Why many young Westerners hate Hitler but are unsure about Stalin? | Summary
This is the summary of a 30+ page report on Why Young Westerners hate Hitler but are unsure about Stalin. The report is available below. Also, if you want to donate on my Patreon and support my work, you can do so below as well.
How propaganda and a lack of historical knowledge endangers Western civilisation
In September 2010, Stanford University published an article called “Stalin killed millions”, with the punchline: “When it comes to use of the word “genocide,” public opinion has been kinder to Stalin than Hitler”. The article is an overview by Stanford historian Norman Naimark of his own book called “Stalin’s Genocides”. Naimark argued that there was more similarity between Hitler and Stalin than usually acknowledged:
“Both chewed up the lives of human beings in the name of a transformative vision of Utopia. Both destroyed their countries and societies, as well as vast numbers of people inside and outside their own states. Both, in the end, were genocidaires.”
More than a decade later, in a recent and moving interview with British historian, Giles Udy, the hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster have asked a series of questions which stroke at the heart of the same, persisting problem: “how come we don’t have a Schindler’s list for the victims of communism?”, “why is it that the Nazi’s swastika is deservedly seen as a horrendous symbol of evil and of oppression, but the hammer and sickle, people just shrug their shoulders?”, “why were we never taught this?”, referring to the crimes committed by Lenin and Stalin.
There is plenty of conclusive evidence that Westerners, particularly those under 35 years of age, justify Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous statement: “For us in Russia communism is a dead dog, while, for many people in the West, it is still a living lion.”
Poll after poll, conducted over the years and across different Western countries – such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, New Zeeland and other nations that share the two pillars of Western civilisation, the inheritance of classical Rome and Greece and the heritage of the Judeo-Christian religion, as their foundation – have showed that those below the age of 35 support socialism, with a startling number of young people living in the UK believing in 2018 that “communism could have worked if it had been better executed”.
The title of the above figure could have very well been “that was not real communism”, stressing the level of denial that exists among the UK youth when it comes to international socialism.
As such, many young Westerners continue to have a romantic view about international socialism (communism), often expressed in apologetic slogans such as the well-known “that was not real communism”, aimed at whitewashing Marx’s ideology that has been responsible for over 100 million deaths over the past 100 years.
Saying “that was not real communism” is akin to denying the Holocaust, although in a different manner: those who deny the Holocaust, believe that the systematic and planned killing of the Jews under the Nazi regime never happened. Some go even further and utter that the whole thing was and is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by powerful, shadowy figures to distort history. Such offensive nonsense is often met with just criticism and a certain amount of disgust.
Meanwhile, those who believe that what happened throughout twentieth century under communist regimes was not “real communism” often acknowledge the failures of the socialist states, including the deaths and famines that happened. Therefore their statement indicates that either they believe that the killings were necessary or a mistake in the process of tweaking the socialist experiment in order for future trials of communism to succeed. More so, the refusal to acknowledge the crimes of the communists or to whitewash them is tolerated and, in some circles in the academia and politics in particular, even suggested. What is more sickening: to deny that millions died under communism or to believe that their deaths were unimportant relative to the promised egalitarian utopia?
Young people across the West don’t just show an affection towards socialist ideas, but in some parts, such as the United States, enough of them have gone quite far into the Red. Analysis conducted by journalist Glen Greenwald has showed that not an insignificant number of Left-leaning individuals in the United States have departed from the definition of classical liberals and have adopted rather radical views: there is a “mountain of data of conclusive, definitive evidence demonstrating how authoritarian self-identified followers of the Democratic Party have become.”
Therefore, given the above information, the question why has socialism, especially in its international form (communism), maintained its allure while the Nazism (national socialism) has continued to be viewed with justified repulsion is not a peculiar curiosity confined to some narrow academic departments to study in order to satisfy some intellectual fetish. It is indeed of critical and practical importance to our world today to understand what is happening in the public consciousness of Westerners.
One quick answer to the questions posed by Foster and Kisin which comes to mind is that many Western countries allied with the USSR against the Nazis during the World War II.
