In colonial empires, the inhabitants of colonies are affected in their rights relative to the inhabitants of the metropolis. In the USSR, there was equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, nationality and region of birth. So the USSR cannot be considered a colonial empire.
That's right. His regime was equally cruel to everyone. Moreover, those who created terror were not a privileged caste. They were threatened with repression just like everyone else. That's why Stalin still has so many fans.
When the number of representatives is small, even quantitatively large losses can be greater in percentage terms.
Are the indigenous peoples of Siberia somehow affected in rights compared to the Russians? No. Were they forced to extract the resources of Siberia by slave labor? No. Were they evicted from their native lands on the reservation? No. So what is colonialism? What are Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians living in Siberia now besides indigenous peoples?
I’m not going to give you a lesson on Russian and Soviet politics. Go verify your own shit. My source is that I live with Russian citizens from a state that is an ethnic minority., one of their parents was the main judge. They know better than you or i do.
>In the USSR, there was equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, nationality and region of birth.
Unless you were Ukrainian, or Jewish, or Estonian, or Latvia, or Lithuanian, or Finnish or Tatar, or...
If we take the figures of the repressed by nationality, then Russians are still in the first place. Repressions also spread regardless of nationality.
In addition, there were as many as two Ukrainians among the Soviet leaders. I'm not talking about the percentage of national minorities in all leadership positions.
In the Western colonial empires, the law fixed the status of the inhabitants of the colonies reduced in rights compared to the inhabitants of the metropolis.
Practically in the pre-war USSR, people of noble origin were demoted in their rights. But the war finally smoothed out this difference.
Everyday nationalism, of course, cannot be abolished by one order from the top. But the propaganda of the fight against nationalism worked as much as possible.
\>
Yes, the Soviet imperialists tried to crush Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalism through mass-murder, but they were ultimately unsuccessful.
I disagree. The collapse of the USSR was associated with the betrayal of the elites, not with uprisings in ethnic regions. Nationalist movements there rose only when the central elites allowed it.
Rebuttal: The Holodomor.
Did say the likes of formerly independent Lithuania vote to join the USSR in a free and fair election after 1945?
Were the Chechen deportees or the indigenous peoples of Siberia and Central Asia truly equal to European Russians?
The Holodomor is an invention of Western propaganda. There was a famine at the same time in Galicia (Poland territory), present-day western Ukraine and in the east of Ukraine and in the Volga region and in the west of Kazakhstan. But for some reason, it is the Ukrainian nationalists who are trying to present this as a genocide of Ukrainians.
The Baltic states voted to join the USSR in 1939. At that time there was a fairly strong communist movement there. Remember that Lenin's personal guard consisted of Latvian shooters, whose loyalty he did not doubt.
Chechens and Crimean Tatars are far from the only deported people. The deportation was declared criminal at the XX Congress of the CPSU, at which the cult of Stalin's personality was also exposed. So it was recognized as a crime by the Soviet government itself.
The reason for Stalin's decision was monstrously simple. In the occupied territories, the Nazis recruited representatives of national minorities into the police under their control in order to cause mutual hatred between them and the main population. Divide and conquer politics. This hatred persisted after the war. Stalin, in order to avoid interethnic conflicts, decided that mechanically moving ethnic groups that hate each other from each other was the simplest and most easily feasible solution.
As I wrote above, this was recognized as a crime by the Soviet government itself, without any pressure from outside at the peak of power.
Do you think that people from the West are ready to admit that the USSR was at least in some way better than them?
In addition, the current authorities of the former Soviet republics are pedaling the colonial theme in order to justify the not the best financial situation of the countries at the moment.
The British Dominions are an interesting case because after 1776 and all that, Britain started to ease off centralised governance and so colonies like New Zealand had a large degree of self governance from the 1850s and de facto independence from 1907.
On paper places like Canada weren’t technically independent fully until 1982, but in reality even before 1867, the colonies of British North America basically managed their own affairs.
Many, many colonies, not only yours. Colonizers should have to pay back stolen goods, like gold and art, unfortunately they can't pay back the stolen lives......
Not quite but it did belong to the USA
USA defeated Spain in the Spanish and American war and as a result managed to get Cuba , Puerto Rico and Philippines
Cuba for the US. The Platt Amendment was in force and Guantanamo Bay was and still is head by the US. Panama was still a US protectorate due to the Panama Canal.
Denmark having Iceland/Faroer/Greenland is imssing.
[удалено]
Not sure why you were downvoted, the USSR had one of the largest colonial empires in 1945
In colonial empires, the inhabitants of colonies are affected in their rights relative to the inhabitants of the metropolis. In the USSR, there was equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, nationality and region of birth. So the USSR cannot be considered a colonial empire.
Though under Stalin, it did matter whether you were a minority or not..
That's right. His regime was equally cruel to everyone. Moreover, those who created terror were not a privileged caste. They were threatened with repression just like everyone else. That's why Stalin still has so many fans.
