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.
I'm not advocating colonialism. There were alot more bad going on than good when it came to colonialism. However, I have often wondered what would happen if Russia had colonized some places in Africa for a long period of time. In The Scramble for Africa, the continent was being carved up by Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Russia tried to get a piece of the action in the Sagallo Incident. Sagallo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Basically, Russia tried to take part of Djibouti, which was controlled by the French. It ended in failure.
I think about the colonial policies the colonizing nations had. For instance, France had direct rule(with elements of assimilation policy). German and Belgian colonialism was particularly cruel, basically a cruel form of paternalism. Italy's colonial policy, from what I gather, had a preservation policy. Portugal's colonial policy had a mixture of direct rule, paternalism, and assimilation. Spain had some paternalism elements. British rule was more indirect rule. Colonialism had forced labor and cruelty involved.
What I am wondering is this. If Russia had been part of the Scramble for Africa, and carved out a portion of Africa for itself, what do you think the colonial policy would have been like? What do you think would have happened?
Geography of Russia is such that they were very far from any country worth colonising by sea route. Russia focus was protecting their own country first against rebellions, european incursions, harsh weather, famines as well as lot of central asian republics. they had to face Napolean's invasion followed by war in Crimea, war with japan, first world war and then Russian revolution.
Geography of Russia is such that they were very far from any country worth colonising by sea route. Russia focus was protecting their own country first against rebellions, european incursions, harsh weather, famines as well as lot of central asian republics. they had to face Napolean's invasion followed by war in Crimea, war with japan, first world war and then Russian revolution.
Russia had a route via the Baltic, and the invasion of Sagallo probably came via the port of Odessa, located on the Black Sea. If Britain can sail from the North Sea, then the Russian fleet can sail out of the Black Sea. Britain had colonies in basically every time zone. Russia had colonies as far away as California at one point.
Anyway, I was talking about what would happy if Russia had colonized parts of Africa and what would its colonial policy would be towards Africa, not about if it was possible or not.
In my opinion, I would think Russia would try to colonize North Africa most ardently, as that is the only area it could feasibly even hope to retain influence, at least pre-Suez Canal. This would make sense, as it would not have to battle the Germans, Dutch, Belgian, AND the British to reach the ocean to West Africa through to the Baltic Sea. That would be way too much work, and that would require an insane amount of naval power, something Russia always lacked and something the British especially have been on the cutting edge of. That would leave the Baltic, which means the Russians would have to go through Turkey/Ottoman Empire...No. The Russians and the Turks were (are?) mortal enemies, and fought all through colonial times, in fact for control of the Straits of Bosporus, Turkey's bread and butter. Russia never did gain control, which means that Russia would never have been able to maintain control of her African colonies. I'm just having a hard time even imagining what kind of policies Russia would have enacted, because it was literally impossible Russia to move "down", which is why it always moved right.
That said, I would imagine that Russia would have been one of the most cruel of the imperialists, partly because it was. The way that Russia treated Muslims, Jews, Poles, and other non-Slavic Christians has been documented ad nauseum, and Russia at the time was astoundingly backwards, corrupt, and badly-ran. The only thing that kept it together was fear, common language, and religion. I think Russia would have been even worse than the Germans and the Belgians to the Africans, as the idea of racial superiority was even more praised in Russia than it was in Germany and the Netherlands. This would mean that Africans would be treated even more callously, for they had no hope of ever being "civilized Russians."
Furthermore, you HAVE to put into account Russia's difficulty in reaching the continent. It's difficulty in reaching the continent would have made Russia even more strict, and without a doubt, direct rule would be in place, as Russian culture has always been one where one man has a huge amount of power.
If Russia or The Soviet Union had colonised Africa I think fewer African leaders would have tried copying their socialist system because they would have associated socialism with colonialism like they associated capitalism with colonialism.
Many post colonial leaders embraced Soviet style socialism because the socialist hadn't colonised Africa but the capitalist countries did. This made many turn away from capitalism and towards what the Soviets were doing. Only problem was that the Soviet socialist economy wasn't a good one for new African countries to be modeling. They should have went with some sort of market economy despite the fact that the colonists were capitalist. Capitalism is a better way to organize economic activity and create wealth for a nation. This is what the new African leaders missed. Capitalism and imperialism don't have to go together. Even Adam Smith was against colonialism.