Therefore, the animosity towards national socialism, as depicted throughout many internationally renowned movies from the most serious ones like the incredible Schindler’s List (1993) to the more comic ones, like Inglorious Bastards (2009), is rooted in recent history: Hitler and what he represented was evil incarnate and the actions of the Nazis scarred the minds and hearts of people for centuries to come. Indeed, there are articles written in recent years with titles such as “Why are we obsessed with the Nazis?” and documentaries looking to understand the “meaning of Hitler”.
However, if the main reason for why public perception of the diabolical actions of national socialists was because they were the enemies of the West, then what about Imperial Japan?
As Avani Sihra from the Atomic Heritage Foundation, a Washington DC institution that is “dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Age and its legacy”, states: “German crimes such as human medical testing committed in concentration camps tend to receive more attention than Japan’s crimes against humanity […] However, the Japanese too played a part in human medical testing in a secret project called Unit 731.”
How many times did you hear Emperor Hirohito being talked about as the face of evil? Probably never. Moreover, ask yourself when was the last time you saw an advertisement for a movie, a show or a book about the ideas and behaviours of Imperial Japan throughout the twentieth century? Take all the time you need, but I bet you don’t need much to think about when was the last time you saw a movie about the Nazis, or you heard them being discussed in the press.
In fact, quite paradoxically, in recent years, Imperial Japan has been portrayed as the victim of nuclear attacks, despite being at the time of World War II a genocidal and fanatic nation whose leaders conducted terrifying human experiments in its now notorious Unit 731 and sent thousands of kamikaze pilots to blow their enemies and themselves up.
The similarity of the gravity behind what the actions that the Nazis committed and how Imperial Japan behaved is probably best illustrated by the Nürnberg and Tokyo trials, during which high ranking officials from the two regimes were trialled under Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for crimes against humanity.
Consequently, here we have two genocidal regimes ruled by authorities charged with crimes against humanity who were allied against the West and yet one of them – Nazi Germany – has received a lot more attention than the other one – Imperial Japan. What is even more interesting is that, in comparison with Nazi Germany, a regime which had socialist elements embedded in its ultra-nationalistic ideology, Imperial Japan was purely ultra-nationalistic, what is known as far-Right.
Also important to note is that there have never been similar trials for the crimes of communist regimes. Not even today, more than three decades from the fall of the USSR, when bodies of those killed by communism are still being uncovered.
The fact that Westerners do not see what happened under the USSR as crimes against humanity was vividly displayed by a poll conducted by the New Culture Forum in 2017. The question was: “For each of the following figures, please indicate whether you would associate them with crimes against humanity, or not, or if you have not heard of them”.
According to the numbers, 87% associate Adolf Hitler with crimes against humanity, but only 61% consider Stalin in the same context and only 31% regard Lenin to be connected with crimes against humanity. Perhaps shockingly, only 19% think of Pol Pot to be associated with crimes against humanity (while 72% have not heard of him!) and, similarly, only 20% consider Mao Zedong to be linked to crimes against humanity while 70% have not heard of him. Abysmal.
Efforts from Central-Eastern European institutes are being made for “Nuremberg Trials for Communism”, but so far the appeals have not resulted in anything meaningful. This is despite the fact that the relationships between many Western nations and the USSR following World War II turned sour, at least in perception. In other words, the USSR was no longer seen as an ally against the defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan but was perceived as a foe – both militarily and ideologically. This position persists even today, after three decades from the fall of the USSR.
Moreover, although the regime of Hitler and that of Stalin were different in many aspects, they did share a number of similarities that ought to render them equally appalling. The main similarities are: their core ideology was socialism as explained by Ludwig von Mises and in numerous articles, they were totalitarian regimes (Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism) and, theologically, they replaced God with the State, as Carl Jung in The Undiscovered Self explained.
Therefore, the answer as to “how come we don’t have a Schindler’s list for the victims of communism?” is to be found elsewhere rather than in the brief alliance with the USSR against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Many mainstream commentary on why the young continue to look favourably on socialism are focused on the economic challenges of our time – of which there are sufficient to make people frustrated: from high student debt, insane real estate prices that make it difficult to buy a house and transform it into a home that represents the direct stake in society, to a devaluation of the purchasing power of fiat-money wages. But are they enough to make the young resentful and find comfort in the promises of socialism? No. At least not without the next two components of the answer to the above question.
Nobody can ignore two powerful engines that make and shape young minds and which are both Left-leaning: the education system and artists and entertainers.
