[LowTaxesEqualsProsperity]

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.

[dfwgator]

Khrushchev was Russian, but he was Stalin’s man in the Ukraine in the 1940s.

At the time, he was consolidating his power, and he needed to win over the Ukrainians he ruled over, so as a cheap, political gimmick, he “gave” them Crimea, although, in reality, it was nothing but a symbolic gesture.

[dfwgator]

I liken it more to the Nazis marching into the Rhineland, than the Sudetenland.

[Leaning Right]

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

Right you are. The Crimea is not a modern-day Sudetenland. But please don't tell that to the neo-cons. They want perpetual war, everywhere and all the time.

After all, America must be in everyone's business, everywhere and all the time.

[mrsmith]

Comparisons to the annexation of Hawaii are fun... though over Obama’s head...

[hinckley buzzard]

The comparison you ignore is that both have/had strategic military significance. They also both have/had significant ethnic enclaves. There were many ethnic Germans living in Sudetenland, who lent a facade of legitimacy to Hitler's demands, and who were happy to become a part of Germany. Whether they had ever been a part of a sovereign state of Germany is irrelevant. Just as there are many Russians in Crimea who will be happy to be Russian, whether or not they care about ever having been part of a Russian state in the past. European ethnic boundaries have rarely been reflected in political boundaries.

[Belteshazzar]

True enough.

On the other hand, you left out the part where the Crimean Tatars were deported to Siberia, and ethnic Russians allowed to take their place. True enough Tatars were allowed to return to Crimea ... some of them.

As always, history is a little more complicated than we would like it to be.

[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.