Soviet Union... an Evil Empire?

[Colovion]

Is Usa evil? It have killed millions of indians and have stolen their lands. Is Spain evil? It have killed even more indians than Usa. Is Germany evi?...

I'am trying to say that nations aren't persons, they can't be evil. Only peoples can.
Stalin was evil, there is no daubs about that. But you can't blame whole Ussr for his murders.
So for the most of time Ussr wasn't evil.

the losing side is evil

the winning side is righteous

history repeats itself that way everytime

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Leaders, yes, the people, no. Stalin had 3 of my German family members excecuted, 2 before the war, 1 after. The 1 after was a civilian too.

[Kagemusha]

I couldnt say from any country is it good or evil.Its just matter what benefits the purposes of that country.

[cegorach]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ?

[Kagemusha]

In 1940´s .The Dictatorical leaders of both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were madmen but i could not blame every single citicen of those countries from beeing evil.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In 1940´s .The Dictatorical leaders of both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were madmen but i could not blame every single citicen of those countries from beeing evil.

Exactly.

[Colovion]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ?

The No option just demostrates that people don't believe that the Soviet Union was evil. You're jumping to a rather absurd conclusion in that those who do not buy into the demonization of an entire nation because of the questionable leadership believe that the nation is 'Good'.

bollocks

[Red Harvest]

The Soviet Union was indeed an evil empire. It need not have been so, but that is what it became. This isn't a condemnation of the Russian or soviet citizenry, but of the government that ruled it with an iron fist. It is very important to realize that once a single party system was locked in place, the Russian citizens were at its mercy.

The Soviets oppressed hundred's of millions under their yoke. Stalin had tens of millions of his own citizens killed. It was a system that consumed its own citizenry in purges. How could it not be evil? The only case for it reforming is when Gorbachev finally allowed it to split apart. Since it almost immediately fell apart it is hard to say that the Soviet system was anything but evil and oppressive to the vast majority of its subjects.

And here is the clincher, since "evil" most often has religious implications, any completely atheistic government (not neutral, agnostic, or tolerant, but atheistic at the core) is by definition "evil" to any religion.

It was a "legitimate country" however...not sure what you were going for there since it was obviously both.

[Red Harvest]

The No option just demostrates that people don't believe that the Soviet Union was evil. You're jumping to a rather absurd conclusion in that those who do not buy into the demonization of an entire nation because of the questionable leadership believe that the nation is 'Good'.

I think you have it backwards. The Soviet Union was essentially an empire, a govt. This is not a condemnation of the nation/people of Russia, or Ukraine, etc. It is a condemnation of the Soviet Union as a govt.: a single party, non-representative force answerable only to itself that oppressed hundreds of millions of people and killed them at will to maintain its position and extend its power. How you could not define this as "evil" is beyond me. I would prefer to stick to terms like oppressive and all, but evil fits here, much as with Nazi Germany or WW2 Japan. If you want to go to "technical grounds" then since it was atheistic and actively suppressed religion, most if not all religions would define that as "evil"--which is in essense a religious moral distinction. I can't see any way to legitimately deny the Soviet Union (govt) was evil.

Did the Soviet Union have some larger benefit attached to it that clearly outweighed its oppression of its citizens and threat to the whole world? I can't think of any. It set its own peoples back by decades while those in the West flourished.

Had the title been, "Russia--an Evil Empire?" then your arguement would have merit and I would have voted differently.

[Byzantine Prince]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ?

I don't believe in 'good' either. Regardless, you are simple supposing that people who don't think Soviet Socialist Republics is evil, think it's actually good.

Well 'good' does not exist, 'evil' does not exist, and future generations will make fun of us for even using such silly words.

[Red Harvest]

Well 'good' does not exist, 'evil' does not exist, and future generations will make fun of us for even using such silly words.

Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil. If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong. If I walk up to you and offer you a beer, food, help with something, etc. then that is in essense good (assuming there is not some sort of special hidden motive...yada, yada, yada.) There is a difference, and it is obvious in many instances. Classifying people, groups, motives, and such is a grayer area.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil. If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong. If I walk up to you and offer you a beer, food, help with something, etc. then that is in essense good (assuming there is not some sort of special hidden motive...yada, yada, yada.) There is a difference, and it is obvious in many instances. Classifying people, groups, motives, and such is a grayer area.

Interesting. You argue for absolute moral values attached to certain actions, and then concede that circumstances can affect this moral value.

Examples of evil: Do they cease to be morally wrong if there are special circumstances? Stealing is generally considered "wrong". How about stealing bread to feed a starving family? Killing is considered wrong. What about with provocation? Or for survival?

I would venture that you only consider these values absolute because that is the culture you have been brought up in. Every society has different values, although certain values are necessary IMO for the continuation and success of a society, values which keep harmony between the different parties, perfectly embodied by the 10 commandments, which detail rules which allow societies to work together and function, without it breaking apart (after all, how can you live in a tribe, the fundamental living group of human existance and quite possibly a reason for our evolutionary success and advantages, if you kill them or steal their possessions?).

In this way, it seems difficult to define these values as "right", but they are certainly necessary for the maintenance of complex human civilisations and societies which benefit us, and so are evolutionarily advantageous. We can observe that in many societies world-wide, a set of rules is in effect with broad themes that follow common principles close to what many people would consider as morally righteous, ie killing, stealing etc.

I digress, and apologise for going off-topic, but there is a link, however tenuous to the main discussion. The totalitarian principles of the Soviet Union were, in many ways, harmful to the relationship of the individual and the state, they took as much power over the ordinary citizen as they could. They expected subservience from the ordinary citizen, however the government failed in their goal as the state by allowing terrible famine often, and worse massacring its own population.

Because this unspoken pact between the state and the people was broken, as the USSR often failed to protect the citizens under its command, I believe that it was doomed to fail, and would eventually be defeated by the power of the individuals when they realised that they were not receiving the protection promised to them.

So, I believe the question "Was the USSR an Evil Empire?" is entirely a judgement call, based on shifting and individual morals, but the entire system of government upon which it was based was fundamentally flawed.

[Byzantine Prince]

=Red Harvest
Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil.
Well I don't think it's any definition for anything. It's a way of thinking, it's not a template for every brain to think that way, it's influence from others that makes us believe taht evil and good exist. I like extreme philosophy so the people that influence me the most are people like Hume and Nitzsche, and so I like to think I have moved on from the norm most people adhere. That's not to say you have to like any of those philosophers to think the way I and some others here do, that is something that can come from personal discovery.

If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong.
Sure you could do all those things to anyone. Its perfectly plausible. The question isn't wether that is good or evil, the question is why you would want to do all those things to me. The answer to that question is all that is matters; all that is 'real'.


I don't think this belings in the Monastery, it's more of a backroom topic.