The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
You’re not going to find many books to the effect of, “see how hegemonic we aren’t”, so you mainly need to look at how the ussr treated republics within it, and especially preserved national minorities.
The USSR academy of sciences published works in many languages, same for the state publishing houses.
There are also some longer works on the languages of the USSR, because there was such a diversity of them and the constitution mandated their protection, but I haven’t read them.
Compare with the US (wiped out every indigenous language), or the UK (tried to do the same for Irish and Welsh). It’s always projection with these anticommunist westerner historians.
Forced other languages to use cyrillic if they didn’t before, aligning the spelling of words with Russian
Made Russian a mandatory subject in schools
In mostly urban areas made sure education was primarily provided in Russian
Made indigenous people learn Russian, but Russian immigrants to those areas did not learn the indigenous language there
These were all policies aimed at “unifying” the various cultures in the Soviet Union and strengthening control.
Early Soviet Union is as you described, promoting various cultures and languages. Lenin saw that as a way to gain favour with the local populations. Later leaders however went down a different path.
Eastern Ukrainians weren’t grateful to be bombed by NATO-funded banderites for several years in the donbass, nor were most Ukrainians glad to have their government overthrown in a US-backed coup in 2014.
Whenever Russia comes up these comments sections devolve into putting the lib in madlibs.
Just nonsensical word salad from people trying to remember what looked like a zinger in another comment section but not knowing when to say it because they didn’t know shit then and they sure didn’t bother to learn, so they don’t know shit now either.
I wonder if you’d apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?
If said Chinese ambassador wrote a book that was also sourced (like this British ambassador’s book is in a fair few places), their claims aren’t disputed by any factual evidence and is generally corroborated by historians, I’d be inclined to believe them yes.
I wouldn’t expect said ambassador to have a scientific study backing up every single sentence in the book. If he’s writing about his experiences, that can be a valuable perspective on things. I wouldn’t treat it as gospel necessarily but I can still apply critical thinking to ascertain whether or not they’re a credible source.
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was “more brutal.” What, specifically, does “more brutal” mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued.
This is kind of interesting considering that you’ve claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
This is kind of interesting considering that you’ve claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It’s well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn’t mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.
If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn’t, because you probably didn’t read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there’s better alternatives.
Page 151 has what you’re looking for:
That’s… A claim, not a source. A printed claim is still a claim ffs.
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.
You’re not going to find many books to the effect of, “see how hegemonic we aren’t”, so you mainly need to look at how the ussr treated republics within it, and especially preserved national minorities.
The USSR academy of sciences published works in many languages, same for the state publishing houses.
There are also some longer works on the languages of the USSR, because there was such a diversity of them and the constitution mandated their protection, but I haven’t read them.
Compare with the US (wiped out every indigenous language), or the UK (tried to do the same for Irish and Welsh). It’s always projection with these anticommunist westerner historians.
You can see the diversity here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Soviet_Union
Perhaps also read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification then, which is linked on that page. It explains how the Soviets:
These were all policies aimed at “unifying” the various cultures in the Soviet Union and strengthening control.
Early Soviet Union is as you described, promoting various cultures and languages. Lenin saw that as a way to gain favour with the local populations. Later leaders however went down a different path.
@dessalines @ChairmanMeow Why won’t those ungrateful Ukrainians just surrender to Putin’s kindly embrace?
Eastern Ukrainians weren’t grateful to be bombed by NATO-funded banderites for several years in the donbass, nor were most Ukrainians glad to have their government overthrown in a US-backed coup in 2014.
@dessalines And yet they still fight Putin. Go figure.
No they don’t lmao. You’re literally crying about Russia supporting Donbas secession.
They’re the ones resisting Ukraine, they’ve been doing it since 2014.
@Grapho Tankie has a hard time forming an argument. Well, at least we know it’s not a Russian troll now.
Surrender? The people of donbass already voted to secede before the raf got involved directly. They don’t want to be a part of Ukraine.
@mathemachristian Also: Putin was popularly elected.
I dont get your point.
Whenever Russia comes up these comments sections devolve into putting the lib in madlibs.
Just nonsensical word salad from people trying to remember what looked like a zinger in another comment section but not knowing when to say it because they didn’t know shit then and they sure didn’t bother to learn, so they don’t know shit now either.
I wonder if you’d apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?
If said Chinese ambassador wrote a book that was also sourced (like this British ambassador’s book is in a fair few places), their claims aren’t disputed by any factual evidence and is generally corroborated by historians, I’d be inclined to believe them yes.
I wouldn’t expect said ambassador to have a scientific study backing up every single sentence in the book. If he’s writing about his experiences, that can be a valuable perspective on things. I wouldn’t treat it as gospel necessarily but I can still apply critical thinking to ascertain whether or not they’re a credible source.
Ok, point at those fair few (lmao) places. That was the original question.
Spare us the hot dogging, show us verifiable facts or shut up.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was “more brutal.” What, specifically, does “more brutal” mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
This is kind of interesting considering that you’ve claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It’s well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn’t mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.
You’re making the claims, you get the source. It’s really not that hard.
You don’t have a source? It’s ok. Don’t make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.
No investigation, no right to speak.
I’ve already provided a source.
You provided a second claim from somebody else. That’s not a source. Sources include verifiable facts.
If you actually bothered to read the book at least a little bit, you’d have read he actually sources a fair bit.
He’s also providing an eyewitness account from his time there. I’m not sure how much more primary you want to get.
If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn’t, because you probably didn’t read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there’s better alternatives.
No facts then? Cool, I thought so.