Talk:Russian conquest of Siberia

Destiny

Was Russia's eastward expansion part of its national destiny, like that of the United States' Manifest Destiny to dominate the North American continent? If so, what expression did they use to describe this destiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.136.25 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At the first stages of this expansion it was hardly a national destiny. Muscovy's Third Rome ideology was concentrated on already known lands of former Kievan Rus and fallen Byzantine Empire, but the Time of Troubles restricted state's abilities of any global conquests. Thus the leading force were primarily economic ambitions of cossacks and pomors trading with some siberian peoples as well as some Russian nobles planning mining at Urals. Siberia was included into Russian ideology later, after its major part had been explored. There wasn't need in strong ideological vector because the most of territories were hardly suitable for agriculture and had very low population. So the expression was simple: Siberian peoples were declared to be peacefully included into the reign of Christian civilization.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Extremely biased article. The peoples of Siberia before the arrival of the Russians did not have their statehood and were literally at the level of development of primitive tribes. There can be no talk of genocide. Yes, there were clashes between Russians and indigenous peoples, but these are isolated cases. It is also worth remembering that the indigenous peoples of Siberia still exist, however, like the indigenous peoples of America. Just before the Europeans arrived, several million people lived in America, and several thousand people lived in Siberia before the Russians arrived. That is, in Siberia lived a thousand times fewer people. And despite this, there are still indigenous peoples in Siberia. Somehow I can’t believe that there was genocide in Siberia if these small nations did not disappear. And they were small even before the arrival of the Russians. And for some reason, nothing is said about the positive consequences of the joining of Siberia to Russia.--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• This mainly refers to the death of the local population from epidemics of diseases (as in America, this reason explains the main loss of population). But if you look at such peoples as the Daurs or the Chukchi, there were serious wars with Russians with heavy losses among these peoples. Каракорум (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know about the Russian-Chukchi wars. But do not think that the Chukchi were innocent victims. At that time, the Chukchi were very aggressive and warlike people, they often raided Russian settlements. Here the situation is similar to the "genocide" of the Circassians. In no way do I condone the cruelty of both sides. But the Chukchi, like the Circassians, often provoked the Russians to retaliate cruelty.--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Do not forget that both the Chukchi and the Circassians, the Russians acted as conquerors. Therefore, the term "provoked" is inappropriate here. Nevertheless, the Russians came to Siberia, and not vice versa. Каракорум (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Then why didn’t such severe measures be applied to other peoples by the Russians?--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Genocide is the deliberate action of eliminating a people. The Russians may have massacred, and they did from time to time, but there was no organized attempt at any 'genocide' - only sources on the extreme edge of opinion would claim so - mainstream historians most certainly do not. The exploitation of the peoples of Siberia was imperialist and evil, but let's not top things off with falsehoods.104.169.21.247 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the term genocide was invoked here to polemicize the topic, it was used several times, almost prositally repetitive, in order to make it look true. By the way, the first reply to the topic about biasedness here mentioned that " But if you look at such peoples as the Daurs or the Chukchi, there were serious wars with Russians with heavy losses among these peoples". Well, someone doesn't know what is genocide. It's like saying the Germans suffered genocide at WWII or even the Russians, cause their lost were heavy. This is not genocide, wars are not classified as genocides because of some army's effectiveness.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Growth of Russia 1547-1725 true borders.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

One sided POV, absolutely biased article

The article is biased to the point of using various adjectives, like the phrase: "This cruelty (...)". Not a doubt that some of the acts attributed here are cruelty, but where are the facts? The data. Too much passionate hateful statements and few reliable informations. The word 'genocide' is used everywhere, it seems even proposital to make the text THIS radically passionate. The following phrase can explain this irrationality: "A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands and erase their culture through war". So, "to expel them from their land and erase their culture"? For what? She wanted to erase their culture? So the Empress of Russia had a pure hate directed to these people and her objective was genocide in order to erase their culture? I doubt this came from a reliable source, if any. The text looks childish to say the least. This is simply a lie. That word wasn't used that time, they didn't have reasons to want simply a "genocide" by the "genocide", we know genocide is horrendous but it is used as a mean, not as a end. It was historically perpetrated as modus operandi to achieve some absurd goal. The phrase is strutured in a form that makes it more offensive and detrimental to Elizabeth's image. One of the worst articles i've ever seen in Wikipedia.

I think this article is not good, too. Have you seen this source?　　It used materials from Google books search for "russian + genocide + natives". I think it is biased from the start. --Kizhiya (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

this article wreaks of russophobia. and it's terrible english. shame on wikipedia! Avilon14 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ainu people

Hello. I don't think the Ainu story in the last section written is within the scope of this article. Please delete it.--Kizhiya (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In 2004, the small Ainu community living in Kamchatka Krai wrote a letter to Vladimir Putin, urging him to reconsider any move to award the Southern Kuril islands to Japan. In the letter they blamed both the Japanese, the Tsarist Russians and the Soviets for crimes against the Ainu such as killings and assimilation, and also urged him to recognize the Japanese atrocities against the Ainu people, which was turned down by Putin.

{{cite web| url=http://kamtime.ru/old/archive/08_12_2004/13.shtml| title=Камчатское Время|website=kamtime.ru}}

I do not think the historical sources on which this statement is based are reliable.

I will wait a month and if there are no objections, I will remove it. --Kizhiya (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

done. Kizhiya (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NEAsia 1620-1630.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)