Theft on a truly astounding scale.
Aggression against Estonia, a formerly occupied but now independent nation.
Politically motivated trade embargoes against formerly occupied but now independent nations, Poland, Georgia, and Moldova (the latter two still partly occupied).
“Occupied” Poland, Georgia and Moldova? Let me laugh! Would you call Texas or Louisiana an occupied land? Would you call Germany an occupied state since it’s a member of NATO and has US troops on its territory?
Funny little Robot, you’ve gotta be joking. What kind of ignorance of history is possible?
Poland was invaded by the USSR in 1939, in a deal with Nazi Germany (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact); a large part was annexed by the USSR and in return, after the war, Poland was “given” a large part of Germany (the remaining country was still 20% smaller) and Germans and other minorities were expelled. Poland was occupied by Soviet troops until the very end of the USSR and then by Russian troops until Presidents Yeltsin and Walesa negotiated a peaceful withdrawal (made more difficult by the problems of lodging them back in Russia) in 1992. Georgia was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1921 and annexed and occupied and did not get independence until the break up of the USSR. Moldova was occupied as part of World War II and taken from Romania and only gained independence (and then only partly, as a large piece is still occupied by Russian military occupiers). Texas and Louisiana are democratic parts of a democratic country and there are no “occupation troops” to keep them down. If the US military bases in those states were to be shut down, would the legislatures declare independence? Unlikely. Also, Germany has British and U.S. troops on its soil at the invitation of the present government there. There is no comparison between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. None. It is a sign of an absolutely stupid and childish mentality to state otherwise.
To put your silly argument more clearly, you could mock the claim that the Nazis ever occupied Poland, since they, too, had local collaborators. Was being “in” the Warsaw Pact or the Greater German Reich and its client states occupation? Yes, of course. Is being in the USA or in NATO occupation? Only an idiot would say so.
I find it hard to imagine any serious person denying that those nations were militarily occupied by the Soviet Union, or to compare their status to that of contemporary Germany as a NATO member or to Texas and Louisiana.
Radu,
It looks like you don’t like communist rule. Neither do I. But “occupied” is not the same as “badly ruled”. According to the Hague convention “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”.
The invasion by Germany and USSR in Poland in 1939 definitely was an occupation. Starting from 1941 it was an occupation solely by the Nazi and since 1945 occupation was no more there. If you consider territorial gains and losses as “occupation”, you should well insist that Poland is still occupied by Belorus and Lithuania. The country was internationally recognised as an independent state. I don’t like the regime they had after the war but it was a regime of their own, not the one of the USSR.
You can argue if the term occupation could be applied to annexation of Georgia to the USSR in 1921 (the country split from Russia only 3 years before, when it immediately came under military control of Germany and Turkey (still in the First World War), then under military control of British forces and then of the Red Army). However, the republic has been internationally recognised as part of the USSR and wasn’t controled by military forces of USSR as of some external power. I think you do remember that Joseph Stalin, a Georgian, ruled the whole country for 30 years, being helped by another Georgian, Lavrentiy Beria, head of the security service. There was a number of other Georgians on the top of the government, including Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduard Shevardnadze. Georgian culture was an important part of the Soviet cultural development.
As for Moldova, part of it was indeed in Romania (and formerly in the Ottoman Empire), another part – in Russia till 1918, and Transdnistria still remained Russian in the Interwar period. In 1940 Romanian part was occupied by the USSR and since 1941 it was occupied by Germany till 1944. After the war Moldova was an internationally recognised republic of the USSR.
Your arguments on Texas and Louisiana are ridiculous. You are just supporting my point that a part of the country cannot be considered “occupied” only because it WAS occupied once upon a time. If the Soviet Union in the 90s would have been strong and prosperous, its republics also wouldn’t be eager to leave it, even if granted all the democratic laws needed to hold a referendum.
I agree, only an idiot would say being in the US or in NATO is an occupation. For some reason you consider Warsaw Pact incomparable. I remind you that “occupied” and “undemocratic” are not the same things.
Both you and Dr. Palmer refer to the separatist regions of Georgia and Moldova as to “occupied” as if Russian troops there (in very small numbers, by the way) would be the only problem there and as if people in those regions would be dreaming about the time when they would finally join Georgia/Moldova. It’s not an occupation, it’s a problem of separatism. Personally I don’t support separation of these territories, but no one can deny that the problem exists and the problem is the relations between people in those regions and in their “mainland” countries.
Dear R2D2,
You mentioned problem of separatism. Please do not forget who created this problem, who has been supporting separatists against Georgia.