More successfull Russification

[Alexniko]

So, this thread is about russification (i.e. the imposition of russian culture on non-russian peoples). More specifically it's about how russification could've been more successfull and what consequences this would have.

But first some context:

Let's begin with the circumstances in which russification was pursued:

In Tsarist Russia the non-russian etnicities were even more oppressed and exploited than the "core" russian population. That was the case, because every major imperialist nation needs a loyal population in its mainland, as thats where the central government is placed. If the populace in your mainland is unhappy, they could overtrow said government and depose the ruling class. On the contrary, if the populace of some colony is unhappy you can just send the troops in without having to worry that you are overthrown. And you also need a loyal core population because said troops that you send in have to obey your orders. By the way, that doesn't mean that the average russian wasn't exploited or oppressed. They were. It's just that the Tsarist regime oppressed dissent in the colonies even more brutaly than in Russia proper, and mostly kept taxes lower in central Russia.

Now to the goals of russification:

Because they were more oppressed, opposition amongst non-russians was generally stronger. Just look at Poland and Ukraine. Russification had two main goals:
1. To break seperatism in the colonies and make it impossible for them to seceed from the Empire. 2. To disguise the fact that these territories were colonies and that their people were oppressed by Saint Petersburg. If, say the ukrainians, don't see Russia as a foreign occupation force anymore, but as their motherland, this will greatly increase support for the government ("We are all russians after all, and our loyalties are to the Rodina, the holy Tsar and the only real god").

A pretty good historical analogy is Ireland. Northern Ireland was way more anglicized than the rest of the island. And because a large part of the population identified as british, opposition to british rule wasn't as strong in the north, so the region is still british nowadays.

And now to how russification could have been more successfull:

Well actually this pollicy was quite successfull in some areas. The Siberian people were throughoutly russified over time, eastern Ukraine is still majority russian at this day despite soviet indigenization efforts, the baltics still have a large russian minority, etc.

Yet from what I know, russification measures overall were too little too late. Russification only really began in the mid 19th century after the Crimean war of 1856 and the polish rebellion of 1863. In many colonies it was implemented only half heartedly like in Poland and Finland, and only bred resentment. Though overall it showed "good" results in the early 20s century, the october revolution put an end to this. In the early Soviet Union a pollicy of indigenization was pursued, in which native languages and culture was actively promoted, and even later on parents could choose wheater their childrens school lessons should be held in russian or their native language. Native languages were used in public and pollitical institutions and many books and movies in the native languages were produced. Russification came to an end.

So without the october revolution russification would continue for an indefinite amount of time. Yet it would also "help" if russification is implemented earlier and more rigorously.
Here are some ideas of mine:

- 1. A standardized russian education system together with a general ban on native languages.

- 2. The implementation of a contruction project ban on minorities (so no minority is allowed to build a permanent building, even on their own land).

- 3. Massive population transfers (deporting minorities to majority russian regions, and replacing them with ethnic russians). With this method minorities were successfully assimilated throughout history.

So what do you guys think?

 

[Orcot]

other nations would provide weapons and financial support to destabilize Russia especially Germany/prussia, Sweden and the ottoman empire That said it could be done (with a lot of alternations in history)

 

[Alexniko]

other nations would provide weapons and financial support to destabilize Russia especially Germany/prussia, Sweden and the ottoman empire That said it could be done (with a lot of alternations in history)

Yeah I thought the same. Maybe the German Empire could make it's own polish minority far more collaborationist by pointing out how much worse their eastern brother have it.

But how would the modern day Russia look? Which regions would be majority russian, or rather which wouldn't.

 

[mork23]

Central Asia would be majority Russian along with the Baltic is they try early enough. I cant see the Caucasian region as to Russian considering its right next to the ottomans and Persia and would be left alone. Really if you get the ball rolling its hard to stop as more Russians and Russian specking people would start to outnumber any possible minority in its empire.

 

[Gloss]

In Tsarist Russia the non-russian etnicities were even more oppressed and exploited than the "core" russian population.

