Military Review

Did Russia have colonies? Part I. Baltic States as part of the Republic of Ingushetia

Recently, less than a week ago, when discussing a single article, a discussion arose between me and one comrade: did Russia have colonies? My opponent fiercely defended the thesis that the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, are colonial powers and they bear the blame of colonialism (we must pay tribute to him, he did not blame the common people, emphasizing the responsibility of the authorities). I, as it is clear, contradicted him and argued that my country did not have colonies. As a result, as usual, the dispute ended in nothing - we both remained at our place. However, the question of whether Russia was a typical colonial empire, or wasn’t, seemed to me not idle, and I decided to dig a little deeper: after all, we all have sufficiently superficial knowledge on this topic. Well, of course, I was wondering - my opponent had to base his conclusions on something.

Searches were crowned with success. Only the volume of the materials found was large enough, and therefore I decided to divide it into several articles. And what you are reading now is the first one.

Actually, let's start with the fact that the choice of lands of our state (both current and former) for the role of supposedly colonial appendages is not particularly great here. To those usually try to include:
1) Baltics;
2) Central Asia;
3) Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc.).

Sometimes they try to add Poland to this list. However, as it turned out, some residents of the Republic of Kazakhstan have claims against us for our “colonial policy”. Although I still did not understand how a country that voluntarily became part of the Empire can be considered a colony (the same goes for Georgia). But let's get down to business.

I decided to start with the Baltic states - after all, most of the claims against us now come from there (including the preparation of millions, if not billion, claims for "occupation").


Until 1917, the territory of modern Latvia and Estonia was called the Baltic, Baltic or Ostsee provinces. Lithuania, in fact, has a rather indirect relationship to the Baltic States, because, according to the imperial division, it was included in the North-Western Territory (West
nye provinces).

The composition of the Russian Empire, Latvia and Estonia, were mostly incorporated into 1721, following the results of the war with Sweden and the imprisoned Nystadt peace. On the territory of modern Northern Estonia, the Revel province was established (from 1783 it was renamed Estland), the territory of modern South Estonia, together with modern Northern Latvia, was included in the Livonia province. In 1796, the Baltic states included the new province of Kurland, formed after the partition of Poland 1795. Later, the provinces were entrusted to governors acting on behalf of the emperor and having vice-governors (Riga, Revel, Mitawa). With the exception of a short period, from May 1801 of the year to 1876 of the year, the provinces were, moreover, united under the control of the Governor-General, whose residence was in Riga.

So what were the indicated lands within the Empire? Colonies? Or new provinces, areas that were supposed to develop as part of a single and indivisible state? For this you need to consider history cultural and industrial development of new provinces.


- 1739 D .: the Bible was first published in Estonian;
- 1802 d .: reopened University of Dorpat (founded in 1632);
- 1821 g.: “Peasant Weekly” starts to appear (est. "Marahwa Näddala-Leht") ed. Otto Masing;
- 1838.: The Society of Estonian Scientists was founded in Dorpat (Tartu);
- 1843.: Published Estonian grammar by Pastor Edward Aarenz, which replaces the German-Latin model used before;
- 1870.: The first Estonian theater was formed - “Vanemuine” (est. “Vanemuine”).

By the end of 1902, in the province of Estland there were 664 public and private educational institutions in which 28464 people were trained. The percentage of illiterate among recruits (I suspect that in the army) was as follows: in 1900 - 6,8%, in 1901 - 1,3%, in 1902 - 6,0%.

In Livonia, in 1890, there were 1959 schools that trained 137285 people. The children who were trained at home under the supervision of the clergy were 48443; the total, therefore, enrollment was 185 728. In the same year, from recruits recruited to the service were illiterate 83, and literate and semi-literate 2458 people.

In Kurland, 1910 was “8 secondary schools (over 3 thousands of students), 13 special secondary (over 460 students), 790 lower (36,9 thousands students)”, from which contemporaries quite naturally concluded that “education in the province was better than the average ".

In addition to education, medicine was also at a high level in the Ostsee region. Thus, the following number of hospitals accounted for each province:
- to Courland - 33 hospitals for 1300 seats (1910);
- to Estland - 18 hospitals at 906 places + 40 pharmacies (1902);
- to Livonia - 8 hospitals (in each county, from 20 to 60 places) + 2 hospitals in Riga at 882 places + prison hospital (1890 g.).
In addition, there was a psychiatric clinic at the university’s medical faculty in Dorpat, and a hospital for the mentally ill on 362 beds was near Riga And 8 almshouses in Riga + several in each county town.

Is it any wonder that the population of the region grew at a fast pace? Below is a summary table of population growth in the three provinces under review.

Did Russia have colonies? Part I. Baltic States as part of the Republic of Ingushetia

As we can see, in terms of the cultural development of the provinces that made up the Ostsee region (the Baltic states) were far from being colonies, and comparing their status with the position of India (the British colony) is at least ridiculous, if not to say silly. In any case, I don’t remember something about having a Hindi grammar textbook published in India and Indian philosophers to form scientific societies. Moreover, if we consider in detail educational institutions of provinces, it turns out that there were also schools for deaf-and-dumb (!) - as many as 3 things, in Livonia. That would have been a prim British gentlemen to invest in such a dubious - in terms of profit - the case? A rhetorical question.

But maybe all of the above is a folding screen? And the Empire developed these territories - just to make it easier to rob them? Perhaps the very formulation of this question will seem to you nonsense - but this nonsense has an explanation: I received this answer in the very dialogue when I asked “Why did they develop culture and economy in these“ colonies ”?” - “To make it easier for them to exploit. " So let's check what was in the Baltics - infrastructure for pumping out resources or something else?


For a start, a short chronology of events that had important implications for this region:
- 1802.: A reform was effected in Estland softening serfdom: the peasants obtained the rights to movable property, courts were created to resolve peasant issues;
- 1816 T .: serfdom was abolished in Estland;
- 1817 g .: Serfdom abolished in Courland;
- 1819 T .: serfdom abolished in Livonia;
- 1849, the Agrarian Law was adopted in Estonia: the peasants received the right to lease and buy land from landowners:
- 1863 T .: the peasants of Estland received identity documents and the right to freedom of movement;
- 1865 and 1866: “the right to own land for all” was adopted by law, first in Courland, then in Livonia;
- OK. 1900 G .: almost all the land cultivated by the peasants became their property.

Initially, the Baltic provinces specialized in agriculture. So, being in the composition of the Swedish kingdom, Livonia and Estland were called “the breadbasket of Sweden”. However, with their inclusion in the structure of the Empire, the situation began to change gradually - the manufacturing industry received active development, and by the beginning of the 20th century Kurland, Livonia and Estland belonged to the most industrially developed regions of Russia. For example, in 1912, there were about 200 factories and plants (flour mills, vodka, sawmills, tanneries, brick factories, etc.) and about 500 handicraft enterprises in the territory of Kurland. In Estland, the province of factories and plants in 1902 was 564, with 16926 workers and production at 40655471 rubles.

According to the estimates of P.V. Gulyan, approximately 1913% of all Russian products were produced on the territory of Latvia in 5, while the proportion of local residents in the country's population was about 1,6%. By the beginning of World War I, the share of industrial production in the entire economy of the region was 52%. The leading place in its structure was occupied by heavy industry, primarily engineering and metalworking. Riga was considered the center not only of car and car manufacturing, but also of production aviation equipment (since 1911, the construction of aircraft began at the famous Russo-Balt plant, and later at the Motor plant, which produced the first aircraft engines in Russia). Significant development has been achieved in the chemical (mainly rubber), woodworking and paper industries. There were also large textile enterprises and a developed food industry.

Estonia was less developed industrially (the economic crisis 1901 — 1903 was considered one of the main reasons for this situation). According to a number of estimates, on the eve of the PRC, Estonia accounted for about 2,8% of all industrial products in Russia - with all 1,5% of industrial workers.

In Latvia, from 1900 to 1912. industrial output increased by 62%. Such industries as chemical, food, light and metalworking were especially distinguished by high growth rates. The table below shows the general structure of the Baltic industry in 1912-1913.

