Was the post 1956 USSR evil?

[Nikitn]

So what do you think? Give your opinion.

I'm pretty certain USSR wasn't any more of an "empire of evil (like Reagan put it)" then the other Superpower, US.

PS. When I defined "evil", I meant to mainly focus on the foreign policy part. But I also took into account things like oppression, living conditions etc.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

So what do you think? Give your opinion.

I'm pretty certain USSR wasn't any more of an "empire of evil (like Reagan put it)" then the other Superpower, US.

No the USSR itself was not evil. Most of the leaders were pretty cruel though.

[Nikitn]

Like which? One example.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Like which? One example.

Stalin was pretty cruel..Others like Trotsky were not so bad and I agree a bit with him as he stuck to the ideals of Marxism.

[Nikitn]

Stalin was pretty cruel..Others like Trotsky were not so bad and I agree a bit with him as he stuck to the ideals of Marxism.

I meant post 1956.

Conon, USSR systematically abused it's citizens? Come with an example.

And believe it or not, but the Soviet government prioritized social services and fighting poverty far more then the US government.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I meant post 1956.

Conon, USSR systematically abused it's citizens? Come with an example.

And believe it or not, but USSR government prioritized social services and fighting poverty far more then the US government.

No not evil they just had some bad policies.. Communism was doomed from the start as it would require people to live without greed which just is not possible.

[conon394]

No vote I don’t like the options

Well once Joe was gone I think evil is overkill. In comparison to the US I would say the USSR was more likely to systemically abuse its own citizens and its government was less responsive to its citizens.

On Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ be fair Soviet leaders managed the rhetoric as well. Also both deserve the equal shame for the kind of oppressive regimes they supported be it Guatemalan dictatorships or North Korea in the name of the Cold War.

[conon394]

Others like Trotsky were not so bad and I agree a bit with him as he stuck to the ideals of Marxism.

How do you know he just looks good because he lost and got hunted down by Stalin.

Edit: It’s been a while since I was a poly sci major – but my sense was always that the Trosky good/Stalin evil thing smacks heavily of apology by Trosky himself and other historians/admires of the USSR /certain leftist intellectuals to shunt all of the faults of the Soviet Union on one guy – Stalin.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

How do you know he just looks good because he lost and got hunted down by Stalin.

Edit: It’s been a while since I was a poly sci major – but my sense was always that the Trosky good/Stalin evil thing smacks heavily of apology by Trosky himself and other historians/admires of the USSR /certain leftist intellectuals to shunt all of the faults of the Soviet Union on one guy – Stalin.

In my opinion Trotsky wasnt perfect but Stalin did the complete opposite of what he sai he would. Vladimir Lenin was another who maybe wasnt good but was much better than Stalin.

[Lord Claremorris]

How do you know he just looks good because he lost and got hunted down by Stalin.

Edit: It’s been a while since I was a poly sci major – but my sense was always that the Trosky good/Stalin evil thing smacks heavily of apology by Trosky himself and other historians/admires of the USSR /certain leftist intellectuals to shunt all of the faults of the Soviet Union on one guy – Stalin.

Agreed, Trotsky never hesitated to do things that would be considered atrocious in the West. Since he was head of the Red Army, I believe he set up the system of political commisars? And he never denounced anything that Lenin did, or even Stalin that I know of, except of course denouncing his interpretation of Marx. Nowhere have I read anything by Trotsky that said anything to the effect of "Stalin is bad because he kills people." In fact, I'd think Trotsky would approve of it, if it weren't Stalin.

[rusina]

Yes. They kept opressing their own people and people of their allies.

[KaerMorhen]

All those who contributed from being tools* of oppression are the ones to blame. Foreign policy is not the subject to judge in terms of good and evil but effectiveness or not.
*KGB, GRU, Party you name it

[Romano-Dacis]

Since we've already agreed evil is subjective I will vote by my own interpretation. One thing is certain: the USSR was very expansionistic and aggressive. It also completely destroyed any independence of Eastern European countries. All of the communist organizations like the Warsaw Pact of COMECON were just farces for "international relations" when it was really the USSR fooling around with puppets. Making a comparison of the Warsaw Pact to NATO is idiotic so don't even try it. When France left NATO nobody stopped them, when Czechoslovakia deviated slightly from the Moscow line they got invaded. There's the difference. The USSR tried to establish control in China and that failed completely. It tried again in Vietnam, then in Cambodia, creating a humanitarian disaster in the proccess. It also supported cruel dictatorships in the Middle East because Israel was "won over" by the United States.

[Lord Consul]

Life in the URSS after the 1960s was not all that different from life in Western countries, except Soviet citizens did not enjoy many of the political rights and luxuries of the capitalist West.

In the 1970s, they had TVs (watching everything from Brazilian soap operas to DDR dramas), the right to vacation abroad (in special Soviet resorts in the Black Sea or in Cuba), many had a Lada car and a university degree.

