Since history is a thing? Beside being part of the USSR, part of Moldova has also been in the Russian empire. Also a good portion of the population identifies as Russian.
"History" might be a thing but Moldova has not been part of the USSR for more than 30 years now, and has been part of the Russian Empire for only about a hundred years (after the peace of 1812 and until shortly after the first World War). It was one of the shortest-lived imperial possessions.
> Also a good portion of the population identifies as Russian.
Said "good portion" is about 4%, according to the latest census [1]. Balti is the only municipality with a substantial Russian population. USSR politics means that much of the Moldavian population speaks Russian (tl;dr you had to learn it at school and were generally forced to use it in any public setting) but only a small minority of the Moldavian population "identifies" as Russian.
Pre-emptive "but ackshually": 1. nothing wrong with identifying as Russian, this is a comment on population statistics 2. the census was conducted the same year that a pro-Russian administration was voted into power so yes, the statistics are perfectly representative, no one had second thoughts about saying they were Russian.
The south of Italy still has leftovers of Arabic cultural influence from the Arab occupation in the VIII century. That lasted about 300 years but we're talking about a millenium ago, so it's perfectly reasonable to consider Moldova as culturally influenced by Russia, even if just for the geographical proximity.
Certainly, but that doesn't make Moldova either Russian or part of Russia, as the parent poster asked, just like the south of Italy is neither Arabic nor part of whatever Arab country you want to take as the successor state of the last Arabic sovereign of Sicilly (Egypt?).
Moldova is still culturally very distinct from Russia and many other former Soviet republics, so the odds of something being true in Moldova just because it's true in Russia are in fact remarkably small. In particular, "vodka" is not a common generic term for alcohol-based drinks in most of Moldova, whether that's true in Russia or not.
People not born in ex-USSR countries will not understand these statements, especially today.
There are many countries where Russian is spoken as a language and when people identify as "russian" it is mostly the traditions and history. It has nothing to do with geopolitics.
It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
First off, lots of people in the former Soviet Republics (and beyond the Iron Curtain in general) speak Russian because that's what they had to learn in school and what they were forced to use in some public settings. Speaking Russian has absolutely nothing to do with religion, family values, holidays, food, celebration and traditions.
Second, the USSR didn't have a monopoly on the Christian Orthodox religion. Moldova, in particular, was predominantly orthodox centuries before it was occupied by the Russian empire in 1812. The shared religion, and the consequent values (including family values), celebrations and traditions have nothing to do with Russia.
Third, people don't need Internet randos to tell them what it means to be Russian. There's a very simple way to figure out if the "identify as Russian": you ask people if they identify as Russian, if they say yes, then they identify as Russian, if they say no, then they don't. As of 2014, that's true of about 4% of Moldova's population. Telling the other 96% that they're actually Russian is exactly what gets people angry about these things.
that same kind of thinking encouraged Russia to go on a 3-day march on Kyiv.
Ask an average participant of that march how that has gone for them.
Oh wait
it's about the difference between "was" and "is". Sure, a bunch of states were formally parts of the Russian Empire as well as the USSR. That doesn't mean you can reduce them to "it's just Russia", those lands and peoples had history prior to being invaded and some have been lucky to have had some independence since the fall of the USSR. Considering that there are people out there literally fighting to the death not to be a part of the next russian imperial project i'd politely ask you to be a bit more sensitive about the whole thing.
Personally I took that "in russia" like I would with "in europe...insert generalization here". As in Russia the general area, not specifically the country. Similarly we still refer to a good part of the Balkans as ex-Yugoslavia.
Unlike Europe (which is not a state) or Yugoslavia (which no longer exists), Russia is a country actively trying to expand its borders by force. So using "in russia" as a geographic generalization seems inappropriate to me.
Using ex-USSR or ex-Russian Empire would be factually correct, but bestowing "borderlessness" onto Russia is a harmful thing in my opinion.
Interesting to hide behind the defense you’re just stating facts while being so imprecise about everything else you’re saying.
Some vague, associative geographic vibes you experience are totally irrelevant to the detailed discussion of what various alcohols are called across (present day) countries.