Another indicator of the importance of the Baltic provinces for Russia and their integration into the Empire (and, accordingly, vice versa) is the indicator of product sales. Unfortunately, the data were found only in Latvia - although, in general, it was the most industrially advanced of all three “Baltic sisters”. The data is presented below.


So what can you say based on the available data? And the fact that in its position and value Baltic was not a colony of the Empire. It was one of the most powerful industrial centers of Russia, without which the normal functioning of the state was hardly possible. But the opposite is also true: without Russia, without the economic ties that existed between the Empire and the three gubernias for centuries, the normal development and existence of the Baltic states would be a painful and problematic process. Actually, the events that followed the secession of the Empire and the independence of the provinces, confirmed this fact. But about this next time when we consider a short period of independence of the Baltic States and its development as part of the Red Empire - the USSR ...

1) Baltic and Central Asia as part of the Russian empire and the USSR: the myths of modern textbooks of post-Soviet countries and the reality of socio-economic calculations / A.I. Kolpakidi, A.P. Myakshev, I.V. Nikiforov, V.V. Simindey, A.Yu. Shadrin.
Articles from this series:
Did Russia have colonies? Part I. Baltic States as part of the Republic of Ingushetia
Did Russia have colonies? Belated preface
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. My address
    My address 10 February 2014 07: 59
    Similarly, it was in the Soviet Union.
    It is time to demand the payment of full-time in full.
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 10 February 2014 08: 18
      They would act like the West: genocide to deceived peoples ("a good Indian - a dead Indian"), who remained not to give education, but to isolate them in reservations - you see, now there would be no one to talk about colonial Russia.

      And it was taken under the protection of the white king of neighbors with only yurts and pastures, cut to zero by other tribes. These neighbors not only solved their survival problems, but also built cities, universities, and space centers. Is someone grateful to Russia for this?

      Conclusion: how many wolves do not feed ...

      PS. And now, using the example of Ukraine itself: Russia allocates huge funds to the country for the people, and the West is much smaller than the fifth column, which will seize power and carry out the colonial policy of the West.
      1. RBLip
        RBLip 10 February 2014 10: 25
        Quote: Nikolai S.
        Conclusion: how many wolves do not feed ...

        .... and the bear has more! wink
    2. AVV
      AVV 10 February 2014 11: 25
      Quote: My address
      Similarly, it was in the Soviet Union.
      It is time to demand the payment of full-time in full.

      God damn these Baltic Forgive the lands that voluntarily fell under the European Union, and consider themselves innocent and tortured by Russia and the USSR to open their mouths, and in terms of living standards and their industrial development were an order of magnitude higher than the provinces in Russia and the USSR !!! And now when, after entering Europe, they were let down, they want to solve their Economic problems at our expense !!! Nothing, and then it will be even worse !!! Where and what we sought from, we got it !!! And we need all the flows of goods and start up energy sources bypassing these territories !!!
      1. nnz226
        nnz226 10 February 2014 15: 46
        Sprat limitrophes, in the words of one gay European politician: "Under the USSR they were the western face of a big country, and now they have become the eastern ass of Europe!" That's all their accomplishments since 1991 ...
    3. nnz226
      nnz226 10 February 2014 15: 44
      Before the territories of the "spratniks" fell into Russia, the local aborigines (under the rule of the Germans, etc. of the "enlightened Europeans") could consider the posts of a swineherd or a goldsmith to be the top of their careers. For the most distinguished, the limit was the groom's place. By the way, even now, with the "independence" of the limitrophes, someone can name at least one famous (not from Soviet times) artist, singer, scientist from sprat territories ??
  2. Humpty
    Humpty 10 February 2014 08: 00
    There were no colonies in Russia, there were provinces. A different opinion - an obvious lie, is therefore unacceptable.
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 10 February 2014 14: 59
      Following the results of the Northern War, Ingria (Izhora), Karelia, Estonia, Livonia (Livonia) and the southern part of Finland (before Vyborg) were annexed to Russia, and St. Petersburg was founded. Russian influence was firmly established in Courland. However, according to the Nishtad Treaty, these territories were not ceded, and they were sold by Sweden to Russia for a lot of money - 2 million thalers (yefimkov). The weight of the yefim was 28–32 grams of silver. (Something about 60 tons of silver)
      Those. Peter first bought the Balts, at a similar price, like a cow in the bazaar!
      1. Humpty
        Humpty 10 February 2014 17: 59
        Thank you, I really didn’t know. Now it’s obvious to me that this later became a bad practice. I’ll give birth to some kind of sarbaz, put in place, i.e. they’ll pull on f * ck, then they accept honorary surrender and buy land from them for decent money.
        And now the descendants of all sorts of Chukhons, labuses and sarbases are writing treatises of alternative history.
  3. invisibility
    invisibility 10 February 2014 08: 05
    The most nasty thing is that this rather strong and reasoned article will pass by the Baltic secessionists.
    My opinion is that it is tougher to act with respect to the Baltic seekers of historical justice.
    For example, to demand compensation for the constructed USSR. Or let their sprats go out in their own country.
    Russians actively support, up to the resettlement.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sunjar
      Sunjar 10 February 2014 08: 35
      The article is excellent with undeniable documented statistics. And as already pricked our neighbors about sprat Invisible, then on this occasion it is worth making a small addition: Russia is the main consumer of their sprats, and also buys milk from them the most (this refers to imports from the Baltic states). And so their beloved civilized Europe, neither their sprats, nor their milk do not need nafig at all. What the USA and the EU ordered them to do, they say so. Many certainly believe, but many already understand that they hung noodles on their ears. All Westerners took a sip, as there was no will of their own, so no.

      A remarkable feature of the republics that have left the USSR is the moaning over the fact that the bad USSR usurped their people, stripped them to pieces. Moreover, as already stated in the article: factories, schools, universities, hospitals - were built thanks to Russia. Thanks to Russia, they did not conduct military operations against each other. But over the 20 years of freedom, they have squandered a lot of the gift that they presented. And the only excuse they have is rip-off by the USSR, just like in Russia we insult the past of the USSR, humiliating the dignity of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. What does lie and humiliation basically have to do with the era of Stalin’s rule, under which all the industrial potential, both military and civilian, was laid. And just like the former Union republics, people who were greedy for money and power for the sake of themselves, and not the people, all this was stolen. And in order not to look like sheer kami and traitors (and is it possible?) Against the background of reality, the only way out is to slander our past.
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 10 February 2014 11: 11
        Jackal from "Mowgli" remember? And we will go to ... west.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Shurale
    Shurale 10 February 2014 08: 05
    Thank you so much, we look forward to continuing !!!!
  5. makarov
    makarov 10 February 2014 08: 10
    And for comparison, the author did not indicate when serfdom in the Republic of Ingushetia was abolished. At the same time, I would explain why this is so ???
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 10 February 2014 08: 25
      Quote: makarov
      when serfdom in RI was abolished

      And where is serfdom? And if we talk about serfdom, then it is worth remembering the slave owners in the "citadels of democracy" and additionally comparing who the serfs are and who the slaves are ...
    2. Moore
      Moore 10 February 2014 10: 07
      May I indicate?
      Do not believe it - Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833, Sweden in 1847, Denmark and France in 1848, the Netherlands in 1863, the USA in 1865, Portugal in 1869, Brazil in 1888.
    3. avt
      avt 10 February 2014 11: 09
      Quote: makarov
      And for comparison, the author did not indicate when serfdom in the Republic of Ingushetia was abolished. At the same time, I would explain why this is so ???

