Ukraine Thread

[Husar]

Russian parliament is planning to condemn West Germany for annexing East Germany in 1989.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-east-germany/
Apart from being the raving of an sick imagination, how seriuos are the charges? I mean was there any legal procedure of reunification obsereved (like voting by GDR's parliament or something) or was it assumed by default that all East Germans want to lose their country?

I think it was assumed that everybody wants freedom, democracy and capitalism. Russia got a boatload of money for letting us have it and then we payed more to clean up the mess they left behind. The place is barely civilized by now and one could make a good case that they never deserved democracy.

[Gilrandir]

I think it was assumed that everybody wants freedom, democracy and capitalism. Russia got a boatload of money for letting us have it and then we payed more to clean up the mess they left behind.

I spoke of LEGAL procedure of re-unification. Was there any?

The place is barely civilized by now

You are jumping to a conclusion too fast, you haven't seen Ukrainian sticks.

[Husar]

I spoke of LEGAL procedure of re-unification. Was there any?

I have no idea, I was five at the time and we didn't learn about it at school. What kind of legal procedure could there be about it? Isn't it inherently a political thing? The previous government of the DDR left and didn't resist, what would lawyers argue about? Whether such a unification was fine according to the DDR's constitution?

You are jumping to a conclusion too fast, you haven't seen Ukrainian sticks.

It was an absolute, not a relative statement and it still stands.

[Husar]

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_4438784.html

11.47 Uhr: Im Kampf gegen prorussische Separatisten in der Ostukraine hat die Regierung in Kiew "Abschussprämien" für ihre Soldaten eingeführt. Einem am Donnerstag veröffentlichten Beschluss zufolge zahlt der Staat für ein vernichtetes Fahrzeug der Aufständischen umgerechnet 600 Euro.
Zerstörte Panzer werden mit 2400 Euro belohnt, und für ein abgeschossenes Kampfflugzeug soll es 6000 Euro geben. Zusätzlich will die Regierung den Soldaten für jeden Tag im Kampfeinsatz 50 Euro zahlen. Armeeangehörige klagen jedoch oft darüber, dass der finanziell klamme Staat ihnen den Sold schulde.

11:47 Clock: In fight against prorussian separatists in the eastukraine has the government in Kiew "killrewards" for its soldiers introduced. An on tuesday released decision following pays the state for a destroyed vehicle of the rebels recalculated 600 Euro.
Destroyed tanks are with 2400 Euro rewarded, and for a downshot fighterairplane should it 6000 Euro give. Additionally wants the government the soldiers for every day in fightingmission 50 Euro pay. Armybelongers complain however often about, that the financially tight state them the pay owes.

You should get the point, the Ukrainian government rewards soldiers for destroyed enemy vehicles now and wants to pay them 50 Euros for every day in the war zone. Soldiers however complain that the government still owes them their basic wages in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have no idea, I was five at the time and we didn't learn about it at school. What kind of legal procedure could there be about it? Isn't it inherently a political thing? The previous government of the DDR left and didn't resist, what would lawyers argue about? Whether such a unification was fine according to the DDR's constitution?



It was an absolute, not a relative statement and it still stands.

That's actually not an unreasonable question - the DDR would have had to sign something that declared it effectively ceased to exist, as it's constituent states simply became part of the German federation, or whatever you guys call yourselves today.

If the DDR didn't sign itself out of existence legally then you would technically be talking about an annexation with less of a rubber stamp than Crimea.

Also - it is pretty weird, bordering on disturbing, that this isn't taught in German schools given that it's the most important event in German history since the end of World War II.

[Husar]

Why? It's all on Wikipedia anyway. In history classes we covered the french revolution at least threee times since it was obviously the most historically significant event of all times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ication_Treaty

The Volkskammer, the Parliament of East Germany, passed a resolution on 23 August 1990 seeking the accession (Beitritt) of the German Democratic Republic to the Federal Republic of Germany as allowed by article 23 of the West German Basic Law, effective 3 October 1990.[7][8] In the wake of that resolution, the "German reunification treaty",[9][10][11] commonly known in German as "Einigungsvertrag" (Unification Treaty) or "Wiedervereinigungsvertrag" (Reunification Treaty), that had been negotiated between the two German states since 2 July 1990, was signed on 31 August 1990. This Treaty, officially titled Vertrag zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik über die Herstellung der Einheit Deutschlands (Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic on the Establishment of German Unity), was approved by large majorities in the legislative chambers of both countries on 20 September 1990[12] (442–47 in the West German Bundestag and 299–80 in the East German Volkskammer). The amendments to the Federal Republic's Basic Law that were foreseen in the Unification Treaty or necessary for its implementation were adopted by the Federal Statute of 23 September 1990. Under article 45 of the Treaty,[13] it entered into force in international Law on 29 September 1990, upon the exchange of notices regarding the completion of the respective internal constitutional requirements for the adoption of the treaty in both East Germany and West Germany.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lots of negotiation and paperwork and publicly recorded votes on both sides favoring approval.