And gp didn’t mention “Russians” in some vague accusatory sense, they clearly said “Russia” marched. A historical fact as it turns out. And the comparison was also precise: Russia’s pretense to march involved a wishful assertion of how many self-identified “Russians” inhabited the area.
Hmmm, you woke up a lot of former Soviet Bloc demons there.
Moldova isn't Russia, but has a sizeable Russian-speaking minority concentrated in a generally non-recognized separatist state of Transnistria. This minority is mostly Putin-oriented and despises the West and anything Western-related.
Until/unless Russian imperial intents are defeated or collapse on their own, the risk of Russia reabsorbing parts or whole of Moldova stays real, though mostly contingent on defeating and reabsorbing Ukraine first.
There are many countries where Russian is spoken as a language and when people identify as "Russian" it is mostly the traditions and history. It has nothing to do with geopolitics.
It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
There are people proud to say they have this heritage, it doesn't mean you are a Putin lover and want to recapture the former USSR.
> It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
Complete BS. The only people in Moldova/Romania that identify as Russian are Russians or Putin sympathizers. And this is also true of most other former soviets I've met . No one is "proud" of having been colonized by the USSR. Source: am Moldovan.
Yes. Many of the Russian Empire's, and later USSR's former territories have their own versions of the trail of tears, reservations, and atrocities in Congo, except with Russian/Soviets at the privileged end. It's not a frivolous use of the word at all.
Mate, you realise you're talking to someone who's lost family members to, and has grown among victims of, trail of tears, state-organised atrocities (from forced labour to hostage-taking) that totally didn't happen, and reservations that we totally didn't have, right? You think those things didn't happen in the former Soviet space? Buy a plane ticket, I'll introduce you to a few hundred survivors who experienced them first-hand so that you can tell them they just imagined it.
Colonial Europe had no shortage of mad dictators that European population suffered at the hands of. Colonising other parts of the world while also hurting one's own people are not mutually incompatible.
My apologies, I thought this was a serious discussion.
By that standard, European colonization never happened, either. All European colonial powers proclaimed things like a civilizing mission. Several of them had "indigenous" programs, too.
> Had Stalin who collectively punished ethnicities which collaborated with Nazi more than others.
Oh really. Remember that time when, in formal collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, and later annexed parts of then-neutral Romania, after which they promptly began mass repressions against Romanian-speaking population? Does that count towards the "friendship of peoples", or, as the Radio Yerevan joke went, only towards friendship with certain Aryan peoples?
Not to mention that this entire "Nazi collaboration" narrative is a fictitious distinction in and of itself. The Soviet Union literally collaborated with Nazi Germany at the highest government level before their alliance broke down and ended up in war.
Can you give me an example where an ethnicity was declared inferior in the USSR? I doubt you can.
In the Europe and in the US the theories of the superiority of white people were abound and used to justify slave trade and exploitation.
"By that standard, European colonization never happened, either."
What standard exactly? Ideology is important, but it wasn't the main point of my argument. Soviet republics got industrialized thanks to what you call 'Soviet colonization', their population got rid of illiteracy at the same time as Russians. You can't say that about real colonies of Europe.
"Oh really."
Please don't make major edits to your comments which make replies seem inadequate or incomplete.
Funny that you have no objection to collective punishment which is enough to make it a crime. And your examples are irrelevant because they describe relations between different states, not the unequal treatment of different ethnicites by the same government.
"later annexed parts of then-neutral Romania"
You mean the parts that were grabbed by Romania 20 years earlier? [0]
"The Soviet Union literally collaborated with Nazi Germany at the highest government level before their alliance broke down and ended up in war."
The USSR was supporting anti-fascist side in the Spanish civil war and was trying to arrange anti-Nazi treaty with the Britain and France, only after the infamous Munich agreement, when the West green-lighted dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary, the USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany.
It clearly isn't, because so far you've moved the goalposts of colonization several times, including claiming that it couldn't have happened because Soviet authorities said it didn't.