      It was also necessary to add that following the results of the "Northern War", the barbarian from wild Muscovy "Petya No. 1 BOUGHT them with land from the" enlightened, European "Swedes, did not seize, but bought them.
      1. makarov
        makarov 10 February 2014 11: 17
        And not only them. Even then, popje and a song composed fashionable: - The East is a delicate business Petruha! .. etc. laughing
  6. waisson
    waisson 10 February 2014 08: 12
    It's a shame that we invested a lot of money in the development of these provinces, while forgetting about the Asian republics and our Far East and Siberia -Labus, they are labuses
  7. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 10 February 2014 08: 16
    Russia has never been a colonial power. The empire saved the Baltics from assimilation, left it with its own identity, individuality, and it looks like all this is in vain!
  8. Name
    Name 10 February 2014 08: 16
    What are the Baltic states without the help of the USSR can be observed; and in general, and not whether to send Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the same direction to which Nordland sent the EU, but ... repeat
  9. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 10 February 2014 08: 22
    Paradox, what is this clonnial empire in which the colonies live and develop better than the metropolis itself? And if anyone can make financial claims, it is Russia: during the years of "colonial slavery" from the Swedish backwaters, the land turned into a prosperous province of the empire. And the Soviet "occupation" practically saved the peoples of the Baltic from complete disappearance, developed industry, science and culture for the highest level, or has already been forgotten that in the days of the USSR, the Baltics were associated with the West (and not only in terms of living standards, but also in terms of freedom). I would like to remind those who suffer from memory lapses, and how many billions of American green "rubles "was invested in the infrastructure of the Baltic republics on the eve of the Moscow Olympics - 80, but isn't it time to return it with interest. But in general, you were given self-determination without any claims, so appreciate and thank, and do not engage in putting forward all sorts of claims. This is stupid, and no one will satisfy them! Yes, even now, having separated, you continue to parasitize at the expense of Russia, but we are already tired of this: they wanted independence, socook in your own shit, and leave us alone!
  10. demotivator
    demotivator 10 February 2014 08: 27
    For the sake of historical truth, I note that the Baltic nationalities never had their own statehood. By the beginning of the 18th century, Estonia and Livonia (Estonia and Latvia) were a province of Sweden.
    As a result of the Northern War, at the end of 1710, Russian troops led by Sheremetyev drove the Swedish garrisons from Riga, Arensburg, Revel and other cities of Livonia. The city authorities and representatives of the nobility announced to Sheremetyev their consent to take the oath of allegiance to the Russian tsar and to enter into Russian citizenship, but on condition that they retain their original rights and advantages, which were confirmed by Peter I in a letter of September 30, 1710- of the year. Note - they voluntarily swore allegiance to the Russian Tsar!
    And now a very important financial moment. August 30, 1721 Nishtadt peace was concluded, according to which Livonia, Estonia, Ingermanland, as well as part of Karelia with Vyborg left Russia, Finland was returned to Sweden.
    For these territories, Russia paid Sweden "two million efimks without deduction and, of course, from his royal majesty with the proper plenipotentiaries and receipts provided by the plenipotentiary." Brickner "History of Peter the Great". p. 552.
    We paid for them, a considerable sum at that time! As for Lithuania in the old Courland, then in 1795 the Courland nobility, who gathered at the Landtag in Mitava, absolutely voluntarily decided to renounce their fief dependence on Poland and join "directly and unconditionally" to Russia "for eternity." The annexation of Courland (Lithuania) took place by the manifesto of April 15, 1795. Thus, until 1918, Estonia, Livonia and Courland, on completely legitimate grounds, were part of the Russian Empire and this situation did not cause anyone the slightest displeasure.
    1. makarov
      makarov 10 February 2014 13: 38
      In general, Courland should have RI before its death, since Biron, so robbed RI, that it costs 10 Courland.
    2. parus2nik
      parus2nik 10 February 2014 16: 02
      It should be added that without German bayonets in 1918 there would have been no "independent" neither Estonia nor Latvia
  11. svskor80
    svskor80 10 February 2014 08: 29
    The normal life of a normal country is described, where all corners receive their shares for development. If the Baltic was a colony, the Baltic consider themselves at the level of African tribes, Papuans and other backward peoples (this is a statement of fact at that time, and not an insult). And the fact that we ourselves have long had time to calculate the financial claims to the most zealous hateful soviet haters has already been said a lot on the portal, but it looks like it is higher than our power.
  12. CALL.
    CALL. 10 February 2014 08: 32
    Read and compare the facts of statistics from the statistical collections of the USSR, which I will now give!
    RSFSR balance sheet balance +30,84, Estonia - 1,3, Latvia - 1,31, Lithuania - 3,69, Ukraine - 2,89. The balance between the republican and foreign economic commodity exchange in world prices in 1988 (billion rubles) (Gaidar ET The death of an empire. Lessons for modern Russia.- M .: ROSSPEN, 2006.- 440s.- P.299)
    And this is how it looked in the distribution of money FOR ONE RESIDENT of the republic from the general budget of the USSR, to which, as we have seen, the main contribution was made by the RSFSR:
    RSFSR 147,4 million people, -209 rubles., Estogia 1,6 million people. +812 rubles, Latvia 2,7 million people, +485 rubles, Lithuania 3,7 million people, + 997 rubles,
    They lived well, right? 209 rubles were taken from each Russian in a year, and 812 rubles were paid to every Estonian free then, for which he did not work. Damned communists, of course, were robbed. But only whom? Now the Balts are preparing a lawsuit for the Soviet occupation.
    “It makes no sense to work better,” said the former Chairman of the Estonian SSR State Planning Commission R. Otsason frankly, “but it makes a lot of sense to write letters of help. It’s important to be able to beg for money, food, feed, goods, whatever - this is more important than being able to make them. ”
    Dr. Miloserdov, Doctor of Economics, says: “Despite the fact that the bulk of the gas was produced in other parts of the country, the Baltic gasification villages were significantly ahead of the Russian ones. By the time the Baltic states left the Union, almost all villages in the Baltic states, and Western Ukraine and Transcaucasia, were gasified. A huge differentiation was formed between the Union republics in the amount of appropriations from the state budget, in the volume of supplies of material and technical resources, in the allocation of currency, imported goods and in other areas. And, as a result, in the standard of living between the republics ”
    And here is what academicians-economists T.S. Khachaturov and N.N. Nekrasov - an excerpt from their joint letter to the USSR Gas Industry Minister S.A. Orudzhev, dated November 16, 1977: “Over the past 10 years, the RSFSR has been constantly infringing on the allocation of various centralized resources: their increasing amount is allocated to other republics, although control over the use of allocated resources in those republics is weakening and becoming formal. what is allocated for the RSFSR is then very often withdrawn from its funds.There is also an unfavorable tendency to freeze not only capital investments, but also various natural resources on the territory of the RSFSR, while an increasing amount of both, respectively, is directed and developed into other republics. The latter require for themselves an increase in both capital investments and supplies through import lines (limits), which, unlike most of the same applications from the RSFSR, is satisfied. The continuation of this situation will entail irreversible imbalances in socio-economic development and resource provision regions of the entire USSR ... "
    1. CALL.
      CALL. 10 February 2014 08: 43
      As for the saturation of the USSR with consumer imports, the corresponding decisions of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers in 1959, 1963, 1978 and 1983. provided for a strict sequence: to direct imports of consumer goods primarily to non-Slavic union republics and to Western Ukraine; then to Belarus, the rest of Ukraine, the autonomous republics of the RSFSR, and primarily to the North Caucasian republics. Then - to the national autonomous regions and districts of the RSFSR. It is in the mentioned sequence. And only after all this, i.e. on the "leftover principle" - to the rest, officially Russian territory of the RSFSR.
      The Soviet state has always set the highest prices in the RSFSR for all goods of the “union” Baltic and Transcaucasus countries, including state purchases. Moreover, as in other sectors of the Baltic Union republics, at least 60% of the income of the port industry remained at their own disposal. At the level of 40-55%, this indicator was for ports and other industries of Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Moldova and Western Ukraine. But the RSFSR and Belarus did not have such benefits, however, with the exception of the North Caucasus autonomies of the RSFSR.
      see, “Questions of improving the transportation of perishable products,” M., Institute of Complex Transport Problems at the USSR State Planning Commission, vol. 28, M., 1972)
      1. Arhj
        Arhj 10 February 2014 13: 19
        I would put a second plus for additional information, but the computer does not allow.
      2. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 11 February 2014 10: 45
        Thank you CALL. Very informative.
      3. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 11 February 2014 10: 45
        Thank you CALL. Very informative.
  13. washi
    washi 10 February 2014 08: 38
    For the most part, Latvia and Estonia became part of the Russian Empire in 1721.
    And before the Baltic States, was it not Russian territory, with Russian cities (Kolyvan, Vilno)?
    It was not an affiliation, but a return.
  14. vjatsergey
    vjatsergey 10 February 2014 08: 43
    Plus, the author, if only this article would be published in the Baltic countries.
  15. Arbatov
    Arbatov 10 February 2014 09: 19
    Apparently, this is the psychology of small, weak and self-deficient subjects (whether peoples, individuals).
    When my wife and I got divorced, she immediately forgot that the husband earned his whole life together for food and accommodation, as well as for apartment-car vacations in resorts and other fur coats-oaks. But on every corner I began to proclaim the atrocities committed by the hated husband: they say, drank and beat, the dog (which is not true) and in general spoiled his whole life.
    Parallels beg.
    What can I say - well, they don’t like us.
  16. sinukvl
    sinukvl 10 February 2014 09: 47
    Colonies is a territory that brings profit to the Metropolis, and the metropolis is not invested in their development, it only pumps out from the colonies everything that can bring profit. Provinces, a territory in the development of which the Metropolis is investing. The question is what profit did the Russian Empire bring in Central Asia, the Caucasus and Chukhonia (Baltic)? No. But Russia invested in the development of these regions unmeasured!
  17. Name
    Name 10 February 2014 09: 48
    Another stupid thing from ex-Minister of Justice Janis Bordans who proposed amendments to the Criminal Law, in which the public denial of aggression against Latvia carried out by the USSR, her acquittal and glorification will be punished by imprisonment of up to 5 years. belay And the deputies of the Seimas subcommittee on criminal law policy decided to support the ex-minister’s proposal to amend the Criminal Law, under which public denial of the occupation of Latvia would be punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years. fool
  18. beifall
    beifall 10 February 2014 09: 49
    No, of course they crawled on their knees !!!!!!!!!!! ONLY RUSSIANS THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, all run to the west and do the right thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 10 February 2014 10: 56
      Quote: beifall
      No, of course they crawled on their knees !!!!!!!!!!! ONLY RUSSIANS THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I reread the entire branch - I didn’t find anyone to say this or something like that. What weed was used, dear?
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 10 February 2014 11: 18
      Until the 40s of the 20th century, the Baltics were a backwater of Europe, agrarian countries without production and modern education. In the Union, they have always had preferences in everything. In the Russian Empire, Poland, Finland, partly the Caucasus and Central Asia were not "touched" at all - there was local legislation, freedom of religion, the traditions and way of the local population were preserved.
      1. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 18: 24
        Quote: RUSS