Were they? All of the minorities? I'm pretty sure regionally some peoples had it better than Russians by virtue of the customs and liberties they had.

That was the case, because every major imperialist nation needs a loyal population in its mainland, as thats where the central government is placed. If the populace in your mainland is unhappy, they could overtrow said government and depose the ruling class. On the contrary, if the populace of some colony is unhappy you can just send the troops in without having to worry that you are overthrown. And you also need a loyal core population because said troops that you send in have to obey your orders. By the way, that doesn't mean that the average russian wasn't exploited or oppressed. They were.

Seems too general of a statement to be ever either meaningful or true at all.

It's just that the Tsarist regime oppressed dissent in the colonies even more brutaly than in Russia proper, and mostly kept taxes lower in central Russia.

Did they?

To disguise the fact that these territories were colonies and that their people were oppressed by Saint Petersburg.

You think this statement is reflective of reality ti begin with, that Ukranians were somehow more victims than all Russians, even the lowest serfs? Plus the designifcation of Ukraine as colony is dubious, "colony" is a quite arbitrary concept.

Well actually this pollicy was quite successfull in some areas. The Siberian people were throughoutly russified over time, eastern Ukraine is still majority russian at this day despite soviet indigenization efforts, the baltics still have a large russian minority, etc.

East Ukraine is Russian speaking and not ethnic Russian, plus it became Russian speaking after the indigenization policy by virtue of the strength of the Russsian language and education.

Yet from what I know, russification measures overall were too little too late. Russification only really began in the mid 19th century after the Crimean war of 1856 and the polish rebellion of 1863. In many colonies it was implemented only half heartedly like in Poland and Finland, and only bred resentment.

Russification basically happened all over the North Caucasus, Volga, Southern Ukraine, Crime and Siberian region through migration.

Russification came to an end.

Only up to the late 30s, later through deportations and migration of Russian settlers in the Baltic and Central Asia the Russian population increased by a lot in many places.

So without the october revolution russification would continue for an indefinite amount of time. Yet it would also "help" if russification is implemented earlier and more rigorously.

There is no need, if you just have the Russian state survive Russian identity and language will at the very least spread to Belarusian, Cossacks and Ukranians and would also continue expand demographically into Central Asia and Siberia.

1. A standardized russian education system together with a general ban on native languages.

You can assimilate maybe some orthodox populations, probably Finno-Ugrics, but those would most likely assimilate without such policies by virtue of their isolation, tiny population size and length under Russian rule.

- 2. The implementation of a contruction project ban on minorities (so no minority is allowed to build a permanent building, even on their own land).

Why?

- 3. Massive population transfers (deporting minorities to majority russian regions, and replacing them with ethnic russians). With this method minorities were successfully assimilated throughout history.

Basically Stalin, I don't think a tzarist regime would implement such policies outside insurgent or defiant Muslim ethnicities.

 

[alexmilman]

So, this thread is about russification (i.e. the imposition of russian culture on non-russian peoples). More specifically it's about how russification could've been more successfull and what consequences this would have.

But first some context:

Let's begin with the circumstances in which russification was pursued:

In Tsarist Russia the non-russian etnicities were even more oppressed and exploited than the "core" russian population. That was the case, because every major imperialist nation needs a loyal population in its mainland, as thats where the central government is placed. If the populace in your mainland is unhappy, they could overtrow said government and depose the ruling class. On the contrary, if the populace of some colony is unhappy you can just send the troops in without having to worry that you are overthrown. And you also need a loyal core population because said troops that you send in have to obey your orders. By the way, that doesn't mean that the average russian wasn't exploited or oppressed. They were. It's just that the Tsarist regime oppressed dissent in the colonies even more brutaly than in Russia proper, and mostly kept taxes lower in central Russia.

