Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by PunchTornado 2515 days ago
pff, ridiculous comment. a region doesn't have the right to attach itself to another state.

think about it. a bunch of russians move to somewhere near grand canion, do a referendum and then proclaim it russian territory.

9 comments

But that's _literally_ how a bunch of countries split from other countries. In a different context, we might celebrate it and call it "gaining independence" or "reuniting with their motherland".
There aren't many examples of Unification, but there are examples, maybe this wouldn't be considered one of them.

My home country for instance is the "United Kingdom" which is made of up of countries/territories that unified many hundreds of years ago.

There's other examples such as the formation of Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification

However, if it's not annexation it's probably better described as "ceding"; an American example: France ceded Louisiana to the United States by the treaty of Paris, of April 30, 1803. Spain made a cession of East and West Florida by the treaty of February 22, 1819.

Cessions have been severally made of a part of their territory by New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia.

unified is a proper term perhaps but at the time the gaelic speaking peoples would have probably used conquered or maybe colonized.
This is not an appreciable understanding of history. If talking about the UK specifically.
Crimea is a special case: it used to be Russian but was reassigned to the Ukraine at the time when they both were part of the USSR. It wasn't a big deal until the USSR dissolved and suddenly Crimean residents turned out to be in a foreign country.
It had been Turkish before it was Russian. Should we go on? Besides, the indigenous population (Crimean Tatars) and the Ukrainians in Crimea never thought of Ukraine as a foreign country.
Let's not confuse events of the 18th century and the modern history.

Crimea was called Crimean Khanate at that time and the backbone of its economy was the slave trade. As a major slave trade hub it has seen many hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians captured by Crimean Tatars and sold to Turkey until Catherine the Great's counter-terrorist operation finally put an end to it in 1783 :)

This dramatic history rooted in inability of the Crimean Khanate peacefully coexist with Russia can hardly be compared with a single action of a Soviet bureaucrat in Moscow in 1954.

And you are misinformed, Crimeans Tatars are not the indigenous population, they are a remnant of the Golden Horde.

> Let's not confuse events of 18th century and the modern history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat...

Are you and 'tomohawk' the same person? Otherwise I don't see a reason why you have brought up 'ethnic cleansing' in this thread.

Nonetheless, the deportation of Crimean Tatars by Stalin in 1944 is a crime and has been repeatedly recognized as such by the modern Russia.

"Most of the Russian population in Crimea are second/third generation settlers"

Even the biased Wikipedia article you linked to doesn't support that.

Edit: please don't edit your comments after they have a reply. Thank you.

Yes, I was off with the numbers, so I had deleted my comment just before you replied to it. But the point is still valid: the current ethnic composition of Crimea was greatly affected by the deportation.
You're totally right. Think about it, British/French/Spanish/... move to somewhere near grand canyon, do a referendum and they proclaim it United States? Ridiculous!
Indeed, tell King George about it, and at the very least return Texas to Mexico and Mexico to Spain.
Isn't that how Texas became part of the US?
This was basically Kosovo, Transnistria and probably a few more.