Most active commenters
  • pastacacioepepe(3)
  • ztrww(3)

←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 11 comments | 30 Aug 22 20:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.185s | source | bottom
Show context
nradov ◴[30 Aug 22 21:39 UTC] No.32655496[source]▶
For those unfamiliar with what happened in Lithuania, in 1991 Gorbachev used military force to kill 14 Lithuanian civilians who were demonstrating for democratic reforms.

https://www.rferl.org/a/lithuania-soviet-crackdown-1991-krem...

replies(1): >>32655751 #
pastacacioepepe ◴[30 Aug 22 22:02 UTC] No.32655751[source]▶
> 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.

replies(7): >>32655814 #>>32655894 #>>32656189 #>>32656327 #>>32656947 #>>32658779 #>>32659126 #
idlewords ◴[30 Aug 22 22:10 UTC] No.32655814[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>32655879 #
pastacacioepepe ◴[30 Aug 22 22:18 UTC] No.32655879[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>32659034 #
1. interfixus ◴[31 Aug 22 06:22 UTC] No.32659034[source]▶
As someone previously pointed out, the perspective here is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were invaded and forcibly annexed in 1940.
replies(2): >>32659379 #>>32659893 #
2. ironcurtain ◴[31 Aug 22 07:30 UTC] No.32659379[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>32659457 #>>32659481 #>>32659875 #>>32660639 #
3. ◴[31 Aug 22 07:41 UTC] No.32659457[source]▶
4. interfixus ◴[31 Aug 22 07:43 UTC] No.32659481[source]▶
Oh I see. That makes it alright, then. Those Balts really should stop whinging.
5. jwr ◴[31 Aug 22 08:49 UTC] No.32659875[source]▶
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".

replies(1): >>32663802 #
6. pastacacioepepe ◴[31 Aug 22 08:51 UTC] No.32659893[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>32660664 #
7. ztrww ◴[31 Aug 22 11:09 UTC] No.32660639[source]▶
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.
8. ztrww ◴[31 Aug 22 11:12 UTC] No.32660664[source]▶
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...
replies(1): >>32669634 #
9. morelisp ◴[31 Aug 22 15:48 UTC] No.32663802{3}[source]▶
> 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.)

10. CRConrad ◴[31 Aug 22 23:21 UTC] No.32669634{3}[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>32701308 #
11. ztrww ◴[03 Sep 22 12:41 UTC] No.32701308{4}[source]▶
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)