lemm.ee

-16 points

1 year ago

Countries weren’t controlled by the USSR, they were a member state of the USSR and had input on democratic central planning and decisions.

So countries that were forcibly integrated, like the Baltic states, weren’t controlled? Then why couldn’t they leave the union?

report

∞🏳️‍⚧️Edie [it/its]@lemmygrad.ml

[ - ]

15 points

1 year ago

They could. Article 17 of the 1936 Constitution (can be found on https://marxists.org > English > History > Soviet Union > Soviet Government) explicitly allowed every Republic to secede from the U.S.S.R.

report

[ - ]

-12 points

1 year ago

So why didn’t they? Clearly they never wanted to be a part of the union because prior to WW2 the foreign policy of those countries was neutrality. They created the Baltic entente and at end the of 1938 all three countries passed neutrality laws, Here’s the Estonian law. Furthermore after the union collapse all three countries designated the soviet era as an era of foreign occupation. Which part of of history gives you the indication that they actually wanted to be in the union?

report

[ - ]

redtea@lemmygrad.ml

17 points

1 year ago

Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR? And the people and the leaders who got what they wanted when they left:

Now have the power to be the dominant voice, and
Continue to say what they used to say now that they had power?

~~You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US, so~~You probably know that capitalist states are run by a minority of wealthy people. It’s the same in post-Soviet capitalist states, right? (Like Russia, which ~~we agree~~ is a capitalist hellhole like every other capitalist state.)

If you’re still with me, could it be that a minority of liberals who complained about ‘conditions’ in the USSR are the same minority of liberals who today praise capitalism and criticise/slander the USSR?

Edit: realised I was talking to a different person.

report

[ - ]

-12 points

1 year ago

Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR?

Are you open to the possibility that the USSR weren’t the good guys and didn’t allow those countries to leave? Because the rest of what you’re saying is on the premise that the USSR had to have been the good guys.

You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US

Maybe the other guy said that? I haven’t said that.

report

[ - ]

DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml

15 points

1 year ago

Which do you think is more likely though?

That a union of nations that has been dead for 30 years is still tricking people with evil commie propaganda to make them think it was a fairly normal place, and not a pointlessly cruel hell on earth,

Or that the capitalist class, in the capitalist west, the US especially, the heart of global capitalism, would want its citizens to think that socialism never works and that the people should just resign themselves to a life under capitalism, the system in which they are in charge and benefit the most from? And so lie to their citizens in order to achieve this goal?

report

[ - ]

-8 points

1 year ago

As I mentioned in the other comment, I’m pretty sure which is more likely because I actually live in one of those countries. I know the history of my country and the sentiment people have about the union. The regular folk who lived in that era don’t really have anything good to say about the union. I’m pretty sure people who lived it trumps whatever alternate shit you’ve read on the web.

report

[ - ]

9 points

1 year ago

I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.

My other points still stand. You’ve proved my point: there isn’t a ‘right’ answer, there’s only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.

It’s up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, I’m skeptical of every word that leaves the mouths or pens of people who keep the working class oppressed and living in shit conditions.

report

[ - ]

-5 points

1 year ago

You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what I’ve done. I live in one of those countries. I know how my parents and grandparents lived during the soviet era. I know how my wifes parents and grandparents lived. I’ve had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isn’t some “choose which class answer you like”, it’s based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever you’ve read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I’d not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead) is far from what you people here want to believe. None of them had anything good to say about the union. None of them wanted the union and once they were in the union at no point (until the very end) did they have an option to not be in the union.

report

[ - ]

8 points

1 year ago

Why don’t you give up Hawaii and Puerto rico which you illegally annexed ? What about Mexcian lands that you stole ? Baltic states were given up by Lenin to Germany in Brest treaty , they were vassals of Germany and became fascistic in later years , why would Soviet Russia give up Baltic states when they got it back from Germany in 1939?

report

[ - ]

-13 points

1 year ago

Why don’t you give up Hawaii and Puerto rico which you illegally annexed ? What about Mexcian lands that you stole ?

How about you don’t assume my nationality, my country isn’t even close those areas. Also nice whataboutism.

Baltic states were given up by Lenin to Germany in Brest treaty ,

You do realize that there were wars of independence after that treaty, that ended up with new treaties? There was the treaty of Tartu between Estonia and Soviet union, the treaty of Riga between Latvia and Soviet union and the Moscow peace treaty between Lithuania and Soviet union. The Soviet union recognized the independence of those countries so the Brest treaty is irrelevant.

they were vassals of Germany and became fascistic in later years ,

I know people like you love to throw the word around but authoritarian is not the same as fascist. And I have no idea where you take that they were vassals of German. You’re clearly not aware that the independence war in Estonia and Latvia wasn’t just against the Soviet union, it was also against Germany, more specifically the Baltic Germans who were in the Baltische Landeswehr.

why would Soviet Russia give up Baltic states when they got it back from Germany in 1939?

This is so far into historical revisionism there’s nothing to correct, it’s complete fiction.

report

🏳️‍⚧️ 新星 [she/they]@lemmygrad.ml

Show more comments

[ - ]

3 points

1 year ago

Maybe the part where there were still a lot of people even in 1991 that wanted to stay?

(Yes, there were also independence referendums in 1991, but you were asking why it didn’t happen earlier.)

Source: https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=su011991

report

[ - ]

-7 points

1 year ago

I was asking why it didn’t happen earlier because before the Union those countries were “We don’t want to be in the union” and after the union those countries were “We said, we didn’t want to be in the union”. If before the union they didn’t want to be in it and after the union they still said they didn’t want to be in it then why should we assume that during the union they wanted to be in it? The answer is that they didn’t, they simply weren’t allowed to leave.

report