3 ms·

Obviously the ROC did not control the mainland, since they were eventually forced to flee to Taiwan. > Before that, Taiwan was part of the Qing empire before b

Obviously the ROC did not control the mainland, since they were eventually forced to flee to Taiwan. > Before that, Taiwan was part of the Qing empire before being invaded by the Japanese. Anschluss is German reunification because Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Ditto for the Sudetenland, and, well, why not the rest of Czechia, too.

User23 4y ago
Yes that's how annexation works. See for example Russia annexing Crimea. Historically Crimea has been populated by ethnic Russians since Rurik conquered the place. I think it's a good thing that wars of conquest have become taboo, but let's not kid ourselves, for the vast majority of history it was bog standard to invade a place occupied by your co-ethnics and claim it was always your territory.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th. Anyway, either we live in a civilised era where things like ethnic cleansing and genocide should be condemned, or we live in an era where it is 'bog standard to invade a place occupied by your co-ethnics'. After WW2, ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Königsberg and Poles and Ukrainians were uprooted forcefully into the boundaries of their modern nation-states. If wars of conquest on the basis of 'this place contains our people' become 'bog standard', the ethnic cleansing of post-WW2 Europe and the post-Soviet Balkans becomes the inevitable and logical conclusion.
  - User23 4y ago
    > Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th. And it had considerably fewer Ukrainians[1]. The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_P...
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said; your claim was that Crimea was populated with Russians since Rurik, which is maybe true but extremely misleading because it constituted a percentage point or two at best. Bringing up the Ukrainian population accounts for nought unless you're suggesting expelling all the Slavs from Crimea and returning it to Tatar rule. > The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's. The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is stronger because they have a legal basis to its claim. If we return to a state of the world where claims to land are made on the basis of 'my group lives here, therefore it's ours', we will inevitably reap the consequences of post-war Europe. On the same logic, Germany had a stronger claim to the Sudetenland than Czechoslovakia. But what did that get the Germans in the end? Complete expulsion from the Sudetenland.

User23 4y ago

Yes that's how annexation works. See for example Russia annexing Crimea. Historically Crimea has been populated by ethnic Russians since Rurik conquered the place. I think it's a good thing that wars of conquest have become taboo, but let's not kid ourselves, for the vast majority of history it was bog standard to invade a place occupied by your co-ethnics and claim it was always your territory.

mannerheim 4y ago
Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th. Anyway, either we live in a civilised era where things like ethnic cleansing and genocide should be condemned, or we live in an era where it is 'bog standard to invade a place occupied by your co-ethnics'. After WW2, ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Königsberg and Poles and Ukrainians were uprooted forcefully into the boundaries of their modern nation-states. If wars of conquest on the basis of 'this place contains our people' become 'bog standard', the ethnic cleansing of post-WW2 Europe and the post-Soviet Balkans becomes the inevitable and logical conclusion.
- User23 4y ago
  > Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th. And it had considerably fewer Ukrainians[1]. The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_Population_of_Crimea_18th%E2%80%9321st_century.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_P...
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said; your claim was that Crimea was populated with Russians since Rurik, which is maybe true but extremely misleading because it constituted a percentage point or two at best. Bringing up the Ukrainian population accounts for nought unless you're suggesting expelling all the Slavs from Crimea and returning it to Tatar rule. > The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's. The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is stronger because they have a legal basis to its claim. If we return to a state of the world where claims to land are made on the basis of 'my group lives here, therefore it's ours', we will inevitably reap the consequences of post-war Europe. On the same logic, Germany had a stronger claim to the Sudetenland than Czechoslovakia. But what did that get the Germans in the end? Complete expulsion from the Sudetenland.