        Finland was created by Russians (there was no such state).
        As well as Germany, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia. (with our help)
        The rest of the small things were created artificially.
        It is beneficial for us to replay the results of the 1st World War.
    3. Arhj
      Arhj 10 February 2014 13: 26
      Quote: beifall
      No, of course they crawled on their knees !!!!!!!!!!! ONLY RUSSIANS THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, all run to the west and do the right thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      What does it all mean? Smart Balts go east to work in their specialty, and not clean the toilets and sweep the streets.
    4. klavyr
      klavyr 11 February 2014 09: 18
      No, of course they crawled on their knees !!!!!!!!!!! ONLY RUSSIANS THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      - you were washed, taught to read, write, count; with all this, we built cities with dams and much more, but this deer is scattered here with exclamation marks. And about all those who run away from here - the road is there for them, but let them not ask for it back.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  19. Neophyte
    Neophyte 10 February 2014 10: 19
    And the documents, my friend, see above, in the article. And at the expense of fleeing to the West, as luck would have it, someone will have to clean the needy, someone else places. And so the whole
    Baltic youth in the West, quotas will soon be introduced and the struggle for
    the right to clean needles.
  20. alebor
    alebor 10 February 2014 10: 39
    The author of the article made one serious methodological error. Before starting a discussion, you should first decide on the subject of discussion. Arguing about whether Russia had colonies, it is necessary to give a clear definition of what a colony is. First, one should write what the author understands by this term, since there are different definitions of the word "colony" in dictionaries.
    If we take the definition from Wikipedia: "A colony is a dependent territory under the rule of a foreign state (metropolis), without independent political and economic power, ruled on the basis of a special regime. Often, the colonial regime does not grant the rights of citizens to the population of the controlled territory, comparable to the rights of citizens At the same time, the citizens of the metropolis enjoy more power and privileges in the colonial territories than the indigenous population. " - based on this definition, the Baltic States were not a colony, since there was no infringement of the rights of the local population in comparison with the inhabitants of the metropolis.
    And, if you take an article from the Brief Geographical Dictionary: "COLONY is a country or territory that does not have political independence, which is under the rule of a foreign state - a metropolis." - then, according to this definition, the state of the Baltics fully corresponded to this definition (similarly, all territories of Russia with a predominantly non-Russian population fall under this definition).
    So still, for starters, you need to decide what a colony is, is it just a foreign territory under the rule of another state, or is it an economically and politically oppressed foreign territory?
    1. pRofF
      10 February 2014 13: 07
      Thank. Indeed, I missed this question a little. In the second part I will definitely touch on this topic in the introduction.
  21. Pushkar
    Pushkar 10 February 2014 11: 27
    He lived in Riga until 1966. At that time in Riga there were at least 70% of Russian speakers. But you go to a bookstore - two-thirds of the books are in Latvian, and there is almost no political literature in Latvian. Books were published in Latvian, which you will not find in Russian during the day with fire. Benjamin Spock "Berns un ta kopsana" (Child and child care), collections of American fiction, Ryabinin's photography guide (!) - all in Latvian, these books are etched into my memory. Productions in Latvia were supplied according to the first category. Open VEF's "Speedola" - all transistors with an asterisk, military acceptance, Voronezh. RAF worked on components from RFSR factories, fertilizers and feed came from Russia, threads for Ogre knitwear - Ivanovskie. And so in everything. The USSR ended and their artificially reared industry ended. It was Russia that was a colony for them.
  22. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 10 February 2014 11: 29
    Good "colonies", from the poor, during the years of the USSR - into prosperous republics. Let them compare with the colonies of the Britans, the French ...
  23. igordok
    igordok 10 February 2014 12: 02
    These "colonies" occupied the Russian lands in 1919, and held them until 1944. And they still yell that they have occupied them legally, under an agreement.

  24. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 10 February 2014 12: 14
    This is all psychology, the West automatically shifts its way of thinking onto everyone else, it simply cannot occur to them that Russians can treat other peoples as equals, this has held the Great Empire together for centuries, the British have built everything "for themselves", this is good can be seen in the example of the same India, excellent resorts and infrastructure "for the White Man", dirt and garbage dumps for the native used dl.Even in the case of the Thirteen Colonies, the British could not look at the colonists as equals. that's the way of thinking, just like the Russian liberals.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 10 February 2014 13: 00
      Standard Oil

      I agree with you.

      In addition, for example, the United Kingdom has still retained its colonial system, albeit modified under a different sign.
      Now it is called the "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth Kingdom", where the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.

      Of course, in appearance everything is democratic and sleek, but the essence remains the same.
  25. aviamed90
    aviamed90 10 February 2014 12: 21
    Of course, under the definition given by Ozhegov:

    "the colony - a country devoid of independence, under the rule of a foreign state (metropolis) "

    the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Poland, and Central Asia are also suitable.
    Everything seems to be converging.

    But then, under the same definition should be attributed Novgorod Republic (conquered by Ivan III in 1478), and Astrakhan (conquered by Ivan the Terrible in 1554), and Kazan (conquered by him in 1552), and Crimea (1783 g.) And all of Siberia (Yermak’s campaigns 1581-1585), etc.
    And, accordingly, the inhabitants of these lands are called the inhabitants of the colonies.

    States have always fought with each other and territories (together with the population) belonging to one passed, as a result, to other states.
    There is nothing you can do.