If Russia had tried to colonize Africa ... the same thing would have happened to them then and is happening now ... malaria and dengue fever. They would have died like flies
In my opinion, I would think Russia would try to colonize North Africa most ardently, as that is the only area it could feasibly even hope to retain influence, at least pre-Suez Canal. This would make sense, as it would not have to battle the Germans, Dutch, Belgian, AND the British to reach the ocean to West Africa through to the Baltic Sea. That would be way too much work, and that would require an insane amount of naval power, something Russia always lacked and something the British especially have been on the cutting edge of. That would leave the Baltic, which means the Russians would have to go through Turkey/Ottoman Empire...No. The Russians and the Turks were (are?) mortal enemies, and fought all through colonial times, in fact for control of the Straits of Bosporus, Turkey's bread and butter. Russia never did gain control, which means that Russia would never have been able to maintain control of her African colonies. I'm just having a hard time even imagining what kind of policies Russia would have enacted, because it was literally impossible Russia to move "down", which is why it always moved right.
That said, I would imagine that Russia would have been one of the most cruel of the imperialists, partly because it was. The way that Russia treated Muslims, Jews, Poles, and other non-Slavic Christians has been documented ad nauseum, and Russia at the time was astoundingly backwards, corrupt, and badly-ran. The only thing that kept it together was fear, common language, and religion. I think Russia would have been even worse than the Germans and the Belgians to the Africans, as the idea of racial superiority was even more praised in Russia than it was in Germany and the Netherlands. This would mean that Africans would be treated even more callously, for they had no hope of ever being "civilized Russians."
Furthermore, you HAVE to put into account Russia's difficulty in reaching the continent. It's difficulty in reaching the continent would have made Russia even more strict, and without a doubt, direct rule would be in place, as Russian culture has always been one where one man has a huge amount of power.
Kind of a weird irony when you think about it. I never heard of "racial purity" being praised in Russia. I know there are alot of issues concerning racism in Russia today. However, I never heard of Russia in those terms before. Even more interesting was that Russia's national poet had Ethiopian blood.
I figured they might be cruel colonizers because of the cruelty exercised in other places. In Belgium and Germany, cruelty was big hallmark. When the German Empire tried to colonize Namibia, it went on a massacre. In fact, the word "concentration camp" was used in Namibia first, before it was ever used in the Holocaust. In Belgian colonialism, there was even more cruelty, as people were getting their hands chopped off, and 10 million people died under King Leopold II, over rubber. I wonder how Africa would have faired under Stalin. Stalin pretty much killed anyone.
If Russia had tried to colonize Africa ... the same thing would have happened to them then and is happening now ... malaria and dengue fever. They would have died like flies
Even if Russia had colonized some part of Africa, I don't know if the effect would have been to push African societies to market capitalism. if they had gotten to Africa, they would have been only to colonize a small part of it; they still would have been overwhelmed on the continent by the English, French, and Portuguese and to a lesser extent the Germans, Spanish, and Belgians.
And if the Russian way of running things had turned a significant amount of Africans against socialism, they would still have been no more enamored of the way the Brits and the French and everyone else was treating the continent. If anything, it might have fostered some sort of African nationalism that turned against both market capitalism and Soviet socialism.
Even if Russia had colonized some part of Africa, I don't know if the effect would have been to push African societies to market capitalism. if they had gotten to Africa, they would have been only to colonize a small part of it; they still would have been overwhelmed on the continent by the English, French, and Portuguese and to a lesser extent the Germans, Spanish, and Belgians.
And if the Russian way of running things had turned a significant amount of Africans against socialism, they would still have been no more enamored of the way the Brits and the French and everyone else was treating the continent. If anything, it might have fostered some sort of African nationalism that turned against both market capitalism and Soviet socialism.
I don't know if that is how it would work. I thought when the Berlin Conference was held, there was this "we each get a piece" mentality.
What would the African nationalism consist of if it mental rejecting both market capitalism and Soviet socialism?
Last edited by green_mariner; 09-01-2012 at 07:17 PM..
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.
