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.
" But now there is no people beyond us, nothing but tides and rocks and, more deadly than these, the Romans. It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behaviour. They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire" - Calgacus A Pictish leader.
Define "thrive", in this context. Do you mean, suddenly had access to higher education? That would have to be balanced with all the people sent off to the northern tundra or the middle of the taiga on flimsy excuses and unfounded accusations.
No, not necessarily to have an access to higher education, but even access to elementary education, since minding you about 70% of Russian population was illiterate during Tzar's times.
Not only that, but when we talk about "people sent off to tundra or middle of taiga" - during tzarist times (yet again) their lives were not much better in many other regions - basically the same inescapable prison. Tzarist Russia was very reminiscent of the Colonial South with all the splendor of upper classes and misery of the serfs. And this misery didn't have any resolution, any escape, while the labor camps in Soviet times ( as horrible as they were,) were actually advancing the interests of the state, where the children and grand-children of these former serfs already had opportunities ( education, housing, healthcare) that they were deprived of during Tzarist time. I hope you know by now that all these "unfounded accusations" were directed at scooping up the cheap labor for state projects, since Soviet government didn't have funds to pay for all its projects they deemed necessary. (Well this, and mass resettlement of population from Western part of the country to the Eastern part. That is if we are talking about the average people, not the upper management that has been constantly reshuffled, executed and replaced - that's a bit different story.)
So when it comes specifically to RUSSIA, with all her historic background and her specific problems - Communism was not "unequivocally negative" thing for Russia; in fact Communism ( or rather Socialism, because that's what it really was,) helped country's development a great deal, both in terms of societal development and international scene. But that's when we are talking specifically about Russia. I don't know how "Communism" played out say in China or Cambodia - why would they wanted it at the first place, what were their plans/hopes, and did they have what it takes to implement them. And it's plain strange for me to think of "Communism" in Anglo-countries - why would they have any need for it, or for what purpose.
No, not necessarily to have an access to higher education, but even access to elementary education, since minding you about 70% of Russian population was illiterate during Tzar's times.
Not only that, but when we talk about "people sent off to tundra or middle of taiga" - during tzarist times (yet again) their lives were not much better in many other regions - basically the same inescapable prison. Tzarist Russia was very reminiscent of the Colonial South with all the splendor of upper classes and misery of the serfs. And this misery didn't have any resolution, any escape, while the labor camps in Soviet times ( as horrible as they were,) were actually advancing the interests of the state, where the children and grand-children of these former serfs already had opportunities ( education, housing, healthcare) that they were deprived of during Tzarist time. I hope you know by now that all these "unfounded accusations" were directed at scooping up the cheap labor for state projects, since Soviet government didn't have funds to pay for all its projects they deemed necessary. (Well this, and mass resettlement of population from Western part of the country to the Eastern part. That is if we are talking about the average people, not the upper management that has been constantly reshuffled, executed and replaced - that's a bit different story.)
So when it comes specifically to RUSSIA, with all her historic background and her specific problems - Communism was not "unequivocally negative" thing for Russia; in fact Communism ( or rather Socialism, because that's what it really was,) helped country's development a great deal, both in terms of societal development and international scene. But that's when we are talking specifically about Russia. I don't know how "Communism" played out say in China or Cambodia - why would they wanted it at the first place, what were their plans/hopes, and did they have what it takes to implement them. And it's plain strange for me to think of "Communism" in Anglo-countries - why would they have any need for it, or for what purpose.
I don't think most people recognize just how backwards Russia was prior to the Soviets taking over. Illiteracy was rampant and science and industry were close to nonexistent. The only thing Imperial Russia had on par with the West was its military and even then its military was behind the West. The few factories that Russia had were majority foreign owned which is one major reason why the West intervened during the Russian Civil War since they wanted to protect their assets. During the Soviet era, Russia's military reached parity with the West and it achieved mass literacy and parity in various technological fields. Furthermore, Russia rapidly industrialized during the Soviet era. Additionally, I should point out that unlike the Russian Empire which ceded massive amount of territory to Germany during WWI, the Soviet Union took territory from Germany and dominated all of Eastern Europe and actually managed to create a pan-Slavic hegemony something that eluded Russia (and Poland-Lithuania, Germany, Austria, and Ottoman Empire) for centuries.
I don't think most people recognize just how backwards Russia was prior to the Soviets taking over. Illiteracy was rampant and science and industry were close to nonexistent. The only thing Imperial Russia had on par with the West was its military and even then its military was behind the West. The few factories that Russia had were majority foreign owned which is one major reason why the West intervened during the Russian Civil War since they wanted to protect their assets. During the Soviet era, Russia's military reached parity with the West and it achieved mass literacy and parity in various technological fields. Furthermore, Russia rapidly industrialized during the Soviet era. Additionally, I should point out that unlike the Russian Empire which ceded massive amount of territory to Germany during WWI, the Soviet Union took territory from Germany and dominated all of Eastern Europe and actually managed to create a pan-Slavic hegemony something that eluded Russia (and Poland-Lithuania, Germany, Austria, and Ottoman Empire) for centuries.
