Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Questions like these are usually more a reflection of the person asking the question ...
Oh I don't know....
Evil in terms of this or that group or person is a term thrown around but very much varies on many levels.
Remember it was that the Romanovs were considered so brutal and "evil" that no other nation would offer sanctuary to "Bloody Nicholas" his wife and family. Even his own close cousin George V, wouldn't have him in his realm for fear of what affect offering asylum to a "fallen tyrant" might have upon his throne/nation. Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have Nichalos II in the USA either for pretty much the same reasons:
"Woodrow Wilson although against communism was also against Monarchy and against the Tsar, Western hatred of Russia itself did not originate with the Russian Revolution but started before that. In fact Nicholas was viewed by most people around the world at the time not including Russia until 1917 as an evil tyrant who waged pogroms and massacres upon his people. In fact do you know that during his rule, 2 million Jews escaped from the Russian Empire to Britain and America to get away from him. Moreover he was one of the last Autocratic leaders left in the world. Indeed the only countries I think that were Autocratic and fighting on our side in World War 1 were Japan and Russia(1914 - 1917). Woodrow Wilson detested Autocracy and detested the Tsar."
Evil in terms of this or that group or person is a term thrown around but very much varies on many levels.
Remember it was that the Romanovs were considered so brutal and "evil" that no other nation would offer sanctuary to "Bloody Nicholas" his wife and family. Even his own close cousin George V, wouldn't have him in his realm for fear of what affect offering asylum to a "fallen tyrant" might have upon his throne/nation. Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have Nichalos II in the USA either for pretty much the same reasons:
"Woodrow Wilson although against communism was also against Monarchy and against the Tsar, Western hatred of Russia itself did not originate with the Russian Revolution but started before that. In fact Nicholas was viewed by most people around the world at the time not including Russia until 1917 as an evil tyrant who waged pogroms and massacres upon his people. In fact do you know that during his rule, 2 million Jews escaped from the Russian Empire to Britain and America to get away from him. Moreover he was one of the last Autocratic leaders left in the world. Indeed the only countries I think that were Autocratic and fighting on our side in World War 1 were Japan and Russia(1914 - 1917). Woodrow Wilson detested Autocracy and detested the Tsar."
^^
The Russian Empire has been described as "A Prisonhouse of Nations." That is probably one of the best descriptions of the Tsarist Autocracy.
Nicholas discredited Tsardom so much that after the February Revolution or during the Civil War, no one, not even the White Armies seemed very interested in restoring the Autocracy.
Anyways proclaiming this or that group "most evil" is silly; many if not most of the White Armies for instance were just plunderers and highwaymen.
As Maj. Gen. Wm. S. Graves, Commander of the American Siberian Expedition wrote of the Siberian Campaign during the Civil War:
"A day after the coup, Mr. Harris promised the new dictator, so said Kolchak, United States aid, and to those of us who were in Siberia, during the regime of Admiral Kolchak, there was no question but that the American Consul General was an enthusiastic believer in him and helped him in every possible way. In discussing conditions with Consul General Harris, he said to me there was no hope of settling conditions except by the Cadet party, which was Kolchak's party.
Japan was not an ardent supporter of Admiral Kolchak, in fact, at first, she opposed the Admiral. On November 26 and 28, I received reports that appeared to me worthy of credence, which stated that the Japanese officer with Semeonoff was trying to get him to declare himself Dictator of Trans-Baikalia and seize the railroads and tunnels. On the 28th of November, ten days after Admiral Kolchak became Supreme Dictator, I had information that seemed reliable, that Semeonoff was directed from Tokio to oppose Kolchak and the Japanese representative in Siberia followed this policy. As soon as it was known that Japan was sup-porting Semeonoff with troops and money at Chita, and Kalmikoff, at Habarovsk; then it was known, in Siberia at least, that Japan did not desire conditions settled there, and a strong stable Government established in power. In March, 1918, japan asked the Allies to permit her alone to take the Chinese Eastern and Amur railroads as well as Vladivostok, if the Allies considered it necessary to occupy Eastern Siberia. Although this proposition was blocked by the United States, Japan had not given up hope of eventually accomplishing her desire when the Allies sent troops to Siberia.
Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there.
There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in East-ern Siberia, to every one killed by the Bolsheviks. It was my judgement when in Siberia, and is now, that Japan always hoped, by fostering these murderers, that the United States would become disgusted with conditions, withdraw her troops and request Japan to go in and clean up the situation."
Quote:
It is almost universally true that those who begin revolutions are rarely the ones who finish them and or have lasting power afterwards.
Because those who usually start revolutions tend not to cope well with all that a revolution can unleash. The Russian people finally escaped the yoke of Tsardom following the February Revolution, but does that mean they would just yield to the Provisional Government trying to force them back to the war fronts at bayonet point? The Prov. Govt's fall was "evil" from the perspective of the World War 1 "Allies," but probably not so much from the Russian masses.
