"what aboutism is the last refuge of those who have no real argument to make." Damm. Bravo man. Bravo

As a Poli Sci major, I would love more episodes exploring the political and governmental structures of the various Marxist-Leninist and/or post-colonial states. Great episode!

"You were the Marxist state! It was said that you would destroy empires not join them! Bring socialism to the world! Not lead it into darkness!" - Obi-Lenin Kenobi addressing the USSR.

If the successor state to an empire violently occupies the same territory as the empire and imposes its style of government over those areas that's a pretty good sign that it's operating as an empire

I hate when people use whataboutism. It is the most frustrating thing to deal with when someone is debating you. I mean at least my government lets me complain about it without having to worry about being thrown in prison or out a window.

The founders of the Soviet Union meant to create this ideal socialist world, but they fell back on the imperial model that they were familiar with. It was just as authoritarian as the Russian Empire before it. After the fall, Russians experimented with democracy for the first time in their entire history. It failed. Then they once again fell back on the imperial model. And here we are in modern times with Putin as the current czar.

I find that whataboutism is often invoked by people determined to not face their own hypocrisy, as a side-comment towards the last bit. Not in this case, though, I think it was a fair and balanced video. Anyway, of course the USSR was an empire, that shouldn't even be up for debate. Signed, a citizen of a nation under the thumb of the US.😉

Not really much of a criticism, but when mentioning territorial expansion under Stalin you forgot to mention the Baltics. Keep up the great work :D

If the US is an Empire then the USSR definitely was an Empire

The definition of an empire has changed massively from say Empires 2000 years ago to what was the British Empire of the 1800's and what is arguably, the American one of today. They just are not the same things but they existed. I don't really like those definitions presented, they seem to suggest that an elected government cannot be an empire since they don't rule over others, the UK parliament held power over the queen/king by the 1800's when everyone agrees the British Empire ruled 1/4 the planet directly. And the US had an actual old school type of Empire by the early 1900s ruling over the Philippines and Cuba/Puerto Rico as a democracy. Great video though, gives a lot to thing about. Would like more like this.

I don't see how the USSR and USA wouldn't self-evidently be considered empires. They even both checked off the "catastrophically unsuccessfully invade Afghanistan" bingo square.

In my opinion, The Soviet Union was a empire in the same sense that North Korea is a republic. Meaning that de facto we all know the Soviet union was a expansionist entity, same as the empires that came before it although operated as a de facto federal communist republic, which it wasn't because Moscow always had the final say about it's internal republics and satellite states. and just to compare North Korea is a de facto hereditary monarchy that de jure operated as a republic, which it isn't, since power in the country remains in the hands of the Kim family.

I would say it's channel is greatly underrated. Especially from historic point of view .

I have never realized that the imperial status if the USSR was being questioned In that sense, could you do a similar video but for the USA and China, those requiere more analysis, USSR was too easy xD

Yes. It held power over nations outside its borders. Exported its culture to these nations. It became the same thing that the Bolsheviks claimed to be opposed to.

Thank you for this Video.

I'd like to get my hands on the full sized thumbnail, looks amazingly dystopian! Well designed!

Really interesting snd worth of watching. epizodem. Thank you cery much

In one of my political science class, most of my class was stumped when I made a valid arguments that the US is under the empire umbrella. My professor was impressed, n he was a conservative leaning.

I’d say it’s safe to say both the US and Soviet Union were Empires durring the Cold War, though they manifest differently. And the degree to which either is considered an Empire depends very much on your definitions of democracy and role both physical and economic power holds in legitimizing that democracy to the domestic and foreign perspective.

Modern Russia is a colonial power that hasn't lost its colonies yet. Change my mind.

The USSR was expansionist and ruled over a number of what were essentially vassal states that couldn’t do anything without the approval of Moscow. Sounds like an empire to me.

Please also do an episode analyzing the USA with the same criteria. That would be quite interesting!

Been waiting for this video! Thanks!

Perchance. I don’t actually have much to say, but this is good for engagement, right? You do good work.

I just have to say it, Damn that is some amazing artwork in the vid thumbnail, is there any way to get it?

This was the episode I saw David the most aware and sharp with his tone. I liked it.

I can't believe you made a video about Soviet imperialism and didn't even mention the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states...

"What-aboutism' is the last refuge of those who do not have a real argument to make." - this says it all.

This honestly shouldn't even be a question, they forced their rule on the nations around them with 0 thought of their own wishes. They absolutely were an Empire. A Red Empire is still an Empire.

empire /ĕm′pīr″/ noun A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

Non Russians certainly thought it was....

