U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Absolutely.
Soviet Union had plenty of controversies. ( Sort of like Russians themselves.)
They have tendency to live like there is no tomorrow.
The time of the Soviet Union had alot of controversies. Alot of bad was done to everyone, Russians too.

As to how Africa might have done if colonized by the Soviet Union, it leaves alot to wonder at this point.

One thing that is true, the Soviet Union did have some involvement in Africa. Alot of Mozambique's military equipment were things left over from the Soviet times. The USSR supplied troops to Angola in 1985 during the Angolan Civil War. The Soviet Union funded Mozambique with economic and military aid during the Mozambican Civil War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2012, 07:07 AM
 
Location: World
3,648 posts, read 3,517,237 times
Reputation: 2477
If you say that making one party government dominant is eastern thing, why is USA supporting Middle east Regimes like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman etc. How about supporting true democracy in those countries and removing the kingdoms???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
Much of that came from too many post-colonial leaders(who were backed by both eastern and western powers)legalizing only one political party and declaring themselves president for life. Had these new presidents simply allowed for their people to have more than one party to vote for and not made the state so dominate in the economy(which was more eastern than western)then many of these countries wouldn't have blown up into civil wars. By the state being so dominate in African economies the government became the place to be to get wealthy. This contributed to tribalism because every tribal group wanted their folks in gov't for the wealth. Again making the gov't dominate in the economy is more eastern(socialist)than it is western.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 11:57 AM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by munna21977 View Post
If you say that making one party government dominant is eastern thing, why is USA supporting Middle east Regimes like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman etc. How about supporting true democracy in those countries and removing the kingdoms???
Not only that, France, Spain, and Portugal were once kingdoms as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 09:02 PM
 
3,116 posts, read 6,833,192 times
Reputation: 1543
Ok, I acknowledge upfront that I am not really answering your question OP. But the Russians didn't colonize any part of Africa so what is the point? They would have been like any other colonizer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 09:31 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayarea-girl View Post
Ok, I acknowledge upfront that I am not really answering your question OP. But the Russians didn't colonize any part of Africa so what is the point? They would have been like any other colonizer.
It was more of a "what if" kind of question. I know Russians didn't colonize any part of Africa. It was just one of those questions I had some curiosity about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,221,895 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by munna21977 View Post
South Africa was populated by Europeans. Even Namibia and Rhodesia were populated with whites.
But not by colonial empires. They were populated by German and Dutch settlers, who went out there independent of their European homeland's governments and colonialist empires, and even fought against the European kingdom to keep their independence from them. Those white settlers had no allegiance to the European empires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Again not true.
Central Asia and Caucasus greatly benefited from the Soviet system, imposed by Russians on them.
This is unrelated to the OP, which is about Africa. There is a huge difference between a foreign power establishing outposts on distant continents, and expanding their culture and influence into adjacent territories. Noting the French or British or Portuguese did in Africa was directed at, nor had the result of, making Africa culturally French or British or Portuguese.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-03-2012 at 09:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 09:37 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 8 days ago)
 
47,987 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
But not by colonial empires. They were populated by German and Dutch settlers, who went out there independent of their European homeland's governments and colonialist empires. and even fought against the European kingdom to keep their independence from them
This only applies to South Africa. Namibia was ruled by South Africa after Germany lost it. Rhodesia was ruled by the UK until about 1980, when it became Zimbabwe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,221,895 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
This only applies to South Africa. Namibia was ruled by South Africa after Germany lost it. Rhodesia was ruled by the UK until about 1980, when it became Zimbabwe.
The UK withdrew from Rhodesia in the 60's, but Ian Smith refused to allow the black population to form a government. South Africa, exercising its mandate over now-Namibia, also removed it from European colonial influence.

I will grant that Rhodesia and Kenya both had significant areas of settlement by Europeans who retained widespread British standards during the colonial era, but those anomalous exceptions do not make an argument that Russian-claimed territories in Africa would have retained a Russian-ness that would have carried over into the Soviet economic model. For example, when Germany controlled the government of France during WWII, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the day-to-day affairs in French West Africa. Not a single German officer showed up in Ouagadougou. Nothing changed on the ground in Angola or Mozambique, when the bankrupt monarchy in Portugal fell into the hands of the republican Salazar in 1910. Similarly, a transition from the Czars to the Communists in Russia would have gone virtually unnoticed by anyone in a hypothetical Russian territory in Africa.

The plain and simple historical fact is that the affairs of Africa went right on, regardless of the winds of political change that took place in Europe through the colonial era, and there is no reason to believe that that would have been different in territories ruled by Russia.

Until the Conference of Berlin in 1884, there weren't even any lines drawn on the interior of Africa, much less actual settlement, and the colonial powers held nothing but a few seaports, with the interior terra incognita subject to conflicting claims. In fact, the reason for the Conference was to create a unified front among Europeans to keep the Russians (and Americans and Japanese) out of Africa.

As for the Russians/Soviets, there is no way they could have even imagined a reign of terror in Africa comparable to that of the seemingly-benign King Leopold of our good friends the Belgians.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-04-2012 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 08:58 PM
 
15,029 posts, read 13,618,313 times
Reputation: 6916
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post


This is unrelated to the OP, which is about Africa. There is a huge difference between a foreign power establishing outposts on distant continents, and expanding their culture and influence into adjacent territories. Noting the French or British or Portuguese did in Africa was directed at, nor had the result of, making Africa culturally French or British or Portuguese.
Are you saying that the French or British "expanded their culture and influence into adjacent territories," while refusing to do that "on distant continent?"
I think not, as for Russians, they were trying to Russify the Native Indians on "distant continent," as much as they were trying to russify the Natives on the "adjacent territories."
So I don't think that their approach would differ anywhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,221,895 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Are you saying that the French or British "expanded their culture and influence into adjacent territories," while refusing to do that "on distant continent?"
I think not, as for Russians, they were trying to Russify the Native Indians on "distant continent," as much as they were trying to russify the Natives on the "adjacent territories."
So I don't think that their approach would differ anywhere else.
Yes, it was adjacent territories. The Russians could walk all the way from Moscow to their settlements in Northern California, and it was Russian-claimed territory all the way. That is what makes them different from Portuguese outposts in Mozambique or the French islands of Tahiti or British India -- all "distant continents" with no pretense that they were simply remote regions of their contiguous empire. For the French and British, each "colony" was simply a seaport, and they made no effort (in most cases) to expand their culture into the hinterlands or create settlements for Europeans to live and prosper in perpetuity.

Furthermore, the western European kingdoms had no "adjacent territories" to expand into that wasn't already claimed by powerful rivals. The Russians could just keep going east, across the Bering Straits and all the way to Spanish and French claims in the Americas before they would encounter resistance to Russification. In fact, Russian settlement in California didn't stop until they reached the Spanish Missions just north of San Francisco. The Russians, had they gone somehow to Africa, would have conducted their affairs in very much the same way as the other empires faced with a dark and unmapped continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top