Mikhail Gorbachev has died

> who were demonstrating for democratic reforms.

You seem to comment to better inform readers, yet your comment distorts the truth.

Even the article you linked talks about Lithuania declaring independence from the USSR, not asking for democratic reforms.

Despite what your article says, if you read the story on Wikipedia, Lithuania did in fact unilaterally declare independence from the USSR in March 1990.

Just as an example, check what Spain did in 2017 when Catalonia tried to declare independence after a popular vote. If Catalonians decided to resist, there is no doubt that the Spanish state would have used violence to suppress them. Try to imagine what the USA would do if any of its states tried to declare independence.

The parent comment is correct, Lithuanians were demonstrating for the right to self-determination. The Baltic States were forcibly annexed to the Soviet Union in 1940; the comparison to Catalonia or US states is specious. Over two million people participated in peaceful protests in 1989 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way), the Soviet decision to suppress this movement by force is a black mark on Gorbachev's legacy.

> The parent comment is correct

I'm sorry but it's not, and I already stated why with reason. They were not asking for "democratic reforms", but for independence.

Call it self-determination if it makes you feel better. Debate my comparisons, fair enough, I just tried to put things in perspective.

Interestingly, South Carolina declared its independence December 20, 1860, and the US Civil War didn't begin until April 12, 1861, when the Confederate Army attacked Fort Sumter.

It's an intriguing historical question what would have happened if Fort Sumter hadn't been attacked. Would the Union have eventually made the first move? Would peaceful negotiations have eventually resulted in some stronger guarantee in the continuance of slavery and an end to secession? Would the Union have eventually dissolved amicably?

I’m not sure your specific speculation is on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_alternate_h...

Spain isn't a union state

> It's an intriguing historical question what would have happened if Fort Sumter hadn't been attacked. Would the Union have eventually made the first move?

Going by what happened during the Nullification Crisis, the answer is likely a "Yes".

Wargaming political negotiations is far less popular than wargaming, well, wars.

You might be able to have a little fun with the first option -- the Union attacks first -- but it's still going to largely end up political questions:

1. If the Union attacked immediately after South Carolina seceded, how would it have changed which States would follow suit?

2. If the Union attacked in 1862, would more States have seceded by then?

3. Would the Union have lost any supporters -- either notable generals or even member States -- if it had fired first?

After those political questions are answered you could have fun wargaming out the subsequent war with new sides, but trying to answer the political questions is not as easy or fun.

> Just as an example, check what Spain did in 2017 when Catalonia tried to declare independence after a popular vote. If Catalonians decided to resist, there is no doubt that the Spanish state would have used violence to suppress them.

I was there. They used violence anyway.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-41459692

Why should the type of state be decisive?

The Bolsheviks wrote a constitution providing for a "union state". I doubt the framers of the Soviet Constitution actually meant what they said – it was essentially propaganda to present the Soviet Union as some kind of "voluntary association", despite the reality that there was nothing voluntary about it. While it was a federation on paper, its substance was much closer to that of a unitary state.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the seceding union republics used their constitutional status to justify their secession as legitimate - they took the constitution's pretence literally. But, imagine in an alternative timeline, the Soviet constitution had been written without this pretence–would that have stopped the Baltic states from seceding? I really doubt it. Would it have made any difference to the legitimacy of their secession? Only on meaningless paper.

Even with the Soviet Constitution we actually had – why did the Union as a whole break-up, but not the RSFSR? That question is better answered in terms of real world power structures, than legal formalities. Chechnya fought for independence, and if Moscow had been weaker, they could have won. Even now, some would say that Ramzan Kadyrov rules Chechnya as his own quasi-independent fiefdom, and is just biding his time for the right moment to officially claim independence (maybe, if Putin were to suddenly die without a clear successor). If Chechnya were to successfully secede, that could inspire other parts of Russia to seek to emulate its example.

There are a number of states that would result in great rejoicing if they were to declare independence today. They suck up so many federal resources without giving much back.

More like Spain constitution doesn't have an article detailing exit process.

Meanwhile USSR constitution had such article. Which was used by Lithuania when declaring independence.

USSR constitution did allow such unilateral exit declarations.

Of course, USSR constitution declared many things that were far from truth. But ultimately words on paper do make a difference, even in totalitarian regimes.

As someone previously pointed out, the perspective here is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were invaded and forcibly annexed in 1940.

The majority of Catalonians didn't support independence in 2017, at most only 50% were in favor according to opinion polls. They only won the vote because most people ignored it (barely 43% even turned up…). When the referendum was held in Lithuania 93% voted in favor, in 1990 124 out of 141 MPs in parliament voted for independence (including almost all communist MPs). So I don't think the situations are really comparable that much.

Very much like Hawaii and Florida, weren’t they? Weren’t those countries ruled for decade or so by dictators who ceased power in late 20s? Didn’t Soviet actually organized elections and then their parliaments voted to join the USSR? I’m sure it’s all a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

Oh I see. That makes it alright, then. Those Balts really should stop whinging.

I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case: no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union.

Also, there are no elections or parliaments anywhere within the Soviet (or Russian, for that matter) sphere of influence. There are "elections" and "parliaments".

Irrelevant. Literally any country in the world would suppress independence declarations with violence, regardless of good justifications or not. That's just how nations work and has nothing to do with USSR specifically.

unilateral secession was not illegal according to the constitution of the USSR. I’m sure it (the constitution) was obviously a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

Well Britain allowed Scotland to have a vote, Czechoslovakia is another example, even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. There are many other examples. So you’re wrong...

> More like Spain constitution doesn't have an article detailing exit process.

> Meanwhile USSR constitution had such article. Which was used by Lithuania when declaring independence.

Source?

I can't find any article detailing an exit process in the 1977 USSR constitution. Only at the beginning it says that the USSR is a voluntary union, but that's far from saying it details an exit process.

> no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed

So how is this not like Hawaii?

It's a matter of US law that "the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."

(The US didn't comport itself very well in Florida - or anywhere really - but I'll at least grant a difference in kind.)

Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

> even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response.

Norway was always independentof Sweden; it was never subordinate, only part of a "personal union", i.e. had the same king. Apart from that, it was an independent nation.

> So you’re wrong...

Not as wrong as you.

Sweden invaded Norway in 1814 defeated it and force it to accept the king of Sweden as their king. While Norway had considerable independence compared to most other occupied countries it was nevertheless a junior partner in the union (initially it’s foreign policy was fully controlled by Sweden)