The Soviet Union
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 20-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Trainee Teacher
- Location: Trantor
- Posts: 18,445
The Soviet Union... seems to have a fair bit in common with the British Empire - in that (a) during their heyday, both were the largest dominion on the face of the earth, (b) some people wish they were still around, and act as if this were the case, (c) both involved large numbers of people with totally different cultures being ruled by a city thousands of miles away, and (d) both lasted around 100 years. Ish.
However, I think it is fair to say that the cultural impact and the long-term benefits of the Soviet Union were far less than those of the British Empire.
Thoughts? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: UK and Canada
the soviet union was never as large and far reaching as the british empire.(Original post by Agent Smith)
... seems to have a fair bit in common with the British Empire - in that (a) during their heyday, both were the largest dominion on the face of the earth, (b) some people wish they were still around, and act as if this were the case, (c) both involved large numbers of people with totally different cultures being ruled by a city thousands of miles away, and (d) both lasted around 100 years. Ish.
However, I think it is fair to say that the cultural impact and the long-term benefits of the Soviet Union were far less than those of the British Empire.
Thoughts?
the british empire has been around far longer than 100 years
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
I think the influence of the Soviet Union on those 'dominions' that it invaded/extended its ideologies has been far less beneficial than the benefit of the UK on its former colonies. Indeed, compare Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam et al with the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya etc - it's evident which states are better off now. Sure, you can argue that many, especially in Africa, are corrupt as hell, but compare these to their neighbours and I think it's readily evident that these post-colonial nations are far better off. And compare them to the former Soviet dominions etc, it's clear that British colonialism is something to be proud of, while the same cannot be said of the Soviet Union.
-
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
How many did we systematically murder? It was a hell of a lot.
The examples Australia, America etc kind of fall apart when you realise that the effect on the people who actually lived there was largely death, cultural destruction, enslavement and such-like. The British Empire didn't have a beneficial effect on the Native Americans, or the Aboriginees, or Zulus, or tribes of Africa, or Maoris or.. the list goes on.. all those other cultures we destroyed and those thousands we slaughtered.
Both empires were pretty damn evil for the people whose land they acquired. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
That's debateable. Prior to the tsar's annexation of Central Asia, almost all the people in the region were nomads who practiced slavery. Turkmen did nothing more than raid neighboring territories. Now more than half the people of Central Asia live in urban areas, slavery is abolished, and the standard of living in their main cities is comparable to the less advanced parts of Europe. The same can be said for the Caucasus. Prior to being annexed by Russia, it consisted of nothing more than nomads and roving bands of mountain fighters. Now there is at least some level of civilization in the region.(Original post by Agent Smith)
However, I think it is fair to say that the cultural impact and the long-term benefits of the Soviet Union were far less than those of the British Empire.
Thoughts?
I should add that the Russian Empire lasted about three hundred years. I don't see why you wouldn't include the tsarist period since the tsars were the ones who created the empire. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Area 51
Agent Smith....without nitpicking insignificant details, I'd say your statement is absolutely TRUE(Original post by Agent Smith)
However, I think it is fair to say that the cultural impact and the long-term benefits of the Soviet Union were far less than those of the British Empire. ...........Thoughts? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
On a related note, does someone want to list some of the major conflicts in the world over the last 50 years? Let's see, there's Israel vs. Palestine, India vs. Pakistan, north Sudan vs. south Sudan, north Cyprus vs. south Cyprus, and white South Africans vs. black South Africans. Does someone want to remind how those conflicts arose? Not thanks to the British Empire of course.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: UK and Canada
well im no expert in the particular ones you mentioned. what do you think?(Original post by Bismarck)
Did those conflicts exist to the same degree before the British came?