But, sure, what's another goalpopst: sure I can, and you don't have to take my word for it, it's literally the Soviet state apparatus that admitted to it. Law N 1107-I of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic on the rehabilitation of the repressed people recognizes that there were several peoples "against whom a policy of slander and genocide was pursued at the State level on the grounds of national or other affiliation, accompanied by their forced relocation, the abolition of national and State entities, the redrawing of national and territorial boundaries, the establishment of a regime of terror and violence in places of special settlement" (Art. 2). Several of the peoples on the list were, ironically, indigenous peoples that were supposedly protected by the Soviet Union's policy of indigenization, like the kalmyks.
The Soviet Union never developed a legal theory of racial superiority because it had a theory of political superiority from the very beginning, which it could conveniently apply along ethnic lines.
Edit: oh really now, who's sneak-editing their comments? (Besides, you don't need me editing my comments post-factum to make your own posts seem incomplete: most of your quotes end halfway through the phrase anyway)
> Funny that you have no objection to collective punishment which is enough to make it a crime.
Of course I do. That's the whole thing you're skirting around.
> You mean the parts that were grabbed by Romania 20 years earlier? [0]
Yes, the one that had been grabbed by Russia 100 years before that, and the other one, which it had "grabbed" from the other European empire and had never been incorporated in the Russian empire or the USSR before. Funny how when someone else does it, it's "grabbing", but when the Soviet Union did it, it's the friendship of peoples.
> the USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany.
...uh-huh, which included, you know, that part about the partitioning of Poland, the Baltics (which was eventually walked back on through another pact), and the non-interference of Germany in the occupation of Bassarabia and Northern Bukovina. And was promptly executed through the joint invasion of Poland.
"The Soviet Union never developed a legal theory of racial superiority because it had a theory of political superiority from the very beginning, which it could conveniently apply along ethnic lines."
That was rich.
Ok, so what was that "theory of political superiority" and how, as you allege, it was applied to Kalmyks?
Anyway, the conversation seem to have drifted quite a lot from the topic of 'colonization' of Moldova. Tell me, was its population enslaved, put into reservations or exploited? Was it robbed of its resources? Wasn't its industry developed?
What gives you any basis for spreading the narrative of 'colonization'?
Yes, the population of Moldova was enslaved, put into reservations or exploited. About 90,000 people were arrested, executed, deported, or placed under forced labour conscription during the first year of Soviet occupation alone. About 30,000 of these were forcefully interned in June 1941 alone, and forcefully relocated either to labour camps or to controlled settlements which they were not allowed to leave.
This is ridiculous. You're insisting that the Soviet Union can't have pursued colonization because it used different names for its colonialist policies and justified them by different idelogical means than its Western counterparts. If calling them by a different name helps you reconcile the cognitive disonance of your beliefs, that's fine, but you don't need my help for that, you can keep referring to these policies by whatever name you please. Have fun!
> You keep misrepresenting repressions against anti-communists as colonization.
No, you, as the Soviet authorities did, keep misrepresenting colonial policies of forced labour, mass deportation, forced internment, forced language policies, and many others, specifically devised to pursue, establish and maintain control and exploitation of people and of resources, the very definition of colonialism, as "repressions against anti-communists".
That's what you've been doing for this whole thread: claiming that these things did not happen, and when it was pointed out that they did, in fact, happen, backpedalled to insist they can't have been colonial policies because Soviet authorities called them by some other names. Western colonial powers called them by other names, too, that doesn't stop us from labeling them as colonial policies.
I'm going to stop this poor-taste "debate" here. I understand your need to defend your political views and I take no issue with that, it happens at both ends of the spectrum. Western liberalism has considerable difficulty reconciling its current human rights policy with its past human rights record, too.
But we'll keep going in circles here: you're going to ask me for another instance of colonial policy from the Soviet Union, I'm going to point one out, you're going to say oh, but that wasn't a colonial policy of the government in Moscow, that was mass repression against anti-communists (as if there isn't a whole history of mass repression against anti-government and/or pro-independence groups in Western colonies), or part of the five-year plan to improve agricultural output (as if there isn't a whole history of, at the very least, deliberate withholding of resources against colonial population, if not outright use of hunger as an instrument of repression), or part of the Soviet educational policy or some other buzzword that Soviet press used.
