PSA: The USSR was just as brutal as the USA

[Dr_Liszt]

I would like people to stop pointing to the USSR as the most sadistic type of government, when the fucking USA was running around imposing via force right wing dictatorships across the world. Let's see what we experienced during the cold war:

1. Book burning
2. Disappearance and torture of journalists.
3. Genocides
4. Disappearance and torture of syndicalist leaders
5. Village/community displacements
6. The complete removal of Freedom of speech and expression.
7. The complete removal of Freedom of movement
8. Disappearance and torture of village leaders
9. Land removals/expropriation via force and violence.

So don't come with the bullshit that destroying the Berlin wall was the end of oppression and the beginning of freedom. What freedom? It's hypocritical and dishonest to say that the USSR was more oppressive when the U.S was acting just as worse not only inside their own borders, also targeting leftist movements, but outside as well.

[Cinemachinery]

While I'd never say the fall of the Berlin wall was the "end of oppression" (who says that?), historically speaking, I think people are generally referring to things the USSR inflicted on its own populace when they compare the country's values.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Who are the people saying this?

I mean, I don't think there are any people here that would make any of those claims so I'm assuming it's people outside our nest?

[Blade Azaezel]

It was the beginning of freedom for eastern Europe

[Dr_Liszt]

While I'd never say the fall of the Berlin wall was the "end of oppression" (who says that?), historically speaking, I think people are generally referring to things the USSR inflicted on its own populace when they compare the country's values.

The U.S also did horrible things to their own populace during that period.

And yeah, it's people outside the nest saying ignorant shit, I screwed up the redaction of that sentence.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

So people are saying the USSR was more horrible to it's own citizens during that time frame than the US was? And you are saying they are idiots because the US did just a terrible things to it's citizens as the USSR?

I am not sure there are too many times in the US history that we can sit on a high horse over other 1st world countries. The US does not have the greatest record on being super cool within it's borders and most especially outside it's borders.

So, my feeling is that the people you are running into are part of the willful ignorant bunch that will keep to such asinine opinions no matter what you say to them so you should send them a funny meme (Aels has access to lots of funny memes) that fits the scenario and then give them the bird.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah... it was because it was the Berlin wall thing anniversary and they were praising the U.S. while saying how socialism is shit. Mainly because yeah, they were tied. The list of horrible things the USSR did to their empire was the same as the US was doing to theirs.

So I wanted to vomit.

But it has passed now. Latin America is screwed either way. People are shit.

[phe_de]

In my opinion, the best judges about the life quality in a system/country are the people who live there.
And more importantly, the people who want to leave it.

During the Cold War, how many people left the NATO countries to live in Warsaw Pact countries?
And how many people from Warsaw Pact countries tried to move to the NATO?

There isn't really a competition.
The best proof is the frontiers that existed at the time. NATO countries secured their frontiers to keep people out; Warsaw Pact countries secured their frontiers to keep people in.

[Dr_Liszt]

That is such crap because we were one of the NATO allies that had people going out. The problem lies that propaganda white washed what happened in the U.S while demonized what happened in the USSR. Do you really think that the segregation marches and black panther movements would have gotten the same press treatment if it had happened somewhere else?

You don't have to go that back to see how it works. Take for example Venezuela's riots and student treatment from the police and how it's the fault of "the system" while the U.S.A has cops killing men, women and children just for being minorities, but somehow "the system" has nothing to do with it.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

That is such crap because we were one of the NATO allies that had people going out. The problem lies that propaganda white washed what happened in the U.S while demonized what happened in the USSR. Do you really think that the segregation marches and black panther movements would have gotten the same press treatment if it had happened somewhere else?

You don't have to go that back to see how it works. Take for example Venezuela's riots and student treatment from the police and how it's the fault of "the system" while the U.S.A has cops killing men, women and children just for being minorities, but somehow "the system" has nothing to do with it.

At the risk of being slightly pedantic, no South American countries are part of NATO.

