Continuation, beginning of the series: Colonial backbones of Russia: Georgia.
Russian imperialism
English geological scientist, Sir Roderick Impi Murchinson: “Even if Russia expands its possessions at the expense of neighboring colonies, unlike other colonial powers, it gives these new acquisitions more than it takes from them.
The initial aspirations of all empires differ little, but where a Russian person appears, everything miraculously gets a completely different direction. Therefore, no matter how victorious the Russian weapon is, in a purely mercantile sense, Russia always remains the loser. Those defeated by it or taken under its protection usually win in the end by keeping their way of life and spiritual institutions intact, despite their obvious insufficiency for progress.
Illustrative examples of this are, for example, Estonia and the Caucasus, which for centuries have been despised and raped by their neighbors, but have taken an honorable place among the peoples and have achieved an incomparable prosperity under the auspices of Russia, while the position of the Russian people, that is, the indigenous population, is from the acquisition of Estland and the Caucasus. metropolis has not improved at all."
Map of the settlement of the Eastern Baltic tribes.
From the darkness of the ages
Promotional video:
Modern DNA genealogy, and after it history, already openly agrees with the fact that the South Baltic tribal unions can be called the South Baltic Slavs. These included many tribes that make up the modern Baltic (in more detail: "The homeland of mankind and who are the Aryans?").
For this reason, together with the Slavs, they participated in repelling the Onslaught of the Germanic tribes to the East, together they traded across the Varangian Sea, together with the Novgorodians they held ports (including the future St. Petersburg, in more detail: So who built St. Petersburg?) …
Catholic expansion tore the Baltic ethnic groups away from the Slavs, but their territories never left the orbit of Russia's attention. The reason for this is the "overhang" over the Russian northwest and the creation of a threatening (potential) bridgehead. That is, exactly the opposite of what the Western countries are shouting about today.
Triumph of Russia in the Northern War.
Forced purchase
Omitting lengthy arguments on the topic of geopolitics, let's get to the point. As a result of the Northern War, part of the Baltic States (Livonia and Estonia) in 1721 was conquered from Sweden, but for some reason that does not have a clear explanation, Peter the Great paid the Swedish crown 2 mil. efimok (almost 56 tons of silver, and at current prices more than $ 300 billion) for these territories (for more details: Riddles of Peter the Great.)!
That is, Peter paid for his war trophy - an extremely rare case in world practice. And the Baltic lands turned out to be an ACQUISITION of the Russian state, as, for example, the Indian lands in North America. Or an even closer example is the sale of Alaska.
But nobody even keeps in mind to talk with the Indians about the return of the territories REWARDED from them. The population of Alaska will not even allow the thought of self-determination. And about the right of the Baltic countries to independence, they shout at every opportunity. At the same time, everyone is modestly silent about compensation or the return of the equivalent of funds spent by Russia …
Acquisitions (purchases) of Russia after the Northern War with Sweden.
I had to pick up
A series of conflicts with the Commonwealth ended in 1795 with its third section, as a result of which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Duchy of Courland and Semigalsk became part of the Russian Empire.
During the time spent in Russia, from Catherine II to the October Revolution, the Baltic provinces managed to get a lot at the expense of the metropolis - industrial production developed, the population grew.
Raw materials were transported from Russia for processing (there was nowhere else to process it like in the Baltics ?!) and the final product was also sold mainly to Russia. That is, they were literally an appendage - freeloaders, backbones of the Russian Empire.
In the 20s of the 20th century, the Balts felt "an unprecedented rise in national consciousness" and decided (with the help of Finland, Poland, Germany and Britain) to free themselves at once from the Tsarist and Bolshevik IGA. For the sake of decency, the Soviet government pretended that it was fighting for the Baltics, but rather quickly gave up this show and sent the proud Balts on an independent voyage.
German occupation forces in Riga, 1917.
Got what they wanted
As a result, by 1920 the population of Latvia had decreased by 900,000 people and until the annexation to the USSR in 1940 showed a number 20% lower than the pre-war level.
In Lithuania, according to the 1923 census (compared to 1913), the population of the country decreased by almost 800,000 people over 10 years. Lithuania was able to return to its pre-war strength only after 16 years.
Estonia looks more rosy compared to its neighbors: a year after the end of the war of independence in 1921, the birth rate here exceeded the death rate. However, it still began to decline by 1935, as a result, over 12 years the population increased by only 19 thousand people.
Celebrating the end of the First World War.
During the First World War, most of the production was withdrawn from the Baltic countries. About 400 enterprises were closed in Latvia, and practically all industrial equipment was removed from the capital of Lithuania.
By 1938, more than half of all large private firms in Estonia were foreign-owned. Moreover, most of these enterprises were engaged in the extraction of shale. Almost 100% of Lithuanian energy production belonged to Belgium. The paper industry was monopolized by Sweden, England and Holland, while the Americans took over textiles and banking. Further, 72% of the entire Latvian industry was accounted for by the Germans.
Entering Soviet troops in 1940.
Baltic economic miracle
In 1940, under an agreement (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Collusion or necessity?) With Nazi Germany, the USSR introduced military units to the Baltic States, introducing them into the Union as Republics. There are two diametrically opposite points of view on such a step by Stalin, I am of the opinion that this only aggravated the subsequent defeat in the first months of the War. As for the Baltics, there are dry statistics, and they should be considered.
In terms of per capita consumption compared to the all-Union level, Estonia showed 151%, Latvia - 137%, Lithuania - 127%. In other words, the Balts lived half better than the rest of the inhabitants of the Union (and if we take the Russian regions, then it was 2-3 times better).
Latvian SSR.
At the same time, the three republics in the gross national product were not so (to put it mildly) noticeable: Latvia - 1.2% Lithuania - 1.6% Estonia - 0.7% (for 1990). In industrial output, Latvia accounted for 0.8% of the all-Union indicator, Lithuania - 1.2% and Estonia - 0.7%.
In Latvia alone, 20 industrial enterprises have been built in 20 years (since 1940), which is higher than the indicators of the entire Baltic region in the last pre-Soviet year.
Lithuania already in 1948, reached the pre-war industrial indicators, ahead of them by 90% two years later. For the restoration of Lithuania, the union budget allocated a 200 millionth subsidy, irrevocable.
VEF plant.
In the 1970s-1980s, the Estonian SSR was the leader in the union for investments in fixed assets per capita. In terms of GDP per capita, IMEMO RAN ranked Estonia 46th in the world in the specified period.
During the Soviet era, the Baltic States acquired seaports, at the expense of which they still live. In the 1970s-1980s, oil pipelines were pulled up to them. The Baltics ranked first in the USSR in terms of the quality of highways. Russia did not even enter the top ten, occupying the 12-13th step.
The Baltic states under the Soviet Union were surrounded by railways - 6.19 thousand km, another 56 thousand km were paved roads. Inland navigation was carried out for 2 thousand km in the early seventies.
Generous * occupiers * shaped the economy of the Baltics.
ALL this the Baltics received at the expense of the RUSSIAN regions. In my personal opinion, it is completely unfounded. Such are the colonial parasites.
Continuation: Colonial Backbones of Russia: Ukraine (beginning)