Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: The myth of Allied invasion of R Message-ID: <7800671@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.7800671 Posted: Wed Nov 6 11:50:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 06:32:11 EST References: <544@qantel.UUCP> Lines: 53 Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-54400:inmet:7800671:000:2568 Nf-From: inmet!janw Nov 6 11:50:00 1985 [Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa] > In article <7800608@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Let me add this. > >Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable, > >it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire > >would have fallen apart. All the others did (count: > >Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, > >Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading. > What about the American empire? Seems like an equally important > factor in keeping such empires together is contiguity. The only > contiguous empires I can think of off hand are U.S., China, and > U.S.S.R. They're all seem pretty permanent. Well, I admit I have not defined "empire". I was speaking in the context of the original note (to which Gabor answered). It men- tioned the fact that only half of Soviet population is Russian, and the others mostly live in contiguous republics. If you add Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Cuba and Mongolia, the ratio falls to less than one third. It is an obvious factor of instability. So, for the purposes of this article, let an empire be a combina- tion, under a single de-facto government, of several contiguous territories populated by different nationalities, of comparable size, some of which are dominant, and the others not free to leave. China has something like it, but on a quite different scale: the great majority are Han (Chinese), though some of the others do live in large contiguous territoties. (But then, of course, China is as Communist as Russia). USA has nothing like it except Puerto Rico (and they are free to go) and the Indian reservations. The Soviet situation is much like Austro-Hungary. I think you are quite right about contiguity; it is a factor. We should remember, however, that the Russian empire *did* fall apart during the Revolution, and was then reassembled by main force and ideology in the following years and decades. And, look- ing at the events, my estimate is that it took *both* contigui- ty and something like Communism to overcome the centrifugal forces. The Soviet ruling elite has been toying for several decades now with the idea of replacing the outworn Marxist creed with an ideology of Russian chauvinism. Mythological systems akin to Na- zism but with Russians as the true Aryans are currently quite po- pular there. The reason they have never made the crossing is, I believe, that an ethnocentric doctrine would not be fit for a multi-ethnic empire. Jan Wasilewsky