    To answer the question "is it a colony or a part of the state?" hard. This requires a comprehensive analysis.

    I think the key question here is "What did the colony give to the metropolis, and what did the metropolis of the colony?" In political, economic, cultural, military, etc. sense.

    If you answer it objectively, then everything will fall into place.

    My personal opinion: Russia did not have colonies.
  26. Alibekulu
    Alibekulu 10 February 2014 13: 24
    Some residents of the Republic of Kazakhstan have claims against us for our "colonial policy."
    Firstly, thanks for the article. At least for the possibility of dialogue on this issue.
    Although, there will be no dialogue, but the result is a banal "xoxlosrach". Kazakhs eat, but they will be accused of "ingratitude" and "Russophobia" laughing .
    The question is not unique - the coin, as you know, has 2 sides. And the Kazakhs have legitimate questions, as positive aspects stick out and hyperbolize and at the same time the negative aspects of the Russian colonial policy are retouched and downplayed ..
    I claims for our "colonial policy" no. In many respects, the Kazakhs are to blame for what happened, as they allowed it to happen. Although, did the Kazakhs have a chance to avoid the "annexation" request - Baalshoy question ... The weight categories were too unequal ..
    Although the Afghans quite successfully fought off "connecting to the values ​​of European civilization" good
    I hope pRofF you write an article about the Kazakhs, I’m sure that from the Kazakhs you will receive reasoned and reasonable answers ..
    Although it may be now, the Kazakhs will (hopefully) give their comments on "VO". But, for most of them, this is already a passed stage. By the way, Beck and Marek Rozny covered this topic most fully - do not subtract not add. True, Marek was banned for this recourse (At least this was apparently one of the main reasons for "ostracism").
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 10 February 2014 14: 28
      Quote: Alibekulu
      I have no claim for our "colonial policy". In many respects, the Kazakhs are to blame for what happened, as they allowed it to happen. Although, whether the Kazakhs had a chance to avoid "joining" is a big question ... The weight categories were too unequal ..
      Although the Afghans quite successfully fought off "connecting to the values ​​of European civilization"

      The comparison of Kazakhs with Afghanistan does not roll.
      Kazakhs never had their own state, government, capital, army, they were always part of some state. The self-styled khans didn’t count, they had no power.
      The Russians didn’t conquer Kazakhstan and didn’t even annex, it joined automatically when the Russians conquered Central Asia.
      Afghanistan became a state in the 1747 year.
      1. Alibekulu
        Alibekulu 10 February 2014 15: 02
        Quote: Corsair5912
        Kazakhs never had their own state, government, capital, army, they were always part of some state.
        Well, what can you talk about after that ?! request
        The Kazakh Khanate (Kazakh. Қазақ хандыы) is a Kazakh state in the territory of modern Kazakhstan and its neighboring states (1465 - 1847), formed as a result of the collapse of the Golden Horde in the 1465 year.
        In 1227 on the territory of Desht-i-Kipchak, the Protokazakh state was formed as part of the Golden Horde - the White Horde (Kaz. Ak Orda).
        Currently, the residence of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, is called Ak Orda.
        I think later Astana will be renamed the city of Ak Orda soldier
        Quote: Corsair5912
        The Russians didn’t conquer Kazakhstan and didn’t even annex, it joined automatically when the Russians conquered Central Asia.
        Eh lol once the Russians automatically joined Ulug Ulys (Golden Horde) when the Horde made their run "to the last sea" ...
        Quote: Corsair5912
        The self-styled khans didn’t count, they had no power.
        In fact, they were Genghisides, and they in Russia, at one time recognized as legal rulers ..
        After the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders (1204) and the collapse of the power of the Byzantine emperors the title "king" in Russia began to dignify the khans of the Golden Horde. They were called so: “good king” Janibek or “severe king” Uzbek.
        P.S. According to the article, the main message, as I understand it, is that the empire was, there were no colonies soldier ...
        For me, it's the same as, for example, "there are children, no sekasa ... belay !?! "
        "Immaculate Conception" you understand ...
        1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
          Refugee from Kazakhstan 10 February 2014 15: 06
          So Russia then consists of colonies! Tatarstan, Bashkiria, the lands of the northern peoples, the North Caucasus!
        2. dmb
          dmb 10 February 2014 15: 41
          Your "indignation" at this interpretation of history is understandable. The state of Kazakhstan (or rather its "elite") desperately needs its own history, separate from Russia. After all, it’s easier to explain that the Russians are to blame for all the current troubles, who “slowed down the development of the Kazakh state for 150 years” and “didn’t allow a single horseman to go to the ferry”. (Kunaev apparently does not count). True, I strongly doubt that you are ready to abandon the achievements of modern civilization "imposed on you by the accursed enslavers" and are ready to return to the yurts without convenience. I would also like to remind you that the states inhabited by nomads alone "died out" exactly 500 years ago. I'm not going to deny the contribution of the Kazakhs to the development of science and culture of both the Russian Empire and the USSR, but as a resident of the colony, the same Kunaev was most likely the manager of the estate.
          1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 10 February 2014 16: 13
            It is you who are mad when you hear the truth! Kazakhs and other nonsense in your head is one thing. The point is that: there is an empire, but no colonies. I don’t understand what to be ashamed of, you need to call a spade a spade. That the natives invited Yermak to Siberia or something. And Ermolova? Say, come we are waiting, otherwise we do not want to call you colonialists, we are waiting! What is puffing up is that one needs to present the story as it is, and not poke a finger in response - you are kind of dark and we came to you not in bast shoes but in sneakers!
        3. Was mammoth
          Was mammoth 10 February 2014 15: 53
          Quote: Alibekulu
          I think later Astana will be renamed to Ak Orda soldier

          Ak-ma did not roll like the name of the capital? wink Let's wait for the continuation of the article about the eastern "colonies"
          1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 10 February 2014 16: 20
            Forgivably you probably do not know your story! As for ours: take 3min. Wikipedia has about the voluntary accession of Kazakh zhuzs to Russia. At least run over quickly, do not disgrace. As for the name of the capital, it is not up to your mind (if you have one).
            1. Was mammoth
              Was mammoth 10 February 2014 16: 34
              Quote: RK refugee
              - not your mind business (if you have one).

              Do not be rude
            2. pRofF
              10 February 2014 16: 40
              Tov. Refugee from Kazakhstan!
              1. Trolling is better on another forum. If you have any constructive comments on the article with attached facts - for God's sake. If a lot of emotion and nothing - not worth it.
              2. It seemed to me that the discussion implies some respectful relationship between the interlocutors - let you disagree with him, and he does not share your position. Do not be rude and crush emotions.

              Sincerely, Egor.
            3. klavyr
              klavyr 11 February 2014 09: 45
              not your mind business (if you have one)
              - do you have a lot of it? can you share with the sire and the poor? And about history, don't shake the air. If you and the rest of the "colonies" of Russia had a different story (if there was, it would).
            4. The comment was deleted.
        4. pRofF
          10 February 2014 16: 34
          H. Alibekulu. Your comments are read, the position is clear. About the situation with Kazakhstan: I specifically at the beginning of the article noted that, as a rule, the Baltic states, the Caucasus and Sr.Aziyu belong to the supposedly colonial territories. Kazakhstan is a separate way, his, ahem, status for most of my friends and for me was something akin to the status of Ukraine - that is why I noted my surprise when I received the answers of your fellow citizens. Actually, if you write an article about the relations of Russia and Kazakhstan, it will be within the framework of another subject. When I finish with this, maybe I'll try.

          Concerning "immaculate conception" - as I was correctly pointed out, I initially did not elucidate the concept of "colony" and "colonial appendage" and, as a consequence, the concept of "empire" arising from them. In the second part, I will specifically devote an introduction to these questions in order to show - in order to be an Empire - it is not necessary to have colonies. I have the material. I'll just handle everything.