When is the episode on Malta coming out? :P

Thumbnail looks fire tbh

True about the whataboutism thing. Like whenever you start talking abt Ukraine, there are dozens of comments on "what about Iraq?". Like how do you even know if i support US foreign policies?

It is always interesting how many Cold War narratives relate the Brezhenev Doctrine as the start of interventionism when in fact Stalinalization of the different Communist Parties was the first steps that would take fruit in 1945. Where the tacit consent took the form of tough policies needed for reconstruction but backed up with Soviet troops. It could be said the purification of different CPs in Eastern Europe was a form of intervention by "other means".

A good comment on the UK today. Still stuck in the imperial past when all the world was still pink.

Ussr and us are both empires. Empire also can be democratic as well as autocratic

Photo at 12:00 mislabeled. Those guys are, left to right, Molotov, Stalin, and, I believe, Litvinov. Lenin's nowhere to be seen, partly because by then he was dead, though I guess they still could have pulled his preserved corpse out of its mausoleum. 😃

Well considering that last statement of the video I would like to see a another video on how the American Imperialism looks in contrast.

It's not terribly often you get a video looking to break down the semantics of an oft-used but often poorly defined term like "empire." Thank you for the interesting thoughts on the subject. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)

The bell button, our one true imperial lord and master. Duly pressed.

Great episode! Looking forward to what comes next..

if it wasn't an empire,its constituent republics wouldn't have left.

5:00 While it is true that the UK doesn't tend to call itself an empire anymore, under law the UK is an empire under an Imperial Crown. Although this status of Empire predates "the Empire" which we usually think of

Could you please do a video about the 1957 anti party group coup in the USSR?

In Soviet Russia, the Empire is you.

Very interesting. I do believe the USSR was an empire, much like America was (and to be honest, still is).

I can hear the tankies screeching

If the chief determining Factor to what is an empire is if it's a democracy or dictatorship does that mean the British Empire wasn't an empire because it had an elected Prime Minister

Him just casually destroying tankies 🗿

I'd love to see a follow up episode on whether Cold War USA does or doesn't fall under this rubric. I personally lean twards "yeah" but could see where the voting process or something else keeps it out.

10:12 Cherneko (behind and left of Brezhnev) taking a nap.

How dare you, the channel, and everyone involved with it arrive at this conclusion!

Yes, Soviet Union was an Empire.

All hail the Imperial Like Button!

As an International Relations graduate student, I loved this episode. Keep up the great work.

Hungary 1956. After that, the question was settled.

Yes it definitely was, in fact you could even call it a colonial empire.

Officially, no. Unofficially, the Soviet Union was absolutely 100% an empire.

Since it was an empire ruled by a party oligarchy does that also mean it wasn’t really communist? It wasn’t a workers state beyond nominally and rhetorically.

I feel like people think that "Empire" is an insult so they just say "The US is an empire", or "China is an empire" or "the UK is an empire". I think 95% of people don't actually know what an empire is. They just feel offended so they call countries they hate "empires".

Russia continues to be a colonial empire

Different ethnicities, limited self rule, different cultures, united by a common currency, common military, laws and justice system. Economic autarky is also an aspect of an empire as is a shared but not necessarily primary language. More important, you can't leave! Yes the Soviet Union was an empire.

Cool thumbnail

For future videos, when you say you’re incorporating elements from other disciplines like political science to highlight terms and definitions, it would be beneficial to briefly explain current debates in the field, and identify the most prominent voices, especially since definitions are not entirely concrete. In my opinion, this will not only give your criteria more weight, but also allow viewers to check these debates out for themselves if interested.

I'm sure that if an authoritarian country acts like an Empire than it is an Empire.

Even if it wasn't meant to be one, it became one double quick.

@The Cold War: Interesting topic and video! I read an article recently comparing the European Union to the Holy Roman Empire. I suggest a similar video like this on the US. Is/was the United States an empire? Both the US and the USSR had their own interventionist doctrines that were quite similiar. Truman Doctrine and Bresjnev Doctrine.

Yes

The USSR was an Empire in the Roman model. The USA was/is an empire in the Carthaginian model. The Soviets brought as much territory as they could under their direct control, ruling with direct force and imperial dictates. The US allowed local elites to rule, using economic force and the occasional "regime change" among factions within those elites far more often than direct force.

