You do realize that it was the USSR (or Soviet Russia, depends on timing) that invaded Baltics, Western Ukraine, Central Asia, etc. etc. You may want to stop arguing about your fantasies and try talking about something that has basis in actual history.
> Okay, explain how the lives of the majority of people in Russia would have been improved under Nazi occupation than under Communism.
Ethnic makeup of survivors would be different. It is very much uncertain if the numbers would be much different. You do realize that mortality in Soviet prison camps during peace time was same or higher than in German labor camps (obviously not extermination camps) during the war?
> "Communism" has not killed more people. That's simply a fantasy based on an absurd publication denounced as fictitious even by its own authors.
Sadly, it is a basic fact, arguments are only about by how much exactly. Saloth Sar alone did ~1/10th of what Nazis did, and that without even invading anyone.
Bleatings of "Marxist historians" or useful idiots like Chomsky do not qualify as valid criticism anywhere.
> So you keep insisting. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
I am just stating an obvious, well-attested fact.
> I don't believe people who were not killed by Communism should be counted as being killed by Communism.
Are you going to play the well-tired card of "but Stalin (Mao, etc. etc.) were not real, proper communists?
> What does any of this thread have to do with your incorrect insistence, supported by no credible source, that the famine of 1921 was a "forced famine"?
Taking the last grain, including seed grain, from, peasants (e.g. Prodrazverstka; you may want to look in Lenin's collected works for details) is exactly that -- forced famine.
> And do you accept any of their different numbers?
No, should I? You seem to be perfectly happy to take any number that makes your murderous heroes look good.
> This is you being not cagey again, I presume.
(sigh)