          Sincerely, Egor.
          1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 10 February 2014 17: 39
            1. I don't understand the word "troll"
            2.When my fellow countrymen express an opinion about the article, the rest instead of arguments point a finger in our direction repeating the hackneyed phrase "you as a state are zero, the army is zero and generally keep quiet"
            3. Without knowing the question, many derogatory rhetoric judges that they don’t know, you have to be less diplomatic, I repent!
            4. As for the Republic of Kazakhstan, it was never a colony of the Russian Federation since it voluntarily entered its composition.
            1. pRofF
              10 February 2014 19: 11
              Actually, what I said. Kazakhstan is an interesting, specific topic, but it has little to do with colonies.
          2. Alibekulu
            Alibekulu 11 February 2014 11: 52
            Quote: pRofF
            About the situation with Kazakhstan: I specifically at the beginning of the article noted that, as a rule, the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Middle Asia are attributed to supposedly colonial territories. Kazakhstan - follows a separate path
            As an answer, I will give the following comment on a parallel branch ..
            Quote: Sour
            Yes, Kazakhstan included many territories where Russians made up the majority. For example, most of the land of the Siberian Cossack army. Before the revolution, there were almost no nomads on the right bank of the Irtysh, and on the Presnaya and Gorky lines too.
            Here's an example of what "voluntary accession" to the empire can lead to. So the territories of the Kazakhs, at the time of joining the Republic of Ingushetia, turned out to be those where the Russians began to make up the majority. So the Kazakh nomads were taken from them and given to the Siberian Cossack army.
            It got to the point where Before the revolution, there were almost no nomads on the right bank of the Irtysh, and on the Presnaya and Gorky lines too.
            And then they tell us that they built cities, schools and universities .. request
            And, in real life, a banal raider squeezing of native nomads to the glory of the "white Sahibs" and for this we must sing hosanna to them and thank them in every possible way fool !?!
        5. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 10 February 2014 17: 51
          Quote: Alibekulu
          In fact, they were Genghisides, and they in Russia, at one time recognized as legal rulers ..
          After the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders (1204) and the collapse of the power of the Byzantine emperors with the title “king” in Russia, the khans of the Golden Horde began to be called. They were called so: “good king” Janibek or “severe king” Uzbek.Р.S. According to the article, the main message, as I understand it, was that the empire was, there were no colonies ...

          The Kazakh khans had nothing to do with the Chingizids, they were not Mongols, but Turks, vassals of the "Mongols". In Russia, no one has ever recognized any slack Chingizids as any rulers, there were enough of their own rulers.
          No khans of any horde in Russia have never been called kings, the first to receive the title of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in 1546.
          Continental empires never had colonies, and were called empires because they included several former sovereign states.
          Austria-Hungary included
          Kingdom of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Galicia and Lodomeria;
          Archduke Lower Austria, Upper Austria;
          Duchy of Bukovina, Carinthia, Krajna, Salzburg, Upper and Lower Silesia (Austrian Silesia), Styria
          Margrave Moravia, etc.
          Russia included kingdoms, principalities, khanates, lands listed in the title of emperors:
          We, the Emperor and Autocrat of All-Russian, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; King of Kazan, King of Astrakhan, King of Poland, King of Siberia, King of Tauric Chersonis, King of Georgia; Sovereign Pskov and Grand Prince Smolensky, Lithuanian, Volyn, Podolsky and Finland; Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigale, Samogit, Bialystok, Korelsky, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others; Sovereign and Grand Prince of Novgorod in the lower lands, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondi, Vitebsk, Mstislav and all the northern countries and Sovereign of Iversky, Kartalinsky and Kabardinsky lands and regions of Armenians; Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and other Crown Sovereign and Possessor; Sovereign of Turkestan; Heir to the Norwegian, Duke of Schleswig-Holstinsky, Stormarn, Ditmarsensky and Oldenburg and others, and other, and other
          1. Alibekulu
            Alibekulu 10 February 2014 19: 11
            Quote: Corsair5912
            Kazakh khans had nothing to do with Genghisides
            yes O great white sahib, you should at least read books ...
            Kazakh khans are the very Genghisides ..
            I’ll give an example of Kazakh Genghisids in the service of the Republic of Ingushetia.
            From the article "General Genghis Khan: Served the Tsar and the Fatherland"
            Gubaidulla Genghis Khan is the first and only Kazakhstani whose name is carved in the St. George Hall of the Kremlin in the list of military leaders of all time awarded the Order of St. George, as well as golden weapons. He is the first Kazakh - a complete general from the cavalry, awarded this title in tsarist times.
            From the wiki:
            Gubaidulla Genghis Khan (Sultan Haji Gubaidulla Dzhanger-oglu Prince Genghis Khan) (6 May 1840, Khan Headquarters, Bukeevskaya Horde - 28 February 1909, Yalta) - military leader of the Russian army, son of the khan of the Bukeevsky horde Zhangeyra-khan, vnu Genghisid Tore. Ethnic Kazakh. Member of the Russian-Turkish war 1877 — 1878 years. General of the cavalry.
            EB% EB% E0
            Chokan Chingisovich Valikhanov - Kazakh scientist, as well as historian, ethnographer, folklorist, traveler and enlightener, officer of the General Staff of the Russian Army, intelligence officer. Valikhanov was a Genghiside
          2. Alibekulu
            Alibekulu 10 February 2014 19: 11
            Quote: Corsair5912
            No khans no hordes in Russia have never been called kings

            Yeah laughing
            Only some sources give "a description of Janibek as a" good king "in the chronicles of the late 15-16 centuries: Tsar Chanibek Azbyakovich kind to Christianity, and create many land for the land of Rus' ”(20)
            ПSRL. T. 20.1-I floor. C. 1-2; Russian chronicler from the advent of Rurik. / Ed. N. L, St. Petersburg, 1792. H. 2. C. 101-109,123-124.
            And that winter, the good king Zhanibek will die (Sofia First Anniversary - PSRL, vol. 6, issue 1, st.432)
            And in the Horde, then the clutter is quick, the good king Tszhanibek died (Ermolinskaya Chronicle - PSRL, t. 23, p. 112; Moscow Arch of the end of the 15 c. - PSRL, t. 25, p. 180).

            Characteristically, the Russians of that time clearly understood the meaning of this title. And, by the way, they refused this Mamaia.
            In Russia, this status of Mamai was clearly understood and emphasized. This is eloquently indicated by the characteristics of the chroniclers - contemporaries of the events in the stories about the Battle of Vozha in 1378 and the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380: “their king (Tatars-A. G.), who at that time had his own name, did not own anything and do not smash anything to do before Mamaim, but all the oldishness will sr'zhash and Mama and all vl'mi vl Ord "; "To a certain extent, they have a bad talent, and to Prince Mamai who is eating everything with them, and who is angry at him against the Grand Duke and the whole Rus land."
            Thus, the struggle with Mamai was seen as a struggle not with the tsar (Russian contemporary authors never once designate him with this title), but with the usurper of the "kingdom"; he is rewarded with the epithets "", "godless", "evil-minded".
            A different attitude manifested itself in Russian social thought towards the clash with Tokhtamysh - Chingizid, that is, the natural khan ("tsar"). The chroniclers do not use derogatory epithets for Tokhtamysh.
            But the characteristic feature of the actions of Dmitry Donskoy during the campaign of the khan to Moscow, when the grand duke left the city, abandoning the general battle with the enemy, is especially noteworthy.
            The earliest story about Tokhtamysh's campaign (preserved in the Rogozhsky chronicler and the Simeonovsky chronicle) explains the behavior of the Grand Duke as follows: "The Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, then hearing that the king himself go against him with all your strength, not a hundred to fight against him, nor raise your hands against the king, but go to your city on Kostroma. "

    2. washi
      washi 10 February 2014 18: 47
      Quote: Alibekulu
      I have no claim for our "colonial policy". In many respects, the Kazakhs are to blame for what happened, as they allowed it to happen. Although, whether the Kazakhs had a chance to avoid "annexation" is a big question ... The weight categories were too unequal ... Although the Afghans quite successfully fought off the "connection to the values ​​of European civilization" I hope pRofF you will write an article about Kazakhs, I am sure that you will receive well-reasoned and well-grounded answers from the Kazakhs ..

