The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as Imperial Polities

trate on the external aspects of empire, investigating the roots of expansionism, for instance, or the military and economic sinews of power.2 Others have looked at the domestic constitutions of empires, analysing, for example, the management of multi-ethnicity.3 One major problem is that 'empire' in the contemporary world is a word with very strong negative connotations. A century ago, European countries and their rulers welcomed the term. It implied not only that a country was powerful but also, probably, that it was in the forefront of progress, one of that very small group of great powers entrusted, in Hegelian terms, with leading mankind towards higher levels of culture, wealth and freedom. Flattering comparisons were made with the great civilizations of the past, almost all of them embodied in political terms in empires. In the late twentieth century, however, empire implies exploitation of weak communities by stronger ones, as well, particularly, as the suppression of the Third World by Western power and culture. Empire is seen, moreover, not merely as wicked but also as anachronistic and doomed to disappear. In the post-1945 global economy, autarchy and physical control of territory are viewed as largely irrelevant: peaceful access to food, raw materials and markets seems assured, and the skills, unity and motivation of a country's workforce are regarded as the keys to prosperity and even power. Countries are unwilling to take upon themselves