Just out of an idle curiosity, can you provide some factual proof that population of the Baltic governorships, Finland, Georgia, Armenia or Tatars of Kazan (just to take a few) had been more oppressed (and in which way) and paid higher taxes than what you call the “core” population? Speaking of which, how exactly the different taxes (and degree of oppression) would be figured out in the areas with a mixed population all of which was Orthodox (in the official documents they were putting creed, not ethnicity). BTW, was a disproportionally high presence of the Baltic Germans in the top echelons of the imperial administration, army and navy an indication of “oppression”?

Not sure that a direct analogy with the British colonial empire is applicable to the Russian Empire by the geographic and administrative reasons with the possible exception of Bukhara and Khiva.

 

[WolfNeuron]

Well Kazakhstan and Belarus can definitely be Russified fairly easily. I mean in 1991 Kazakhstan was already a few hundred thousand people away from being plurality Russian (they were 37%.) So with a bit more immigration, the area could easily be around 40% Russian, and all Slavs being maybe 65% of the population. Belarus has very strong connection to Russia already, and so with Russian education they could easily have the majority of their population speaking Russian and identifying as Russian IMO.

I think all the government would need to do is implement education from the ages of 5 to 16 across the entire Empire, and make it so that Russian was the only language of education. Obviously that's difficult to enforce, but it would happen in the majority of schools regardless. This will ensure that Russian becomes well known. Then have Russian becoming the only legal language of publication, from books to newspapers. Also, have radio and later TV from the 1920s to the 1950s only legally be allowed to be in Russian.

These measures wouldn't go on forever, but if they ended in 1990, by 2020 we'd still see Russian being widely spoken, and it would probably be enough for many Ukrainians and Estonians to see themselves a part of a larger Russian state. Combined with the upper classes, who likely would have been educated in Russia, descended from Russians or support the economic benefits of remaining Russian, I think you'd have a majority of people willing to remain Russian.

Alternatively, there are much more extreme measures that would work to an extent.

One option is have land reform actually take place in 1905 to allow for much greater industrialisation. This will allow for the Russian government to be richer to peruse these policies. If they want to be aggressive, one option is to fund the movement of hundreds of thousands of peasants from the Ukraine, Central Asia and the Baltics into industrial cities such as St Petersburg, Moscow and a dozen more. Then fund the movement of hundreds of thousands of Russians into these rural areas. In a place like Estonia, which had just 1,000,000 in 1900, the slow movement of people between 1900 and 1930 would be enough to make the county 20% Russian by 1930. I'd imagine this would happen in the Baltics, Kazakhstan and certain parts of Ukraine. Also, have resources be put in place for these new arrivals in Petrograd and Moscow, to give them access to some kind of housing and workforce. You can even include name changes for these arrivals in a dark mirror of Long Island.

This would likely form enormous diasporas of Russian minorities in the major industrial centres. However in those cities there will generally be more 'russification' as successive generations will learn Russia. Meanwhile in the countryside Russian birthrates will be higher, and so in the long game Russians will proportionally become much more of the empire's population. I'd also imagine in Central Asia, the natural resources will attract thousands of Russians, to work on the oil fields and gold mines. Combined with potentially hundreds of thousands of people moving from Central Asia to the industrial centres of Russia, we'd probably see enormous minorities of Russians and other ethnicities in these areas. Combine that with universal education in Russian and you've got your aim.

 

[Alexniko]

Were they? All of the minorities? I'm pretty sure regionally some peoples had it better than Russians by virtue of the customs and liberties they had.

Thats not what I said. Of course a merchant in Congress Poland generally had it better than a serf in central Russia.

Seems too general of a statement to be ever either meaningful or true at all.

Yes it is a general statement, but that doens't make it less true.

Did they?

Well, I found this graph

Of course taxes were highest in Moscow and St. Petersburg as the bulk of Russias industry was concentrated there. After that, the regions taxed the hardest were the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus.

And on repression: Just look at with what degree of brutality the january uprising in Poland was crushed.

You think this statement is reflective
of reality ti begin with, that Ukranians were somehow more victims than all Russians, even the lowest serfs? Plus the designifcation of Ukraine as colony is dubious, "colony" is a quite arbitrary concept.