I want to know how the Bolsheviks are worse than ISIS and the NAZIs or even Imperial Japan in WWII. Did the Bolsheviks burn POWs alive to evade their recapture?
I never knew that about the jews and Czar Nicholas. What did he do specifically?
Czar Nicholas II was *very* anti Semitic. In fact IIRC many of the Romanovs both rulers and family were anti-Semites just as a large part of the Russian population. If you've seen the film or musical "Fiddler on the Roof", you know how it ends; with a pogrom of Russian Jews (one of many).
Despite the love of all things French at the Imperial court and in Russian society/elite it was heavily dominated and or influenced by Germans/Germany.
There is a reason why so many Eastern European Jews ended up in USA during 1800's and early 1900's; so much so that (IIRC) laws were passed restricting immigration from what was then largely the Russian Empire (including places like Poland).
Despite the love of all things French at the Imperial court and in Russian society/elite it was heavily dominated and or influenced by Germans/Germany. As things relate to Nicholas II he was already as stated very anti-Semitic. The worst on many levels possible bride for such a man was the Princess Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt by the Rhine, but that is what happened and we all know the outcome.
Empress Alexandra prodded, pushed, and they do say dominated her husband to such an extent she was able to help block reforms in government including those that would have granted Jews more freedom. This would come back to haunt her.... Indeed among many Russians and surely by the Bolshevik Revolution Empress Alexandra and her daughters were referred to as "the German women".
It is worth noting that Nicholas II by years prior to WWI was not just despised by the world, but within his own family (the Romanovs). There were active plots to "get rid of" the Czar and or at least the Empress. After Rasputin was murdered next in line was supposed to be Alexandra...
What is 'evil', precisely? It seems to often be used as though it is a quality possessed by those who do horrific things, but I think this is just a reassuring way of establishing an inherent difference between those who commit such horrific acts and the rest of us. This self-assurance is false. To be sure, sociopathy is a thing. But not all people who do horrible things are sociopaths. The (unpleasant, for some) truth is that normal people sometimes do such things.
As for the Bolsheviks, I think they stand out as some peoples' ideas of 'most evil' not simply because of what they did but because of their effectiveness. The movement (I'm assuming that Bolshevik = global communism for the sake of this discussion) reached all corners of the globe and was a major force in the world for seven decades. It's Russian incarnation was a superpower. This differentiates it from, say, tsarism, which arguably was even more ill-intended, which very deliberately put total power in the hands of one person, whereas communism did not (though in practice this resulted with Stalin in the USSR, and with others in other countries). It also lacked the lofty ideals of communism. However, it was never going to be exported, and indeed, rule by absolute monarchs had been fading long before 1917. So Bolshevism is in our collective Western memories as a clear and present danger, whereas as tsarism and its relatives are not. Even the Nazis, which didn't even purport to be about anything other than bleeding as much of the world white for the benefit of Germans/Nordics, killed more on a yearly basis than did the communists, generally. But since their movement burned out fast, lacking any real staying power, it seems not to match the great existential threat of communism.
But is effectiveness a trait of evil? Is Tim McVeigh 168 times as 'evil' as some suicide bomber who only takes out one other person when he pushes the button on his detonator? That makes no sense. Was Mohamad Atta, who flew a 767 into the World Trade Center, several dozens of times more evil than Ted Bundy, who enthusiastically raped and bludgeoned 30+ women to death? Again, that's illogical. And those calculi are far simpler than ascribing traits to movements in general, which consist of many people with many different intents.
What we can say about Bolshevism/communism was that it was exceptionally effective at spreading around misery and living to spread another day.
Seriously, was there ANYTHING the Bolsheviks did that wasn't all manners of evil? Were there any members that wasn't a disgusting piece of filth/subhuman trash? Looking at history, everything they stood for, everything they did, everything they accomplished was pure unadulterated evil.
I tend to categorize them as "Well Meaning Nitwits."
So.. didn't they ? Go down in history as one of the most evil groups ? I don't see any "neo bolsheviks" around,or at least no people that would use that label and be proud - like some, for example, neo nazis do. Am I missing some bolshevik apologists ? Folks who try to reinvent history to prove they were the good guys ?
Lack of respect for the institution of private property can escalate to contempt for other people's liberty ... and from there, to contempt for someone's right to life itself.
We all know what rolls downhill, and that stuff also tends to stick to things, and to stick together.
The pre-revolutionary peasantry (and other lower classes in Russia) were deprived of the "institution of private property." Do you think the upper class that deprived them of mentioned above "institution" was as evil?
Seriously, was there ANYTHING the Bolsheviks did that wasn't all manners of evil? Were there any members that wasn't a disgusting piece of filth/subhuman trash? Looking at history, everything they stood for, everything they did, everything they accomplished was pure unadulterated evil.
I dunno, if to speak of Russia specifically - then rapid industrialization of the country, practically 100% literacy of the population achieved under them; pensions, universal medical care, free day cares for children, generous maternal leave - with other words, things unheard of for general population under the monarchy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
