[legatus]

The point is that in this case Rummel doesn't even attempt to be objective. You can be biased, everyone is. A real historian, someone who is respected by his peers, actively tries to remove his bias from his work. It isn't really profitable (you earn much more by writing extremely biased pop-history) but some individuals, such as me, value it.

[Fins]

It's pretty hard to get objective and accurate count here; unlike Nazis, Soviets (and I imagine Chinese et al) did not keep meticulous accounting even of people specifically executed, let alone of those keeling over in prison camps despite technically being only sentenced to imprisonment). Solzhenitsyn himself said, at least initially, that his numbers are extremely approximate, based on what personal research he could do and that he hopes future historians will do better.

Having said that, 60 million killed in USSR alone would seem highly suspicious. 60 million repressed sounds quite feasible. And as Stalin would acknowledge (death of one is a tragedy, death of millions is statistics), in a way it doesn't really matter -- communists killed as many, if not significantly more, people as Nazis, but because they usually did it to their own population, and weren't defeated by an invading army, they escaped anything resembling Nuremberg Tribunal, and to this day Nazi defenders keep quiet in decent society, but Soviet apologia is pretty rampant.

[legatus]

Well, in fact, they did. It's why pretty much every Sovietology book pre-1991 is now rarely recommended. The Soviet archives were opened with the fall of the USSR, allowing historians to have a much more accurate view of what was happening. Sure, there are caveats (e.g. people freed from the gulag in a dying state) yet, contemporary historians have been able to provide estimates, based on the best data available. The thing with Solzhenitsyn is that he had no access to any kind of data, and as a refugee in the US it's clear he was extremely biased. Note that I'm not saying I don't understand why he did that, I'm just saying that, if you want a good estimate of the numbers related to the Gulag system Solzhenitsyn is not a good source.

Regarding your last points: 60 million repressed is entirely dependent on how you define "repressed". Some people may argue that not having access to health care and education means being repressed. Just noting that it's not really a useful value, it's already difficult estimating number of deaths, estimating such a vague term as "repressed" people will be next to impossible. Regarding your claim that communists killed as many if not more people than Nazis, I really dislike this kind of comparisons. It is an extremely politicized topic, removes the human part of the statistics and historical context. Even then, I would still disagree with your claim, unless you count Mao's Great Leap Forward as part of it, which is really a comparison between apples and oranges. I personally believe state-pursued, systematic genocides should be differentiated from famines (such as the Holodomor and the famines related to the Great Leap Forward) which were more of a consequence of the regime's terrible management (plus already low harvest in the case of the Holodomor). If you want to take a look, the Wikipedia page for the excess mortality under Stalin is not too bad, especially the source they used (Wheatcroft's Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police).

I don't see Nazi defenders keeping quiet, I think it's enough to think of the growing "Identity Politics" movement. Soviet apologia is rarely referring to the Stalinist period, especially considering Khrushchev's 56' "De-Stalinization" speech. And if you only consider the USSR of Khrushchev and beyond, while definitely worth criticizing, I'm not sure it's even comparable to the Nazi regime.

[Fins]

Not really. Getting anything useful from the archives is still like pulling teeth, and quite a few documents still have not been declassified. Solzhenitsin only had access to his own experience and interviewing very few people (obviously, this research was not exactly looked upon with approval). But he was also the first to make note of it.

I mean specifically repressed through the state apparatus, not lacking Internet access. Of course there are different degrees of that repression here, from being executed on the spot, to dying of hunger and overwork, all the way down to being relocated 101+ kilometers from a big city.

I would very much count victims of Holodomor (as well as of less known famines in Central Asia etc.) and Great Leap -- it does not matter to the dying if the State actively wanted to kill them, or just did not care the least bit if they die or not. And there are studies from real historians that conditions in Soviet labor camps, during peace time, were worse than in Nazi extermination camps (I am not sure if there are English copies online, but certainly Russian ones are accessible).

Absolute numbers may not mean all that much (although as far as exterminating their own citizenry, communist Khmer Rouge have no equals) but it is still important to remember and never forget -- it's not a competition who is more evil, it's about making sure that evil does not get repeated.

USSR of Khrushchev and beyond -- it's also place where workers demonstrating for decent pay and food for their children were fired upon by the army, slight liberalization efforts in satellite countries were crushed with tanks, dissidents had their brains fried in psychiatric hospitals, etc. etc. Sure, it was much better than Reich in the 30s-40s, or USSR itself in the same period, but it is also an apples to oranges comparison. Had Reich been contained instead of defeated, chances are it would have evolved into something similar by then as well. But Soviet apologia usually does not make a distinction anyway.