• BB69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not every invasion is imperialism.

    It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

    Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

    Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

      In other words, trying to rebuild the empire, i.e. imperialism.

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

      None of the lands you just listed were unoccupied. They literally had indigenous people that were eradicated or absorbed into the empire.

      …like what Russia is trying in Ukraine.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they mean unoccupied by them. So for example, WWI wouldn’t be imperialism because Germany and France both claimed to be the Holy Roman Empire and Flanders is within that territory. I disagree but I understand the argument

        • BB69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, although WWI is a bad example. Continental domination wasn’t the goal of WWI, it was the result of the web of alliances. You could argue that taking control of colonies owned by the other European nations is imperialism, but that seems like late stage colonialism issues. Can’t colonize once everything is occupied.

            • BB69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Definitely Henry VIII.

              I can agree with Italy as well, it was supposed to be a show of strength and gaining of new territory. I wouldn’t call it colonization, Ethiopia was more advanced than what most neighbors were able to field.