      And I hope that all of the separated territories will write their opinion.
      I myself would write on the history of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but unfortunately, or fortunately, textbooks on the history of Kazakhstan (release of the 90s) are not available in those, but those that I brought and made available to the public (out of habit) took "for temporary use" and forgot to return. (two are natives of Kazakhstan (one of them is "Russian"), almost all of them are from the outskirts. I am Russian (and even then with a foreign surname).
      The most important thing is enlightenment.
      1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
        Refugee from Kazakhstan 10 February 2014 19: 15
        Why go so far, there is a "Portal about Russia" you will find the topic "Kazakhstan's accession to Russia!" As I understand it, in the Russian interpretation it will be more "objective" for you than in the Kazakh one.
        1. alone
          alone 10 February 2014 19: 40
          what An empire without colonies? There are no empires without colonies. Colonies are those territories that are attached to themselves by war. If you say that the regions were not colonies, then what kind of empire are you talking about? No.
          1. pRofF
            10 February 2014 20: 14
            On the continental empire. There are two types of empires - continental and marine (which are just colonial). Just look for sources. They are. I found it. But you can not look smile The second part I will begin with an analysis of the concepts of "colony" and "empire" - from the comments I understood that this is absolutely necessary. I confess I missed this moment repeat
            But if you can not wait - you can search wink

            Sincerely, Egor.
  27. serge
    serge 10 February 2014 13: 35
    The Western concept of empire as a system implies the existence of unequal plundered colonies in favor of the center. The concept of the Russian Empire as a system implied a union of equal territories. The concept of the USSR (supposedly the Soviet empire) implied the existence of an unequal plundered in favor of the foreign suburbs of the Russian center (the Russian Federation). That is, the Russian Empire is not an empire at all in the Western sense, but simply a country without colonies. The Soviet empire is an anti-system, anti-empire, that is, not an empire in any sense, since the emperor (from whom the word empire was taken) from the indigenous population of the center of the empire, led by this population, by definition, cannot be plundered by outlying colonies. Such an anti-empire, using the example of Khazaria, was defined by Gumilev as a parasite state in which the post of emperor, religious and state structures consist of an element alien to the indigenous people - the Jews. It was the same in the USSR. The state-forming people are Russians, who are controlled by the Jewish state apparatus, which is afraid of them and therefore keeps the non-Russian outskirts of the anti-empire as allies, in whose favor it redistributes the product created by the Russians, robbing the center of the empire in favor of the outskirts. At the same time, propaganda in every possible way declares the equality of the center and the outskirts (which is nonsense under classical imperialism). The "showcase" of the anti-empire is the national outskirts, since they are robbing the center with the help of an alien parasite state apparatus and living better. In the USSR, for example, the Baltic and Georgia were an absolute showcase. The dream of the Balts to escape from the Russians is the dream of the exploiter to escape from the exploited. It came true. But having escaped, the Balts fell into the field of influence of the already classical empires - the USA and the EU. And the classical empires, in which the center of the outskirts is robbed. Therefore, the further development of the "fraternal" countries and republics, including the Balts, which have fallen away from the Russian center, is not difficult to predict. This is clearly seen in the example of Bulgaria, Romania and southern Europe in general. And there are enough examples of their own - Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Georgians, Armenians, Ukrainians, having fallen away from the Russian center and stopped receiving its resources for nothing, have decayed before our eyes.
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 10 February 2014 14: 13
      Quote: serge
      The state-forming people - the Russians, ruled by the Jewish state apparatus, which is afraid of them and therefore holds the non-Russian outskirts of the anti-empire in the allies, in whose favor it redistributes the product created by the Russians, robbing the center of the empire in favor of the outskirts. At the same time, propaganda strongly declares the equality of the center and the outskirts (which under classical imperialism is nonsense).

      The Russians were never ruled by any Jewish state apparatus and there was no plunder of the center of the "empire" by the outskirts.
      Do not confuse investments for the development of regions rich in minerals with subsidies, essentially robbery within their own state.
      In your opinion, funds for the exploration and development of oil and gas fields should not have been invested in the outskirts, in Western Siberia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc., but in the Moscow region, and the primary diamonds should not be explored and mined in Yakutia, but in Nizhny Novgorod, and to build port terminals not in the Baltic states, but in Penza?
      1. serge
        serge 10 February 2014 15: 33
        The Russians were never ruled by any Jewish state apparatus and there was no plunder of the center of the "empire" by the outskirts.
        In your opinion, funds for the exploration and development of oil and gas fields should not have been invested in the outskirts, in Western Siberia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc., but in the Moscow region, and the primary diamonds should not be explored and mined in Yakutia, but in Nizhny Novgorod, and to build port terminals not in the Baltic states, but in Penza?
        After the revolution of 17, there were only Jews in the state apparatus, while Comrade. Stalin did not start shooting them quietly at 37. After the 37th, they also did not disappear, they simply changed their traditional surnames to pseudo-Russian, mainly of the "animal" type - Medvedev, for example, Skvortsova, Surkov, Sokolov, or Russians with Jewish roots - Livanov, for example, Dvorkovich, Medinsky, Men, Siluanov (this is all Medvedev and his deputies). With regards to the robbery of the center of the "empire" by the outskirts. Anyone who lived in Soviet times remembers that life in the RSFSR was much worse than the republics, excluding Moscow and St. Petersburg. What is this, if not the robbery of Russia by the nationalities? Now the national districts have separated, and it immediately became clear who was feeding whom, didn't it? As for Siberia and the Far East, these are Russian regions,
        invested in them correctly. Just do not need about all sorts of republics within the current RF, they need to be destroyed, and they will be destroyed. Otherwise, the Russian Federation will die as the USSR. As for the transfer of the Caspian Sea coast, mastered by Russians with its minerals, to the originally nomadic Asian peoples, who were afraid of approaching the sea, this is a grave crime of the leadership of the USSR, which again consisted of a known nationality. Where did you need to build ports in the Baltic? And here is where. The huge port has been successfully built and is increasing capacity in Ust-Lug, which is why Baltic freeloaders are already biting themselves for eggs.
        1. pRofF
          10 February 2014 16: 50
          "Jews, only Jews around ..."
          If it's no joke, then the idea of ​​"anti-empire" is really interesting. In some ways, you are really right - at the same initial period of the existence of the Soviet state, there were up to 90% of Jewish citizens in the governing bodies. But during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period - as far as I know, there were practically none. The Gorbachev-Yeltsin period - they appeared, I don’t argue, but then I would have evaluated them from a slightly different position - everyone who came to power was not Jews, they already had a different nationality - liberal.
          And so your thought is interesting enough and extraordinary. Perhaps you should cover it in the article? Still, it's your creation. It would be interesting to read.

          Sincerely, Egor.
        2. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 10 February 2014 18: 17
          Quote: serge
          After the revolution of 17, there were only Jews in the state apparatus, while Comrade. Stalin did not start shooting them quietly at 37. After the 37th they did not disappear either, they simply changed their traditional surnames to pseudo-Russian, mostly of the "animal" type