id say the majority (if not all) countries touched by the british empire are better off for it. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Those that were minor skirmishes before, perhaps the escalation is due to the increase in wealth of the countries due to the British occupation, either giving central control and governance that could then mobilise many people for a war or providing more incentive for war by increaing the wealth of the regions. There is no doubt the British occupation had negative effects on these areas as well as positive, but I would argue the benefits have outweighed the negative effects.(Original post by Bismarck)
All the conflicts I mentioned either did not exist or involved minor skirmishes before the British colonized those areas. It was British policy that was responsible for those conflicts. For example, promising Arabs and Jews the same land was not very smart. Neither was uniting the Christians/Animists and Muslims of Sudan into one country. Neither was playing the Hindus and Muslims of Greater India (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylon, Burma, etc.) off of each other. Britain might have improved the standard of living of its colonies, but the price for that was the creation of territorial and economic disputes which have yet to go away. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: n/a
I think USSR was more productive with its vassal states. Like bismark said the standard of living in central asia and caucasus significantly increased due to Soviet's investment in infastructure. However the corruption is now thriving in those countries.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: UK and Canada
i dont think its fair to say the british created or all but created all the ones you listed.(Original post by Bismarck)
All the conflicts I mentioned either did not exist or involved minor skirmishes before the British colonized those areas. It was British policy that was responsible for those conflicts. For example, promising Arabs and Jews the same land was not very smart. Neither was uniting the Christians/Animists and Muslims of Sudan into one country. Neither was playing the Hindus and Muslims of Greater India (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylon, Burma, etc.) off of each other. Britain might have improved the standard of living of its colonies, but the price for that was the creation of territorial and economic disputes which have yet to go away.
sudan in particular springs to mind from your post. it was "one" but was effectively administered as two countries by the british. after withdrawal, arab/northern deceit at a political level was a major factor in sparking the civil war.
even your wording suggests at the background difficulties. british intervention may have altered the parameters, but it didnt create them in the first instance. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: .
- Posts: 2,696
Well, I suppose the Soviet Union did give us Anthrax-loaded missiles and the “Red Army Choir”, but consider the world without the British Empire: No industry, no telecommunications, no railways, no global commerce, slavery in every continent and no liberal democracies. A French-speaking Europe, a Mughal-ruled India; with Thugees running around strangling poor traders, an America full of Mexicans. The world would be much darker.
I often wonder what the world would be like now if WW1 never happened and the Empire still lived. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
That is not entirely true. The leaders of the Bolsheviks were the intelligentsia. Comrades Lenin and Trotsky weren't what I'd call intellectual lightweights. The cadre of the party was made up of the urban proletariat, not peasants. Most peasants supported the tsar, and then supported the Whites. The Bolsheviks also didn't overtrhow the tsar; that was done Kerensky and his social democratic followers. The Bolsheviks had a membership of less than 1% of the country, and were only able to get into power because the Provisional government had no support from the people due to refusing to pull out of WWI. The Bolsheviks proceeded to annihilate the rich peasants and force poor peasants into collective farms against their will. This resulted in the death of millions of peasants in Ukraine alone.(Original post by kemiandtheboy)
The Soviet regime was good in principle, but as it was basically the invention of two and a half brains, it failed to include realistic check-and-balance measures. That led to it being administered as a totalitarian state rather than a real "people's state". I'd remind you guys that it was initially a peasant revolt - and there were an awful lot of peasants in Russia at that time. Being peasants they naturally distrusted those who showed intelligence or tried to cite arguments they couldn't follow and by the time Stalin seized power this took the shape of sending "intelligentsia" to remote parts of the country.
Those generalizations about Asians are borderline racist.After the republics started peeling off the shell of the Union, Russians began to be persecuted in many. Central Asia has been the least tolerant, for fairly obvious reasons (Asian hubris, religion, racial issues) Some republics have formed a more flexible alliance with Russia, but all are inviting plundering by Western vultures. Without the Russian organisation they fall into bickering, squabbling and (being Asian) are inherently more corrupt, so their economies are as stable as an upside down pyramid without foreign currencies. However, they are not all-out Islamic states, as would have been the case without Russia's grasping arm. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: .
- Posts: 2,696
Yeah all those words..(Original post by kemiandtheboy)
I'm going to be elitist now and say "If you can't speak Russian you can't appreciate it half-way properly"
Comrades? You fooled me. Which reminds me to add "Spies" to the list of Soviet achievements.(Original post by Bismarck)
Comrades Lenin and Trotsky...