At the further risk of being accused of... well any number of things... in places like South America where the choice was generally a hard line, brutal, right-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the US but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) or a hard line, brutal, left-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the USSR but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) neither of which are great options for their country or any foreign power wishing to work with them. But you can see why the US would support the brutal dictator that at least might be more inclined to work with them as the lesser of two evils.

As to the US's treatment of it's own population - well there's no excuse for that other than the fact that they're very backwards in a lot of regards. Particularly when it comes to things like race and the social welfare of people.

[Boomer]

We all know the US is far from perfect, but give me a break. 10s of millions of citizens died during the USSR's reign.

[Dr_Liszt]

At the further risk of being accused of... well any number of things... in places like South America where the choice was generally a hard line, brutal, right-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the US but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) or a hard line, brutal, left-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the USSR but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) neither of which are great options for their country or any foreign power wishing to work with them.

That's why I said, NATO allies, we all know NATO started to sucking their wealth from poor third world countries in that time and that's how they got wealthy.

Our left-wing leaders, like Allende, Arbenz, Arevalo, etc, were democratically elected. They were no dictators, the fact that you are calling the Presidents that got deposed by the U.S as 'dictators' shows how much brainwashing went on during that time. They weren't, the people wanted them, they wanted the agrarian reform and they wanted their industry back. In fact Arevalo was elected after the 44 Revolution. And, aaand, they were willing to work with the U.S.A, Arbenz in particular just wanted the lands that weren't being used by UFCo to give to peasants so they could become self-sufficient. UNUSED LANDS. SELF SUFFICIENT PEASANTS. And that's what caused the whole conflict.

We all know the US is far from perfect, but give me a break. 10s of millions of citizens died during the USSR's reign.

Found this where it shows the death toll that it took to build capitalist empires. If you are going to count the 10s of millions that died during Soviet empire, we should count the deaths that took to build and maintain all the other Empires.

US intervention in Latin America: 6.3 million dead
Invasion of Philippines: 650,000 dead + 1898 war 3 million dead
Afghanistan: 1.2 million dead
Vietnam War: 10 million dead
Korean War: 10 million dead
Yugoslavia: 300,000 dead
Iran-Iraq War (US funding both sides): 1 million dead
US intervention in Congo: 5 million dead
US Civil War (financial vs land capitalists) 650,000 dead
Native American genocide: 95 million dead
African slave trade: 150 million dead
Indonesian purges against communists: 1 million dead (underestimate)
US Bombing of Laos and Cambodia: at least 1 million dead
US backed Batista, Pinochet, Metaxas, Saddam, Suharto, and various dictators supported by the United States: at least a few million

Britain:

Bengal Famine: 10 million dead
British Occupation of India: 20 million dead
Famine in Held British India: 30 million
Irish potato famine (British farmers could have helped): 1.5 million

Japanese imperialism in China and Asia: 12 million
South African apartheid: 3.5 million
Spanish Civil War: 350,000
French colonies: 1 million dead

Note that this does not include the number of children and adults alike in the First World who have died from hunger and lack of access to basic needs of life.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-de ... sm.114760/

Now U.S terror inside their own borders was done via McCarthyism.

It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[52] In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[53] Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[54] After the extremely damaging "Cambridge Five" spy scandal (Burgess, Maclean, Philby, Blunt, et al.), suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.[55] Many have termed this aspect of McCarthyism "The Lavender Scare"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyi ... cCarthyism

Also noting the murder of MLK and Malcom X who were very revolutionary and anti-imperialist who were sadly white washed by American history to minimize their anti-imperialist stands.

[Boomer]

"If you are going to count the 10s of millions that died during Soviet empire, we should count the deaths that took to build and maintain all the other Empires."

So, we started out comparing crimes between the US vs the USSR during the cold war, and now we've opened it up to the handful of decades the USSR was in power vs hundreds of years of western imperialism?

Yeah, let me know when you've set those goalposts back down.

[Derived Absurdity]

We all know the US is far from perfect, but give me a break. 10s of millions of citizens died during the USSR's reign.

It probably wasn't nearly that many.

