|
|
|
|
|
|
by ptaipale
3505 days ago
|
|
|
Most of Lithuania was annexed by Russia by 1795, the final step in partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 1800's was a period of Russification, revolts, and crushing of those revolts. Then, in World War I, Lithuania gained independence again in 1918. That's >120 years of occupation or foreign rule. Then Lithuani lost independence again, to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1940, was rolled over twice in the course of WWII, and finally became independent again in 1991. That's another 50 years. In Finland, we have a saying "We're not Swedes, we do not want to become Russians; let us be Finns". Same seems to apply to Baltic states. I haven't followed up the development in Lithuania in particular, but Estonia had roughly the same population in 1959 as it had in 1939. The difference was that almost one third of the old population had been eradicated and replaced by Russians (and other Soviet nationals). This is a fairly huge "integration effort", if we use that euphemism. |
|
|
You are right, but foregin rule does not amount to occupation. Also, none of the "big players" in Europe has perfectly good consciousness with regards to borders, so we generally disregard everything that happened before 20th century. I understand that it's painful for smaller nations, but this is exactly the reason WWI happened, and we don't want that to return.
> I haven't followed up the development in Lithuania in particular, but Estonia had roughly the same population in 1959 as it had in 1939. The difference was that almost one third of the old population had been eradicated and replaced by Russians (and other Soviet nationals). > This is a fairly huge "integration effort", if we use that euphemism.
Yep, that's the famous "soviet reshuffling". People were incentivised to move to other regions. That was mostly done with positive things though, e.g. young family could get a free flat if they moved to other SSR. Also, drafts would usually send soldiers far from home, so that they could get to know a new region (and many stayed there after getting out of millitary).
Your explanation "The difference was that almost one third of the old population had been eradicated and replaced by Russians (and other Soviet nationals)." doesn't seem to be supported by facts though. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia we get 992,520 Estonians in 1934 and 892,653 in 1959. The 10% difference could be accounted if you take into account people that died in WWII, those that have emigrated when soviets came, reshuffling that I mentioned and just people claiming to be russians (which was a thing).
If you have other sources or more in-depth research, I would absolutely love to read it.