Was the Soviet Union an Empire?

[Shekwan]

So far I don't think anyone has really addressed the question, Warpus is right. The focus has been on life in the USSR vs life in the West. Whats that got to do with anything?

An utterly stupid question. You might as well ask if the Sun is blue.

Is there any real exact definitions of an empire? Does it matter if the Soviet Union was? Does that change anything they did or why they did it? I'm sorry, and no offense to Shekwan, but I find this a terribly asinine question.

None taken, it was a question prescribed by my professor. I thought it was ridiculous too, hence what made me think of this forum. Especially ridiculous is the fact he prescribed it in a course about contemporary Russian and post Soviet countries' politics.

Advice to you, Karalysia, and my good friend red elk. It is really not worth the time you waste arguing with the Pappenheimers in this thread. Nothing productive will come of it, it is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.

Pappenheimer?

I wiki'd it and got an article about the rapier.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not equality, no - reverse elitism. Or rather, a new elite, based on 'political reliability.

This is an awesome quote. Well put.

 

[Masada]

Pappenheimer

Its a reference to General Pappenheim from the 30 years war apparently.

His name [Pappenheim] forms the key part of the Czech, Flemish, Dutch, Scandinavian, and German colloquialism; "I know my fellow Pappenheims" ("ich kenne meine Pappenheimer"). It is used to imply tongue-in-cheek that someone has, is or will be acting in a way that is completely expected. The sentence originally held a positive connotation and referred to the determination of Pappenheim's horsemen.

 

[aronnax]

An Empire is a nation that economically, militarily, politically and/or socially exploits a state/nation/people of its resources, people and capability for the benefit of the "mother" nation at the expense of the exploited nation.

So the Stalin had coerced Truman and Churchill to give him to his demands that Poland and GDR became part of the communist family to use it as a giant buffer zone for the Soviet Union against the west.

The Berlin Blockade, Prague Spring, the Korean War, the 1953 East German Uprising, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan are all examples of the Soviet Union using military might to exploit involved nations, attempting to control the domestic and foreign policies of otherwise "sovereign" nations.
Mother Russia benefited from all these while the other states suffered (cept for the Berlin Blockade)

Thus the USSR was an Imperialistic Empire.

 

[LightSpectra]

There are several definitions of an empire. You have to work out which one you're referring to.

The first sense of the word is any country whose head of state takes the title "emperor" (or something derived as such). Thus, one could say that modern Japan is an empire by virtue of the fact that their head of state is His Imperial Majesty, even though it's a liberal democracy.

The second sense, the classical one, refers to any state that rules over a plurality of different peoples. Hence, the Roman Republic could be said to be an empire prior to Augustus, insofar that they had political control over Etruscans, Phoenicians, Gauls, etc. You'll rarely hear "empire" used in this manner anymore, but this was an important denotation of the word in the history of the West.

The third sense, the most informal but also most frequent use of the word, refers to any sort of exploitative state that governs peoples without their consent. Given the puppet governments set up in the Iron Curtain that were widely hated, it's extremely difficult to imagine that one could not consider the Soviet Union to be an empire in this sense.

 

[Traitorfish]

The second sense, the classical one, refers to any state that rules over a plurality of different peoples. Hence, the Roman Republic could be said to be an empire prior to Augustus, insofar that they had political control over Etruscans, Phoenicians, Gauls, etc. You'll rarely hear "empire" used in this manner anymore, but this was an important denotation of the word in the history of the West.

The third sense, the most informal but also most frequent use of the word, refers to any sort of exploitative state that governs peoples without their consent. Given the puppet governments set up in the Iron Curtain that were widely hated, it's extremely difficult to imagine that one could not consider the Soviet Union to be an empire in this sense.

I would question the third; seems to me that your simply describing tyranny, rather than empire. The two are not only no synonymous, there not necessarilly mutually inclusive; I believe that the Persian Empire, for example, was widely supported at times, and many Britons, Greeks, Iberians and so forth were quite happy with Rome. If the USSR was an "empire", it was in the second sense, as a Russian-dominated federation with it's string of puppet-states.

 

[LightSpectra]

I would question the third; seems to me that your simply describing tyranny, rather than empire. The two are not only no synonymous, there not necessarilly mutually inclusive; I believe that the Persian Empire, for example, was widely supported at times, and many Britons, Greeks, Iberians and so forth were quite happy with Rome.

Tyranny refers to any government that comes to power without (1) dynastic legitimacy or (2) popular consent. (Generally, this restricts it to military force.) The Persian Empire was an empire in all three senses; its ruler took the title "Emperor," it ruled over a great plurality of peoples, and it most certainly exploited at least the Greeks, and at most, all of its subjects (in the later states of its existence; the Israelites initially welcomed Darius as a liberator, and they did the same for Alexander when he strolled through).

The Roman government was quite popular in some areas at certain times, though it's undeniable that they acquired the majority of their territories simply by overwhelming the indigenous peoples that wanted to remain independent.

If the USSR was an "empire", it was in the second sense, as a Russian-dominated federation with it's string of puppet-states.

That would be the third sense. Nobody short of a brainless apologist could view the plundering of East German industry followed by the establishment of a despicable puppet government to be anything but this.

 

[cool3a2]

An utterly stupid question. You might as well ask if the Sun is blue.

That definition is missing an important part: exploitation. Empires conquer other areas for their resources and subjugate their peoples, exploiting them in order to increase their own wealth. This was not the case with the Soviet Union, so though it may have ruled over a great variety of peoples and places, it did not behave imperially, so it was not an Empire. The attitude of the USSR towards both its republics and the Warsaw Pact was not one of father and son, or slave master and servant, or even one of client and benefactor; it was of older and younger brothers, the older, more capable and wiser, helping the younger to his feet.