[Derived Absurdity]

(Of course I'm assuming you mean the citizens who died directly because of the USSR, not citizens who simply died of natural causes or whatever who happened to live in the USSR, in which case the number would certainly be at least 10s of millions)

[Boomer]

No, I meant citizens dieing unnatural deaths as a direct result of the USSR regime.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly be open to viewing it.

[Derived Absurdity]

It's hard to prove a negative.

[Blade Azaezel]

A quick google seems to suggest up to 60 million died under Stalin's USSR regime. Not that I care all that much. Most empires have ridiculous body counts. Counting the conflicts the US/UK and Russia are involved in with the middle east, those counts keep going up.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Well, during the cold war the US and all it's citizens contributed to tens of thousands of deaths of minorities, notably black. The Soviet Union definitely killed more of it's own people but like I think saying the US is better because we killed less is silly. Both committed atrocities and less death doesn't mean better in any way.

[Dr_Liszt]

What dragon said. You know it's bad when the discussion is "I killed less" "no, I killed less"

Also most data I could find with numbers are between capitalism vs socialism, not specifically during the civil war.,considering capitalism has been here longer and whatever the thing the ussr wanted to impose lasted a limited time, the body counts of u.s.a started before and keeps going.

Russia's too, which makes the whole discussion kind of silly.,they are both equally bad.

[Dr_Liszt]

(Of course I'm assuming you mean the citizens who died directly because of the USSR, not citizens who simply died of natural causes or whatever who happened to live in the USSR, in which case the number would certainly be at least 10s of millions)

I think it counts the famines of Russia and china, I've heard this is dishonest too since famine happened periodically even before they came into power and when the regime was installed they put an end to it. Mao's china had two I think were they corrected it, but history doesn't say that they just say "look! Look! Scarcity and death!"

Also without taking into account china and Russia were both very feudal and they were getting industrialized during the cold war while the u.s was already an industrial superpower, it had the advantage all along and there was no way the soviet union was going to dethrone it. It was never a threat for them, if only it just served as an excuse to expand their empire.

[phe_de]

The problem lies that propaganda white washed what happened in the U.S while demonized what happened in the USSR. Do you really think that the segregation marches and black panther movements would have gotten the same press treatment if it had happened somewhere else?

East-Berlin 1953, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Beijing 1989... All of them received lots of coverage in Western Europe.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well as to the Soviet Union in particular, historians are really divided as to whether the 32/33 famine was due to the party's policies or not, or whether it was purely the result of weather patterns and other external factors. Anti-Soviet historians think it was done on purpose to break the peasantry, some others think it was done accidentally because of poorly thought-out collectivization policies, and others think it didn't have anything to do with the party at all. From what I've read on it I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the latter two. Clearly most historians who propagate the former theory like Robert Conquest have been proven over and over again to be propagandists, and we know that the party tried to send aid to most of the famine-affected regions, which would be weird if it starved them on purpose.

The Soviet Union was most definitely a threat. Its economy was expanding unremittingly. In thirty years it transformed itself from a poverty-filled hell into the second greatest industrial and military power in the world. In the early 70s the U.S. thought it would catch up to us and surpass us. Millions of people around the world and dozens of countries looked to it as a legit counterbalance to the U.S. It provided evidence to the American people of a different economic system. The only reason employers gave workers so many gains over the decades was because they needed to convince them they lived better than their counterparts in Russia. That includes basic civil liberties. We needed to look good next to Russia. It certainly served as an excuse to expand empire but it was definitely a threat.

[phe_de]

Found this where it shows the death toll that it took to build capitalist empires. If you are going to count the 10s of millions that died during Soviet empire, we should count the deaths that took to build and maintain all the other Empires.

...
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-de ... sm.114760/

A post on an anonymous message board by someone who calls themselves "Red Star the Comrade"?
Now that's what I call compelling evidence...not.

Also pretty disingenuous to attribute the deaths of the Vietnam War only to the US. Last time I checked, there were at least two parties involved.
And the thousands of boat people who left Vietnam AFTER the USA backed out also seem to indicate that between the USA and Pol Pot, the USA might have been the lesser evil.

