Collingwood Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 RepsolCBR nailed it. Both nations suffered under monstrous regimes. At least for Germany, their regime died with the war. I am a bit of a Russophile too, I've read a lot of Russian literature and 20th century history. Everything about Russia/USSR is on such a large scale - the greatness of their Art, their Culture, and their tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chibot Mk IX Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 to a jewish, commie is far better than a nazi, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I just want to pipe up here and say that, although I understand what you're trying to say, this is the kind of argument that gives people the misguided impression that atheism and 'belief' in evolution corrupts a person's sense of right and wrong. Why is this the kind of arguement that gives people the misguided impression that atheism and 'belief' in evolution corrupts a person's sense of right and wrong? "Darwinism" is meaningless as a philosophy and outdated as a scientific theory. Darwin's work was incredible and inspired but it was incomplete, as you might expect. It did however lead the way for successors to test and expand upon the fundamentals and to uncover mechanisms and subtleties (the entire field of genetics being one, non-trivial example - Darwin had no accurate concept of how inheritance actually worked) which Darwin had never dreamed of. What 'Darwinian' (if you insist, although you're probably technically inaccurate in the way you use that term) and modern evolutionary theory says is absolutely nothing - that's nothing - to do with morality. It is simply an objective description of the way populations develop within their environment over time as observed in the natural world. I admit that i didnt use 'Darwinisim' correctly, by its litteral meaning. What i wanted to say that the human beeing, as it is today, developed into a social mamal because beeing social gave us an advantage in survival in the past and still does to day. We significantly depend on each other, a single human alone in the wild would be unable to to life as safe or as long as he or she would be as part of a society. If you spin that thought further, it is obvious that different societys too are most effective in guranteeing each members saftey and survival if they cooperate. Thus Hitlers plan to conquer, exterminate and enslave the western part of Russia was inefficient because it ignored the latter statement. History prove it, the Nazi state could not maintain its own existence because it failed to get along with almost all other societys of that time. Evolution is a cold, unthinking, unguided and inevitable physical process which needs no 'help' from us and will continue regardless. It is categorically not a set of moral instructions or guidelines. It would make as much sense to say that the theory of gravity means that aircraft are 'immoral'. All of science is descriptive, not proscriptive. It does not "back" anything like a set of morals. I did not want to and did not say that evolution is a set of morale instructions or anything like that. You misunderstood me. I said that evolution is what led to us today having a sense of morale, right and wrong, and that having that sense is part of our genetical code. It is not determined by that code what we experience as right or wrong, as i said, but determined by our experiences. It is learned behaviour, but we are only able to learn it because we have to ability to do so. Other species dont even have the ability to learn to distinguifh between right and wrong, their instincts are all they have. It is just, and is wrote that too, my own personal belief that moral behavior equals what i wrote in that previous post. What science does do is allow us to more objectively describe the results of what we choose to do and to measure and try to optimise our progress towards our chosen goal. We still have to choose that goal, though, and choose it we do. My choice, for example, is to act in a way which makes the people around me happier and, if possible, healthier and more content with life but I would never think of claiming that that is objectively correct or *retch* 'scientifically justified'. The point is it's up to us! I agree to that. I'm really sorry if this comes across as hyper-critical of what may have been intended as a casual, throwaway comment but mis-use of science (and evolution in particular) in philosophical debates is a pet hate of mine. I apologise for any offence inadvertently caused - it's nothing personal! No, it didnt come across as offensive. I mostly wanted to try to steer the thread away from becoming a flamewar by offering a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Bozhe moi? I think that question is best left to your own assessment. Russian(Soviet), German(Nazi), both, none. It all depends on your own feelings about this, that and the other thing, eh? 'Good.' It's such a subjective thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Stalin was one of the bad guys, but the Soviets were the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 to a jewish, commie is far better than a nazi, period. The train is most surely off the tracks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It all depends on your own feelings about this, that and the other thing, eh? Further proof that we're all Canadians deep down inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The train is most surely off the tracks now. Just doing my part to get her back on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 'Good.' It's such a subjective thing. Heh. When I was in the Philosophy Department at UCLA I pondered the question and decided that the only meaningful definition of 'good' is "I like it." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I don't see any point in this thread, other than to enable more pontificating from the usual offenders. The only reason I even replied was since I read what has been written so far, I might as well up my post count by one. People are just motivated to talk about this stuff currently since CMRT also has dead horses in it. Besides aren't all grogs pontificating when they post on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Too bad the Nazis and Communists couldn't have destroyed each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Just doing my part to get her back on track. Actually, I thought that was one of the most useful posts in this thread. I mean, it's not like the initial post can be Godwined, so referring to impacted groups - instead of cheerleading for which ******* you happen to like the most - made complete sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 'Good.' It's such a subjective thing. Yup. Good? Bad? Evil? Angelic? What does any of that actually mean? That's why I liked post. **** philosophy. Let's talk about victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I disagree with the no good guys in war. There are lots of good ordinary people in war serving their respective countries. The problem is they are just put in bad situations by people who are not good people. Big distinction imho. We may be from different countries with very different ethical thought processes but I hope you can understand what I mean by this. "Good guys" in this discussion refers to entire countries, not individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Oh, no... Russian revolution was not more bloody than French, English or American civil war. Please stop speculations about it. If Stalin equals Hitler, then killing people equals saving them. Say it to jews and people of occupied Soviet territories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The other militaristic dictator killed tens of millions. It is about Stalin? You can't be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It is about Stalin? You can't be serious. He is and so are the world's best historians. Please spare us all that Nashi nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 He is and so are the world's best historians. Oh, if world's best... There are serious sources, I guess. Tens of millions - not a joke. Considering the fact, that population was 190 millions on 1940 year and 180 on 1950. 150 millions - on 1926. And war losses were 26 millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Is there a term for this kind of revisionism? Gulag denial perhaps? But I see you still live in the Soviet Union, so never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Too fat trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It has always amazed me that the USSR was able to do so much - scientific and maths research, successful diplomacy and espionage, massive infrastructure projects, space programs etc. whilst busily killing off so much of it's own populace. Aragorn2002, is it just possible that those "world's best" historians were / are full of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf66 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 One dissenting but honest opinion,I sure would have liked to have won the war and not lose it and become the lackey of the NATO (US) and the political whipping boy of the world for generations on - but living in peace time under a victory drunken regime lead by Hitler doesn't sound so great either ............... and in the end we got Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath and Miles Davis, so I can live with it ;-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf66 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Lebensraum im Osten = How the West was won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 My turn to wade into the mess... If you compare body counts alone, then yes, it might appear that the Soviets win in the "Deepest Shade of Black Hat" competition. However, that is way too simplistic. I'm no expert on the Soviet Union or Russian history, but it seems to me that Nazi Germany and the USSR basically fall into two categories: 1. The USSR: A group of republics that are basically falling under the same old domination of Russia and its strong man under a new form of government. Yes, there are true believers in the new ideology, but at its heart, that ends up being merely a new coat of paint on the same old situation. The big power, Russia seeks to expand and dominate its sphere of influence. That requires a tough guy at the top (the sphere to be ruled consists of vast spaces and diverse ethnic groups who don't want to be dominated and who have their own traditional enemies) and Stalin more than fits that bill. However, once you get past the surface, it basically boils down to classic human power struggles and rivalries, along with ethnic and religious tensions that don't really go away until there is a paradigm shift in the cultures in question. So, yes, people are killed and oppressed, but this is the result primarily of powerful men and centers of gravity trying to take top position and quell the kingdom, as it were. Nazi Germany: A place where the new national socialist ideology has indeed lessened the rigidity of the traditional class system and, at least pre-war, brought some new dignity and creature comforts to those on the lower rungs of society--WHO FIT the accepted racial requirements. HOWEVER... Along with the classic human power struggles that parallel with those in the USSR, you have a distinctly different element. Nazi Germany has identified a utopian vision that is based on ethnicity and it seeks to actively manifest that vision in the world at the expense of those groups that do not qualify. To sum it up, here's the difference: In the USSR, once the thugs have beaten you up and taken control of your land, they will likely keep you around to work on it so long as you pay lip service to them and don't try to take it back. Keep your mouth shut and you'll be alive with a little money in your pocket, a little food on your table, and some personal freedom in where you drink and who you marry. Under the nazis...you're either in the club or out. And, if you're out, one day your going to be dead. You may be a slave for awhile first, but...you're going to be DEAD. So, in the end, it's really no contest at all. Nazi Germany wear's a hat of the deepest pitch black. They are without a doubt the bad guys. And if you need any more proof...look at the former Soviet republics and Russia today. We have our tiffs and such in international politics, but for the most part, we are friends in the global family and those countries remain rich in ethnic diversity. Now, how would the areas dominated by a successful 3rd Reich look after more than half a century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 For any one that thinks that the Nazi's were a lesser evil in the midst of a war of annihilation and colonisation, read this book http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Furies-German-Killing-Fields/dp/0547863381 It's horrifying the symptoms and the results that Nazi ideology engendered at all levels of it's own society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts