World, Writing, Wealth discussion

64 views
World & Current Events > Shall nations be allowed to divorce?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 50 (50 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments I know we have a separate thread here, dedicated to Kurdistan and Catalonia, but generally speaking: do you think ethnic groups and nations should be allowed to divorce upon majority's will or not necessarily?
We have examples of allowing independence vote in a civilized manner, like in French speaking regions of Canada or that of Scotland and on the other hand we have example of violent suppression of independence moves, like those in Chechnya or maybe now in Catalonia.
Self-governance as a notion is respected in the context of communal/ municipal/geographical areas/communities. How about ethnic, national ones?


message 2: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin You could look at the American Revolution as a case of a population wanting to secede and form a new country, with the original dominant country (England) then trying to prevent it through military force. Another example was the Metis Rebellion led by Louis Riel in the Canadian Prairies in the 1885, which was put down by the Canadian Militia. The split of Pakistan and India, caused by the wish of the Muslims in India to have their own country, resulted in horrible ethnic massacres and a number of bloody wars, with tensions and hostilities continuing through this day, but with both countries being nuclear powers. More recently, the emergence of South Sudan, which quickly degenerated into civil war, is another example of how independence movements often end up in violence and war. It seems that the tolerance of actual governments in this decade concerning independence movements have all but dried up.


message 3: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Czech and Slovak split - peaceful
Former Yugoslavia split - not peaceful

Ref Scotland - It was a one way vote - i.e. only Scottish electors in Scotland allowed to vote. No one in England, N. Ireland or Wales was asked or even considered to vote for against the dissolution of the Union. Thankfully no police form the rest of the UK were sent to Scotland to prevent the vote or assault the voters although an endless invasion of politicians was spotted.


message 4: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments The problem with a vote is that most of the votes are ignorant of the consequences, often because politicians tend to lie. In my opinion, the severance should only be considered when all those relevant (like Philip's example - only Scottish voters get the vote, and in my view, only those resident and working in Scotland) get to see al,lithe consequences.

I think, like a divorce, the key problem is how to split the assets and the liabilities, and it is here the problem starts. I suspect a few voting for Scottish Independence thought they would get the oil revenues. MY view is since the oil fields were developed prior to separation, the revenues should be split proportional to population. Similarly, the departing should have to support its proportion of the national debt., and a number of other issues should be ironed out before any vote is taken, and everybody should agree to the rules, or there should be no divorce. There will be a number of tricky issues, such as pensions for retired nationals of one of the entities then residing in the other. What is the rule for deciding who is an A and who is a B, irrespective of where they happen to be at the time of the vote. But if all these can be sorted, I see no good reason to object to separation, BUT it should be noted that certain economies of scale will be lost and the departing one cannot expect anything further from the remaining one.


message 5: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Ian wrote: "The problem with a vote is that most of the votes are ignorant of the consequences, often because politicians tend to lie. In my opinion, the severance should only be considered when all those rele..."

This is a fundamental part of the ongoing EU exit talks - the divorce bill. Should the UK continue to contribute to EU activities after exit. As a net contributor this means that the grand plans of the current EU are put at risk, either the other net contributors have to pay in more or the net receivers have to accept less.

Ian your point on national debt is well made (subtle difference from EU budget) - the separatists have to take a share of national debt just as a divorcing couple have to decide what to do with the share of the mortgage.

There are separatist movements of some sort in virtually every country in the world. Some tribal, some religious and many caused by the imperial past of the European nations (Roman Empire anyone?) alongside the activities after WWII. North and South Korea a current example of potential artificial separation as was East and West Germany. Africa is plagued with artificial constructs leading to decades of conflict.

Quebec has had 2 - 1980 and 1995 - the latter was very close to a yes vote.

I believe the effects of globalisation are stirring this pot as nation states have less ability to change things than the voters would like and the politicians claim.


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments Philip, I suspect the problem with globalization is that besides personal inequality, there is more economic inequality between countries. The rich countries can buy up more of the poorer ones, then the people become tenants in their own land, or think they are. and, of course, a few of the more wealthy people become very rich selling their country's assets. The people know this is wrong, but they don't know exactly what is wrong, so they blame the politicians, and hope if they separate, things will be better. Yes, I know that is over simplified, but I think it has some truth.

Yes, the brexit negotiations are going to be a nightmare - the question then is, should the EU persist with such "grand plans"?


message 7: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Ian wrote: "Philip, I suspect the problem with globalization is that besides personal inequality, there is more economic inequality between countries. The rich countries can buy up more of the poorer ones, the..."

For me this was one of the fundamental flaws or failures in the so called negotiations with Cameron prior to the referendum. There was no give in the EU only ever closer union effectively dictated by the Eurozone. Euro Army - why when security has NATO. Standardised tax rates - needed for EuroZone to work properly but what about the other 9

I don't think its simplified I think its an underlying truth, but the global companies are untouchable even by small shareholders (If there are any) Look at rows over executive pay.

I have been lucky enough to visit Okinawa. Another potential separatist cause from Japan but under-developed from the main islands.

The recent turmoil in what was once called Burma is another separation spurred by religious intolerance and ethic division in this case forcing ethnic cleansing and pushing the problem into another poor country that cannot protest.

India has multiple issues not just with the partition to Pakistan. Again tribal and religious intolerance force separatist actions.

Probably this has always been the case with empires, countries and even local tribal rivalries manifesting now in sporting conflicts on football terraces.

Perhaps humans are tribal by nature and unless there is a unifying cause they will always be so.


message 8: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments I think there are might be opposite undercurrents: one of preservation of national identity, way of life, independence, self- governing and another of globalization, immigrants, assimilation and so on, which maybe cause some people feel they 'lose' their country/town/whatever.
Agree with Ian that under 'independence' veil there are often hopes for better life, which not necessarily is an actual outcome.
Once divorces were viewed as impossibility, now we have dudes married and divorced plenty of times.
Maybe on national level too, it shouldn't be viewed as something extremely drastic?
After all Czech and Slovak and former Yugoslavians separated at the time just to meet each other again within EU, didn't they?


message 9: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments As I recall it, the major difference with the Czech/Slovak split is both sides were happy with it, so of course then there cannot be anything wrong with it. Yugoslavia was a special case of a country that was really an amalgam of several previous states that did not like each other anyway, but it was really messy in Kosovo, and that got resolved mainly with the US military, to which the locals had little answer.

I don't know enough about Catalans to know how valid their claim for independence is, or under what conditions they would get it. I am aware there was a large demonstration by anti-independence Catalans as well, who did not vote because they considered the vote illegal. The issue there is, for me, murky, but I do not see that they should get independence because the leavers get better TV time.


message 10: by Holly (new)

Holly (goldikova) I live in a U.S. state that borders Canada. Many people here have given thought to the idea that we might be better off if we seceded and became a province of Canada. Also, I'm not sure of Canada would see Detroit as an asset or a liability.


message 11: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments The issue depends on the specific situation. For any group to spin off into their own nation, they have to be able to stand up for themselves. As Michel noted, we in the colonies fought and won our independence. We didn't vote and receive a simple "good luck with the new nation." On the other hand, the Confederacy tried to go it alone and lost the Civil War, and lost their right to form a new nation. I think the Kurds could stand up for themselves if they were to form a free Kurdistan, but I don't know about Catalonia - if Spain sends in the military to stop them from leaving, could they raise their own army and resist?

But it's not just military might, some countries are dissolved peacefully, but struggle afterwards because they have no resources to support the new country. The situation with Sudan always baffled me, because the country was split with one getting all the natural resources, and the other getting nothing. Exactly how is that a recipe for success?

But there's been a question I've been thinking on specific to the United States. The growing political polarization here has led to ideas that some of the solid red or blue states might be better off splitting so that the political minority gets a say in government. That in and of itself might be a silly reason, but to consider the state of California has approximately 10 times the population the entire country had back in 1790, I'm beginning to wonder if larger states shouldn't be broken up to make them more manageable. Not just California, but Texas and Florida as well. New York and Illinois as number 4 & 5 would also be on my list, but where their populations are largely concentrated in one city, I'm not sure if it would make much of a difference.


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments In some ways, the US is the example that "might makes right". The Confederacy was simply not mighty enough. I would hope we are getting past that, but maybe we aren't. As an aside, California as a separate country would be economically stronger than most others in the UN, although it would be hurt badly if the rest of the US left it to its own devices. Separating it into three countries would be interesting - the "red centre" and the two "blue coasts". Up until this century, I always thought the US was a great example of integration and unity. Maybe al Qaeda has been more successful than we all think?

South Sudan is a prime example of a "no resources" country, but they were also having trouble with the north before seceding. Their problem is they have no near neighbour to assist.

My view of carving up Iraq is the question of who gets the resources? The oilfields and the rivers are essential. A country with neither would have very little hope. But how do you divide them fairly? And with the probable hatred from the losers of the deal, how do the Kurds get around being landlocked?


message 13: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments Do you think nations or communities should be able to secede larger formations? What's the scale for the right for self-determination, widely internationally recognized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...


message 14: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments I do not think there is any international recognition. For example, it seems that international organizations argue eastern Ukraine should not secede although Russia arguably does not agree. If it were not for the electoral college, I think there would be huge forces for secession in the US because four states would rule, and the rest have somewhat different attitudes. So, to keep a state intact it is necessary to have some sort of set of rules that give everyone some chance of having their voice heard and ensure the government works for all of them and not for a specific subgroup.


message 15: by Sharon (new)

Sharon Nik wrote: "Do you think nations or communities should be able to secede larger formations? What's the scale for the right for self-determination, widely internationally recognized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wi..."
I don't think it's about size as much as it is about being able to support and defend itself. There are a lot of countries which are smaller than some USA States.


message 16: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 1756 comments In Texas v. White (1869), which started out as an issue of federal bonds held by Texas and sold during the American Civil War, the S.Ct. held as part of the decision that a state cannot secede.

The S.Ct. held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

We were taught in grade school that Texas had the right to divide into 5 states as part of its admission into the USA. Nowadays, they teach it differently and that it's not a Texas "right" to do so without the required congressional approval that is part of any other state attempting to divide.

Growing up in NJ, there was often discussions of dividing the state of NJ because the "city" needs were very different from the rural areas. It never gained any traction that I recall, aside from 1980 when 5 counties in southern Jersey voted on a referendum in favor of seceding from NJ and becoming a separate state.

In AZ in 2011, they wanted to create a Baja Arizona out of Pima County (Tucson) and other southern counties. It didn't succeed either.

California - supposedly there have been over 220 attempts at dividing up the state since its admission to the Union, Northern and Southern Cali have always seemed to have different needs and different outlooks. Just driving the length of the State, it is interesting to see how the driving styles and attitudes change. Seems to be a lot less speeding and more politeness in letting other drivers in when I hit northern Cali as compared to the southern part of the state. I don't know about now, but at one point California had the world's 5th largest economy.

I can picture California becoming its own country easier than Texas. Maybe that is because I lived in Texas for 4 years but only visit California.


message 17: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments Sharon wrote: "... I don't think it's about size as much as it is about being able to support and defend itself. There are a lot of countries which are smaller than some USA States...."

Agree that in this particular theme the size doesn't matter, but also not necessarily defense and self-support. Costa Rica and probably few more countries have no army and tiny places like San Marino or Lichtenstein obviously need to rely on trade with others to meet their needs.
Canada and UK let French speaking territories and Scotland respectively to have a referendum on whether to stay or go, while Spain forcefully objected Catalonia's move, or Russia - Chechnya's.
What's the right approach in your eyes?


message 18: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Right to self determination - i.e. if a referendum decides it decides - Scotland voted no so no. UK voted out of Brexit so out. Catalonia tried to vote and rest of Spain interfered. Russia is an imperialistic dictatorship so will violently block (as did UK in imperial past)

Have any USA succession plans actually got near a referendum?

Referenda tend to be cheaper than violent revolution :-/


message 19: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments Philip wrote: "Russia is an imperialistic dictatorship so will violently block (as did UK in imperial past)..."

However, allegedly they may be willing to support independent movements elsewhere, be it in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova or even ... Catalonia: https://www.rt.com/news/504862-spain-...


message 20: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments On a personal view, I am unsure of referenda on this matter because they seldom clearly state the consequences. For example, for Scotland they would be rich if they received all the North Sea oil revenue, but far from it if they received none.

Brexit was slightly different because the EU is not a sovereign state and had the exit possibility within its constitution.


message 21: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Ian wrote: "On a personal view, I am unsure of referenda on this matter because they seldom clearly state the consequences. For example, for Scotland they would be rich if they received all the North Sea oil r..."

True and NOrth Sea Oil is not as clear cut as some Scots would believe e.g. International law on boundaries go out on line from dividing point and the Tweed goes North East thus much of NS Oil fileds would go to remaining UK.

On Brexit if EU had not continually acted as a sovereign state (when it wasn't) UK would have remained.

My more general point is that many states have been created by armed insurrection (including USA or what was USA in late 18th century) and the cost in lives and damages far exceeds the cost of a referendum which if argued correctly (UK and Scotland) keeps the union intact


message 22: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 1756 comments In regards to secession by USA states since the civil war, I don't think any have had enough signatures. Here is an article from 2012 regarding 20 states who sent in paperwork, but none having the required 25k signatures within 30 days.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-p...

Since the rule of law at the Supreme Court level is that a state cannot secede, I am not sure what the review would have actually consisted of.


message 23: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments In this context it may be interesting to look at Puerto Rico too, which is sort of hung in the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...
I think J.J once mentioned something that new territories with voting rights might swing the electoral college to this or that side and there are always opponents and proponents depending on which side is it


message 24: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Lizzie wrote: "In regards to secession by USA states since the civil war, I don't think any have had enough signatures. Here is an article from 2012 regarding 20 states who sent in paperwork, but none having the ..."

On Supreme Court - secession would imply the SC no longer had jurisdiction.... The Catalonia case is of interest - a referendum, succession plans and then Madrid via courts and arrests of leaders imposed will. That's all gone quiet due to COVID but has not gone away.

Republic of Ireland broke away from UK but Northern Ireland remains but has been promised if majority (unclear how this is established) want to join with Ireland


message 25: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments The Catalonia referendum, as I recall, was not official, and was carried out by rebels, so maybe the outcome could be suspect?


message 26: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Ian wrote: "The Catalonia referendum, as I recall, was not official, and was carried out by rebels, so maybe the outcome could be suspect?"

That's what Madrid claimed....


message 27: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments Which means it was not carried out by Madrid, which is the current sovereign government


message 28: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Nik, it's not so much the electoral college that's in play with Puerto Rico and D.C. It's that, if the Democrats are elected, they want them to become states because each will have two Senators, which will likely be Democrats, and that will most likely give them a majority in the Senate, which has a lot of power here (appointing Supreme Court Justices, for example). If Dems can get a majority in the House and Senate, with a Dem as President, plus pack the court with liberal justices by increasing the number of justices, there will be no check on their power. They'll control all branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial - and literally run the country. And I use "literally" in the true sense of the word.


message 29: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments Scout wrote: "Nik, it's not so much the electoral college that's in play with Puerto Rico and D.C. It's that, if the Democrats are elected, they want them to become states because each will have two Senators, wh..."

Ah, Ok, thanks for explaining.. I guess then it's still about tipping the power balance. For the internal matters the Congress seems not less important asset than a president


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10730 comments I have always considered the US political structure to be an extremely good one to prevent the accumulation of power, but like any system, it depends on the people empowered acting in what they see as the best interests of the people. Unfortunately, and especially of late, it still breaks down when the various players use it for their own political benefit and refuse to cooperate with others with different views.


message 31: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 1756 comments Scout wrote: "Nik, it's not so much the electoral college that's in play with Puerto Rico and D.C. It's that, if the Democrats are elected, they want them to become states because each will have two Senators, wh..."

If the Democrats? So is it ok if the Republicans control everything?

I don't think a party controls the Supreme Court. It does control the people who are put on it having a similar belief system. However, since it's lifetime, that doesn't predict the justice's attitude and position 10 years from now. Most of us don't remain static in our opinions. I think what controls the direction of the USA is the Senate, House and Presidency. It is when all 3 of these are controlled by the same party that the country leans in one direction or the other.

The Republican party has during 23 two-year terms (congressional terms) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. The Democrats have only done 20 times. (If I recall correctly, the old Republican /Democrat party divisions are not the same as our Republican party.)

The charts are interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided...


message 32: by Denise (last edited Nov 04, 2020 02:02AM) (new)

Denise Baer | 593 comments As an American living overseas and NOT a party voter, I would like to see the United States become un-united. The country is too big for the few parties that don't represent the millions of Americans. I'd love to be able to choose a state that best represents my political values than be forced into following the rules of the white priviledged censoring male party (Democrats) and the white priviledged hypocritical male party (Republicans).

"3M eligible American voters live abroad and may cast pivotal votes this year" 2020 U.S. election day Americans Abroad also have vote

I'm just thankful that I live overseas and don't have to deal with whoever wins. But I'd like to see change in my country's politics, even if that means a civil war. If no change comes within 15-years, I don't see myself moving back to the states.

What IS interesting is that each year, more and more Americans are moving and/or retiring abroad. America might seem appealing to foreigners but it has lost its appeal to many Americans.

"Just as many immigrants arrive in America seeking a better quality of life, many Americans are leaving for the same reasons." Where are Americans emigrating to and why?

"“Over the last three months, International Living has seen a surge of 504.97% in traffic” to its “How to Move Out of the U.S.” website page, the publication said on Wednesday." Reports Surge in Americans seeking Moving Abroad

"Many Americans have found a better quality of life…for less…by moving to any number of prime locations around the globe, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, and everywhere in between." How to move out of the U.S.

"In just the first half of this year, 5,315 Americans gave up their citizenship. That puts the country on track to see a record-breaking 10,000 people renounce U.S. citizenship in 2020."

"While many liberal Americans threatened to move abroad after Trump’s election in 2016, rising renunciations are not directly attributable to any particular election result. The trend began in 2013, mid-way through the Obama administration. That year about 3,000 Americans suddenly gave up their passports – three times more than usual." American are Renouncing their citizenship

Americans living and some renouncing their citizenship is due to the duopoly in the States. Each of these parties want tax and control over the people, forgetting about current laws, and most of all, the Constitution. For such a large country, and for all the different shapes, sizes, and flavors in products we're offered, it's a shame the U.S. only has two despicable choices while the other parties are being silenced and suppressed through networks and social media. Facebook has seen a surge of people leaving for MeWe because of their suppression of non-Democratic views.


message 33: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Interesting views, Denise. All I can say is that people who don't like it here and have the means to do so should leave if they can't tolerate what's going on here - in other words, get a divorce. Personally, I feel lucky to be here and choose to live in this country above all others, despite all the problems.


message 34: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 1756 comments Denise wrote: "...the rules of the white priviledged censoring male party (Democrats) and the white priviledged hypocritical male party (Republicans)..."

That says a lot. While I don't disagree, I am personally tired of upper class white women telling me to vote Republican. Censorship and hypocrisy extends to females too. The 2 party system is a big part of the problem, especially with the amount of money those 2 parties put into advertising.

I don't see most states being any different from our country as a whole when it comes to politics, governments, rights. I love AZ, but the blue areas are Tucson and Phoenix, and the rest of the state is pretty much red. Growing up in NJ, there was a huge difference between what the NE part of the state wanted/believed vs the "city" part.


message 35: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Wow. What upper class white women have told you to vote Republican? The only upper class white women I've seen publicly endorse a candidate have promoted Biden. Gaga recently.


message 36: by Denise (new)

Denise Baer | 593 comments @Scout, an argument to tell people to leave if they're unhappy is dismissive of their rights in the U.S. and of change. But you have a right to express it. I'm blessed to have been born in a free country, but if the political climate doesn't change, I'll continue my life outside the U.S. There are too many other wonderful places to live, at lower costs and better lifestyles.


message 37: by Denise (new)

Denise Baer | 593 comments @Lizzy I agree there are white women intimidating others, but my comment was towards those who are president, and they've only been white privileged men. The two-party system is using OUR tax money for their campaigns. Where our taxes go has never been approved by the people.

I believe you can control smaller government than big government. If we didn't have a big federal government dictating and many times duplicating what the states do, such as minimum wage, the people could choose their government and vote them out. I think there's more accountability. Of course there will be states that remain blue or red. I grew up in Chicago, which is all Democrat while the rest of the state is red. Chicago has been driven into the ground because of the Dems. Pretty soon it will look like Detroit.


message 38: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14947 comments Denise wrote: ".... those who are president, and they've only been white privileged men. ..."

Where do you put Barack? Not exactly white, maybe some think not sufficiently a man :)


message 39: by Denise (new)

Denise Baer | 593 comments In a way, he has the white mentality. And both Obamas had no problem with voter intimidation. Can't stand either bone, so you're getting a bias response from me. :)


message 40: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Denise, I was responding to your post saying that many Americans are leaving for other countries. I was just agreeing with you that they should leave if they have the means (which those you referenced obviously do) and find it intolerable here, as you do. I wasn't speaking of ordinary citizens who don't like what's happening here. They have every right to stay here and voice their opinions, as we all do. I'm not able to make much sense of your other disjointed posts in which you make unsubstantiated claims.


message 41: by W (new)

W Yes,nations should divorce in a civilized manner.But how many countries would do so.They would rather fight civil wars.


message 42: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Not about nations divorcing, but I thought you guys might find this interesting. Some rural counties in Oregon want to secede from the state because political decisions are made predominantly by the densely populated northwest region of the state. They feel that their interests are being ignored and want to form a new state called Greater Idaho. They've been trying for a couple of years with no luck.

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/202...


message 43: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 1756 comments Scout wrote: "Not about nations divorcing, but I thought you guys might find this interesting. Some rural counties in Oregon want to secede from the state because political decisions are made predominantly by th..."

That has happened in many states over the years and not gone anywhere. I posted it about it in a thread, maybe this one, I dont' recall.


message 44: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments We have Czech and Slovakia separation as a good example - struggling to think of any others that have not been via war.


message 45: by W (last edited Dec 16, 2020 11:29AM) (new)

W The Soviet Union's break up was remarkably peaceful,and there were 15 separate countries.


message 46: by Victoria (new)

Victoria Liiv (victorialiiv) | 10 comments The countries in Soviet Union were self standing before they were pulled into it. Their joining wasn't really voluntary. As much as I heard in my history class about Estonia finally breaking free of Soviet Union, I don't remember it being peaceful. But then again, history wasn't one of my favourite topics.


message 47: by W (last edited Dec 16, 2020 12:23PM) (new)

W But the remarkable thing was that there was almost no bloodshed,and they had been part of the Soviet Union for so long.They were incorporated forcibly,and let go peacefully.

And it was a super power,no less,with so much fire power at its disposal. Credit goes to Gorbachev,things could have been different with a hard line leader.


message 48: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments W wrote: "But the remarkable thing was that there was almost no bloodshed,and they had been part of the Soviet Union for so long.They were incorporated forcibly,and let go peacefully.

And it was a super pow..."


Yes I had dismissed that because of forced join - since break up Putin's policy has not been so friendly e.g. Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine. Many of those countries are not exactly stable or violence free. We have just seen further fighting between two ex-Soviet countries over ethnic groups - a serious issue caused by population movements forced in Soviet times.


message 49: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3267 comments I am not about to tell another nation if they should divorce. I assume there are provisions if they want to divorce. for me, it is not about "allowing" a divorce if there is to be one. It is about how it will happen. Civil war is one method and it is never anything but messy.


message 50: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3267 comments Philip wrote: "We have Czech and Slovakia separation as a good example - struggling to think of any others that have not been via war."

I think when Slovenia left Yugoslavia, they did it peacefully.


back to top