The fact that academics and, more broadly intellectuals, tend to be Left-leaning is not a new phenomenon. As early as 1941, English writer, George Orwell observed that “there is now no intelligentsia that is not in some sense “Left”.” Importantly, Orwell also noted that prior and during the early years of World War II, “many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.” This anti-patriotic sentiment remains common today among many individuals who identify on the Left. However, as the writings of Orwell demonstrate, Left-wing politics and patriotism are not incompatible: in fact, the oppose authority when it becomes illegitimate, a characteristic of moderate Left-wing politics (liberalism), is deeply patriotic.
What is important to note here is simply the intellectuals’ typical political inclination which, when pushed to more extreme, it becomes a fetish with socialism. As Austrian thinker, F. A. Hayek, pointed out in 1949:
“Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. […] [I]t required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded […] In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals. […] [I]t is merely a question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing force of politics.”
The predominant Left-leaning tendency among the intellectuals has been kept alive and even accentuated since the 1960s onwards. Speaking about the United Kingdom, Sir Roger Scruton observed in 2015 that: “It is not unusual to be a conservative. But it is unusual to be an intellectual conservative. In both Britain and America some 70 percent of academics identify themselves as ‘on the left,’ while the surrounding culture is increasingly hostile to traditional values, or to any claim that might be made for the high achievements of Western civilisation.”
Scruton’s observations were confirmed by a 2017 poll which showed that “the academy’s Left-liberal skew may have increased since the 1960s.” This was also confirmed by the Adam Smith Institute in a 2017 paper: “Individuals with Left-wing and liberal views are overrepresented in British academia. Those with right-wing and conservative views are correspondingly underrepresented. Around 50% of the general public supports right-wing or conservative parties, compared to less than 12% of academics. Conservative and Right-wing academics are particularly scarce in the social sciences, the humanities and the arts.”
Similarly, across the Atlantic ocean, in the United States, a similar trend has been observed. For example, according to a study that dates back to 1969 when the first comprehensive faculty survey on political leanings was conducted in the United States, the percentage of self-identified liberals in the academia went from about 45% at the end of 1960s to around 60% in 2014, while those who self-identified as conservatives saw their numbers dwindle from about 28% in 1969 to barely above 10% in 2014.
Moreover, between 2014 and 2021, the influence of the Left within the universities has grown further. In 2018, speaking of the United States, The Spectator wrote:
“The domination of US universities by the left, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is well documented. In 2016 a survey carried out by Econ Journal Watch looked at the voter registration of faculty members at 40 leading US universities in the fields of economics, history, law, psychology and journalism/communications. It found that Democrats outnumber Republicans by an average of 11.5 to one. In psychology, the ratio is 17.4 to one; in history, 33.5 to one.
This helps explain a phenomenon identified by the French economist Thomas Piketty whereby university graduates have drifted to the left over the past 50 years. In a paper last February, he analysed post-electoral surveys from 1948 to 2017 and found that, from the 1940s to the 1960s, the more educated voters were, the more likely they were to vote Republican. Today, the opposite is true, with 70 per cent of those with a master’s degree voting for Hillary in 2016.
This phenomenon has coincided with the growth in the number of Americans attending university. In 1948, just 6 per cent of voters had a university degree; by 2016, 13 per cent had a master’s degree or a PhD. Piketty also looked at British and French election data and found the same developments there: a drift to the left among university graduates that went hand-in-hand with a large increase in the percentage of the population obtaining degrees. ‘The trend is virtually identical in the three countries,’ he wrote.”
Of course, it does not meant that all those who are inclined towards the political Left are socialists. Some are liberals in the classical sense. For decades however, there has been a growing body of evidence that among the most elite academics, some are extremely radical. For example, in his 2012 book, The Fortunes of Permanence, Roger Kimball recalls how “[…] philosopher Martha Nussabaum warns that “patriotic pride” is “morally dangerous” while Princeton’s Amy Gutamann reveals that she finds it “repugnant” for American students to learn that they are “above all, citizens of the United States” instead of partisans of her preferred abstraction, “democratic humanism”. New York University’s Richard Sennett denounces “the evil of a shared national identity” and concludes that the erosion of national sovereignty is “basically a positive thing”. Cecilia O’Leary of American University identifies American patriotism as right-wing, militaristic, male, white, Anglo, and repressive force while Peter Spiro of Hofstra University says it “is increasingly difficult to use the word ‘we’ in the context of international affairs.”
