The Crimean Plebiscite - it's the Sudetenland 76 years later

The Thanks Project ^ | 3/16/14 | Steve Berman

[FreeReign]

The folks in Crimea have an inalienable right to a fair election.

What about folks in North Korea?

You actually think that there is a possibilty that I would say no.

LOL.

[dfwgator]

Ok, how far are you willing to go to make it happen?

[Leaning Right]

The folks in Crimea have an inalienable right to a fair election. Putin is the one who insisted on invading Crimea before the election.

I agree on both counts.

You are the one who supports Putin's invasion

I made no comment about the legitimacy of that invasion (and yes, it was an invasion). Rather, my point is that it is not appropriate for the US to meddle in this issue. We have no vital interest here. And who are we to lecture the Russians or the Ukrainians? This is a European issue, not an American issue.

Consider this imperfect analogy. Suppose that Maine was separated from the US in 1960, and today the US attempted to reclaim the state (that's not too far-fetched, think about 1861-1865). And suppose that this outraged Russia, and Russia decided to lecture us about our reoccupation of Maine.

What would your reaction be if you were the US president?? Would you thank Russia for giving you moral guidance? Or would you tell Russia to mind its own business?

[FreeReign]

Ok, how far are you willing to go to make it happen?

I would not invade NK (nor would I invade Ukraine if that's where you are going with this).

[dangus]

So aggressively stupid, it knows no bounds. The Crimeans are mostly all Russian s, who desperately want to be with Russia. Even those who aren’t Eastern Serbs apparenly by large margins would rather become Russians than join the Soros-funded mob.

[mosesdapoet]

In the Bloggers & Personal forum, on a thread titled The Crimean Plebiscite - it’s the Sudetenland 76 years later, dfwgator wrote:
I liken it more to the Nazis marching into the Rhineland, than the Sudetenland.

Don’t fall for the revisionist review which claims that if the French had stopped Hitler from taking over there would have been no WWII. The Saar was an important industrial region to Germany when the country finally united inder Bismarck. It was handed over to the French along with Alsace (Strasbourg which is across the river)) as reparations.

The place was populated by German speakers along the Rhine which spearated it from France. Whe Hitler held his plebicite the place voted 80% to return. After WWII another plebicite was held under the strictest supervision and the result was the same 80%. The French knew this. I was there before and during when that 2nd vote was held.It was fascinating to see women in the major German cities adorned with French clothing partcularly high heel shoes, but The women of the region actually refused to wear Fremch fashions during that time.

Sudetenland was different there were German speakers who prefered to live unmolested for ceturies under the Czech style of democratic government. The takeover of the Sudentenland is probably a better example. That division by the way was culinated after the invasion by Poland and Germany of Czechoslovakia. Which also never gets mentioned in revisionist historic reviews.

[mosesdapoet]

Comparisons between both moves by Hitler and his Nazi govermnment of the Saarland and Sudentenland are full of revisionist reviews.
The Sudentenland was taken over after the invasion by Poland and Germany of the newly emerged state known as Czecheslovokia. There were german speakers who favored the freedom offered by the Czech goverment. There was no vote. It was a province of the the old Austrian Hungary kingdom and histocially German princes supported the Czech king.

The Saar was a different story. When Hitler held his plebicite 80% of the Germans there voted for being reconected with the united Germany formed under Bismarck it was removed along with Alsace (Strasbourg which is across the river) as reparations to France after WWI. After WWII another vote was again held under the strictest of supervision and again 80% voted for its return.

[mosesdapoet]

Sorry about the double post.

[grania]

comparison to the annexation of Hawaii are fun

Why is Hawaii a state anyway? Dole doesn't even grow much or any of its pineapples there anymore.

[mac_truck]

Sudetenland was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and then Czhechoslovakia. It had never been part of Germany, which came into existence only in 1870.

Crimea was Russian from 1783 to 1954, when General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) gave it to the Ukrainian SSR (a constituent republic of the USSR) as an expression of brotherly love.

There is no comparison for someone who actually knows the history.

Good explanation.

[lifeofgrace]

Then you miss the point of the comparison. It’s not comparing historical justifications or claims to land.

It’s comparing the methods and manufactured “ethnic repression” stories used to justify the takeover.

In both the Sudetenland and Crimea situations there was ample time, security, and structure to pursue a diplomatic, well ordered change.

But the situations were manipulated by governments and leaders pursuing power and “testing the waters” for future grabs. I believe this to be the case.

We can debate history all day (in fact, the Tartars are the real occupants of Crimea, Stalin moved Russians in). Historical ethnic and rights claims are not the sole arbiter of sovereignty. If they were, Israel would own Jordan, Sinai, and most of the gulf of Aqaba instead of fighting to keep a parcel the size of Rhode Island.