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.
Early Russia was really just the areas around Moscow. It then spread north to the White Sea, south to the Caucus mountains, and East to the Urals. Up to this point Russia was absolutely European and under the Eastern Orthodox Church. But it did rule over some Turkic peoples, Cossacks, Muslims, and various other groups, but those areas were more protectorates or tributaries than integral parts of Russia.
When I say Russia was European up until communism, what I mean is that the government of Russia, its religion, its writers, artists, composers, intellectuals, and culture, fit alongside the rest of Europe. It was consciously European.
That isn't to say it was identical to Britain or Germany, but to whatever degree it diverged from Western Europe in 1914, that divergence increased 10-fold after the communist revolution. Moreover, Stalin wanted to completely consolidate the Russian Empire through mass internal migrations. Including forced resettlements. The goal was to scatter ethnic communities so they could more easily be assimilated.
The result was that the Soviet Union not only diverged from Europe politically and culturally, but also ancestrally, as it attempted to amalgamate a diverse empire.
I don't agree. The standardization of European culture only really started with the EU. Before that it was really just the tiny elite, which indeed mixed and mingled across the continent. But people didn't. Portugal for instance was very different from Germany, more like a developing country.
In my view there are three Europes: Latin Europe, Germanic Europe, and Slavic Europe.
...extremist and paranoid Russia-phobes in Eastern Europe that are again being deliberately radicalized and militarized by the West.
Balderdash. People in Eastern Europe have tried living under Russia's thumb and don't much care for it. Can't say I blame them. Looking at today's political climate in Russia, even less.
The political reality is that there's a large, poor country slipping into fascism, neighboring a bunch of smaller, richer countries. If Russia can expand piecemeal by applying military pressure, those smaller countries have justified reason to fear for their safety.
Balderdash. People in Eastern Europe have tried living under Russia's thumb and don't much care for it. Can't say I blame them. Looking at today's political climate in Russia, even less.
The political reality is that there's a large, poor country slipping into fascism, neighboring a bunch of smaller, richer countries. If Russia can expand piecemeal by applying military pressure, those smaller countries have justified reason to fear for their safety.
Balderdash.
If they are "tired of living under Russia's thumb," then they have to come up with oil and gas in their own soil somehow.
If not - they have to do whatever they have to do, to get it from Russia.
It's a capitalist world, so if America can use its banking, using it as political leverage while sanctioning whoever doesn't comply with American interests, why are these "smaller" EE countries complain, when Russia is using her natural resources as political leverage as well?
What seems to be a problem?
What's good for a geese, should be good for a gander, no?
It's a capitalist world out there - eat or be eaten.
Balderdash. People in Eastern Europe have tried living under Russia's thumb and don't much care for it. Can't say I blame them. Looking at today's political climate in Russia, even less.
The political reality is that there's a large, poor country slipping into fascism, neighboring a bunch of smaller, richer countries. If Russia can expand piecemeal by applying military pressure, those smaller countries have justified reason to fear for their safety.
That makes no sense. They are neighbors of Russia, not part of Russia, they don't have to live under Russia's thumb, they could simply be good neighbors.
Again, Russia couldn't care less whether its neighbors are richer or not, as long as Russia is left alone. The problem is not Russia, but the West. There is no Russia threat, but a Nato threat.
Yes, the upper class. But the overall population with all its variety was already not fitting into strictly European definition.
But couldn't you say that about every European country during the Middle-Ages? Ireland was probably more backwards than Russia until the 20th century, and the ruling classes of Britain were hardly the same as the peasantry.
There was a transformation in Britain that began after the black death, that led to the peasant revolt, the enclosure acts which established capitalism, the protestant reformation, and then the industrial revolution. Russia was behind the West, but it was following the same trajectory, and moving in the same direction. It was more difficult since the Russian government wasn't really a "national state".
National states can have highly centralized governments that can do more things. Such as raise taxes to subsidize and protect industry, build infrastructure, and maintain larger and more loyal armies that don't have to constantly suppress rebellions.
Basically, Russia was more an Empire than Britain, France, or Germany. Or at least Britain/France/Germany had a larger core relative to its empire than Russia. This created a lot more internal resistance from landowners in Russia to any changes, which limited the Russian government's ability to act.
In fact, the reason Stalin was so successful in industrializing Russia, was that the communist state could effectively do whatever it wanted. Which is also the strength of democracy. If the government is "the people's government", it can do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No, there was no such intention to turn anything and everything into the "melting pot," but rather to keep ethnic groups under control. So as far as "forcible ethnic resettlement" goes - Stalin specifically targeted only FEW ethnic groups, that he didn't trusted.