Again, thats no what I said. And how was Ukraine no russian colony?

East Ukraine is Russian speaking and not ethnic Russian, plus it became Russian speaking after the indigenization policy by virtue of the strength of the Russsian language and education.

I meant lingually. Stupid mistake of mine, sorry. And in hindsight this was a stupid example, since, as you said, the region became majority russian after Tsarism fell.

Russification basically happened all over the North Caucasus, Volga, Southern Ukraine, Crime and Siberian region through migration.

I never denied that. What I said was that it was tried half-heartedly in Poland and Finland and only bres resentment there.

Only up to the late 30s, later through deportations and migration of Russian settlers in the Baltic and Central Asia the Russian population increased by a lot in many places.

The deportations in the Baltics happened for pollitical, not ethnical reasons.

There is no need, if you just have the Russian state survive Russian identity and language will at the very least spread to Belarusian, Cossacks and Ukranians and would also continue expand demographically into Central Asia and Siberia.

You mean the Tsarist Russian State, right?

You can assimilate maybe some orthodox populations, probably Finno-Ugrics, but those would most likely assimilate without such policies by virtue of their isolation, tiny population size and length under Russian rule.

Why shouldn't it work in other regions, too?

Why?

Just an idea of mine. Won't lie, I actually got it from Victoria 2, because it serves as a means of forcing the "national culture" on minorities.

Basically Stalin, I don't think a tzarist regime would implement such policies outside insurgent or defiant Muslim ethnicities.

Again, deportations under Stalin were pollitcaly motivated. During the Stalin era ethnic minorities were allowed to speak their language, books were printed in native languages, they were used in pollitics and administration, ethnic minorities had the same rights as russians, etc. A lot of horrible things happened in the USSR during this timespan, but systematic racism wasn't one of them.

 

[WolfNeuron]

2. The implementation of a contruction project ban on minorities (so no minority is allowed to build a permanent building, even on their own land).

I'd agree with others in saying this is a terrible idea, like really terrible. Banning people from even building in a house in their own country will only make them despise you. A better answer would be to offer families free passage and a small compensation, as well as the offer of a job and housing waiting in Petrograd or Moscow, or farmland in central asia or Siberia. That way no death is necessary, less resentment is caused and assimilation will probably happen far more rapidly in the industrial cities of Russia.

 

[Alexniko]

Just out of an idle curiosity, can you provide some factual proof that population of the Baltic governorships, Finland, Georgia, Armenia or Tatars of Kazan (just to take a few) had been more oppressed (and in which way) and paid higher taxes than what you call the “core” population? Speaking of which, how exactly the different taxes (and degree of oppression) would be figured out in the areas with a mixed population all of which was Orthodox (in the official documents they were putting creed, not ethnicity). BTW, was a disproportionally high presence of the Baltic Germans in the top echelons of the imperial administration, army and navy an indication of “oppression”?

Not sure that a direct analogy with the British colonial empire is applicable to the Russian Empire by the geographic and administrative reasons with the possible exception of Bukhara and Khiva.

On taxes, look at the graph I posted. Taxes varied from region to region (an ethnic russian living in Riga was taxed differently from an ethnic russian that lived in Siberia, of course). Taxes also differed depending on the class you were part of. And yes, catholic nobles paid an extra tax for ... beeing catholic. I honestly don't know if that was the case for protestants, muslims, jews, etc. aswell.

 

[alexmilman]

On taxes, look at the graph I posted. Taxes varied from region to region (an ethnic russian living in Riga was taxed differently from an ethnic russian that lived in Siberia, of course). Taxes also differed depending on the class you were part of. And yes, catholic nobles paid an extra tax for ... beeing catholic. I honestly don't know if that was the case for protestants, muslims, jews, etc. aswell.

You are answering the wrong question. Was an ethnic Russian living in Riga taxed less than a Latvian? If not, you are talking about the differences in a regional taxation, which may be caused by the numerous reasons and have nothing to do with person’s ethnicity or religion.

Anyway, if I understand your table correctly, St.Petersburg and Moscow had the highest tax rates so how was this indicative of oppressed <whatever>? Taxes in the poor areas of the Central Russia being lower than in the better agricultural areas also not a sign of the ethnic oppression but rather logical thing to do: in the US property taxes also differ from locality to locality and are usually reflective of a cost of the real estate.

Now, as far as the story about the Catholic nobles is involved, it may or may not be true but most of the people in that category had been Polish sczhliahta and it is quite possible that after all these rebellions the government invented the way of punishing the group it considered disloyal. Without knowing details I can’t make any judgement but, anyway, as described this was not ethnic but rather social if the same principle did not apply to all Poles.

 

[Alexniko]

You are answering the wrong question. Was an ethnic Russian living in Riga taxed less than a Latvian? If not, you are talking about the differences in a regional taxation, which may be caused by the numerous reasons and have nothing to do with person’s ethnicity or religion.

Anyway, if I understand your table correctly, St.Petersburg and Moscow had the highest tax rates so how was this indicative of oppressed <whatever>? Taxes in the poor areas of the Central Russia being lower than in the better agricultural areas also not a sign of the ethnic oppression but rather logical thing to do: in the US property taxes also differ from locality to locality and are usually reflective of a cost of the real estate.

Now, as far as the story about the Catholic nobles is involved, it may or may not be true but most of the people in that category had been Polish sczhliahta and it is quite possible that after all these rebellions the government invented the way of punishing the group it considered disloyal. Without knowing details I can’t make any judgement but, anyway, as described this was not ethnic but rather social if the same principle did not apply to all Poles.

No, an ethnic russian in Riga wasn't taxed less than an ethnic latvian. But was an ethnic french in Algeria taxed differently from an arab? Or was an englishmen taxed differently from an indian (thats an actualy question. I don't know). Also the Tsarist government continued to claim that the "little russians" and "white russians" (just look at the terms) were ethnic russians, aswell. That was not my point, my point was that taxation was different regionaly, and that double-oppression of the non-russian peoples played a role there (the soil of north-western Russia isn't bad either, but it was taxed 30% less than Ukraine. Moreover, north-western Russia directly borders the Baltics, but it was taxed 40% less).

To St. Petersburg and Moscow: The absolute majority of Russias industry was concentrated there. Of course they were taxed most. More intersting is looking at the other regions, especially regions that are relatively similiar in terms of developement and/or agricultural soil.

On the Szlachta: Yes they were taxed that heavily for social/pollitical, rather that ethnic reasons. I never disputed that

 

[alexmilman]

No, an ethnic russian in Riga wasn't taxed less than an ethnic latvian. But was an ethnic french in Algeria taxed differently from an arab? Or was an englishmen taxed differently from an indian (thats an actualy question. I don't know). Also the Tsarist government continued to claim that the "little russians" and "white russians" (just look at the terms) were ethnic russians, aswell. That was not my point, my point was that taxation was different regionaly, and that double-oppression of the non-russian peoples played a role there (the soil of north-western Russia isn't bad either, but it was taxed 30% less than Ukraine. Moreover, north-western Russia directly borders the Baltics, but it was taxed 40% less).

To St. Petersburg and Moscow: The absolute majority of Russias industry was concentrated there. Of course they were taxed most. More intersting is looking at the other regions, especially regions that are relatively similiar in terms of developement and/or agricultural soil.

