the abused, complexity is reduced to “you have to pick me or them”, and people are driven into this bizarre view of the world in which our very humanity is terrifying and we must be vigilant of it at all times. Then systems of power driven by a power elite carry out atrocities, while individuals torment themselves over minor personal issues.
Damn, that wolf from the first mongol mission in AoE2 is spitting some facts.
I am enjoying his videos.