- #1
- 23,378
- 10,677
Was the USSR "The Evil Empire"?
Straightforward question - I'll explain my answer after a number of people have voted.
Straightforward question - I'll explain my answer after a number of people have voted.
Informal Logic said:First, as stated elsewhere, one can point to evil things done by an individual (e.g., Stalin), but not a country as a whole. Second, if one looks at how many times the Soviet Union was attacked throughout history and how many Russian lives were lost, versus how much "misery" the USSR has imposed on other countries, this begins to pale as well. If you are returning to the "evils" of communism versus capitalism, this is a debate with no conclusion. So I vote 'no."
Pengwuino said:I agree, the Soviet Union put scared most of the world half to death but in the end... what is really evil? A few leaders that were in charge of everything or an entire nation? I mean its hard to think that you could go into the country back then and find your average joe soviet and study his life and call him evil. Trying ot stay alive with the KGB always around making you a tad bit nervous while hoping there's even any bread at the store for you to buy... don't see how one could call the poor guy evil. The bastards ordering spy missions on the US and bribing US officials or ordering invasions of other countries to spread its empire however... yes... i could call them evil.
rachmaninoff said:Considering the CCCP government's treatment of its own citizens, its respect for sovereign nations, its boundless corruption and militarization
Art said:Is that the USSR or the USA you are referring to Penqwuino? as most of the items you list apply equally to both and so by your definition the USA must be the current 'evil empire'
sid_galt said:You are wrong Art.
US is notoriously poor in spy missions and has never invaded a country to expand its "empire" in modern times.
The bastards ordering spy missions on the US
Yes, I know its subjective, but Ronald Reagan coined the term "Evil Empire" when he used it to describe the USSR. So that's where it comes from - use that context to shape your definition.Dennis4 said:How can I answer this when you are using subjective terms like "evil"? What is "evil," anyone who has a different morality system than you? Can the Scientific Method be used to prove this?
That's another thing that I need to clarify. In this context, when referring to "the USA" or "the USSR," it is not the citizens that are being referred to, its the government. In fact, how the government treats the citizens is a key issue here.Informal Logic said:First, as stated elsewhere, one can point to evil things done by an individual (e.g., Stalin), but not a country as a whole.
My opinion (I voted yes) is based more on how the USSR treated its own citizens than how acted toward the rest of the world - though that wasn't so great either.klusener said:Evil is too expansive a word to describe a nation, besides they were evil in the eyes of the U.S., because they impeded its growth, so from my experience of how the U.S.S.R. behaved towards countries without an agenda that included military, political, and economic hegemony, I have to say no.
Art said:So Germany never invaded France during WW2 to expand it's empire? After all, all they did was remove an unfriendly government and replace it with another French one more inclined to see things their way (the Vichy government). Sound familiar?
Think about it, I'm sure the analogy will dawn on you eventually.sid_galt said:?
I am talking about America, not Germany.
Sorry, Sid's right, talking about Germany makes no sense based on the discussion below.Art said:Think about it, I'm sure the analogy will dawn on you eventually.
Sid Galt said:You are wrong Art.Art said:Is that the USSR or the USA you are referring to Penqwuino? as most of the items you list apply equally to both and so by your definition the USA must be the current 'evil empire'
US is notoriously poor in spy missions and has never invaded a country to expand its "empire" in modern times.
klusener said:I understand you, Art. When the U.S. invades some country, it is not going to replace that government with an American government, it is going to replace the government that is impeding its growth with a pro-US government that is its puppet, like the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in S. America. They are not Americans, but they were directly under U.S. influence, in the case of Shah, facilitating oil dealings, in the case of Pinochet, removing land reforms unfriendly to the U.S and helping it fight Communist gov. in S. America.
Sort of like Germany in France, when it invaded France, it didn't replace the original government with a German government, it replaced it with a French government that was its puppet.
I guess we'll never know about the successful missions (because these were successful).sid_galt said:US is notoriously poor in spy missions...
chound said:Expanding an empire can also mean making/forcing other countries to support them(open up their markets so that America's greedy corporations can sell its goods there and earn money) and not just being able to collect tax from and have its flag flying in the territories which it has captured/invaded.
All of this has been discussed before, and I agree the US has most definitely expanded power in these ways.klusener said:I understand you, Art. When the U.S. invades some country, it is not going to replace that government with an American government, it is going to replace the government that is impeding its growth with a pro-US government that is its puppet, like the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in S. America. They are not Americans, but they were directly under U.S. influence, in the case of Shah, facilitating oil dealings, in the case of Pinochet, removing land reforms unfriendly to the U.S and helping it fight Communist gov. in S. America.
Art said:Is that the USSR or the USA you are referring to Penqwuino? as most of the items you list apply equally to both and so by your definition the USA must be the current 'evil empire'
klusener said:Have you ever heard of the U2 incident under Eisenhower? This is freakin ironic. Because they didn't want to have open skies on either side, Khruschev responded no to Eisenhower's offer. But Eisenhower went on anyway spying on the Russians with U-2 planes, the Russians had no clue until they shot one of the planes and the pilot blabbered it all and you want to talk about spying?
sid_galt said:US is notoriously poor in spy missions .
Pengwuino said:... please explain
klusener said:I understand you, Art. When the U.S. invades some country, it is not going to replace that government with an American government, it is going to replace the government that is impeding its growth with a pro-US government that is its puppet
sid_galt said:Aldrich Ames, Kim Philby, the debacle in Iraq, Navy Officers providing sensitive information to Soviets (don't remember the names), etc. I could give many more but I don't have the time to look them up too check the names and specifics, etc.
What I do know is that none of such major incidents happened in the KGB.
Conclusion: In comparision to organizations such as the KGB, US was very poor in spying.
Folk are just trying to establish a baseline for the discussion Pengwuino i.e. what actually makes an empire 'evil'. Presumably Reagan didn't consider the USA to be evil and so it seems necessary to factor out those elements the USA and Russia held in common. When we see what's left people can determine if that makes Russia evilPengwuino said:Well this would relevant if the thread had anything to do with US being called an evil empire (however, many ideologs love to spin every topic into a "United States = Evil" rant).
Pengwuino said:There can be no denying a lof of information was taken by the Soviet Union but what you said was that US spy missions sucked and that's what i would like proof of.
It depends on one's perspective. The term "Evil Empire" was coined by US President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War to describe the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy and freedom. However, many people in the USSR and other countries saw it as a powerful and influential superpower.
The USSR's actions that were considered "evil" by the West included the suppression of political opposition, censorship of media and art, and human rights abuses. They also supported communist revolutions and proxy wars in other countries, leading to conflicts and suffering.
Yes, the USSR made significant advancements in science, technology, and space exploration. They also implemented social welfare programs and achieved significant economic growth. However, these achievements were often overshadowed by the negative aspects of their regime.
Many people living in the USSR were proud of their country and its accomplishments, and did not see it as an "Evil Empire." However, there were also dissidents and opposition groups who spoke out against the government's actions and policies.
It is not fair to label an entire country as "evil," as it oversimplifies complex political and social issues. The USSR was a diverse and multi-faceted society, and it is important to acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects of its history. Additionally, labeling a country as "evil" can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and hinder productive dialogue and understanding between nations.