On the Szlachta: Yes they were taxed that heavily for social/pollitical, rather that ethnic reasons. I never disputed that

Well, it is anything but clear how the different regional wealth-based taxes support your claim about ethnic oppression if they were higher in the areas with a predominantly Russian population. Quality of a soil was not the only factor defining wealth. FYI, the Russian regions bordering the Baltic governorships were historically poorer than their Baltic neighbors (*) and in Ukraine population also had been generally richer than in the neighboring Russian areas (**) hence the higher taxation level. Besides, two capitals and the Central industrial governorships were paying higher direct taxes than the black soil agricultural areas and by the second part of the XIX the Baltic governorships also had been heavily industrialized: more than 800,000 industrial workers lived there and Riga was the 3rd largest city in the empire in the terms of numbers of industrial workers (up to 400,000). If “Southern” implies Caucasus area, then it was taxed on a lower rate while being overwhelmingly populated by the non-Russians. So what you said so far sounds like it was fair to have the higher taxes on the richer predominantly Russian areas but unfair to have lower taxes on the rich predominantly non-Russian areas if these taxes were higher than those on the poorer areas, Russian and non-Russian. The logic is interesting but not very convincing.

As for the rest, I’m not sure how claiming that a “colonial” (***) ethnic minority is actually a part of the dominant ethnicity amounts to oppression. Were the Ukrainians or Belorussians persecuted for speaking their language?

___________
(*) This was not a matter of soil but of the better organized estates: in the early XIX a single serf working on a bad Baltic soil had been bringing to his owner 2-3 times more income than Russian serf working on the best soil.
(**) Clearly seen if you compare descriptions of the peasants households left by the contemporary writers.
(***) How exactly various parts of the Russian Empire ended up as the colonies I have no idea. Were the Polish and Ukrainian territories owned by German Empire and AH colonies as well? What about French-owned Alsace?

 

[Gloss]

As for the rest, I’m not sure how claiming that a “colonial” (***) ethnic minority is actually a part of the dominant ethnicity amounts to oppression. Were the Ukrainians or Belorussians persecuted for speaking their language?

What I find also problematic in that interpretation is that Ukranians themselves were the second biggest "colonizer" within the Russian empire, just look at how much Ukranian or Ukranian-speaking cossacks expanded into the Caucasus after Circassians were expelled, or the expansion of Ukranians into the Crimean-held steppe or Don Valley or even Siberia.

Plus the Russians didn't even discriminate between East Slavs and others and invited Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Gagauz into Southern Ukraine and Bessarabia and obviously Germans too.

If Ukraine was a colony, it was a pan-European one at this point...

 

[alexmilman]

What I find also problematic in that interpretation is that Ukranians themselves were the second biggest "colonizer" within the Russian empire, just look at how much Ukranian or Ukranian-speaking cossacks expanded into the Caucasus after Circassians were expelled, or the expansion of Ukranians into the Crimean-held steppe or Don Valley or even Siberia.

Plus the Russians didn't even discriminate between East Slavs and others and invited Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Gagauz into Southern Ukraine and Bessarabia and obviously Germans too.

If Ukraine was a colony, it was a pan-European one at this point...

Exactly. Quite obviously that Russian Empire was not a liberal paradise and that many of its policies were obnoxious but, interestingly enough, author of the OP, while lamenting about very questionable issue of the oppression of Ukrainians and Belorussians did not say a word (or did I miss something?) about the best-known oppressed minority, the Russian Jews: their oppression was quite clear and supported by the numerous legislative acts analogues for which did not exist for any other ethnicity within the empire.

The Ukrainians were not restricted in any way in their movements or rights and easily migrated into the different areas (see memoirs of baron Nicholas Wrangel, father of a famous general, “From serfdom to the Bolsheviks” where he talks about the numerous Ukrainian settlers on the lands of the Voysko of Don). You already brought these examples.

The whole “colony” thingy is plain silly and does not deserve a serious discussion.

 

[Augenis]

- 1. A standardized russian education system together with a general ban on native languages.

OTL. Native language press bans in the Russian Empire were common, in Lithuania and Poland for example.

- 2. The implementation of a contruction project ban on minorities (so no minority is allowed to build a permanent building, even on their own land).

What

- 3. Massive population transfers (deporting minorities to majority russian regions, and replacing them with ethnic russians). With this method minorities were successfully assimilated throughout history.

OTL (Circassians, for example).

Well actually this pollicy was quite successfull in some areas. The Siberian people were throughoutly russified over time, eastern Ukraine is still majority russian at this day despite soviet indigenization efforts, the baltics still have a large russian minority, etc.