The Russian claim that this was an annexation only flies if the Russians are asserting that East Germany was never a real state of its own in the first place and that their legislature, therefore, had no authority to enact such a treaty. While arguably correct on one level there are too many public assertions regarding the "independence" of Warsaw Pact nations by the Soviets to make this argument readily acceptable.

Writ large, the Russian claim is based on Hungary and Czechoslovakia having been Soviet responses to "internal" dissent -- they had a right to squash them because they were REALLY just provinces -- and that the "province" of East Germany really still belongs to Russia as the inheritor of the Soviet Union.

In short, this is just political theater.

[Gilrandir]

Writ large, the Russian claim is based on Hungary and Czechoslovakia having been Soviet responses to "internal" dissent -- they had a right to squash them because they were REALLY just provinces -- and that the "province" of East Germany really still belongs to Russia as the inheritor of the Soviet Union.

Yet Hungary and Czechoslovakia were never officially accepted as members of the USSR, while DDR was made into a part of another country.

In short, this is just political theater.

... aimed to justify what Russia did with the Crimea using the kettle-pot approach.

[Kralizec]

I have no idea, I was five at the time and we didn't learn about it at school. What kind of legal procedure could there be about it? Isn't it inherently a political thing? The previous government of the DDR left and didn't resist, what would lawyers argue about? Whether such a unification was fine according to the DDR's constitution?

The DDR had free elections at the end of its existence, after which the new Volkskammer voted to split the DDR into several smaller entities, which entered the BRD separately as new Länder. I suppose that the vote might have been contrary to the DDR's constitution, I have no idea.

[Husar]

The DDR had free elections at the end of its existence, after which the new Volkskammer voted to split the DDR into several smaller entities, which entered the BRD separately as new Länder. I suppose that the vote might have been contrary to the DDR's constitution, I have no idea.

The point is that it hardly matters whether it fit the DDR constitution as hardly anyone wanted to keep that anyway. The Russians retreated from there (IIRC they were paid a hefty sum of money for it), there was no resistance by the population that I'm aware of, quite the contrary in fact, and their representatives, however representative they actually were, voted in favor of it. Their top politicians left/fled the country and the army didn't resist either unless I missed that war entirely.
It's questionable whether anyone could actually have a legitimate complaint given that there were none at the time it happened. Where would complaints come from? From the countries or people who watched it happen or agreed to it at the time?

I mean if another country says it was not agreeable enough as an event the way it happened, then I can probably find an argument for how that country should be disbanded based on its own disagreeable foundation. Most major countries I can think of have "integrated" people or geographical locations in far more violent ways, in the Germany case it was even a re-unification, basically just a return to a status that had previously existed instead of the addition of entirely new territory. Even a banana import restrictions reform leaves more ground for complaints than that.

[Gilrandir]

"And perhaps Brenus as well - after all he must pay something, Napoleon was a well-known arsonists." And perhaps you should learn History: Most historians agreed that the Russians set fire to Moscow following the orders of Count Rospochin to deprive the Grande Armée of any shelter. Is it ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is ignorance.

It is neither. However, since you don't believe me anyway, you can believe it is both.
In fact, you are as bad at detecting irony as I am.
Yet if you adopt an edifying attitude, you should have at least taken pains to get the names correct. It is Count Rostopchin. Is is ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is

The point is that it hardly matters whether it fit the DDR constitution as hardly anyone wanted to keep that anyway.

It's questionable whether anyone could actually have a legitimate complaint given that there were none at the time it happened.

... in the Germany case it was even a re-unification, basically just a return to a status that had previously existed instead of the addition of entirely new territory.

The problem is that very similar arguments are put forward by Russia trying to justify the annexation of Crimea. Replace "Germany" with "Russia" and "DDR" with "Crimea" and you can debate with yourself to your heart's content.


Gathering of clouds?
http://www.interpretermag.com/moscow...ne-golts-says/

[Brenus]

"Is is ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is" No, just simple spelling mistake due a different alphabet. As usual, you lack of knowledge. Does it change the reality of your claim based on ignorance? No.