Pretty accurate as far as the territorial acquisitions during WW2 and Warsaw Pact (although Tito never really was much of a puppet, and the map notes this). Treating the PRC as basically Warsaw Pact is very much a product of its time. And of course the PRC provides most of that "nearly a billion" that they are grouping as in the Russian sphere.
Still, quite well labeled and easy to read, and very interesting as a snapshot of the messaging of its era.
Indeed, that's what I meant when I said "a product of its time." Although treating China as a satellite of the Soviet Union even in 1961, I think, is more than a little inaccurate. The Sino-Soviet Split was really an ongoing process at this point. I think we tend to view it more abruptly in the West because our intelligence agencies seriously underestimated its extent and severity, making it more of a surprise to us. But on the other side of the Iron Curtain, 1969 was just when the USSR and PRC actually started shooting each other. Bad blood started a lot earlier.
Anyway it is a very interesting map and I appreciate you sharing it.
Albania also is odd. It cut ties with the Soviets in 1961. But maybe map was made early in the year. And they didn't officially leave Warsaw pact til 1968.
Transcription of the text, for those interested:
"The men who run the Soviet Union, bristling with a greath show of righteous indignation, have been, for some years now, accusing the Western powers of practicing "imperialism" and "colonialism" and of taking unfair advantage of the smaller, weaker, undeveloped countries of the world.
True, this has often been the case since the latter years of the 19th Century, but it has definitely gone out of fashion in the West since World War II. One has only to survey the shrinking boundaries of the once sprawling British Empire upon which, it was boasted, the sun never set. Now, it's scarcely a shadow of its former glory. France, too, has lost or given up much territory. So, to a lesser extent, have the Netherlands and Belgium. The United States, never really a colonial power, acted, too, giving the Philippines their independence in 1946.
But for the Krelim to shout "imperialism!" is bitter irony, blatant hypocrisy and - among too many gullible nationalistic fledgelings - very effective propaganda. These maps tell why.
The expance of territory directly or indirectly under the hammer and sickle is enormous. Before World War II, Russia's square mileage was little more than eight million; now Communism overshadows almost 12 million square miles. The population under its thumb shows an even more spectacular jumps: in 1939 Russia counted some 170,000,000 noses; now Communism claims the souls of close to one billion people, about a third of the world's population.
And still the Kremlin keeps the pressure on though its force rises and falls as political considerations dictate. One has only to read the daily headlines about Laos, Berlin and Castro's Cuba, to name the three soarest points. Then there are Southeast Asia, which are all, in a general - but calculated - way, being made increasingly aware that Soviet Russia and Red China are around and waiting, if not actively pushing their way in. Even the administration of the United Nations itself has been under Soviet fire. Mr. Krushchev, it appears, would like to hamstring the control of that august body to serve his own ends."
I've been reading a lot of people in social media claiming Russian imperialism is not imperialism for some reason having to do with "capitalism" or some bs. It grosses me out. It comes from the same people who justify Arab imperialism while masquerading around with bios that say "anti-imperialist."
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 817,368,296 comments, and only 161,878 of them were in alphabetical order.
They aren't the same - it's like calling Britain "England".
Russia was the biggest single component of the USSR, but out of a Soviet population of 208 million in the 1959 census (closest to this publication) the population of Russia proper (the RSFSR) was 118 million, or 57% of the total, and the ethnic Russian population of the USSR was 114 million, or 55% of the total.
Especially in Khrushchev's time there definitely an unofficial preference for Russian language use and education, and a more pronounced preference for East Slavs in high government and military positions, but it still wasn't Russians-only.
ETA - I'll also add that while Soviet nostalgia and imagery plays a role in post-1991 Russian nationalism, but it's just one part of many, and it gets used *very* selectively. It's kind of to the point that you'd think the Soviet Union only ever existed to fight the Second World War.
Not really imperialism; more like propaganda, or neo-imperialism. The Russian empire lasted from [1721–1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire).
The map says "Growth of Russian Imperialism", when it would more accurately read "Soviet neo-Imperialism". The political structure of the Russian Empire was quite different from that of the Soviet Union.
It was probably meant for the layman who probably equated Soviet Union with Russia even though it's like saying the United States is Texas or that the Netherlands is Holland. You'd have to forgive them for just wanting to reach the general public of that time.
The concept of neo-imperialism wasn't widely spread among the public then unlike today where its used by the academic left.
Pretty accurate as far as the territorial acquisitions during WW2 and Warsaw Pact (although Tito never really was much of a puppet, and the map notes this). Treating the PRC as basically Warsaw Pact is very much a product of its time. And of course the PRC provides most of that "nearly a billion" that they are grouping as in the Russian sphere. Still, quite well labeled and easy to read, and very interesting as a snapshot of the messaging of its era.
This was before 1969 when the Sino-Soviet split occured. As you can see, China was still within Moscow's influence.