The Russian ethnic minority in the Baltics is a relic from the Soviet era, not the Tsarist period.

 

[Alexniko]

Well, it is anything but clear how the different regional wealth-based taxes support your claim about ethnic oppression if they were higher in the areas with a predominantly Russian population. Quality of a soil was not the only factor defining wealth.

My point wasn't really the oppression of minorities. Rather it was that the Ukraine and Baltics were exploited more heavily than Russia "proper".

FYI, the Russian regions bordering the Baltic governorships were historically poorer than their Baltic neighbors (*) and in Ukraine population also had been generally richer than in the neighboring Russian areas (**) hence the higher taxation level.

Do you have a source for that?

Besides, two capitals and the Central industrial governorships were paying higher direct taxes than the black soil agricultural areas and by the second part of the XIX the Baltic governorships also had been heavily industrialized: more than 800,000 industrial workers lived there and Riga was the 3rd largest city in the empire in the terms of numbers of industrial workers (up to 400,000).

Yeah but thats the Baltic states as as whole (i.e. urban and agricultural areas) compared to Moscow and St. Petersburg (the two main urban centres of the country). Thats hardly comparable

So what you said so far sounds like it was fair to have the higher taxes on the richer predominantly Russian areas but unfair to have lower taxes on the rich predominantly non-Russian areas if these taxes were higher than those on the poorer areas, Russian and non-Russian. The logic is interesting but not very convincing.

It's not a matter of fair and unfair (overall tsarist Russia is not a place you would associate with "fairness"). It just made sense to me that the major industrial regions, where a lot more profit was created than in the countryside, were taxed more.

As for the rest, I’m not sure how claiming that a “colonial” (***) ethnic minority is actually a part of the dominant ethnicity amounts to oppression. Were the Ukrainians or Belorussians persecuted for speaking their language?

Yes they were.

Ems Ukaz - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

With that in mind, I don't get how you can claim that ukrainians were not oppressed at all.

 

[Gloss]

Well, I found this graph

View attachment 529537

Of course taxes were highest in Moscow and St. Petersburg as the bulk of Russias industry was concentrated there. After that, the regions taxed the hardest were the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus.

I think the same argumen you used for the 2 cities would work partially for the Baltic and Poland too as both were more urbanized:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Subdivisions_of_the_Russian_Empire_by_urban_population_%281897%29.svg

Again, thats no what I said. And how was Ukraine no russian colony?

What is a colony after all? The distinction becomes hard to make even within this arbitrary framework, when considering the fact there is no clear mainland vs oversea distinction, religiously and linguistical similarity between the 2 groups, the fact Ukrnaians themselves were settlers in the regions where you can speak of settler colonialism.

I never denied that. What I said was that it was tried half-heartedly in Poland and Finland and only bres resentment there.

IMO because it was not necessary, Congress Poland was simply too Polish to really start bothering abotu demographics and when they did they simply cut-off the region with Ukranians out of Congress Poland(roughly 5-10% of the total population):

Kholm Governorate (Russian Empire) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I think rather than Russification of the entire Congress Poland you would see the partioning of the land up to when you have no East Slavs within Polish territories, then maybe they would use the land to deport Jews if anti-semitism goes even more extreme.

The deportations in the Baltics happened for pollitical, not ethnical reasons.

I don't think you can separate the 2 when the deportations ended up targeting entire ethnic groups without fail and when Russian settlers massively changed the demographics of so many territories, the result is the same.

You mean the Tsarist Russian State, right?

Yeah, like you said the Soviet state, while it ultimately also hepled spreading the Russian language and settlers, it still also probably boosted Ukranian and Belarusian national identity and regionalism(plus the civil war period did that too)

Why shouldn't it work in other regions, too?

Again, deportations under Stalin were pollitcaly motivated. During the Stalin era ethnic minorities were allowed to speak their language, books were printed in native languages, they were used in pollitics and administration, ethnic minorities had the same rights as russians, etc. A lot of horrible things happened in the USSR during this timespan, but systematic racism wasn't one of them.

