What was worse? Holocaust or the Great Famine?

it's often been said that the holocaust was uniquely horrific while mass killings under communism was just run-of-the-mill, only on a larger scale. supposedly, nothing like the holocaust had ever happened before or since.
this, of course, is false. genocide has happened over and over thru human history. even the ancient hebrews committed acts of genocide. and the jewish god committed many acts of genocide also. some genocides took place out of sheer bloodlust and power madness. mongols who often wiped out entire cities and peoples didn't necessarily believe that the victims were subhuman. mongols just couldn't tolerate anyone who stood in their way. typically, mongols would come upon a people and say 'be our slaves or die'. if the people resisted, they were conquered and then all killed.
but, some cases of genocide were 'spiritual' in nature. there was the sense of cleansing the world of filth. there is some of this in jewish culture, what with all the talk of an angry god trying to set the world straight by killing countless sinful folks. whether it's the story of noah or sodom and gomorrah, god doesn't like sinful folks or people who stand in the way of his chosen folks, the jews. even in christianity, there is the end of days prophesy where god will commit the ultimate act of genocidal cleansing. now, one could argue that this wouldn't so much be a case of genocide as credocide. those who accept jesus will live, those that don't will die.

in the modern era, the main reasons for killing masses of folks have been in the name of radical classicism, radical racism, and extreme nationalism. some mass killings have involved two or all three of these factors. take the case of rwanda which was both classicidal and genocidal. hutus saw the tutsis as former members of the oppressive caste. hutus feared that tutsis would retake power in rwanda again and rule over hutus as they had done since time immemorial. hutus came to identify the tutsi caste with tutsi race. and it was not so much out of sense of racial superiority but a sense of racial/class inferiority on the part of hutus that the mass killings happened. hutus feared the tutsis. tutsis had been their former lords and masters. in time, this madness also took on the form of extreme nationalism as the border nation of rwanda was burundi, ruled by tutsis. so, there was an element of race vs race, class vs class, nation vs nation.
it's often thought that genocide is the result of racial supremacism but it can also arise from a sense of racial inferioritism. indeed, despite all the aryan-supremacist ideology of the nazis, we know that alot of germans really feared jews cuz germans suspected that jews were their superiors. and despite all the white supremacist rhetoric among KKK and such folks in the US, we know that much of it is really about white inferioritism. alot of whites fear that blacks are stronger and more masculine and will reduce white men to a bunch of pansyass pussyboys. also, alot of whites dislike american jews because jews are smarter, make more money, gain more influence, and overwhelmingly use this power and influence to bring about interracism, the worst aspect of which is foisted upon poor 'white trash'. rich liberal jews never have to practice what they preach. earning 100,000s, millions, 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or even billions of dollars, they can live in the safest neighborhoods and send their kids to the best school. they can have the cake and eat it too. they can say all the politically correct things and live like kings in their secluded paradise of privilege and special powers.

of course, genocidal hatred is often based on a mixture of both supremacism and inferiorism. if one felt totally inferior, he may be more willing to accept his superior. or if he felt totally superior, he may not fear the inferior much. but, there is often a mixture of both.
in the case of the nazis, they felt aesthetically superior to the jews and other untermensch. they believed that the aryans were the most beautiful race, the noblest of all races, most dignified. in contrast, jews were seen as ugly, hairy, and rat-like. now, if the end result of social dynamics led to aryans on top and jews at the bottom, this wouldn't have bothered the nazis much. but, what frustrated guys like hitler was that the 'ugly rat-like' jews were gaining the top and making more money than the noble handsome krauts. also, jews had cooked up an ideology that threatened the world order, took over russia, and set up a totalist superstate. what drove hitler mad was the idea that an ugly loser-race could become such major winners while the noble, dignified, and beautiful german race was out-competed by jews in business, science, arts, and intellectual pursuits.
there is a similar kind of feeling regarding blacks in the US. traditionally, whites saw themselves as the symbol of manhood, beauty, nobility, toughness, etc. in contrast, blacks were lowly, stupid, idiotic, childish, undignified, coon-like, clownish, etc.
yet, this clownish, jiveass, lowlife 'nigger' was whupping the white man in the boxing ring. the jiveass clown jack johnson done whup all the honkeys. later, clownish muhammad ali humiliated all the faggotyass white boys.
this is why joe louis was acceptable to whites in the way that johnson and ali were not. whites hated to see louis beat up whites but louis had some dignity and gentlemanliness; and he wasn't totally black looking. when joe whupped white boys, it was a negro whupping a white boy. when johnson or ali whupped white boys, it was a 'nigger' whupping white boys.
today, some white guys are angry as hell that the jews in american fully unleashed 'the niggers' onto white community. white guys fear that blacks will break into their homes and rape white women. whites fear this prospect cuz when a negro fights a whitey, negro will surely win. not only will the white boy lose to the negro, the beaten up white boy will have to watch his woman get raped by the negro. but, even worse to white male pride is that more and more white women are willingly going with black men cuz more and more white women see black men as Real men while they see white men as flabby, slow, faggoty pussyass white boys.
some white guys join groups like KKK and resist some white guys try to act black in the hope that acting black will make them tough and manly--when it fact it makes them look stupid.
especially as 'white trash' folks' idea of culture is watching tv, listening to pop music and sports--industries run by liberal jews and saturated with negroes--, most white trash--boys and girls--are increasingly becoming nigga-rized. just look at britney spears' ex-husband.
or just look at how every white woman tries to sing like a black chick, with guttural animal sounds clawing out of their throats. and white guys dress like black street trash, and talk and gesture like rappers. even some neo-nazi, skinhead, and KKK types act 'niggerish'.
this is also true of many hispanics. many grow up in inner-cities where one is expected to be tough. and the black model of toughness is considered the toughest and most effective by far. so, much of the americanization of hispanics takes place along the lines of 'niggarization'.
this doesn't mean that there is much love between blacks and hispanics.
'niggarish' forms of behavior almost guarantees bloody tribalism, gangsterism, thuggism, etc.
indeed, blacks who practice 'niggarism' are always fighting and killing one another.
so, it's not surprising to find niggaz fighting niggarized hispanics. indeed, the part of the black and hispanic community that best gets along with itself, with the other and with others are members who model their behavior on the 'white' or 'mainstream' ideal. but, our popular culture finds that ideal increasingly 'lame', 'square', 'whitebread', etc.

anyway, the point of this yammering is not the USA but a comparison of the holocaust and the great famine in the ukraine. most of us have been led to think that the holocaust was worse than the great famine. and there is some validity to this argument. in the case of the holocaust, a specific 'race' was targeted for mass extinction. in the case of the great famine, even though stalin and his executioners knew that millions would die, that was not their intent. the intent was to collectivize agriculture; in the process, it was estimated that millions would die but there was no attempt to wipe out ukrainians as a race. similarly, truman knew that many jappers would die in hiroshim and nagasaki, but it was to win the war, not to necessarily kill all the japs. truman knew they would die but he didn't try to wipe out the jappers.
so, on that conceptual ground, yes the holocaust was more horrifying.
but, can we say that means of death under the holocaust was worse than the manner of death during the great famine? this is debatable.

consider that you and your family are to be executed. one option is you will be led to chamber and then killed with poison gas. the other option you and your family will be kept under house arrest and then slowly be forced to starve to death. in this process, you will be overcome with hunger which will drive you crazy. this will make you kill your own children and eat them. and then you will be reduced to skin and bones. then you will perish.
which is the more 'cruel and unusual punishment'? killing by gas or killing by slow starvation? if your child is to be killed, would you rather see him die by gas or die by being slowly starved to death? suppose you have two kids. would you rather have them killed by gas or see them slowly starve, whereupon the older kid kills the younger kid and devours his flesh in a fit of madness?

even if the great famine doesn't literally qualify as genocide since there was no racial intent in the killing, it was certainly a case of classicide. with the communist revolution, there were no more vast landlords or aristocrats. land belonged to the peasants, people who farmed it. but, this wasn't good enough for communists. as long as peasants owned private land, they were kulaks. and if they worked extra hard and kept their grain and sold it as they saw fit, they were deemed greedy, stinking, parasitic scumbags. it was partly in order to break the will of the 'kulak' class that stalin and his leftwing jew henchmen carried out the forced collectivization. stalin and his leftwing jew henchmen knew that this would lead to the death of millions. but, 'social justice' and a 'bright new future' were so important that forced collectivization was carried out.
some communist apologists argued that the problem lay with the kulaks who didn't want to share their harvest, which resulted in harsh measures carried out by the state. but, the fact is even if the kulaks had done exactly as stalin and his jewish henchemen had ordered, they would have been left with almost nothing to eat. stalin and his jewish henchmen wanted to build industry in the USSR and that meant squeezing every last grain out of peasants.
there was no attempt to wipe out the ukrainians but 1/4 to 1/3 ukrainians were killed as a result. and though ukraine was hit hardest, this happened all throughout the USSR.

though one could make a good case that the holocaust was more evil in some ways, the crimes of communism were so horrendous, mindless, insane, and extreme that it's perverse how 99% of our historical memory regarding inhumanity has covered the holocaust while most americans never even heard of the great famine. and though we see jews as the great victims of the 20th century--justifiable--, we fail to see jews as among the greatest perpetrators of evil. and the jewish dominated press will try to cover up this history. also, non-jews are afraid to discuss this because we've all been brainwashed that any honest talk about jews is 'anti-semitism'.
jews can criticize, condemn, ridicule, mock, and spit on aspects of non-jewish culture but we cannot criticize anything about jews, jewish history, jewish values, jewish influence. this must change.