Sure, Soviet practices were not identical to Western practices, they came from a completely different political tradition and were thoroughly informed by the Russian Empire's politically disastrous and much harsher colonial tradition. Colonialism, like all government policies, changed with time and varied with the government that pursued it. Nothing new here.
But all colonial governments developed their own euphemisms for their practices, and I'm all too familiar with the Soviet array, studying it was literally part of my work at one point. I really don't need a refresher on it.
"(as if there isn't a whole history of mass repression against anti-government and/or pro-independence groups in Western colonies)"
Anything on the scale of what they have done in their colonies?
"part of the five-year plan to improve agricultural output (as if there isn't a whole history of, at the very least, deliberate withholding of resources against colonial population, if not outright use of hunger as an instrument of repression)"
You are missing the point again -- unlike the USSR, western colonial powers didn't do that to their own people.
> So, which industries did European countries develop in their African colonies, for example?
Racists usually bring up ports, railways and whatever resource extraction they set up in Africa as their gift to humanity. As the other poster said, that's a very common thing to say for imperialists who justify colonization. Incredibly funny that you keep doubling down on the same tropes without recognizing how they sound.
> Compare that to what USSR developed in Moldavia: power plants, large steel plant, metalworking, machine building, construction materials production, chemical industry, electronics, parts of defense industry, etc
... as if as a free European country, none of that (and much more) would've happened. The common case study is Estonia vs Finland, two very similar countries in the 1930s, both got invaded by Russians, one remained free, the other occupied for 50 years. Despite a very similar culture, language, history and socio-economic starting position, Finland ended up as one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, while Estonia was a "1 dollar a day" shithole (along with rest of the USSR and Eastern Bloc) by 1990. After Russian geniuses were overthrown, Estonia started a meteoric climb and is on track of catching up with Finland. All these Russian "factories and industries" were nothing but a horrible stagnation that robbed the country of 50 years of proper progress. They were wasteful and polluting, produced for USSR's internal consumption and had to be scrapped because they were utterly uncompetitive on the global market.
It's been the same externally forced stagnation, followed by meteoric success everywhere where they decisively got rid of Russian domination in the 1990s (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, etc). The greater role Russia has played in post-USSR times in a country, the worse the outcomes (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, etc).
Even the most envied parts of the Eastern Bloc were depressingly poor by Western European standards, several laps behind the worst performers. Immense negative impact on Central and Eastern Europe is the reason why Russia and Russians are considered a cancer on humanity in this part of the world. Somehow, everything you touch turns to shit, and you can't stop sticking your fingers into where they don't belong.
Why? That's a very mild way to put it. Entire generations of people were robbed of freedoms and natural progress of their society. Most of Central and Eastern Europe will catch up with the rest by around 2040-2050. Moldova will be lucky if they recover and reach parity even this century.
Stalin's campaign against various subjugated nations (Baltic, Crimean Tatars etc.) would fit right in, only it happened generation(s) later, in a supposed Paradise of Workers and Peasants.
Mass deportations, artificial famine, mass executions, torture.
Don't you think Moldovans are doing much better that Native Americans in the US?
You need to see the breakdown of Stalin's victims by ethnicity and see how many Russians there are.
"artificial famine"
For example:
"It has been estimated that between 3.3 and 3.9 million died in Ukraine, between 2 and 3 million died in Russia, and 1.5–2 million (1.3 million of whom were ethnic Kazakhs) died in Kazakhstan." [0]
Since history is a thing? Beside being part of the USSR, part of Moldova has also been in the Russian empire. Also a good portion of the population identifies as Russian.
"History" might be a thing but Moldova has not been part of the USSR for more than 30 years now, and has been part of the Russian Empire for only about a hundred years (after the peace of 1812 and until shortly after the first World War). It was one of the shortest-lived imperial possessions.
> Also a good portion of the population identifies as Russian.
Said "good portion" is about 4%, according to the latest census [1]. Balti is the only municipality with a substantial Russian population. USSR politics means that much of the Moldavian population speaks Russian (tl;dr you had to learn it at school and were generally forced to use it in any public setting) but only a small minority of the Moldavian population "identifies" as Russian.