I would think that he wanted more Russians to live side by side with Kazakhs and other Central Asians probably, so that their culture would become more civilized and "Europeanized" if I can put it this way.
And of course he would want more Russians to move into the Baltic countries to keep the nationalist movement there under control.
Everything you have just described is literally colonization, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide. It is called Russification, and it is still happening.
I don't agree. The standardization of European culture only really started with the EU. Before that it was really just the tiny elite, which indeed mixed and mingled across the continent. But people didn't. Portugal for instance was very different from Germany, more like a developing country.
In my view there are three Europes: Latin Europe, Germanic Europe, and Slavic Europe.
I don't entirely disagree. But on an institutional/civilizational basis, was France that much different than Britain? Was France that much different than Germany? Were the Poles that much different than the Germans?
We often talk about "Western Civilization", but that doesn't mean every Western Country is identical. Japan is usually considered "Western", but what does it have in common with other Western countries? Democracy and capitalism?
There is a big difference between a civilization and a nation. People who share the same civilization aren't the same people, but they are natural allies against people of other civilizations. All Pat Buchanan is saying is that it makes more sense for Russia to ally with Europe than with China. That Russia is a natural ally of Europe. And yes because it is white, Christian, and has strong ancestral/cultural/historical ties to Europe.
But couldn't you say that about every European country during the Middle-Ages? Ireland was probably more backwards than Russia until the 20th century, and the ruling classes of Britain were hardly the same as the peasantry.
I am more familiar with the "continentals" - the Germans, the French, the Italians, since their presence in Russia was/is very visible, for the imprint that they left on the Russian culture. ( In fact I think that Germans were acting like a "midwife" at birth of the modern Russian state.)
But if I'd address your referral to the Irish, my answer would be that "not all the Whites are equal, some are more equal than other" to paraphrase George Orwell.
Quote:
There was a transformation in Britain that began after the black death, that led to the peasant revolt, the enclosure acts which established capitalism, the protestant reformation, and then the industrial revolution. Russia was behind the West, but it was following the same trajectory, and moving in the same direction. It was more difficult since the Russian government wasn't really a "national state".
Actually, it was not.
Interestingly enough, the "early Russia" started as the MOST progressive and liberal society in Europe - the one that was limiting the power of the sitting prince by the "people's assembly" ( you might want to check on the Novgorodian republic, and Veche (people's assembly) in particular. ( That is if you can muddle through the latest corrections of "Ukrainian patriots," help me lord.
So while the countries of the Western Europe were moving from serfdom to more liberated societies, Russia was moving in the opposite direction, strengthening the clutches of serfdom, until it became THE MOST suffocating, oppressive and conservative society of Europe.
Quote:
National states can have highly centralized governments that can do more things. Such as raise taxes to subsidize and protect industry, build infrastructure, and maintain larger and more loyal armies that don't have to constantly suppress rebellions. Basically, Russia was more an Empire than Britain, France, or Germany. Or at least Britain/France/Germany had a larger core relative to its empire than Russia. This created a lot more internal resistance from landowners in Russia to any changes, which limited the Russian government's ability to act.
Not "more" probably, but different.
But I'll address it later.
Quote:
In fact, the reason Stalin was so successful in industrializing Russia, was that the communist state could effectively do whatever it wanted. Which is also the strength of democracy. If the government is "the people's government", it can do anything.
At the expense of many, many people's lives.
( Particularly when it came to "collectivization.")
Stalin was aware of it, and it didn't make him happy ( who in the right mind would want to see such losses on the way to "victory"?)
But I guess at that point in time the government didn't see any other way to feed the cities during the rapid industrialization. And without it, Russians would have lost the WWII.
So damn if you do and damn if you don't - it was one of those things.
So the best way I can put it - "kids, don't try this at home."
Quote:
Everything you have just described is literally colonization, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide. It is called Russification, and it is still happening.
You are coming from presumption apparently that these assimilated cultures were equal to Russians in their development, but they were not.
Ethnic Russians ( being European) were much more advanced in their development, so they HAD TO bring those underdeveloped people up to speed, in order to share the same country.
And the best way to do it, was to live side by side with them, while teaching/building/educating.
^
This was Alma-Ata, Soviet Kazakhstan, back in 1935.
There are the reasons why a lot of native Kazakhs still keep Russian language and are not in a hurry to kick all the Russians from their country, since they didn't completely forget, who built the whole infrastructure for them in the first place - the Universities, the schools, the hospitals.
Quote:
Now, I'm not complaining about Russia in particular, every empire does the same thing, including America. In fact, America is the worst of all.
No it's not the worst, but if you ask me, America has the least successful concept of the "multiculturalism."
Last edited by erasure; 01-21-2022 at 07:58 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.
help me lord. 
