Ukrainian Crisis thread 1.2

[LamaGT]

Ukraine had not been liberated, from what I understand. Ukraine just traded masters. Just as Poland had not been liberated or any other nation except I guess Austria, since that was the only country Soviet forces eventually retreated from.
And we probably all agree that it would be ridiculous to paint Soviet Union as the agressor regarding Nazi Germany. And hey, I also can see how it is possible to understand the PM that way. As said, the comparison of Ukraine and Nazi Germany is pretty far out there, okay. But it is IMO an absurd and extremely mean-spirited understanding to actually assume that the PM wanted to say that the SU was the aggressor against Nazi Germany, since it would be so ridiculous and since there are far more plausible alternative interpretations. Such as that the PM simply wanted to emphasize the SU's own aggressive ways and at the same time wanted to make Germans feel like they should also fear Russian aggressions.

Basically, what I see is a PM who clumsily tried to win German sympathies and nothing more. But some people seem to be bend on vilifying that PM.. we probably can blame Russia Today for that.

Naturally the USA also tried to steer things in a way it favored. But it means to do so are universes away from the means the Soviet Union used.

Well, let me put it this way. Had the Soviet Union not liberated Ukraine, the Ukrainians would have simply been killed off and enslaved. You know, if there's any reason why any comparison of Hitler with someone is ridiculous, it's this.
I see a not particularly clever PM who in his hate of Russia entertains neo-Nazi ideas, not realizing it perhaps, but still.

Is it, though? Of course, the wiki article tries to be neutral and all, but the truth is that the USA intervened multiple times to prevent Italy from turning communist. And it's not the only nation where it operated.

 

[Domen]

Ukraine was a core part of USSR, one of entities which created it.

True. By the way - I've heard that in early 1950s there was a plan to exchange territories between the GDR (East Germany), the PPR (Poland) and the UkSRR (Ukraine). Poland was supposed to give Szczecin to the GDR and get Lviv from the UkSRR, and UkSRR was supposed to get Crimea for giving away Lviv. That would have been a bit unfair, though, because East Germany was only gaining territory (Szczecin) and not giving anything in return. And Russia was only losing territory (Crimea), and not getting anything in return.

Not sure how true this is, but in 1951 indeed an exchange of territory took place between Poland and Ukraine, only on a much smaler scale - Poland gave away red fragment (twist of Bug River, region of Sokal, area rich in coal) and in exchange got green area (part of Bieszczady Mountains, region of Ustrzyki Dolne, area rich in... nothing, apart from beautiful landscape):



And then in 1954 Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine anyway.

IIRC there were also some considerations concerning the transfer of Kaliningrad Oblast to Lithuania or / and to Poland. But Lithuania refused, they didn't want to have such a large Russian minority and perhaps they had not enough Lithuanians to colonize that land. Remember, that Lithuanians were not even majority in their capital city at that time (only 1/3 in 1959 census).

 

[luiz]

Is it, though? Of course, the wiki article tries to be neutral and all, but the truth is that the USA intervened multiple times to prevent Italy from turning communist. And it's not the only nation where it operated.

You really want to compare the freedom from direct US control that Western Europe was afforded post-WW2 to that of Eastern Europe in relation to the USSR? Really?

You would call France under de Gaulle a puppet regime?

Put down the relativism crack pipe, please. France was liberated, Ukraine changed masters. Same for Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia (ask them what happened when they tried to change the Soviet-imposed rules just a little bit).

 

[red_elk]

Ukraine changed masters.

You realize that Ukraine was part of the USSR, right?

 

[luiz]

You realize that Ukraine was part of the USSR, right?

And large parts of Poland were incorporated to Germany proper following the invasion... I don't see how that changes anything.

Were the Ukrainians given a chance to decide whether they wanted to be in the USSR, through free and transparent vote? Nope. That's the key point.

 

[Darza]

Put down the relativism crack pipe, please. France was liberated, Ukraine changed masters. Same for Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia (ask them what happened when they tried to change the Soviet-imposed rules just a little bit).