Pre-emptive "but ackshually": 1. nothing wrong with identifying as Russian, this is a comment on population statistics 2. the census was conducted the same year that a pro-Russian administration was voted into power so yes, the statistics are perfectly representative, no one had second thoughts about saying they were Russian.
1. https://statistica.gov.md/en/population-and-housing-census-i... .
The south of Italy still has leftovers of Arabic cultural influence from the Arab occupation in the VIII century. That lasted about 300 years but we're talking about a millenium ago, so it's perfectly reasonable to consider Moldova as culturally influenced by Russia, even if just for the geographical proximity.
Certainly, but that doesn't make Moldova either Russian or part of Russia, as the parent poster asked, just like the south of Italy is neither Arabic nor part of whatever Arab country you want to take as the successor state of the last Arabic sovereign of Sicilly (Egypt?).
Moldova is still culturally very distinct from Russia and many other former Soviet republics, so the odds of something being true in Moldova just because it's true in Russia are in fact remarkably small. In particular, "vodka" is not a common generic term for alcohol-based drinks in most of Moldova, whether that's true in Russia or not.
People not born in ex-USSR countries will not understand these statements, especially today.
There are many countries where Russian is spoken as a language and when people identify as "russian" it is mostly the traditions and history. It has nothing to do with geopolitics.
It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
This is wishful thinking at its finest.
First off, lots of people in the former Soviet Republics (and beyond the Iron Curtain in general) speak Russian because that's what they had to learn in school and what they were forced to use in some public settings. Speaking Russian has absolutely nothing to do with religion, family values, holidays, food, celebration and traditions.
Second, the USSR didn't have a monopoly on the Christian Orthodox religion. Moldova, in particular, was predominantly orthodox centuries before it was occupied by the Russian empire in 1812. The shared religion, and the consequent values (including family values), celebrations and traditions have nothing to do with Russia.
Third, people don't need Internet randos to tell them what it means to be Russian. There's a very simple way to figure out if the "identify as Russian": you ask people if they identify as Russian, if they say yes, then they identify as Russian, if they say no, then they don't. As of 2014, that's true of about 4% of Moldova's population. Telling the other 96% that they're actually Russian is exactly what gets people angry about these things.
...and before that was part of Romania, and the reason 80% of the country speaks Romanian.
Let's tamper down with the Russian imperialism. We see how well that's been going in Ukraine and the Baltics.
Let's tamper down with the American imperialism. We see how well that's been going in Ukraine and the Baltics.
that same kind of thinking encouraged Russia to go on a 3-day march on Kyiv. Ask an average participant of that march how that has gone for them. Oh wait
Historical facts are not "thinking". I don't get your snark to be honest. These Russians, are they in the room with us right now?
it's about the difference between "was" and "is". Sure, a bunch of states were formally parts of the Russian Empire as well as the USSR. That doesn't mean you can reduce them to "it's just Russia", those lands and peoples had history prior to being invaded and some have been lucky to have had some independence since the fall of the USSR. Considering that there are people out there literally fighting to the death not to be a part of the next russian imperial project i'd politely ask you to be a bit more sensitive about the whole thing.
Personally I took that "in russia" like I would with "in europe...insert generalization here". As in Russia the general area, not specifically the country. Similarly we still refer to a good part of the Balkans as ex-Yugoslavia.
Unlike Europe (which is not a state) or Yugoslavia (which no longer exists), Russia is a country actively trying to expand its borders by force. So using "in russia" as a geographic generalization seems inappropriate to me. Using ex-USSR or ex-Russian Empire would be factually correct, but bestowing "borderlessness" onto Russia is a harmful thing in my opinion.
The ex part there is a rather important distinction :-) and there is no "general area" called Russia.
Interesting to hide behind the defense you’re just stating facts while being so imprecise about everything else you’re saying.
Some vague, associative geographic vibes you experience are totally irrelevant to the detailed discussion of what various alcohols are called across (present day) countries.
And gp didn’t mention “Russians” in some vague accusatory sense, they clearly said “Russia” marched. A historical fact as it turns out. And the comparison was also precise: Russia’s pretense to march involved a wishful assertion of how many self-identified “Russians” inhabited the area.
Hmmm, you woke up a lot of former Soviet Bloc demons there.
