4 ms·

As someone previously pointed out, the perspective here is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were invaded and forcibly annexed in 1940.

ironcurtain 4y ago
Very much like Hawaii and Florida, weren’t they? Weren’t those countries ruled for decade or so by dictators who ceased power in late 20s? Didn’t Soviet actually organized elections and then their parliaments voted to join the USSR? I’m sure it’s all a sham but history is a bit nuanced.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- interfixus 4y ago
  Oh I see. That makes it alright, then. Those Balts really should stop whinging.
- jwr 4y ago
  I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case: no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. Also, there are no elections or parliaments anywhere within the Soviet (or Russian, for that matter) sphere of influence. There are "elections" and "parliaments".
  - morelisp 4y ago
    > no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed So how is this not like Hawaii? It's a matter of US law that "the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands." (The US didn't comport itself very well in Florida - or anywhere really - but I'll at least grant a difference in kind.)
- ztrww 4y ago
  unilateral secession was not illegal according to the constitution of the USSR. I’m sure it (the constitution) was obviously a sham but history is a bit nuanced.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
Irrelevant. Literally any country in the world would suppress independence declarations with violence, regardless of good justifications or not. That's just how nations work and has nothing to do with USSR specifically.
- ztrww 4y ago
  Well Britain allowed Scotland to have a vote, Czechoslovakia is another example, even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. There are many other examples. So you’re wrong...
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. Norway was always independentof Sweden; it was never subordinate, only part of a "personal union", i.e. had the same king. Apart from that, it was an independent nation. > So you’re wrong... Not as wrong as you.
    - ztrww 4y ago
      Sweden invaded Norway in 1814 defeated it and force it to accept the king of Sweden as their king. While Norway had considerable independence compared to most other occupied countries it was nevertheless a junior partner in the union (initially it’s foreign policy was fully controlled by Sweden)

ironcurtain 4y ago

Very much like Hawaii and Florida, weren’t they? Weren’t those countries ruled for decade or so by dictators who ceased power in late 20s? Didn’t Soviet actually organized elections and then their parliaments voted to join the USSR? I’m sure it’s all a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
interfixus 4y ago
Oh I see. That makes it alright, then. Those Balts really should stop whinging.
jwr 4y ago
I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case: no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. Also, there are no elections or parliaments anywhere within the Soviet (or Russian, for that matter) sphere of influence. There are "elections" and "parliaments".
- morelisp 4y ago
  > no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed So how is this not like Hawaii? It's a matter of US law that "the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands." (The US didn't comport itself very well in Florida - or anywhere really - but I'll at least grant a difference in kind.)
ztrww 4y ago
unilateral secession was not illegal according to the constitution of the USSR. I’m sure it (the constitution) was obviously a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

Irrelevant. Literally any country in the world would suppress independence declarations with violence, regardless of good justifications or not. That's just how nations work and has nothing to do with USSR specifically.

ztrww 4y ago
Well Britain allowed Scotland to have a vote, Czechoslovakia is another example, even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. There are many other examples. So you’re wrong...
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. Norway was always independentof Sweden; it was never subordinate, only part of a "personal union", i.e. had the same king. Apart from that, it was an independent nation. > So you’re wrong... Not as wrong as you.
  - ztrww 4y ago
    Sweden invaded Norway in 1814 defeated it and force it to accept the king of Sweden as their king. While Norway had considerable independence compared to most other occupied countries it was nevertheless a junior partner in the union (initially it’s foreign policy was fully controlled by Sweden)