10 ms·
You are talking about places which already had governments and had an orderly transition of power - not a new state being founded from nothing. To say there wa
by madaxe_again 10y ago
You are talking about places which already had governments and had an orderly transition of power - not a new state being founded from nothing.
To say there was no violence in the Baltics is highly disingenuous - Latvia gained independence through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, gained it again through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, then finally glastnost - which was largely non-violent. I was quite literally at their independence memorial today in Riga.
- ptaipale 10y agoWell, an orderly transition of power and a functional government are clearly a requirement for forming any new country, peacefully or violently. If you didn't set up a government, you've got no country because you have no way of managing anything. As I said, with Baltics I was specifically referring to 1991 which was largely non-violent. Yes, not entirely without violence, but these modern countries were not forged by military power, they were forged by the will of the nation.
- madaxe_again 10y agoSo, the war of independence was non-violent? Honestly, learn history beyond the last 25 years before you shoot your mouth off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_War_of_Independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_War_of_Independence
- ptaipale 10y agoWould you please read my post and notice I was referring to the formation of the current Latvian independence, and events of 1991? Not the wars of 1918-1920 of which I am quite well aware, thank you. (I even have some distant family members who were fighting in the related, similar war in neighbouring Estonia at that time.)
- madaxe_again 10y agoYet none of those would today exist as independent states if not for the earlier conflict - they would have been Russia.