Oh man you're going to be flooded with angry communists in the comments

The Empire definition is very neat under Stalin with one man rule, you have to stretch it a bit with the oligopic rule of the politburo after Stalin. Oligopic Imperialism maybe?

Was (and is) the US an empire?

🇺🇸 may not be perfect but hey, I can politely insult and despise America without having some FBI guy knocking at my door to beat the crap out of me. Can I do the same in 🇷🇺? Or 🇨🇳? We really need to tell ourselves “could’ve been worse” sometimes... Btw I’m from 🇪🇺

Russia is always an empire. The name does not change this.

What-aboutism is a logical fallacy. Problem is there is more to human and social interactions than just Aristotelian logic, that’s why it is effective as a rhetorical tool, no matter the fallacy of it.

Tankies and kremlin trolls punching air rn

Do a follow up video if the US is an Empire, I agree the USSR and even current Russia are empires, the latter a dying sick empire.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes. Absolutely yes. How is that even a question?

Yes.

Awesome video folks! I (and I imagine many others) would love to see y’all do a similar video on the USA. I mean this as no-disrespect to my homeland (which I love deeply), but there have been countless times that we have acted in a undisputed imperial manner & to this very day there is a real fear of us becoming even more imperial (threats to democracy & what not). Heck, my beloved home state of Florida almost feels like an empire plenty of days with how the state government loves to stomp its foot all overall numerous county & city governments.

I'm going to borrow that phrasing. "Whataboutism is the last refuge of those with no argument to make."

15:17 so I am assuming you will also be making a video claiming the US was an empire?

It was 😂

There's a reason why most people called Soviets for Russians. And many still think of Soviets as Russians. The USSR was a wicked empire, with Russia as the head. Moscow was the Capital both economically, militarily, politically and ideologically. Also largely culturally. A great way to study the Soviet Union is actually to watch their movies and tv-series. They do not have too much propaganda that is not easy to spot. Soviet films from the mid-late 80's are often really good - especially such films as "Heart of a Dog" or "Life of Ivan Lapshin". Mentioned films are actually critically looking at the history of the USSR. And in Soviet films there is always justice in the end!

It started well, but slipped badly at the end. While your other videos have a certain tone of neutrality and professionalism. The way you narrate this video (using this historical theme as an excuse) seems directly aimed at opinions you disagree with in the comments, transforming what could be an interesting topic into something childish and caricate

Woot! Calling out the tankies!

Well yes

I agree, but I don't understand one thing. You've said that one can make a fair argument that USA is an empire - so why did you say that USSR "collapse in 1991 might have been the end of the last empire on Earth" when USA existed during that time? And what about China?

It was the true successor of SPQR

Agree with everything stated, USSR was totally a reprisal of the Russian Empire, but one minor detail I have to push back on. You included my beloved ancestral homeland of Jugoslavija as a Socialist "vassal", lumped in with all the other Soviet Bloc satellites. I know you are aware of this but I am going to remind you, that Tito broke with Stalin in 1948 and was the only country to ever successfully leave the Soviet Bloc, unlike Hungary 1956 & Czechoslovakia 1968. Josip Broz Tito went on to take Jugoslavija into the "non-aligned nations" as a founding member. Anyway great presentation. Just as an FYI, I saw an old mini-series about Brezhnev when I first moved to Ukraine a decade ago, and when he was old one of Grand-daughters asked what he was, she didn't understand what a "General Secretary" was so he told her he is like a Czar! btw, Stalin also had to use the same logic when telling his old mother in Gori what he was, she didn't get what a "General secretary" was and he told her he was like the Czar! Only Empires have Czars renamed General Secretary's to fool everyone! haha 🙃