And now you may cue the Eastern European naysayers, who will most assuredly whine about supposed one-sided trade agreements, East German factories, and Uzbek cotton. Maybe even a comparison to British India will arise. You never know what to expect from this place.

Well, if you think that, you're an idiotModerator Action: flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889. Why do you think did the revolution of 1956 in Hungary happen? For what were they fighting and by whom got they subjugated? Who invaded Hungary with tanks? Hungary 1956 is just one example. There were similar events in eastern europe. So Hungary isn't an exception. Sorry, but what you said insults those peoples in eastern europe that then fought for their liberty and paid it with blood, even their lives. That's like saying Hitler was an angel...

 

[SnowlyWhite]

I would question the third; seems to me that your simply describing tyranny, rather than empire.

how long do you think that any of the dictators in Eastern Europe would've survived without URSS? The Hungarian example gave a clear signal so ppl. had to sit put in all those countries and when they stopped sending that signal, those dictators were thrown in less than an year...

help from the West to start overthrowing them? maybe, no clue. But definitely their popular support was probably a 1 digit figure anyway.

 

[Traitorfish]

Tyranny refers to any government that comes to power without (1) dynastic legitimacy or (2) popular consent. (Generally, this restricts it to military force.) The Persian Empire was an empire in all three senses; its ruler took the title "Emperor," it ruled over a great plurality of peoples, and it most certainly exploited at least the Greeks, and at most, all of its subjects (in the later states of its existence; the Israelites initially welcomed Darius as a liberator, and they did the same for Alexander when he strolled through).

The Roman government was quite popular in some areas at certain times, though it's undeniable that they acquired the majority of their territories simply by overwhelming the indigenous peoples that wanted to remain independent.

But in all cases the third definition may only exist alongside the second. There are plenty of oppressive, exploitative states which are not considered to be "empires"; it is only forcible expansion into traditionally extra-national territory which marks them as such.
I can't help but feel that your third definition is, in essence, a pejorative, rather than a practical definition. Perhaps not unusual in the United States, given your nations traditionally dim view of imperialism, but ultimately no more practical than our rampant misuse of "fascist" or "socialist".

If Moscow had seen fit to terrorise only the Russian Soviet Republic, then we would not consider it imperial, no matter how oppressive it's rule. It is the fact that it chose to extend it's rule to the rest of the Soviet Union, and then to the rest of the Eastern Bloc that we may consider it to be an "empire".

 

[Yeekim]

But in all cases the third definition may only exist alongside the second. There are plenty of oppressive, exploitative states which are not considered to be "empires"; it is only forcible expansion into traditionally extra-national territory which marks them as such...If Moscow had seen fit to terrorise only the Russian Soviet Republic, then we would not consider it imperial, no matter how oppressive it's rule. It is the fact that it chose to extend it's rule to the rest of the Soviet Union, and then to the rest of the Eastern Bloc that we may consider it to be an "empire".

Well, the Russian SFSR included some 17 million sq km and ~150+ indigenous nations. Not exactly what I'd call "peacefully integrated core territories of Russian nation"...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

how long do you think that any of the dictators in Eastern Europe would've survived without URSS? The Hungarian example gave a clear signal so ppl. had to sit put in all those countries and when they stopped sending that signal, those dictators were thrown in less than an year...

help from the West to start overthrowing them? maybe, no clue. But definitely their popular support was probably a 1 digit figure anyway.

In East-Germany the leadership would have been kicked in the ass as early as 1953 without Soviet intervention which most likely had given a boost to other revolutionary sentiments in Eastern Europe.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the Russian SFSR included some 17 million sq km and ~150+ indigenous nations. Not exactly what I'd call "peacefully integrated core territories of Russian nation"...

A fair point, although it is perhaps worth considering how many of those ethnic groups constitute distinct "nations", and to what extent they were forcibly exposed to Russification. One would not consider France, for example, to be "imperial" because its borders happen to contain Brittany.
Now, I'll acknowledge that Russia quite probably does fit this bill, I'm merely noting that containing multiple indigenous ethnic groups does not, in itself, define a nation as "imperial". It is necessary to define what particular inter-ethnic dynamic an "empire" demands, and whether such a dynamic existed in Soviet Russia.

 

[Karalysia]

Blaaaaaaaaaaarrr

 

[LightSpectra]

I like how that blurb said not a single word about how the Soviet military occupied the Iron Curtain's respective countries for fifty years and propped up their widely hated governments solely with threats and violence.

 

[red_elk]

If the USSR was an "empire", it was in the second sense, as a Russian-dominated federation with it's string of puppet-states.

I would agree that second definition is applied to USSR, thus USSR had some imperial features inherited from Russian Empire. I would question though its exploitative nature, as many of its "colonies" had actually higher standard of living than "metropoly". Possible examples - Georgia and regions of middle Russia.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The Soviet Union was made up of a number of sovereign socialist republicans in a federal structure.

Sovereign?

Sovereign means a certain level of guaranteed independence.
Not independence granted by the grace of the ruling elite as long as it suited their liking.

 

[Le Sage]

What a strange and utterly pointless debate! And such feelings!

How many homeless have starved to death and how many people have died from Malaria while you have been wasting your time on this? Think about that, capitalist pigs and socialist swines. Waste your energy on making the world better instead.

Geez.

 

[xchen08]

Think about that, capitalist pigs and socialist swines. Waste your energy on making the world better instead.

Geez.

Only socialist swine would care about that. We capitalist pigs are perfectly happy exploiting (somehow) those dying of malaria for our own pleasure.

 

[LightSpectra]

How many homeless have starved to death and how many people have died from Malaria while you have been wasting your time on this? Think about that, capitalist pigs and socialist swines. Waste your energy on making the world better instead.

More people have died as a result of Marxism than any other ideology in history, so...