Someone School me on why the Soviet Union was Pro Africa?

[keepemup]

Yes history.

You're better than posting irrelevent links.

 

[Blackking]

I love how Kenya has little to no resources and is currently one of the most successful countries in Africa. No outside corruption/influence, no massive wars, no civil war (with exception of the occasional somali slappings). Doing well for itself.

 

[Scustin Trillberlake]

The Soviet Union was a white supremacy plot? Then why does Putin and the current Russian foreign policy seem so much different?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

You're better than posting irrelevent links.

It was a time to listen to some good music and to reflect on the fact that the soviet union isnt concerned with helping africa like that, friend.

 

[keepemup]

It was a time to listen to some good music and to reflect on the fact that the soviet union isnt concerned with helping africa like that, friend.

Just man up guy. Either come with something real or leave it alone.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Just man up guy. Either come with something real or leave it alone.

Are you saying im not telling the truth when i made my claim?

 

[keepemup]

Are you saying im not telling the truth when i made my claim?

You've made a claim and I am asking you to back it up.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist in its philosophy since the time of Lenin. Furthermore, the Soviets ideologically viewed imperialism as a major obstacle to global communism coming to fruition. The Soviet Union first involved itself in Africa during the Congo Crisis when Belgian, American and French interests sought to take advantage of internal instability in the Congo a few months after it gained independence from Belgium. Afterwards, the Soviet Union began giving aid to various African states such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Angola etc. to counter Western interests.
.

So the Soviet Union didn't spread its ideology all over the globe, exert their influence on cultures and crush what came before? They didn't occupy the baltic states? Were relations between Stalin's Russia and their eastern euro counterparts equal?

@DEAD7

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

So the Soviet Union didn't spread its ideology all over the globe, exert their influence on cultures and crush what came before? They didn't occupy the baltic states? Were relations between Stalin's Russia and their eastern euro counterparts equal?

@DEAD7

Of course the Soviet Union did those things. If you actually possessed the faculties of critical analysis, you'd realize I noted their efforts to do so by spreading global communism. Nonetheless, you decide to reach towards disingenuous argumentation (the refuge of the dolt). The sort of imperialism that the Soviet Union was against was imperialism foisted upon the world by Western capitalist powers who conquered the world by the end of the 19th century.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

You've made a claim and I am asking you to back it up.

Ok well, friend, since you are so eager i will give some information.

In the late 1800s Russia tried to get involved in the scramble for africa that was already being taken over by the british and other western europeans. Russians attempted to settle in Ethiopia and start a colony there. The area they settled in they were going to call "New Moscow" And the goal was to change the Coptic Church of Ethiopia into a Russian Orthodox ecclesiastical church, friend. This was a kickoff to establishing the russian church throughout the east of Africa. Thats what colonists do first isnt it, come in with religion, friend? They were working with the french to basically attempt to stop Anglo/Italian expansion into africa by controlling ports in the red sea. This expedition ended up being a loser as the leader lost trust with russia and had his little settlement destroyed by his own people. They were a little to late jumping on the bandwagon as Italy and Britian really had things Sewn up at the time, friend.

Considering russians genocidal history in asia we should probably be thankful another group of homocidal maniacs did not penetrate africa.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Of course the Soviet Union did those things. If you actually possessed the faculties of critical analysis, you'd realize I noted their efforts to do so by spreading global communism. Nonetheless, you decide to reach towards disingenuous argumentation (the refuge of the dolt). The sort of imperialism that the Soviet Union was against was imperialism foisted upon the world by Western capitalist powers who conquered the world by the end of the 19th century.

Why don't you relax for a minute. It's an internet conversation, no need to call people names.

What I was saying (playfully) is that the Soviets engaged in their own brand of imperialism. The only reasons they positioned themselves against Western imperialism was because they identified that the victims of it were more susceptible to their influence. I'll also acknowledge that they did believe in their ideology as well, and perhaps saw some of these people as downtrodden from a labor perspective. Either way, it wasn't just about ideology; it was also about expanding their sphere of power in comparison to that of America and Western Europe. I don't really see these forms of imperialism as being all that different, when you consider the control the USSR exerted on satellites and 'influenced' countries. And I think it's important to recognize that.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Why don't you relax for a minute. It's an internet conversation, no need to call people names.

What I was saying (playfully) is that the Soviets engaged in their own brand of imperialism. The only reasons they positioned themselves against Western imperialism was because they identified that the victims of it were more susceptible to their influence. I'll also acknowledge that they did believe in their ideology as well, and perhaps saw some of these people as downtrodden from a labor perspective. Either way, it wasn't just about ideology; it was also about expanding their sphere of power in comparison to that of America and Western Europe. I don't really see these forms of imperialism as being all that different, when you consider the control the USSR exerted on satellites and 'influenced' countries. And I think it's important to recognize that.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. If I have done so, then I apologize.

Of course, it is easy to declare that systems of domination are one in the same, however, nuance is needed to actually determine their particular impact upon history. In contrast to traditional imperialism that was exhibited in the 19th century, the Soviet Union expanded it's sphere of influence under the guise of spreading global communism. It would typically aid communist groups in Africa in the hopes that they would counter Western influence and begin a revolution for the proletariat. It was not about ideology, but ideologies are among the strongest motivating factors for people to be willing to do good and evil towards one another. Present day examples are the neo-conservative drive towards "democratizing" the Middle East or Boko Haram's attempts to create Islamic theocracy in the Sahel.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. If I have done so, then I apologize.

Of course, it is easy to declare that systems of domination are one in the same, however, nuance is needed to actually determine their particular impact upon history. In contrast to traditional imperialism that was exhibited in the 19th century, the Soviet Union expanded it's sphere of influence under the guise of spreading global communism. It would typically aid communist groups in Africa in the hopes that they would counter Western influence and begin a revolution for the proletariat. It was not about ideology, but ideologies are among the strongest motivating factors for people to be willing to do good and evil towards one another. Present day examples are the neo-conservative drive towards "democratizing" the Middle East or Boko Haram's attempts to create Islamic theocracy in the Sahel.

No feelings, just saying there's no need to get in it when it's just a throwaway comment.

I didn't say they're the same. It IS about ideology, on some level. I look at the countries where communism took root and it certainly changed the ethos of many cultures. I'm just comparing them as a form of empire building, is all.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

No feelings, just saying there's no need to get in it when it's just a throwaway comment.

I didn't say they're the same. It IS about ideology, on some level. I look at the countries where communism took root and it certainly changed the ethos of many cultures. I'm just comparing them as a form of empire building, is all.

It is empire building. They are spreading their way of government to counter capitalism which seeks to ultimately spread its empire to them as well once all their pieces are in place around the world. Russia just got in the game late friend.

 

[Kritic]

if peace by handing over the little you have without a fight to outsiders is important then they've done that over there.

i've been to uganda and the prize of that region at the time of colonization was uganda. the british wanted to control the nile by taking over uganda. they took kenya because they wanted to build a railway (bringing indians who economically own kenya) to the ocean. apart from one tribe in kenya the rest of them just didnt offer any real resistance.

now not too long ago they found some shyt in the desert over there and the puppet politicians with deep ties to israel grabbed it. so basically the zionists own the resources over there.

somalis probably run them niccas anyway.

whites, indians and arabs run kenya. in uganda, the king of scotland my homie idi amin put the blacks there in a better position to own their country. tall buildings don't mean shyt if you don't own them..

uganda is one of those places you visit and are like wtf why don't they talk about this heaven in the world media..