The trend towards the Left is now even more powerful given the numbers discussed above. As such, Left-leaning professors and university staff shape the minds of students, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, towards being more sympathetic to Left-leaning views, including socialism and its international version. How the academia turns the young minds into advocates and activists for Left-wing causes has been detailed by James Lindsay in a recent video called “How Education Turned Critical”.
We have already seen the impact of academia in the polls presented in the first part of the essay: the majority of those who view socialism in positive light are the young, most likely students.
In 2017, Harvard student Laura M. Nicolae, a Romanian who knows all too well where socialism leads to, wrote in The Harvard Crimson an article called “100 Years. 100 Million lives. Think Twice” in which Nicolae explained the atmosphere on one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the United States:
“Walk around campus, and you’re likely to spot Ché Guevara on a few shirts and button pins. A sophomore jokes that he’s declared a secondary in “communist ideology and implementation.” The new Leftist Club on campus seeks “a modern perspective” on Marx and Lenin to “alleviate the stigma around the concept of Leftism.” An author laments in these pages that it’s too difficult to meet communists here. For many students, casually endorsing communism is a cool, edgy way to gripe about the world.
After spending four years on a campus saturated with Marxist memes and jokes about communist revolutions, my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.”
The fact that Left-wing views dominate Western academia, at least higher-education, can be seen in the way some of the teaching staff views themselves as political activists for socialist ideals and through the imposition of political correctness (which is “communist propaganda” according to English cultural critic, Theodore Dalrymple) and critical race theory, a primary vector of today’s version of Marxism: Identity Marxism, or Woke-ism which is the result of Neo-Marxism (itself the overlap between Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory Marxism) and postmodernism.
However, Nicolae’s observations are not confined to the education sector. Outside the university campuses, the perception of communists and national socialists remains distorted.
In an article for The Guardian entitled “Why are we obsessed with the Nazis?”, the author stated: “The Nazis still have a strong hold on us – in daily news stories, in bookshops and cinemas, even on the streets of Europe. […] Hardly a day goes by without a television programme or a newspaper article about them. Movies featuring them continue to pour out of the studios, from Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards to Polanski’s The Pianist. The Nazis’ crimes continue to haunt us.”
Imperial Japan, the ally of Nazi Germany, which was on trial for similar crimes, was not mentioned in the article. However, further down in the article, the author wrote a paragraph that is symbolic of the twisted perception of young Westerns about the murderous regimes of the Nazis and the communists: “Hitler’s murderous policies, like Stalin’s, cannot be labelled “barbarous” or “medieval” like so many others. The ideology that underpinned Stalin’s policies of mass extermination died in 1989 with the fall of communism, but the racism that drove Hitler’s lives on in myriad forms that continue to trouble the world today.”
This is a false statement: communism did not die out in 1989 (or to be more accurate, in 1991, when the USSR did finally fall). As the Washington DC-based research institute, The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, states on it home page: “The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, but communism didn’t. One hundred years after the Bolshevik Revolution, one-fifth of the world’s population still lives under single-party communist regimes in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.”
The above statement from The Guardian is not an isolated opinion piece: it is a dominant attitude in Western Europe. As Lili Zemplényi wrote as recent as October 2021 for The Hungarian Conservative:
“The staggering ignorance of Western Europe to the recent history of the post-Communist world has struck many in the region. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, former President of the Republic of Latvia, is the most prominent example of the pioneering work of reminding the West what their neighbour went through following the war. She was the first among post-Communist leaders to understand that memory politics—just like any other aspects of politics—is a battleground where the consolidation of one’s own narrative has to be pursued. First and foremost, she objected to the predominance of Western narratives in the EU’s social memory – she believed that the perspective of East-Central Europe on history should also be incorporated into national cultural memory. Secondly, she believed that the crimes of Communism should be similarly condemned to the horrors of Nazism. She did not consider the two ideologies to be different from each other – as the terror of Nazism is studied and commemorated all over Europe, the evil of Communism should also be treated the same.”