[phe_de]

At the further risk of being accused of... well any number of things... in places like South America where the choice was generally a hard line, brutal, right-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the US but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) or a hard line, brutal, left-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the USSR but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) neither of which are great options for their country or any foreign power wishing to work with them. But you can see why the US would support the brutal dictator that at least might be more inclined to work with them as the lesser of two evils.

I guess that during the Cold War, both the USA and Soviet Union backed third world country govenments according to "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". Meaning: They backed the government that was least likely to cause trouble to them, and most trouble to the others.

In the case of the USA, this means that they often backed right-wing dictators, like Pinochet.

As to the US's treatment of it's own population - well there's no excuse for that other than the fact that they're very backwards in a lot of regards. Particularly when it comes to things like race and the social welfare of people.

I don't know enough about that; but I know enough about Germany during the Cold War to be able to compare NATO and Warsaw Pact.

After World War II, the whole of Germany was down. But after 1949, Western Germany became prosperous quickly again, also thanks to US aid (which we call the Marshal Plan). Eastern Germany however was sucked dry by Soviet Union; and how bad their economy was became obvious after the German unification in 1990.

In Western Germany (FRG), criticizing the USA was legal, and fashionable especially after 1968. One line right-wingers often said to leftists was: "Geh doch rüber, wenn's dir hier nicht gefällt" (Go to the other side if you don't like it here). Most leftists didn't; unless they had committed terrorist acts.
But on the other side, "Republikflucht" (fleeing the republic) was a crime in Eastern Germany (GDR). And if you criticized the Communist leaders, you didn't have the option to go to the other side; you had to expect to end up in Hohenschönhausen or Bautzen (two famous prisons of Eastern Germany).

So : When comparing the USA and Soviet Union, the USA are considered to be the lesser evil. And today, even if on average, eastern Germany is still poorer than western Germany, almost nobody in the east wants to go back to the GDR.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

At the further risk of being accused of... well any number of things... in places like South America where the choice was generally a hard line, brutal, right-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the US but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) or a hard line, brutal, left-wing dictator (who was likely to be sympathetic to the USSR but very unpleasant to the population of their own country) neither of which are great options for their country or any foreign power wishing to work with them. But you can see why the US would support the brutal dictator that at least might be more inclined to work with them as the lesser of two evils.

I guess that during the Cold War, both the USA and Soviet Union backed third world country govenments according to "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". Meaning: They backed the government that was least likely to cause trouble to them, and most trouble to the others

That's precisely what I was trying to get at. Both sides took what they considered to be (here's that very unpopular, very bad word) pragmatic choices and picked allies that they considered to be best/least bad option for them and the worst option for the other side. Because they really did think it was of global importance who won and some collatoral damage here or there - particularly in some third world country - was a necessary, but acceptable price to pay because if they didn't pay the other side sure as hell would. As we've already established both sides are stacking up the body count in the millions, so what's another million or so on top?

I don't know enough about that; but I know enough about Germany during the Cold War to be able to compare NATO and Warsaw Pact.

After World War II, the whole of Germany was down. But after 1949, Western Germany became prosperous quickly again, also thanks to US aid (which we call the Marshal Plan). Eastern Germany however was sucked dry by Soviet Union; and how bad their economy was became obvious after the German unification in 1990.

In Western Germany (FRG), criticizing the USA was legal, and fashionable especially after 1968. One line right-wingers often said to leftists was: "Geh doch rüber, wenn's dir hier nicht gefällt" (Go to the other side if you don't like it here). Most leftists didn't; unless they had committed terrorist acts.
But on the other side, "Republikflucht" (fleeing the republic) was a crime in Eastern Germany (GDR). And if you criticized the Communist leaders, you didn't have the option to go to the other side; you had to expect to end up in Hohenschönhausen or Bautzen (two famous prisons of Eastern Germany).

So : When comparing the USA and Soviet Union, the USA are considered to be the lesser evil. And today, even if on average, eastern Germany is still poorer than western Germany, almost nobody in the east wants to go back to the GDR.