Moldova isn't Russia, but has a sizeable Russian-speaking minority concentrated in a generally non-recognized separatist state of Transnistria. This minority is mostly Putin-oriented and despises the West and anything Western-related.
Until/unless Russian imperial intents are defeated or collapse on their own, the risk of Russia reabsorbing parts or whole of Moldova stays real, though mostly contingent on defeating and reabsorbing Ukraine first.
There are many countries where Russian is spoken as a language and when people identify as "Russian" it is mostly the traditions and history. It has nothing to do with geopolitics.
It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
There are people proud to say they have this heritage, it doesn't mean you are a Putin lover and want to recapture the former USSR.
> It is language, religion, family values, holidays, food, celebrations, traditions, etc.... This is what is meant by identifying as Russian.
Complete BS. The only people in Moldova/Romania that identify as Russian are Russians or Putin sympathizers. And this is also true of most other former soviets I've met . No one is "proud" of having been colonized by the USSR. Source: am Moldovan.
[flagged]
Yes. Many of the Russian Empire's, and later USSR's former territories have their own versions of the trail of tears, reservations, and atrocities in Congo, except with Russian/Soviets at the privileged end. It's not a frivolous use of the word at all.
I think Moldovans are doing much better that Native Americans in the US.
"have their own versions of the atrocities in Congo"
I think you need to read on the history of Congo.
"except with Russian/Soviets at the privileged end"
This is where you are wrong. Russians suffered from the crimes of bolshevik's/Stalin's regime just as much.
Mate, you realise you're talking to someone who's lost family members to, and has grown among victims of, trail of tears, state-organised atrocities (from forced labour to hostage-taking) that totally didn't happen, and reservations that we totally didn't have, right? You think those things didn't happen in the former Soviet space? Buy a plane ticket, I'll introduce you to a few hundred survivors who experienced them first-hand so that you can tell them they just imagined it.
Colonial Europe had no shortage of mad dictators that European population suffered at the hands of. Colonising other parts of the world while also hurting one's own people are not mutually incompatible.
[flagged]
> The USSR proclaimed friendship of peoples
My apologies, I thought this was a serious discussion.
By that standard, European colonization never happened, either. All European colonial powers proclaimed things like a civilizing mission. Several of them had "indigenous" programs, too.
> Had Stalin who collectively punished ethnicities which collaborated with Nazi more than others.
Oh really. Remember that time when, in formal collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, and later annexed parts of then-neutral Romania, after which they promptly began mass repressions against Romanian-speaking population? Does that count towards the "friendship of peoples", or, as the Radio Yerevan joke went, only towards friendship with certain Aryan peoples?
Not to mention that this entire "Nazi collaboration" narrative is a fictitious distinction in and of itself. The Soviet Union literally collaborated with Nazi Germany at the highest government level before their alliance broke down and ended up in war.
It is. Apologies are not accepted.
Can you give me an example where an ethnicity was declared inferior in the USSR? I doubt you can.
In the Europe and in the US the theories of the superiority of white people were abound and used to justify slave trade and exploitation.
"By that standard, European colonization never happened, either."
What standard exactly? Ideology is important, but it wasn't the main point of my argument. Soviet republics got industrialized thanks to what you call 'Soviet colonization', their population got rid of illiteracy at the same time as Russians. You can't say that about real colonies of Europe.
"Oh really."
Please don't make major edits to your comments which make replies seem inadequate or incomplete.
Funny that you have no objection to collective punishment which is enough to make it a crime. And your examples are irrelevant because they describe relations between different states, not the unequal treatment of different ethnicites by the same government.
"later annexed parts of then-neutral Romania"
You mean the parts that were grabbed by Romania 20 years earlier? [0]
"The Soviet Union literally collaborated with Nazi Germany at the highest government level before their alliance broke down and ended up in war."
The USSR was supporting anti-fascist side in the Spanish civil war and was trying to arrange anti-Nazi treaty with the Britain and France, only after the infamous Munich agreement, when the West green-lighted dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary, the USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukovina#Kingdom_of_Romania
> It is.
It clearly isn't, because so far you've moved the goalposts of colonization several times, including claiming that it couldn't have happened because Soviet authorities said it didn't.