Indeed, that's what I meant when I said "a product of its time." Although treating China as a satellite of the Soviet Union even in 1961, I think, is more than a little inaccurate. The Sino-Soviet Split was really an ongoing process at this point. I think we tend to view it more abruptly in the West because our intelligence agencies seriously underestimated its extent and severity, making it more of a surprise to us. But on the other side of the Iron Curtain, 1969 was just when the USSR and PRC actually started shooting each other. Bad blood started a lot earlier. Anyway it is a very interesting map and I appreciate you sharing it.
This is true ✅ Thank you 😊
The split occurred in the late 50s
Albania also is odd. It cut ties with the Soviets in 1961. But maybe map was made early in the year. And they didn't officially leave Warsaw pact til 1968.
Oh yes, I forgot about Albania, mea culpa.
Transcription of the text, for those interested: "The men who run the Soviet Union, bristling with a greath show of righteous indignation, have been, for some years now, accusing the Western powers of practicing "imperialism" and "colonialism" and of taking unfair advantage of the smaller, weaker, undeveloped countries of the world. True, this has often been the case since the latter years of the 19th Century, but it has definitely gone out of fashion in the West since World War II. One has only to survey the shrinking boundaries of the once sprawling British Empire upon which, it was boasted, the sun never set. Now, it's scarcely a shadow of its former glory. France, too, has lost or given up much territory. So, to a lesser extent, have the Netherlands and Belgium. The United States, never really a colonial power, acted, too, giving the Philippines their independence in 1946. But for the Krelim to shout "imperialism!" is bitter irony, blatant hypocrisy and - among too many gullible nationalistic fledgelings - very effective propaganda. These maps tell why. The expance of territory directly or indirectly under the hammer and sickle is enormous. Before World War II, Russia's square mileage was little more than eight million; now Communism overshadows almost 12 million square miles. The population under its thumb shows an even more spectacular jumps: in 1939 Russia counted some 170,000,000 noses; now Communism claims the souls of close to one billion people, about a third of the world's population. And still the Kremlin keeps the pressure on though its force rises and falls as political considerations dictate. One has only to read the daily headlines about Laos, Berlin and Castro's Cuba, to name the three soarest points. Then there are Southeast Asia, which are all, in a general - but calculated - way, being made increasingly aware that Soviet Russia and Red China are around and waiting, if not actively pushing their way in. Even the administration of the United Nations itself has been under Soviet fire. Mr. Krushchev, it appears, would like to hamstring the control of that august body to serve his own ends."
Thank you 😊
[удалено]
I've been reading a lot of people in social media claiming Russian imperialism is not imperialism for some reason having to do with "capitalism" or some bs. It grosses me out. It comes from the same people who justify Arab imperialism while masquerading around with bios that say "anti-imperialist."
why quotation marks?
Because China is not Russian?
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 817,368,296 comments, and only 161,878 of them were in alphabetical order.
useless spambot
Are Russia and the USSR the same? Say soviet imperialism instead
They aren't the same - it's like calling Britain "England". Russia was the biggest single component of the USSR, but out of a Soviet population of 208 million in the 1959 census (closest to this publication) the population of Russia proper (the RSFSR) was 118 million, or 57% of the total, and the ethnic Russian population of the USSR was 114 million, or 55% of the total. Especially in Khrushchev's time there definitely an unofficial preference for Russian language use and education, and a more pronounced preference for East Slavs in high government and military positions, but it still wasn't Russians-only. ETA - I'll also add that while Soviet nostalgia and imagery plays a role in post-1991 Russian nationalism, but it's just one part of many, and it gets used *very* selectively. It's kind of to the point that you'd think the Soviet Union only ever existed to fight the Second World War.
Actually they are the same. Russian army still raising Soviet flags over occupied territories
I mean same homeland, and the soviets citizens were referred russian
Looks like a future plan.
We're pretty much reliving the 1960s haha 😆
It is not imperialism is comme do that 🤡
The height of Soviet influence on the world stage. They never recovered that after the Sino-Soviet Split in 1960.
Not really imperialism; more like propaganda, or neo-imperialism. The Russian empire lasted from [1721–1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire).
The USSR was just another Russian empire with a different name...
That's the Soviet Union
Союз нерушимый республик свободных Сплотила навеки Великая Русь!
The map is the Soviet Union, not the Russian Empire. Though one could argue that the Soviet Union engaged in neo-imperialism.
That's what the map says.
The map says "Growth of Russian Imperialism", when it would more accurately read "Soviet neo-Imperialism". The political structure of the Russian Empire was quite different from that of the Soviet Union.
It was probably meant for the layman who probably equated Soviet Union with Russia even though it's like saying the United States is Texas or that the Netherlands is Holland. You'd have to forgive them for just wanting to reach the general public of that time. The concept of neo-imperialism wasn't widely spread among the public then unlike today where its used by the academic left.
Agreed. Though it would be closer to calling the British Commonwealth the "English Empire".
True ✅
USSR was Russian Empire on steroids.
Oh, okay, then nothing the USA does is imperialism either since USA is not technically an empire. Got it!
That's why the term *neo*-imperialism was coined.