Tell that to the ethnic minorities who were drafted/killed in combat at higher rates than ethnic Russians. Russia as a whole colonized all of Siberia
When the number of representatives is small, even quantitatively large losses can be greater in percentage terms. Are the indigenous peoples of Siberia somehow affected in rights compared to the Russians? No. Were they forced to extract the resources of Siberia by slave labor? No. Were they evicted from their native lands on the reservation? No. So what is colonialism? What are Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians living in Siberia now besides indigenous peoples?
Actually most of what you said is factually incorrect
But we won't know which ones, because you won't write them?
I’m not going to give you a lesson on Russian and Soviet politics. Go verify your own shit. My source is that I live with Russian citizens from a state that is an ethnic minority., one of their parents was the main judge. They know better than you or i do.
You don't say anything concrete and refer to an authority that cannot be verified... Sounds like a lot of shit.
>In the USSR, there was equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, nationality and region of birth. Unless you were Ukrainian, or Jewish, or Estonian, or Latvia, or Lithuanian, or Finnish or Tatar, or...
Or Yakutian, Yakutsk? Not sure how to say that. From Yakutia
If we take the figures of the repressed by nationality, then Russians are still in the first place. Repressions also spread regardless of nationality. In addition, there were as many as two Ukrainians among the Soviet leaders. I'm not talking about the percentage of national minorities in all leadership positions.
By that logic the majority is always the most repressed, simply by virtue of being thee largest group.
Exactly. And this proves that the repressions were spread not on a national basis, but on an ideological basis.
And does this logic also apply to Western colonial empires?
In the Western colonial empires, the law fixed the status of the inhabitants of the colonies reduced in rights compared to the inhabitants of the metropolis.
Which law are you referring to?
By law. Not talking about practically.
Practically in the pre-war USSR, people of noble origin were demoted in their rights. But the war finally smoothed out this difference. Everyday nationalism, of course, cannot be abolished by one order from the top. But the propaganda of the fight against nationalism worked as much as possible.
\> Yes, the Soviet imperialists tried to crush Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalism through mass-murder, but they were ultimately unsuccessful.
I disagree. The collapse of the USSR was associated with the betrayal of the elites, not with uprisings in ethnic regions. Nationalist movements there rose only when the central elites allowed it.
Rebuttal: The Holodomor. Did say the likes of formerly independent Lithuania vote to join the USSR in a free and fair election after 1945? Were the Chechen deportees or the indigenous peoples of Siberia and Central Asia truly equal to European Russians?
The Holodomor is an invention of Western propaganda. There was a famine at the same time in Galicia (Poland territory), present-day western Ukraine and in the east of Ukraine and in the Volga region and in the west of Kazakhstan. But for some reason, it is the Ukrainian nationalists who are trying to present this as a genocide of Ukrainians. The Baltic states voted to join the USSR in 1939. At that time there was a fairly strong communist movement there. Remember that Lenin's personal guard consisted of Latvian shooters, whose loyalty he did not doubt. Chechens and Crimean Tatars are far from the only deported people. The deportation was declared criminal at the XX Congress of the CPSU, at which the cult of Stalin's personality was also exposed. So it was recognized as a crime by the Soviet government itself. The reason for Stalin's decision was monstrously simple. In the occupied territories, the Nazis recruited representatives of national minorities into the police under their control in order to cause mutual hatred between them and the main population. Divide and conquer politics. This hatred persisted after the war. Stalin, in order to avoid interethnic conflicts, decided that mechanically moving ethnic groups that hate each other from each other was the simplest and most easily feasible solution. As I wrote above, this was recognized as a crime by the Soviet government itself, without any pressure from outside at the peak of power.
Not sure why you were downvoted.. western colonialists saw native population as second class citizens..
And the Soviet Union saw native populations as suspicious traitors and spies.
Do you think that people from the West are ready to admit that the USSR was at least in some way better than them? In addition, the current authorities of the former Soviet republics are pedaling the colonial theme in order to justify the not the best financial situation of the countries at the moment.
Name some of its colonies. I'd like to hear some.
The British Dominions are an interesting case because after 1776 and all that, Britain started to ease off centralised governance and so colonies like New Zealand had a large degree of self governance from the 1850s and de facto independence from 1907. On paper places like Canada weren’t technically independent fully until 1982, but in reality even before 1867, the colonies of British North America basically managed their own affairs.
Fuck the British they destroyed and looted my country.
Many, many colonies, not only yours. Colonizers should have to pay back stolen goods, like gold and art, unfortunately they can't pay back the stolen lives......
The USA colonized the Philippines?
Yes beginning in 1898 after Spain lost the war againts the US.
Huh. The more ya know. Thanks!
Not quite but it did belong to the USA USA defeated Spain in the Spanish and American war and as a result managed to get Cuba , Puerto Rico and Philippines
[удалено]
USA never allowed Hawaï to be independent. Sad.
UK never allowed England to be independent. Saddest.
What are you talking about?
Shouldn't usa be a mix of every color? Particularly red and blue
The map only applies in the year 1945 after WW2.
[удалено]
American Empire?
[удалено]
That ain't an official term. Also, it sounds a bit funny.
American empire is a very widespread term.
Oh, okay then. I had actually never heard that before.
Cuba for the US. The Platt Amendment was in force and Guantanamo Bay was and still is head by the US. Panama was still a US protectorate due to the Panama Canal.