The widespread misconceptions detailed above are also made possible because the academia is not the only place that shapes the young minds of Westerners to be more loving of socialism. Artists and entertainers are also predominantly “on the Left”. Although most of them are liberals, as a whole, the entertaining establishment, if it can be called as such, has moved closer to the redder part of the political spectrum over the past few decades.
As Mark Dice’s 2020 book – Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture – documents, America’s film industry has done wonders in promoting Left-wing views.
For example, the Hollywood Reporter recently wrote an article on how “Leah Cameron takes pride in The Communist’s Daughter having an unabashed socialist streak, even if her Canadian uber-left web comedy is a world away from Russian bread lines and iron-fisted Stalinism.” Cameron added: “I wanted to make a show where even if the quest of the politics and the neighborhood gets petty and silly, we can still see the positive in the ideals of socialism and Marxism, and they’re worth fighting for.” (Bolded text is mine).
How the film industry creates narratives with political undertones and ideological alliances has been documented by the Skoll Center for Social Impact Entertainment, which was founded in 2014. One of its agenda’s goals is to “explore […] Hollywood’s ongoing efforts to improve diversity and inclusion”, which simply means ensuring that organisations, public and private, have an equal number of people of lighter and darker skin colour, one of the divide and conquer tools of Identity Marxism (Woke-ism).
Moreover, there is a vast throve of evidence that many icons, such as Grimes, Madonna, Jay-Z and others have embraced – jokingly or not – parts of the socialist creed.
Movies and music are not the only venues that shape the minds of the young to be more receptive to socialist ideas. In a 2021 paper entitled “Left turn?”, the Institute of Economic Affairs gathered a long list of articles from Teen Vogue, a publication directed towards teenagers which, in 2017, stated that “our readers consider themselves activists”, that illustrates the acute Left-leaning angle in its articles. Here are a few examples: “Who is Karl Marx: Meet the anti-capitalist scholar” (2018), “Kshama Sawant: I’m a socialist taking on Amazon and a corporate onslaught in Seattle” (2019), “Socialist Feminism: What is it and how can it replace corporate “Girl Boss” feminism?” (2020, “Young Democratic Socialists of America explain what socialism means to them” (2020).
Imagine how would these titles be if Teen Vogue suddenly decides that all kinds of socialism are good, not just international socialism: “Young Nazis of America explain what socialism means to them” or “Nazi Feminism: What is it and how can it replace corporate “Girl Boss” feminism?”
Although predominantly orientated towards communism (Stalin’s regime), Woke-ism or Identity Marxism has elements from both international and national socialism.
On one hand, it has plenty of revolutionary elements (with organisations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa), it aims to weaken national identity through re-writing of history (Project 1619 for example) and control of literature and art (books, movies and statues that are not in line with this ideology are banned or removed), it censors political opponents and controls the majority (not all) of the large corporate press, it is for open borders and globalisation, it uses class-based rhetoric to divide people into rich and non-rich, vilifying the former and sanctifying the latter, it is for reallocation of resources as mandated by the government, it is pro-state power and it is anti-religion. All these elements are closer to communism than national socialism, although some of them (such as pro-state power and censorship) are part of both regimes.
However, Identity Marxism also takes a few pages from the national socialists: most evidently are the race-based politics that individuals like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi are promoting in return for good money. Of course, this new strain of Marxism also has elements which are unique to it, such as the extreme biological relativism which states that anyone can be a man or a woman regardless of their body and simply because they say so. This is a trace of postmodernism, a current which did not exist during Hitler’s or Stalin’s reign.
Despite these similarities between nazis and international socialism, some of which have united again under the current Woke-ism, Hitler’s regime remains portrayed, overwhelmingly so, as a far-Right system. As we showed, it is without any doubt that national socialism employed far-Right ideological ideas, but the core is socialism: it is the godless cult of the Left. But, because of the “Right-wing” label grossly applied over the Nazis, the propaganda from the self-proclaimed Left academia, entertainers and media personalities, have managed to create a line between Hitler and Stalin to such a degree that is fine to talk about communism and socialism in general as something good that has gone bad by mistake while speaking specifically about national socialism must always be done with outmost condemnation. No: both Nazis and communists must be condemned with the same ferocity. There is nothing good to be found in socialism for its application, because it is incompatible with the complex and diverse human nature, mutilates people regardless of whether it manifests in its nationalist or internationalist form.
However, this line created by intellectual facades is a mere illusion and an attempt to white wash socialism of its disastrous past. Nazis being labelled solely as Right-wing is not only wrong but it often comes from a place of no concern for the damage that radical Right-wing regimes (such as Imperial Japan which, as we have seen, despite being trailed for crimes against humanity, is not seen as evil as Nazi Germany) can do; rather, the criticism comes from an attempt to create an aura of misunderstanding around socialism and sometimes communism in order to be able to morally defend parts or the entirety of this ideology. In other words, the worry is that the promise of socialism (which is not compatible with human nature) and the tools (the Marxist collection of ideas) are to be protected by creating a wall between “bad” socialism (the Nazis) and “good” socialism (the communists).
As Orwell observed in 1944, this totalitarian tendency among the makers of ideas (intellectuals) is no secret:
“the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.” (Bolded text is mine).
Here therefore lies the culminant reason of the factors discussed above as why Hitler is hated while Stalin remains an ambivalent memory in the minds of Westerners. Given that the Left-leaning academia, entertainers and most corporate press are promoting values linked to socialism in its internationalist form, despite the import of race-based politics that come from a far-Right perspective, the notion of socialism itself and communism in particular remain unscathed while national socialism, simply because of the word “national” is viewed with hatred – even if the regimes have manifested similarly in politics, economics and societal costs. This is the result of propaganda and a lack of education.
Elon Musk called Woke-ism a “threat to modern civilization”. He is correct, although the statement can be applied to socialism in general and not just to Identity Marxism (or indeed, any strain of Marxism). Thankfully, there are various initiatives to fight it. From across the political spectrum, people are uniting to get rid of this ideological infection.
For example, French Hill, the Republican Representative for Arkansas, spoke recently about the need to educate students on what international socialism is, and Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis already signed bills that make teaching about totalitarian regimes compulsory. “DeSantis said students need to be taught that communist and totalitarian governments are evil.” Furthermore, the Republican Party is pushing the “Crucial Communism Teaching Act” which would require “high schools to teach students about the history of communism”.
Additionally, the launch of the University of Austin in late 2021 is another great development in the right direction. The people on the board are all individuals that are deeply concerned about the influence of Identity Marxism on American education. As one of the co-founders of the UATX, historian Niall Ferguson, wrote in a Bloomberg op-ed: “I’m helping to start a new college because higher ed is broken. Institutions dedicated to the search for truth have ossified into havens for liberal intolerance and administrative overreach.” The New Criterion called the initiative “a bold and indeed a risky undertaking, but one that we wholeheartedly support.”
In the UK, similar developments seem underway. Recently, the “government has ordered schools in England not to use resources from organisations which have expressed a desire to end capitalism”, explained The Guardian. The article went on describing that the Department of Education included in its guidelines of restricted materials content which “[…] “publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections”; opposition to freedom of speech; the use of racist, including antisemitic, language; the endorsement of illegal activity; and a failure to condemn illegal activities done in support of their cause.”
Furthermore, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Danube Institute, are doing great work to remedy the shortfalls of the education system on the ills of socialism. Even the World Socialist Website has a book that aims to debunk Project 1619, an abominable attempt to distort the past with lies and re-write American history.
Those from the Left and those from Right, as well as Libertarians, who care about the truth, who care about freedom, who care about the Western civilisation have to push back against any form of radical politics: today, we face the threat from Identity Marxism (far-Left), but should the day come when things swing back towards the opposite extreme (far-Right), an opposition that maintains the Western civilisation on the tensed but necessary middle path of maximum public and private freedom must be formed and, I believe, it will be formed.
Consequently, the answer to Kisin’s and Foster’s questions, “how come we don’t have a Schindler’s list for the victims of communism?”, “why is it that the Nazi’s swastika is deservedly seen as a horrendous symbol of evil and of oppression, but the hammer and sickle, people just shrug their shoulders?”, and “why were we never taught this?” is this: a lack of proper education about socialism coupled with massive propaganda that teaches the Western youth to be agreeable to this ideology make people hate Hitler while being unsure about Stalin.
This is the summary of a 30+ page report on Why Young Westerners hate Hitler but are unsure about Stalin. The report is available below.