Here's another hint. I never thought or said they were. Imperial Russia wasn't called the prison-house of nations for nothing. But so what? You think the Russians of the time were the only nation which had captive minorities? You can't be that stupid, can you? Nor can you really believe that they thought their claim to the land by right of conquest was invalid, or do you?
...and fought to LIBERATE themselves from the Russians. Russia didn't just lose the Baltics, the Baltics fought and won their independance.
Russians lost WWI to the Germans. Otherwise, the Baltic states would never have gained independence. I'm not denying their efforts. I'm just being factual.
Your analogy is totally backward. The only wars of conquest in the last 400 years regarding the Baltics occured in 1940 and 1710, and the Russians were the invaders.
You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Russians felt they were reclaiming territory which rightfully belonged to them - had belonged to them for 200 years.
The bitter truth about humanity is that most nations and cultures live on lands which they forcibly took from others. After a period of time they feel its theirs.
Regardless of the merits of these claims (which would require several threads of their own), the assertion of opportunistic Westerners gobbling up conquored lands is simple b.s.
In the period during which the Czars gobbled up much of Eastern Europe and central Asia, Western nations gobbled up even more...including what is now the United States.
The attempt by Western powers to reclaim their colonial possessions after 1945 cannot be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. Especially by someone gives such weight to a 200 or 400 year old claim to independence by some minor European ethnic groups.
for a guy so ignorant of history
My grasp of history is - at the very least - the equal of yours.
Here's another hint. I never thought or said they were. Imperial Russia wasn't called the prison-house of nations for nothing. But so what? ...
My point being that Balts and Russians are two distinct people, and that Russians have no claim upon the Baltics other than that of a temporary conquest. Hitler at least had an ethnic claim to invade the Sudatenland.
Russians lost WWI to the Germans. Otherwise, the Baltic states would never have gained independence. I'm not denying their efforts. I'm just being factual.
True, the Balts took advantage of a weakened Russia to gain independence, but that doesn't give the Russians any rights later -- and in fact the USSR didn't use history to assert control -- they made up a story about being invited in to the Baltics.
You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Russians felt they were reclaiming territory which rightfully belonged to them - had belonged to them for 200 years.
How could I misunderstand that? It's NOT TRUE. The USSR didn't rely on that assertion, and indeed they claimed they were in the Baltic by invitation, not by imperial right.
blah blah blah
for a guy so ignorant of history
My grasp of history is - at the very least - the equal of yours.
Apparently not. I for one haven't made ludicrous analogies of Baltic independance to Muslim imperialism, and I for one know enough history to realize the USSR didn't rely on any past right of conquest when they invaded the Baltics in 1940.