Grievances in the UK VERY VERY VERY long you missed at elast one 😀

Leonard Shapiro's book Origin of the Communist Autocracy is a very-interesting "primer" into how, between 1917 and around 1921/1922, the Communists, upon taking power, practically "extinguished" all other official and formal opposition, as well as coopting the rest. To turn what eventually became the RSFSR and then USSR into a "full" one-party state very-fascinating Partly because of the "overly-legalistic and nonviolent" means by which factions like the SRs and Mensheviks operated- compared to the "more extralegal and/or violent" means the Bolsheviks were very-willing and -able to use to crush opposition whenever they felt 'necessary'- as Shapiro notes, there was little 'chance', sadly, of anyone with any "real power" to 'stop' the Bolsheviks from taking extreme power as they did. Hell, they even crushed ANARCHISTS within Ukraine and nearby areas within Russia- the so-called Maknovschina and Ukraine Free Territory, I think- who decided to go against the grain and operate their own non-Bolshevik, "government-free" territories ("live and let live", so to speak). But... apparently this was "too much" for the Bolsheviks! Their egos and authoritarian natures COULDN'T HANDLE folks w/in the 'former Russian Empire' "not being part of the Bolshevik system", lol Even if those other groups *weren't interfering with the Bolshevik project elsewhere (Let alone "wanted it to fail")*. They were just 'doing their own thing' Of course, Marxist-Leninists who LOVE the USSR will come up with all manner of exercises as to why the Bolsheviks "had to impose" so much power over everyone else, esp. OTHER socialist and left-wing factions who wanted similar goals, but... at the end of the day, it's just excuses to justify one-party oligarchy, really. Hell, during the FIRST LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS, shortly after the Bolsheviks took power under Lenin, the SRs *won more seats*, in fact! And the Bolsheviks, in whole, got, like... only 15 or 20% of the total seats, I think? ..though many MLs will claim that "doesn't matter" because, supposedly, in 'the soviets' nationwide, Bolsheviks had a majority (if only a bare majority). I'll take point w/ at least a 'grain of salt' until further evidence that the soviet votes "represented proletarian feeling for sure." It *may* be true, but... even then, the folks *most-likely* to have voted for and/or attended soviet meetings and proceedings were likely *more RSDLP (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, primarily)-sympathizing* anyhow? Like, if the peasants weren't really "active" w/in or toward the soviets but did, every once in a while, *vote in State Duma elections*, whereas the workers in various cities *did vote for and affiliate w/ the soviets*, how do we "know for sure" which one was "truly representative of proletarian and 'common man' feeling", esp. given that the VAST-MAJORITY of people in the Russian Empire, at that time, were still peasants? Urban and semi-urban workers BARELY made up 5 or 10%, I think? And then there's the "SR split" excuse. MLs, oftentimes, will say that, because, just before the election, supposedly the Right and Left SRs "split up for good", therefore, the votes done during the election- when the 'split' wasn't formally 'made known' on ballots and the like done during the election- therefore, the results should be counted as though the Left SRs were "functionally Bolshevik", in effect, I think, giving the Bolsheviks the 'plurality' in the election. but.. is this REALLY a convincing argument... or yet-another 'tankie' excuse to justify the Bolsheviks *real* 'lack of support' from most Russian-Empire residents, in the end? I wonder... Yes, many Left SRs, to some degree, were technically "very-aligned with" the Bolsheviks on a lot of matters, but.. they were by no means "unanimous supporters" of the Bolshevik program. And they SURELY would not have supported so-called 'dekulakization' in the early 1930s Hell, w/ the establishment of the Soviet Union and then, eventually, the so-called 'supreme soviet', it seems CLEAR to anyone who's done actual research on the origins of the USSR that, at best, the early USSR leaders- esp. folks like Stalin- essentially "hijacked" or "appropriated" the legacy of the term "soviet" for THEIR OWN ENDS, which were far different and *far less democratic*, in the long run, than, say, the Petrograd Soviet, pre-OR, likely was. The Supreme Soviet, as we've known for decades, was little more than a 'rubberstamp' on the Politburo and EXECUTIVE, esp. under Stalin! And what few "CPSU soviets" remained at local or 'provincial' levels after the 1920s and 30s likely were nowhere near "as democratic" as before the 1917 Revolutions. w/ the "true", pre-Lenin soviets... The CPSU, from very-early on, hijacked the "calls for democratization and freedom" to their own ends and their own, paternalistic view of "what the people want" or "what the people need", within a degraded, limited view of "socialism."

At this point we want to see "Was the USA an empire" next

Good to annoy the tankies on this but the USA’s actions are clearly imperial in many cases too and should be examined.

yes, yes, yes

👍👍

I'm not sure how contemporary historians view this, but when I studied Communist states in the 80's for my degree I found it fascinating that economically the USSR could be characterised as "Reverse Colonialist". Whereas colonial powers stripped their subject domains of raw materials and than exported finished goods back to them, the USSR via COMECON did the opposite ie exported raw materials (especially oil) at low prices and then provided a market for often pretty shoddy finished goods from the Eastern Bloc countries. No doubt politically and culturally the USSR behaved like an empire, but economically the picture is less easily defined.

Was the holy Roman empire dynastic though? Didn't they elect the leaders? ("Summon the elevator counts!!!")