While a lot of what you are writing is true, I would argue against that in tzarist Russia "science and industry were close to non-existent." On your guard here.
As backward as tzarist Russia was, the space endeavor for example takes its roots NOT in Soviet times as many would think, but in tsarist times, and of course someone like K. Tsiolkovsky, a pioneer in astronautic theory couldn't appear in a country, where "science and industry were close to non-existent."
Science indeed was there, as soon as Peter the Great decided to establish the Russian Academy of Science back in 1724, and with time it produced a long list of scientists starting from Lomonosov, Pavlov, Tsiolkovsky and so on.
Not only that, but even the lower classes in Russia were quite "predisposed" to learning "technical trades"
(Cherepanovs Brothers were probably a good example of it,) and new Soviet government ( that was still taking roots in tzarist times) was well-aware of it. That's why it was considering rapid industrialization of the country as a very realistic thing, even with departure of the old upper class, which contained a great deal of specialists.
And of course industry was there all right as well ( in tzarist Russia that is) - be that mining or steel industry, building of rail-roads, oil production and what's not, and it was developing rapidly by the end of the 1800ies. It's just that CAPITAL invested in it was for the most part foreign ( mainly from Continental Europe ) - that much is true.
So Russia is a very controversial country - always has been probably, particularly when you look at a huge gap between upper and lower classes, be that culture or economy.
While a lot of what you are writing is true, I would argue against that in tzarist Russia "science and industry were close to non-existent." On your guard here.
As backward as tzarist Russia was, the space endeavor for example takes its roots NOT in Soviet times as many would think, but in tsarist times, and of course someone like K. Tsiolkovsky, a pioneer in astronautic theory couldn't appear in a country, where "science and industry were close to non-existent."
Science indeed was there, as soon as Peter the Great decided to establish the Russian Academy of Science back in 1724, and with time it produced a long list of scientists starting from Lomonosov, Pavlov, Tsiolkovsky and so on.
Not only that, but even the lower classes in Russia were quite "predisposed" to learning "technical trades"
(Cherepanovs Brothers were probably a good example of it,) and new Soviet government ( that was still taking roots in tzarist times) was well-aware of it. That's why it was considering rapid industrialization of the country as a very realistic thing, even with departure of the old upper class, which contained a great deal of specialists.
And of course industry was there all right as well ( in tzarist Russia that is) - be that mining or steel industry, building of rail-roads, oil production and what's not, and it was developing rapidly by the end of the 1800ies. It's just that CAPITAL invested in it was for the most part foreign ( mainly from Continental Europe ) - that much is true.
So Russia is a very controversial country - always has been probably, particularly when you look at a huge gap between upper and lower classes, be that culture or economy.
I should have rephrased that as relative to the West in regards to the sciences and industry. It's just when you compare the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union, it was just so far ahead of the Russian Empire even in relative terms (it had the second largest economy in the world after WWII and was heavily industrialized). The Soviet Union achieved almost single every objective that the Tsar and Pan-Slavists wanted. The pan-Slavic hegemony at the end of WWII is just crazy since no other empire in the 20th century managed to create a pan-national hegemony. It's why the Soviet Union has a mixed view with most Russians even though it had a lot of issues.
OK, never mind, @Ariete. Wiki has interesting historical information on a detailed page called "Salting the Earth":
Salting the earth, or sowing with salt, is the ritual of spreading salt on conquered cities to symbolize a curse on their re-inhabitation. It originated as a symbolic practice in the ancient Near East and became a well-established folkloric motif in the Middle Ages.Although concentrated salt is toxic to most crops, there is no evidence that sufficient salt has been applied to render large tracts of land unusable.
It says the Romans, and various Near Eastern empires did this to their enemies or conquered lands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
I doubt anyone anywhere at any time really salted a large area to make the land unusable. Salt was an expensive commodity for most of history.
The Mongols did destroy the ancient irrigation systems in Iran and Mesopotamia and some were never rebuilt, causing large tracts to desertify.
Yes, seems it's more like a legend and a mix up with rituals and real practice. Yes, the irrigation systems were destroyed.
The USSR regime as a whole is not even top 10. However, the USSR under Stalin is easily top 3 of all time. Stalin ruled with an iron fist, yet 10's of millions needlessly died under his watch either due to political or religious persecution, starvation, or militarily. Stalin was one of the great thugs of all time. After Stalin's death, the USSR reformed itself and was much less severe towards its own people.
Nazi Germany in my opinion is #1 because they had a systematic program to annihilate entire populations of the world. Although Stalin killed more than Hitler, this was only because Stalin was in power longer and controlled more populace. Hitler would have exterminated millions or billions more if he could have.
The Japanese during WW2 were brutal and exterminated millions of Chinese. There were certainly other regimes throughout history that were just as evil. The Khmer Rouge comes to mind in Cambodia. The Spanish Conquistadors during the Inquisition is another. The Mongols, Vandals, Huns, etc. Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We can go on and on.
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.