But, sure, what's another goalpopst: sure I can, and you don't have to take my word for it, it's literally the Soviet state apparatus that admitted to it. Law N 1107-I of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic on the rehabilitation of the repressed people recognizes that there were several peoples "against whom a policy of slander and genocide was pursued at the State level on the grounds of national or other affiliation, accompanied by their forced relocation, the abolition of national and State entities, the redrawing of national and territorial boundaries, the establishment of a regime of terror and violence in places of special settlement" (Art. 2). Several of the peoples on the list were, ironically, indigenous peoples that were supposedly protected by the Soviet Union's policy of indigenization, like the kalmyks.
The Soviet Union never developed a legal theory of racial superiority because it had a theory of political superiority from the very beginning, which it could conveniently apply along ethnic lines.
Edit: oh really now, who's sneak-editing their comments? (Besides, you don't need me editing my comments post-factum to make your own posts seem incomplete: most of your quotes end halfway through the phrase anyway)
> Funny that you have no objection to collective punishment which is enough to make it a crime.
Of course I do. That's the whole thing you're skirting around.
> You mean the parts that were grabbed by Romania 20 years earlier? [0]
Yes, the one that had been grabbed by Russia 100 years before that, and the other one, which it had "grabbed" from the other European empire and had never been incorporated in the Russian empire or the USSR before. Funny how when someone else does it, it's "grabbing", but when the Soviet Union did it, it's the friendship of peoples.
> the USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany.
...uh-huh, which included, you know, that part about the partitioning of Poland, the Baltics (which was eventually walked back on through another pact), and the non-interference of Germany in the occupation of Bassarabia and Northern Bukovina. And was promptly executed through the joint invasion of Poland.
"The Soviet Union never developed a legal theory of racial superiority because it had a theory of political superiority from the very beginning, which it could conveniently apply along ethnic lines."
That was rich. Ok, so what was that "theory of political superiority" and how, as you allege, it was applied to Kalmyks?
Anyway, the conversation seem to have drifted quite a lot from the topic of 'colonization' of Moldova. Tell me, was its population enslaved, put into reservations or exploited? Was it robbed of its resources? Wasn't its industry developed?
What gives you any basis for spreading the narrative of 'colonization'?
Yes, the population of Moldova was enslaved, put into reservations or exploited. About 90,000 people were arrested, executed, deported, or placed under forced labour conscription during the first year of Soviet occupation alone. About 30,000 of these were forcefully interned in June 1941 alone, and forcefully relocated either to labour camps or to controlled settlements which they were not allowed to leave.
This is ridiculous. You're insisting that the Soviet Union can't have pursued colonization because it used different names for its colonialist policies and justified them by different idelogical means than its Western counterparts. If calling them by a different name helps you reconcile the cognitive disonance of your beliefs, that's fine, but you don't need my help for that, you can keep referring to these policies by whatever name you please. Have fun!
[flagged]
> You keep misrepresenting repressions against anti-communists as colonization.
No, you, as the Soviet authorities did, keep misrepresenting colonial policies of forced labour, mass deportation, forced internment, forced language policies, and many others, specifically devised to pursue, establish and maintain control and exploitation of people and of resources, the very definition of colonialism, as "repressions against anti-communists".
That's what you've been doing for this whole thread: claiming that these things did not happen, and when it was pointed out that they did, in fact, happen, backpedalled to insist they can't have been colonial policies because Soviet authorities called them by some other names. Western colonial powers called them by other names, too, that doesn't stop us from labeling them as colonial policies.
I'm going to stop this poor-taste "debate" here. I understand your need to defend your political views and I take no issue with that, it happens at both ends of the spectrum. Western liberalism has considerable difficulty reconciling its current human rights policy with its past human rights record, too.
But we'll keep going in circles here: you're going to ask me for another instance of colonial policy from the Soviet Union, I'm going to point one out, you're going to say oh, but that wasn't a colonial policy of the government in Moscow, that was mass repression against anti-communists (as if there isn't a whole history of mass repression against anti-government and/or pro-independence groups in Western colonies), or part of the five-year plan to improve agricultural output (as if there isn't a whole history of, at the very least, deliberate withholding of resources against colonial population, if not outright use of hunger as an instrument of repression), or part of the Soviet educational policy or some other buzzword that Soviet press used.