Also, after the Khrushchev thaw, the "purge mentality" that plagued most of Stalin's reign was gone. You'd still be in trouble if you, say, wrote a fervently anti-Marxist article in an amateur newspaper, but in that case you would most likely face a angry diatribe from the local police commissar than a transference sentence to a Gulag.

Life in Russia proper wasn't bad. Living in some other Soviet Republics wasn't as comfortable, however. And those in the satellite states had to bear with varying degrees of state oppression. A Romanian friend of mine once told me life under Ceaseascu was downright miserable. The Polish also suffered immensely in their Communist years.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Life in Russia proper wasn't bad. Living in some other Soviet Republics wasn't as comfortable, however. And those in the satellite states had to bear with varying degrees of state oppression.

Well life as good or better than Russia in most Soviet Republics, with the exception of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan (especially the former, being quite volatile, where Soviet authorities often looked the other way while Islamists largely governed themselves - hence the low quality of life).

But for example Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan some things were readily more available than in the Russian SSR. In the post-Stalin years, there was alot of emphasis on inclusion, equality in living standards and even preservation of cultures; almost to the point of modern political correctness in many ways.

Though of course, Asia is Asia, so life in some aspects was always going to be worse than in the european parts of the USSR.


PS Copmletely agree with the rest of your post though.

[Nikitn]

You really are subjective Romano. Very subjective.

[Odovacar]

Well once Joe was gone I think evil is overkill. In comparison to the US I would say the USSR was more likely to systemically abuse its own citizens and its government was less responsive to its citizens.

On Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ be fair Soviet leaders managed the rhetoric as well. Also both deserve the equal shame for the kind of oppressive regimes they supported be it Guatemalan dictatorships or North Korea in the name of the Cold War.

What Conon said. I can fully agree with it.

Also, after the Khrushchev thaw, the "purge mentality" that plagued most of Stalin's reign was gone. You'd still be in trouble if you, say, wrote a fervently anti-Marxist article in an amateur newspaper, but in that case you would most likely face a angry diatribe from the local police commissar than a transference sentence to a Gulag.

A bit harsher than that sometimes. You could get easely a prison sentence or being fired from your job although you always got a new job, just not such a good one.
Khrushchev was one of the zelaous underlings of Stalin once. He did the right thereafter, but he and his successors still sent important critics into mental asylums occasionally.
And a soviet mental asylum (any asylum!) is not the place you and I wanna be I bet.

Life in the URSS after the 1960s was not all that different from life in Western countries, except Soviet citizens did not enjoy many of the political rights and luxuries of the capitalist West.

True. We should also not forget that the Warsaw countries were made from the poorest european states, devestated by war.
Even capitalism couldnt bring a greater welfare state that existed.
Still central planning and communist stuff and such did much wrong for these countries.

[Romano-Dacis]

True. We should also not forget that the Warsaw countries were made from the poorest european states, devestated by war.
Even capitalism couldnt bring a greater welfare state that existed.
Still central planning and communist stuff and such did much wrong for these countries.

Odo, here you're just wrong. Many countries in Eastern Europe were relatively wealthy in the 1930's and 40's. It's hard to believe that for example Romania was at one point viewed as a model of urban planning by other states. The notion of "Little Paris" was not just a buzz-word; it was what some believed would be the natural outcome in 20 years. Similarily Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia were relatively developed. Few people back then would have believed these countries would ever be overtaken by Spain or Portugal, and even Southern Italy fared comparatively poorly with Eastern Europe.

The USSR had varying policies with different countries which made their development different in the long run. Some countries, like Czechoslovakia or even Hungary post-1956, recieved large amounts of economic aid in exchange for their cooperation in international diplomacy. Other countries, like Romania, were treated very poorly, drained of resources by Soviet-run cannibalistic agencies and left with massive debts to the Soviet Union.

Ironically, the poorest country in Eastern Europe back then, that being Greece, is today the wealthiest. It's no coincidence that it is the only Eastern European country which hasn't been communist for the past 50 years. We should not falsely conclude that the current state of affairs was present in the past. Let us not forget that the Byzantine Empire was for many yeas the wealthiest state in Europe. Communism has produced an unprecedented supremacy of Western Europe over Eastern Europe economically.

[Shatov]

"Evil" is a bit strong. Worse than the United States is not. Not to mention Afghanistan, which managed to make Vietnam look like a friendly picnic where the locals brought some US Marines some nice shrimp dishes.

[Bovril]

Ironically, the poorest country in Eastern Europe back then, that being Greece, is today the wealthiest. It's no coincidence that it is the only Eastern European country which hasn't been communist for the past 50 years.

That's not quite true. Slovenia has a higher GDP per capita than Greece according to the World Bank, and Greece is only marginally ahead of places like the Czech republic, Slovakia and Estonia. Its also worth taking the Marshall plan into condsideration when assesing relative levels of devellopment.