That's simply incorrect on Ukraine part, as it was a part of USSR, and was liberated. Just the Ukrainian speechwriters indeed are drowned in bad English there, puzzling things into a quite fail in result. Technically speaking both Ukraine territory and part of German territory was invaded and military occupied during the named events, but its pretty silly to draw those things together, as its likely would result in some counterintuitive understanding of the actual meaning, "relativism crack pipe" essentially.

 

[luiz]

That's simply incorrect on Ukraine part, as it was a part of USSR, and was liberated. Just the Ukrainian speechwriters indeed are drowned in bad English there, puzzling things into a quite fail in result. Technically speaking both Ukraine territory and part of German territory was invaded and military occupied during the named events, but its pretty silly to draw those things together, as its likely would result in some counterintuitive understanding of the actual meaning.

But did anyone ask Ukrainians if they wanted to be part of the USSR? Hum? And wasn't Western Ukraine not part of the USSR prior to WW2?

 

[red_elk]

Were the Ukrainians given a chance to decide whether they wanted to be in the USSR, through free and transparent vote? Nope. That's the key point.

Free and transparent vote in 1918-1920, during Civil War?
I guess, neither of France's regions agreed to be part of France through this procedure either. That's not the way how country borders were defined back then.

 

[Darza]

But did anyone ask Ukrainians if they wanted to be part of the USSR? Hum? And wasn't Western Ukraine not part of the USSR prior to WW2?

Huh, some of them was asked and agreed, for sure. About western part - there should been used a words about "military occupation of Poland" in this case then, for example, exactly due to the point you had made. And Allied powers agreed on some annexations and occupation as aftermath of WW2, and as Poland was not in position to make a complaint about that part it settled that way. Countries and borders do exist only in terms of international law anyway, not in "anyone asked" terms, otherwise we all would have been busy 24\7 asking and reasking everyone about it to be sure, as the only possible (and still non-working) way.

 

[innonimatu]

And large parts of Poland were incorporated to Germany proper following the invasion... I don't see how that changes anything.

Were the Ukrainians given a chance to decide whether they wanted to be in the USSR, through free and transparent vote? Nope. That's the key point.

Took them a while but they did had one.

And then went on to ignore the results anyway.

Funny thing, in all these unions (the EU being the most recent) the people putting them together always manage to forget to hold referendums...

 

[Domen]

About western part - there should been used a words about "military occupation of Poland"

Eastern Galicia was "militarily occupied" by Poland since the 14th century. And Volhynia since the 16th century.

Much longer than the USA is "military occupied" by the USA itself. Even if including the Austrian period.

And in 1921 the Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Riga which confirmed Polish rights to those lands.

The treaty of Riga was in agreement with international law. Attacking Poland in 1939 despite non-agression pact wasn't.

 

[Domen]

I guess, neither of France's regions agreed to be part of France through this procedure either.

Indeed, nobody asked regions inhabited by ethnic minorities - Alsatians, Basques, Catalans, Bretons, Corsicans, Flamands and whoever else there is. Maybe Occitans too. In 1806 only 58,5% of population within the modern borders of France spoke Langues d'oïl (i.e. French dialects). Another 25% spoke Occitan dialects, 7,4% spoke Francoprovençal, 3,5% German dialects (mostly Alsatian), 3,3% Breton, and the remainders spoke Corse, Flamand, Catalan, Basque, etc.

What about Britain?

They were denying Scotland the right to independence referendum for so long. Wales never got a chance. Ireland had to fight for freedom.

 

[Darza]

Eastern Galicia was "militarily occupied" by Poland since the 14th century. And Volhynia since the 16th century.

Much longer than the USA is "military occupied" by the USA itself. Even if including the Austrian period.

And in 1921 the Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Riga which confirmed Polish rights to those lands.

The treaty of Riga was in agreement with international law. Attacking Poland in 1939 despite non-agression pact wasn't.

Im failing to see any contradiction after reading it twice. Unless im totally struggling with words "of" & "by" meanings.

Upd. Probably got what you're about here. "Should been used" in Ukrainian PM's speech i meant. Sorry if i did wrote is so confusion-stirring way.

