File talk:Colonialism in 1945 updated legend.png

The map is hard to read, the USSR's and UK's colours are too close. I recommend changing one to a not used colour (such as orange).

I don't understand why the eastern bloc countries have been removed from the Soviet Union. If the purpose is to highlight that they were not colonies then only the borders should have been removed. It is inaccurate to produce a map that shows a Soviet Union that includes Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, etc. (all of which were annexed during the Russian Emprire's period of colonial expansion) as part of the union, Mongolia as colony of The Union, but Ukraine etc. are neither part of the union or colonies??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.111.52 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who authoritatively says the Eastern Bloc countries were not colonies? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - for example - were three European parliamentary democracies that were simply annexed into the USSR in contravention of international law - just swallowed up into the maw of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Treated as colonies, with Soviet Russia using their natural resources and exploiting the populations of the vanquished countries. Ethnic cleansing, illegal moving of her own citizens onto these territories. Perfect example of contigous colonism. It is appropriate to treat both Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia (capitals in St. Petersburg and Moscow) as largely one and the same colonial power (where the dominant economic-political ideology simply shape-shifted for a while). The map that reflects this is accurate. --Sean Maleter (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]