Hacker News Reader

Comment by idlewords | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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

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".

> 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.)

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.

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.

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...

> 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)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com