3 ms·
> I can forgive people for forgetting to mention that Baltic states were part of Russia for centuries before they were re-annexed by the USSR in 1945. Indeed I
by mopsi 2y ago
> I can forgive people for forgetting to mention that Baltic states were part of Russia for centuries before they were re-annexed by the USSR in 1945. Indeed I can see how people had 20 years of independence and weren't fans of being included into a socialist utopia.
There's fair bit more history than the 20 years of independence squished by Russians in 1940. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were always very distinct from Russia in religion, language, culture, education and other key areas. A good example of this are literacy rates in European part of Russian empire recorded during 1897 census.[1] Even two centuries later, the effect of protestantism and the trace of school system established by Sweden is clearly visible. Moreover, Estonia and Latvia weren't even ruled by Russians, but by Baltic German nobility, and the main language used in administrative affairs was German.
Likewise, to portray Georgia as a mere "province of Russian Empire" is ridiculous given that they are so distinct that you cannot even read what they write, because they use a different alphabet. Finland or Georgia are no more "a part of Russia" than than Egypt and India are characterized by labeling them as "former British provinces" (with a subtext that they belong to Britain).
[1] https://i.imgur.com/uCFzZmq.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/uCFzZmq.jpeg
- thriftwy 2y agoBefore early XX century most of the globe was comprised of countries who looked like that. > the main language used in administrative affairs was German > to portray Georgia as a mere "province of Russian Empire" is ridiculous given that they are so distinct that you cannot even read what they write Please don't tell me that many Englishmen could read Devangari script or that many Frenchmen could read (pre-Latin) Vietnamese. You may not like it today, but these territorial claims were seen as completely valid. The subtexts that you are pinning on me are your own invention, I just say about unfaithful representation of history in the press.
- mopsi 2y ago> The subtexts that you are pinning on me are your own invention, I just say about unfaithful representation of history in the press. What is the purpose of having to mention that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were in Russian Empire in the context of their invasion and occupation in the 1940s if not an attempt to give legitimacy to the invasions? It's far more important to stress that the people on the Baltic coast are not Russians, have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them. The same applies to the many other indigenous Finno-Ugric peoples[1] on the other side of the border inside the present-day Russia who have been driven away from their land like Native Americans and decimated with hostile policies that have resulted in their rapid decline. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeoDW20WQAESJuZ?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeoDW20WQAESJuZ?format=jpg&name=...
- thriftwy 2y ago> people on the Baltic coast are not Russians, have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them That wording already shows an unexpected amount of agitation that would prompt further inquires. > have been driven away from their land like Native Americans and decimated with hostile policies that have resulted in their rapid decline That's mostly an unfaithful description of what's been happening, no. It also runs counter to the previous "have nothing in common with them, nor have never wanted to be close with them". If you really didn't want to be close to Russians you would get out of our hair for a chance.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]