          How tired of the self-glorification of the Jews!
          There have never been in the Soviet government any 90% of Jews.
          In the 1-th Soviet government of the 16 people were only 1 Jewish Trotsky.
          In all, the Central Committee for all years included the 51 Jew. Jews made up the maximum share in the Central Committee in 1917-1918 - 25%. In the period from 1918 to 1939, the proportion of Jews in the Central Committee ranged from 10 to 18%. The maximum number of Jews in the Central Committee during this period was 1934 - 24 people from 136 (17,6%). Then the number of Jews in the Central Committee began to decrease sharply: in 1939 - 14, in 1952 - 5, in 1956 - 4.
          In 1917-1922, in 1926-1930 and in 1950-85, the Government included all 1-2 Jews. The first Government of Soviet Russia (Sovnarkom) of the Jews included only L.D. Trotsky as the people's commissar for foreign affairs. And, for example, in 1936-1940, the Government included 7-9 Jews at the same time. The intensive appointment of Jews to the Government began in 1930 (4 people), continued in 1934 (3 people) and 1936 (3 people). 1937 members of the Government - Jews were repressed in 7, but 1937 new members of the Government - Jews were appointed in 3, 1938 people were appointed in 4 (at the same time 3 people were repressed), 1939 people were also persecuted. In the future, the appointment of Jews to the Government of the USSR was only episodic (L.Z. Mehlis - 3, I.M. Zaltsman - 1940, D.Ya. Raizer - 1942, V.E.Dymshits - 1950, L.M. Volodarsky - 1959) In total, the Government of the USSR for all years included 1975 Jews. Http://
          1. dmb
            dmb 10 February 2014 19: 11
            Do not explain. If there is no water in the tap ... Even if you prove professionally engaged in heraldry. that they’re right, your opponent will still be sure: a) That they were disguised, b) that he is better, and c) that you yourself ... However, he will make an exception for Wasserman. But for Landau and Zeldovich will not do them. Most likely, I don’t know who they are. Well, he was brought up over the past 20 years. And here he is right. All these 20 years, they brought him up with the help of the media, mostly Jews.
  28. tundra
    tundra 10 February 2014 13: 57
    The article is interesting, informative, +. Well, just do not understand why and for whom what Russians already know everything. And before St. ... mi beads do not toss. In response to their written claims, I would have answered in a verbose fashion with one drawing of a male organ
  29. vostok1982
    vostok1982 10 February 2014 14: 02
    Last year I came across a translated article from Polish. And to my amazement, the Polish historian admitted that the period of the most rapid development of the Polish economy was at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th. That is - when Poland was part of Russia.
  30. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 10 February 2014 14: 24
    A very useful article for yesterday's students who are not aware of the obvious things.
    Even Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which from the first / inexperienced view can be mistaken for the raw materials appendages of the USSR, do not fall into such a definition.

    To the author plus. smile
  31. groin
    groin 10 February 2014 14: 39
    Yeah, and the oppressed peoples stood up as one to fight against fascism in the 41st. And at the same time they WIN !!!
    All "colonies" had the same rights and obligations and they were all called provinces earlier, and republics later. But they had the bourgeois rabble in different ways, so there were traitors, somewhere more, somewhere less. During the Second World War 41-45. the smallest number of deserters was from Central Asia, you know about the Zapadentsev and the Balts. Whoever lost power, slaves, lands, will always consider that Russia pursued a colonial policy, who was "nobody" and became part of a great country (USSR) will be considered as respected the author of the article, him +.
  32. parus2nik
    parus2nik 10 February 2014 15: 53
    Respect to the author for the article .. According to the logic of your opponent, it turns out .. Scotland, Wales, St. Ireland, Gibraltar colonies of the UK .. Galicia, Andalusia, Catalonia, Basque country-colonies of Spain (Leon and Castile), Normandy, Corsica, Burgundy-colonies of France , and to date ... smile
  33. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 10 February 2014 22: 37
    The theory of empire was considered in sufficient detail on this site:

    Many issues are discussed there, which are now discussed in the comments.
  34. sgv
    sgv 10 February 2014 23: 04
    Dear forum users, I was born and raised in Riga and this is my homeland, here are the graves of my grandfathers and parents, but at the same time I was not a citizen and went all the way to naturalization. But this hour is not about that. I was preparing to write a long article about what happened in Soviet Latvia and what happened in free Latvia (realized with a small letter) with large and well-known enterprises throughout the union. I even started collecting photos of plants before and after not being addicted, but I just don’t have time. So in short: REZ (the conductor was founded in 1888) now works at best only 15%; at the time, almost all of the plant’s products were accepted by military acceptance, now they produce engines for rolling stock, but most cases are empty on request. VEF (Valst elektro fabrika) is the world famous WEF. MINOX cameras airplanes, famous telephone exchanges, telephones, including government telephones, famous with the emblem on the disk. There is no more factory! On its territory there are many different companies and firms, a nightclub and a shopping center, the famous VEFOVETS catering center has been demolished. NPO ALFA most of the buildings were demolished (80%) on the site of production buildings a shopping center was built, ironically with the same name "ALFA". The famous plant "KOMMUTATOR". He produced a huge amount of equipment for government communications (he himself served at station P 302 assembled at this plant). There is no factory; there are various commercial structures on the territory from furniture stores to fitness centers. RVZ electric trains with this name were located anywhere in the Union, diesel trains were delivered to Cuba, Vietnam, and Arab countries. Now it’s just a repair base for the rolling stock of passenger transport of the Latvian railway. Most of the territory is shopping centers. The plant "SARKANA ZVAIGZNE" produced the famous mopeds "RIGA" now closed hulls are looted. RIGA DIESEL PLANT, produced diesel generators, is not working now. Riga Porcelain Factory (Former Porcelain Factory Kuznetsovsky Porcelain, our family has one dish from the Kuznetsov Factory, on it there is an inscription in a circle on it: GIVING GOD HAPPINESS, all Soviet years Grandma laid out painted eggs and Easter cake in it for Easter. ) the plant is demolished in its place a shopping complex will be built. Weaving factories "PIRMAIS MAJS", "TEKSTILIANA" and many others are simply closed. Furniture factories are CLOSED, before the LSSR was the flagship of the furniture industry of the USSR, now we buy furniture in Poland !!! Yes, God, if all the brains are gathered together, it will be such an epitaph of the Latvian industry that it just becomes scary! And about the claims of the Latvians for "OCCUPATION", so let them shove all the claims into themselves ... ny! One scary claim is so much that W .. Pa just can not stand bursting! And in the light of the latest homosexual events in Europe, with the torn F ... sing, nobody needs you there in GEYROPE! Sorry that it is so crumpled and messy, I have not yet told you about Jurmala and other cities!
    1. pRofF
      10 February 2014 23: 29
      Crumpled and messy - nothing, the main thing from the heart. And write an article. I was going to consider the Baltic states - before and as part of the USSR. So you cards in hand - because I do not possess complete information that you have there now. But apparently - everything is very bad sad
  35. Alibekulu
    Alibekulu 11 February 2014 10: 14
    Quote: kartalovkolya
    .And the Soviet "occupation" practically saved the peoples of the Baltics from complete disappearance,
    Would you, instead of slogans, turn on your brains and think why the "Nordic" ("inhibited" - I apologize ..) Balts are such ardent "Russophobes" ?!
    What motivated? And why did this happen ?! request
    A partial answer can be found in an interview with Arnold Mary:
    We will not get involved in this debate, which today seems to be purely terminological. Occupation, voluntary accession, historical choice - this is not the point, but that in less than a year since July 40, Stalin's NKVD did this herethat in June of the 41, the Estonian people, historically really not fond of the German "barons", for the most part took their side, deploying bayonets against the Red Army. The Soviet government forced itself to "love"that Estonians have vividly forgotten about the 600-year old German domination and overwhelmingly welcomed their return. And this Mary does not deny, because he saw with his own eyes. And so, as we know, he did not accept Soviet power, having to submit to it after the end of the war, but at the first opportunity, 46 years later, getting rid of it. A week before the start of the war, the first mass deportation of the local population was carried out in Estonia. Eleven thousand innocent people - representatives of the political and intellectual elite, the big and middle bourgeoisie and members of their families - traveled to Siberia overnight. Without trial and investigation, the NKVD trucks just drove up to their houses, an order was presented, an hour for training, and a long journey for many years. And, as a result of these repressions and deportations, only, for example, in the 22th Red Army territorial rifle corps formed on the basis of the Estonian bourgeois army, in which he fought, a few weeks after the outbreak of the war, of the eight thousand Estonians left 610. Everyone else went over to the Germans. And that is a fact.
    The original and full version of the article, read the link:
  36. Walk
    Walk 12 February 2014 14: 01
    Quote: invisible

    For example, to demand compensation for the constructed USSR. Or let their sprats go out in their own country.
    Russians actively support, up to the resettlement.

    Which would be perfectly logical. After all, Russia has taken over the debts of the USSR, which means it is free to dispose of the property left over from the USSR. Although on the other hand: "Don't touch IT, it won't stink."