Upd2. "Military occupied" =! military occupied, correct? For example, in 1949 USA has been "military occupied" by USA, and also military occupied Japan at the same time, did i got it right?

 

[Domen]

For example, in 1949 USA has been "military occupied" by USA, and also military occupied Japan at the same time, did i got it right?

Nope. When something is legitimately part of something for centuries, we no longer use the word "occupied".

Unless you want to say that most or entire territory of Russia is under military occupation by Russia.

 

[Darza]

Eastern Galicia was "militarily occupied" by Poland since the 14th century. And Volhynia since the 16th century.

Much longer than the USA is "military occupied" by the USA itself. Even if including the Austrian period.

Then im starting to lose the possible meaning of that message. What was the purpose of quotation marks used then? Can you rebuild USA-Japan example using your notation used in previous message, please?

 

[Domen]

Im failing to see any contradiction after reading it twice. Unless im totally struggling with words "of" & "by" meanings.

Nope, I didn't notice that there is "of" (not "by") in your post. Sorry.

 

[Darza]

Nope, I didn't notice that there is "of" (not "by") in your post. Sorry.

No problem at all, just i had starting to worry what those hits i had recently received on a snow slopes resulted not only in bruises, but also had some unnoticed and more severe effect too.
If admins are able to remove that most recent conversation, it should be good imho, as its exclusively about small unimportant misunderstanding.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You realize that Ukraine was part of the USSR, right?

You realize that Outer Manchuria was part of China right ?
You can have the Middle Eastern sections, have fun dealing with them.
In fact would you be interest in Afghanistan AGAIN

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Ukraine was a core part of USSR, one of entities which created it.

I also recall reports that Ukrainians greeted the Germans as liberators: Of course Germany did not turn out to be no such thing. But I think the PM is right in assuming that Ukrainians weren't happy or consenting about being 'reintegrated' into the Soviet Union. To put it politely. Some kind of starvation comes to mind, also.
But I am no history buff. Correct me if I am wrong.

He said that USSR invaded Ukraine and Germany. How else can it be interpreted except that USSR was aggressor from his point of view?

By not being a literal female doag about his words. I also already conveyed how that was possible.
It starts by acknowledging that he did not actually speak of 'invasion' but just of troops rolling (at least according to the German translation I read), which is a fact of history, rather than its distortion.
The PM said nothing outright wrong. He just made awkward and suspicious emphasizes. Emphasizes clearly designed to win German favor. Done in a stupid way, but still fitting the occasion. Rewriting history would not be...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well, let me put it this way. Had the Soviet Union not liberated Ukraine, the Ukrainians would have simply been killed off and enslaved. You know, if there's any reason why any comparison of Hitler with someone is ridiculous, it's this.

I don't disagree. Your point looks strong and obvious. And it adds to how it is so very wrong to compare Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union. As I also stated twice - that really was a dumb thing to insinuate and you brought up another way to support this. Well done.

I see a not particularly clever PM who in his hate of Russia entertains neo-Nazi ideas, not realizing it perhaps, but still.

Neo-Nazi ideas are quit a tack stronger than stating that Russia marched against Ukraine as well as Germany. Sorry, but I have to stress that this interpretation of yours (and others) assumes a whole world of things not said in the video but merely at best utmost flimsily hinted at. I suggest to drop such forced ways to implicate the PM, because to me they look like to be born out of the desire to implicate him rather than to do his (dumb) statements actual fairness and justice.

Is it, though? Of course, the wiki article tries to be neutral and all, but the truth is that the USA intervened multiple times to prevent Italy from turning communist. And it's not the only nation where it operated.

Yes, I actually thought of that myself while writing the post you replied to. That surely is a testimony to how the USA is very much capable of gravely disregarding and violating democratic principles. Believe me, I am the last to think anything else. Still, I don't see how that changes the huge principle difference between the American and Soviet approach. At least regarding Europe.
Using a picture: America may have had a lot of dirt which it was willing to throw at inferior nations, not minding hitting them right into their face if it suited its interests.. The Soviets, however, went right ahead and buried their inferior nations into dirt until they could not move a finger if Moscow said so.