I do take slight issue with saying that the US/West won "because they had a better economy" - there is more to life than money. But the point about the freedoms is the clincher to me. People in the West were much more able to openly express dissent with their government and to influence the policies they adopted. They also had the freedom to leave. This was not the case in the East. When a country has to keep you there using the threat of torture, imprisonment and/or execution, and gives you no opportunity to openly express any concerns about how you are being governed without the threat of similar sanctions there is something wrong that society regardless of how short the queue for bread is that day...

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Also pretty disingenuous to attribute the deaths of the Vietnam War only to the US. Last time I checked, there were at least two parties involved.
And the thousands of boat people who left Vietnam AFTER the USA backed out also seem to indicate that between the USA and Pol Pot, the USA might have been the lesser evil.

What are you talking about?!? Pol Pot was trying to bring about a socialist paradise and eliminate all signs of evil, evil gentrification by taking people back to the land!

[Dr_Liszt]

Oh God, my English went full retard. I apologize for that. It's embarrassing.

[Cinemachinery]

The U.S also did horrible things to their own populace during that period.

I know quite a few Russians who'd find the notion that US citizens in any way experienced a level of suffering comparable to those in the USSR pretty humorous. I'm all for owning the US's mistakes, but there's very little in the US to compare with the culling of tens of millions of dissidents and undesirables, prohibiting group worship, organized protest, etc.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I think the convo got away from the original point in the OP. The USSR sucked donkey, they did horrible things to their people and those around them for many decades. We know this. But there are people out there that believe the US was the epitome of a super duper country with few faults. I know some of these people, they kind of suck.

I think the OP is just trying to point out that the US did a whole lot of shitty things to it's people and those around them too. Not on the grand scale that the USSR did but not killing as many people as another country did theirs is not something to shout out to the world. It's just that it's scary when you come across those that herald the US as a morally superb country when in fact we had a habit of lynching blacks, mutilating Mexicans, and beating our wives.

We have no moral superiority whatsoever. That's all I think is being said. Let's not get lost in comparing who killed more people etc...

[aels]

[CashRules]

Let's not get lost in comparing who killed more people etc...

It's rather difficult to do that when the thread title literally says the two countries were equally brutal and then the follow-up posts go on to assign full responsibility to "the evil capitalists" for conflicts in which both capitalist and communist nations were participants and then tries to make a comparison based on the full history of the U.S. while the U.S.S.R. only existed for a fraction of that time. Of course this type of "I don't care if I can't support my claim without moving the goalposts all over the fucking field because my mind is made up in spite of being shown repeatedly to not have a clue" bullshit should really just be considered the norm by now.

[Cinemachinery]

Meh, it seems in many of these exchanges we end up with some form of "Now, let's not worry so much about the words used/meaning of words/etc." when that's the freaking basis of the idea being put forward, and the idea is wrong.

I find we *do* have moral superiority in that we foster an environment wherein the atrocities committed can be protested, challenged, examined, and, hopefully, not repeated.

The USSR did not and, even now, does not.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Ok, well then it was my point, not the OP's I guess. I didn't really think much past the surface of the OP and as far as I'm concerned we were just as brutal, just not to as many people.

But yeah, I see your point on the rest of it. I didn't actually think much beyond the title.

[Boomer]

What Cine and Cash said.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Would you jump off a cliff if they said that too? Hunh??? Cant you think for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday the 13th is today. I am playing the part.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Let's not get lost in comparing who killed more people etc...

It's rather difficult to do that when the thread title literally says the two countries were equally brutal and then the follow-up posts go on to assign full responsibility to "the evil capitalists" for conflicts in which both capitalist and communist nations were participants and then tries to make a comparison based on the full history of the U.S. while the U.S.S.R. only existed for a fraction of that time. Of course this type of "I don't care if I can't support my claim without moving the goalposts all over the fucking field because my mind is made up in spite of being shown repeatedly to not have a clue" bullshit should really just be considered the norm by now.

Hey, let's not let rational thought get in the way of loudmouthed stupidity.