Only during the early Stalin period, by the late 30s and during WW2, Russian nationalism increased(with a cherry of somehow communist friendly tzarist apologia) and the Russian language was again promoted to unify the army and population during the period, later on the process continued.

 

[alexmilman]

My point wasn't really the oppression of minorities. Rather it was that the Ukraine and Baltics were exploited more heavily than Russia "proper".
Do you have a source for that?
Yeah but thats the Baltic states as as whole (i.e. urban and agricultural areas) compared to Moscow and St. Petersburg (the two main urban centres of the country). Thats hardly comparable
It's not a matter of fair and unfair (overall tsarist Russia is not a place you would associate with "fairness"). It just made sense to me that the major industrial regions, where a lot more profit was created than in the countryside, were taxed more.
Yes they were.

Ems Ukaz - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

With that in mind, I don't get how you can claim that ukrainians were not oppressed at all.

Regarding the point of uneven taxation, your logic is still lacking: the taxes were higher in the industrialized (mostly Russian) regions and nor only in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Ukrainian territories had been better off than the Russian agricultural areas and had been taxed on a higher rate and the same goes for the Baltic territories.
How to find about the prosperity levels in various areas? Read the contemporary authors who described life of the peasants and make a comparison. A typical household of a Russian peasant would have one horse. A typical household of Ukrainian peasant would have a horse and two oxen. Plus, the Ukrainian peasants tended to have more livestock. Then compare the typical peasant food in these areas (it is quite simple, compare writings of Gogol with those of Schedrin or Leskov) and you’ll get an idea.

Now, as far as the language oppression is involved, nobody prevented people from speaking their language and many of the restrictions related to printing had been lifted in 1881. As far as the alphabet is involved, there was no single established Ukrainian alphabet in the XIX century and one used by Shevchenko ( see below) was very close (or even identical) to one of pre-revolutionary Russian. Ukase of Ems banished just one of the proposed versions, Kulishivka, which originated in Galicia (AH), was based on phonetic principle and was heavily latinized (FYI, dialect of the Western Ukraine is noticeably different from one of the Eastern). Small wonder that it was considered as an instrument of a foreign influence. Some other proposals included rejection of the Peter’s alphabet and a greater reliance upon the old Church one as closer to the Ukrainian speech.

Taking into an account that Kulishivka was at that time a recent invention, its restriction in the Russian empire hardly can be convincingly classified as an oppression.

 

[alexmilman]

The Russian ethnic minority in the Baltics is a relic from the Soviet era, not the Tsarist period.

Wrong. Russian presence in Latvia and Estonia kept growing since after the GNW, especially as far as the merchant class was involved. The first Russian school in Riga was opened in 1789. For the later times, to quote from Wiki, “The Russian capital was invested in trade through the Baltic countries, including Latvia. Some of those profits went toward establishing a Russian-owned industry. By the middle of the 19th century, the developing industry began to attract Russian workers. The influx of Russian peasantry had also continued, seeking less socially and religiously oppressive conditions within the empire owing to the certain degree of autonomy accorded the Baltic provinces, which were not subject to all the same laws as the rest of the Russian Empire.”

“By the end of the 19th century, there was a considerably large Latvian Russian population. According to the first All-Russia Census of 1897, it totaled 171,000, distributed as follows: 77,000 Latgale, 68,000 Vidzeme, and 26,000 in Kurzeme and Zemgale. The urban population was roughly twice that of the rural, with the exception of Latgale, where those proportions were reversed.”

“A relatively larger number of ethnic Russian workers settled in Tallinn and Narva during the period of rapid industrial development at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. After the First World War, the share of ethnic Russians in the population of independent Estonia was 7.3%. About half of these were indigenous Russians living in Narva, Ivangorod, the Estonian Ingria and the Petseri County, which were added to Estonia territory according to the 1920 Peace Treaty of Tartu”:

So, not as many as during the Soviet time but quite noticeable.