Equality of people in America and the Soviet Union in the 50th year. (USSR, Russians)

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by belmont22

The only republics that were taken over forcibly I believe are the Baltic states and East Germany. Maybe Poland as well.

There were 14 Republics and the only ones officially conquered were Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. However, at the official founding of the USSR in 1922 there were only three Republics: Russia, Ukraine and Byelorus. The remaining 11 were created and it was their Soviet appointed governments, often composed entirely of Russian Soviets or local ethnic ardent communists, that officially joined the USSR. For instance, the Uzbek SSR was one of the five states carved out along ethnic lines in Central Asia. When it was created, it's government was appointed by Moscow to oversee the territory. Basically, what I was saying was rather tongue-in-cheek. Of the 14 Republics; 11 were created and/or conquered and their membership, despite Soviet propaganda, was not some unilateral desire but was imposed on them from Moscow.

The next category were the satellite states. These were nations the Soviet Union gained control of following WW2 and established Moscow aligned communist governments in, backed with Russian military force. While "sovereign" on paper, the nations were entirely beholden to the whims of Moscow. Those nations were: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland and Albania. These states also formed the alliance body known as the Warsaw Pact.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

There were 14 Republics and the only ones officially conquered were Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. However, at the official founding of the USSR in 1922 there were only three Republics: Russia, Ukraine and Byelorus. The remaining 11 were created and it was their Soviet appointed governments, often composed entirely of Russian Soviets or local ethnic ardent communists, that officially joined the USSR. For instance, the Uzbek SSR was one of the five states carved out along ethnic lines in Central Asia. When it was created, it's government was appointed by Moscow to oversee the territory. Basically, what I was saying was rather tongue-in-cheek. Of the 14 Republics; 11 were created and/or conquered and their membership, despite Soviet propaganda, was not some unilateral desire but was imposed on them from Moscow.

The next category were the satellite states. These were nations the Soviet Union gained control of following WW2 and established Moscow aligned communist governments in, backed with Russian military force. While "sovereign" on paper, the nations were entirely beholden to the whims of Moscow. Those nations were: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland and Albania. These states also formed the alliance body known as the Warsaw Pact.

15 NJ, 15. There were 15 republics)))

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by erasure

15 NJ, 15. There were 15 republics)))

Yes, you are correct....

Russia, Ukraine, Byelorus, Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik, Kazakh, Azerbaijan, Goergian, Kirghiz, Amernian, Moldavian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian

Of course that's not even getting into all of the ASSR's and the handful of ones that were created, realigned, disintegrated, etc. over the years.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

There were 14 Republics and the only ones officially conquered were Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Maybe they were just reconquering? They did belong to the Russian Empire before.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

For instance, the Uzbek SSR was one of the five states carved out along ethnic lines in Central Asia.

Not exactly; the divisions actually split through ethnic groups. That is why you have for example, a large presence of Uzbeks in S. Kyrgyzstan, and the present Georgian borders.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Of the 14 Republics; 11 were created and/or conquered and their membership, despite Soviet propaganda, was not some unilateral desire but was imposed on them from Moscow.

I look through history and I see most places were conquererd by some country at some point in time, I do not see anything unusual about this.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by erasure

East Germany was never one of the republics in the USSR; it was a satellite state, sorry.
The Baltic states however were taken forcibly before the war. Stalin basically claimed back the old territories of Russian empire before the WWII.

Just as he tried, and failed, to take Finland. I suppose that if he had succeeded in incorporating Finland into the USSR, our Soviet apologist friends would be insisting that the Finns joined voluntarily too.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Just as he tried, and failed, to take Finland.

I can't say that I blame Stalin ( under the circumstances) for his attempt; look at the distance between St.Petersburg and Finnish border.

I suppose that if he had succeeded in incorporating Finland into the USSR, our Soviet apologist friends would be insisting that the Finns joined voluntarily too.

Pretty much.
I can already picture the text in Soviet text-books for school-children; "Following the request of the workers and peasants of Finland, Soviet troops liberated Finland from the threat and hostilities of imperialist Sweden on November 30th, 1939."

( Now when I think about it - there was something like that in our school books regarding Baltic countries...
Oh, I remember now! We've studied three text-books on history that year, and I had to ( urgently) review the particular one with all the material on WWII before the final exam. I was in a rush, and couldn't figure out right away which one it was exactly; I'd always assumed that it was the one that was starting with the description of attack on Brest in 1941, but instead whenever I'd opened that text-book (that I thought was the right one) - it was always starting with "Liberation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania".
So I thought all right, that's already the end of the war, ( if it's liberation, right?) so where is the beginning of the war, in which text-book? It was driving me nuts for quite some time until I finally figured out that.. well.. - that's what they've meant by "liberation." . And it was the right text-book and I had to be patient to get to attack on Brest, that took place five pages later.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by boxus

Maybe they were just reconquering? They did belong to the Russian Empire before.

...and before that they were independent regions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After WW1 those states asked for, fought for and received independence and sovereign recognition. Those states were never "Russian".

Not exactly; the divisions actually split through ethnic groups. That is why you have for example, a large presence of Uzbeks in S. Kyrgyzstan, and the present Georgian borders.

The stated goal when the divisions were made was to "best capture" ethnic groups within their own republics. Of course, the people drawing the lines also had other motivations.

I look through history and I see most places were conquererd by some country at some point in time, I do not see anything unusual about this.

It's not unusual. The entire topic was basically a joke. GreyKarast intoned that the "republics of the Soviet Union joined freely and were never forced to". That was the basic Soviet propaganda, but it wasn't true. The Russo-Soviet appointed governments of the Russo-Soviet created republics "freely" joined the Soviet Union. It's basically the same as saying that the Sudetenland "freely" joined the Nazi Reich.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

...and before that they were independent regions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After WW1 those states asked for, fought for and received independence and sovereign recognition. Those states were never "Russian".

And *before* Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was trying to claim Russian throne ( when Russia nearly collapsed both for external and internal reasons,) in what has been known in Russian history as "turbulent times." And then Poland has been partitioned like three times.
So I think it's correct to say that Stalin basically reclaimed the former lands of Russian Empire that used to belong to it before WWI.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by erasure

And *before* Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was trying to claim Russian throne ( when Russia nearly collapsed both for external and internal reasons,) in what has been known in Russian history as "turbulent times." And then Poland has been partitioned like three times.
So I think it's correct to say that Stalin basically reclaimed the former lands of Russian Empire that used to belong to it before WWI.

For simplicity sake, yes. Of course "reclaim" also semi-implies that the people who lived there were in favor of such a move; which they certainly weren't.

[boxus]

The people in the Confederacy withdrew from the US, which led to the US Civil War. Those people were not in favor of being with the US, yet were forced to.

I hate diving into history for examples due to context differences, but I think this is needed because I think (my opinion) the hype over the Soviet's claim of the Baltic states is mostly politically driven more so than ethically driven; if it was the UK that did so, little to nothing would be said. If the Soviet's were a US ally, nothing would be said, no one would care.