Sure, Soviet practices were not identical to Western practices, they came from a completely different political tradition and were thoroughly informed by the Russian Empire's politically disastrous and much harsher colonial tradition. Colonialism, like all government policies, changed with time and varied with the government that pursued it. Nothing new here.
But all colonial governments developed their own euphemisms for their practices, and I'm all too familiar with the Soviet array, studying it was literally part of my work at one point. I really don't need a refresher on it.
"(as if there isn't a whole history of mass repression against anti-government and/or pro-independence groups in Western colonies)"
Anything on the scale of what they have done in their colonies?
"part of the five-year plan to improve agricultural output (as if there isn't a whole history of, at the very least, deliberate withholding of resources against colonial population, if not outright use of hunger as an instrument of repression)"
You are missing the point again -- unlike the USSR, western colonial powers didn't do that to their own people.
"or part of the Soviet educational policy"
I have already gave you the link to korenization.
Wasn't its industry developed?
The exact same justification/apology used by every colonizing power ever (including the U.S. and all the European powers), of course.
Welcome to the club.
[flagged]
> So, which industries did European countries develop in their African colonies, for example?
Racists usually bring up ports, railways and whatever resource extraction they set up in Africa as their gift to humanity. As the other poster said, that's a very common thing to say for imperialists who justify colonization. Incredibly funny that you keep doubling down on the same tropes without recognizing how they sound.
> Compare that to what USSR developed in Moldavia: power plants, large steel plant, metalworking, machine building, construction materials production, chemical industry, electronics, parts of defense industry, etc
... as if as a free European country, none of that (and much more) would've happened. The common case study is Estonia vs Finland, two very similar countries in the 1930s, both got invaded by Russians, one remained free, the other occupied for 50 years. Despite a very similar culture, language, history and socio-economic starting position, Finland ended up as one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, while Estonia was a "1 dollar a day" shithole (along with rest of the USSR and Eastern Bloc) by 1990. After Russian geniuses were overthrown, Estonia started a meteoric climb and is on track of catching up with Finland. All these Russian "factories and industries" were nothing but a horrible stagnation that robbed the country of 50 years of proper progress. They were wasteful and polluting, produced for USSR's internal consumption and had to be scrapped because they were utterly uncompetitive on the global market.
It's been the same externally forced stagnation, followed by meteoric success everywhere where they decisively got rid of Russian domination in the 1990s (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, etc). The greater role Russia has played in post-USSR times in a country, the worse the outcomes (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, etc).
This map sums it up: https://i.imgur.com/4bEf0Sr.jpeg
As does this chart: https://i.imgur.com/uDpWHNq.png (Polish GDP PPP per capita as a fraction of the US')
Even the most envied parts of the Eastern Bloc were depressingly poor by Western European standards, several laps behind the worst performers. Immense negative impact on Central and Eastern Europe is the reason why Russia and Russians are considered a cancer on humanity in this part of the world. Somehow, everything you touch turns to shit, and you can't stop sticking your fingers into where they don't belong.
[flagged]
Why? That's a very mild way to put it. Entire generations of people were robbed of freedoms and natural progress of their society. Most of Central and Eastern Europe will catch up with the rest by around 2040-2050. Moldova will be lucky if they recover and reach parity even this century.
[flagged]
Frivolous?
Stalin's campaign against various subjugated nations (Baltic, Crimean Tatars etc.) would fit right in, only it happened generation(s) later, in a supposed Paradise of Workers and Peasants.
Mass deportations, artificial famine, mass executions, torture.
Don't you think Moldovans are doing much better that Native Americans in the US?
You need to see the breakdown of Stalin's victims by ethnicity and see how many Russians there are.
"artificial famine"
For example:
"It has been estimated that between 3.3 and 3.9 million died in Ukraine, between 2 and 3 million died in Russia, and 1.5–2 million (1.3 million of whom were ethnic Kazakhs) died in Kazakhstan." [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...
The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was a constituent republic of the USSR from 1945 until 1990.
[dead]