|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 5, 2017 21:58:11 GMT
No it's not, it is how things happened, while france was occupied only once in ww2, Baltic states were occupied 3 times, 1st occupation by ussr(1940-1941), German occupation(1941-1945(in some parts of Latvia)) and second soviet occupation 1943(in some parts from 1944 or 1945, after that there was a partisan war for a decade)-1991 Going by that logic because Ireland was conquered more than once we can directly blame IRA terrorism on the formation of Argyll. They have nothing to do with each other. You completely miss the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Aug 5, 2017 21:59:18 GMT
Going by that logic because Ireland was conquered more than once we can directly blame IRA terrorism on the formation of Argyll. They have nothing to do with each other. You completely miss the point. No I see it. Its just your point is complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 5, 2017 22:03:53 GMT
You completely miss the point. No I see it. Its just your point is complete nonsense. My point is officially valid and even Russia had to agree on it not talking about USA which stated that Baltic states are under occupation more than once in time period from 1940-1990 |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 5, 2017 23:51:26 GMT
American Revolution by far. Second would either be the Texan Revolution or the Latin American Revolutions. Hard to say because the Texans were a great story, a people who came west to get a new life only to decide to follow in their fore fathers in the American Revolution by fighting for independence from the tyranny under Santa Anna until the Texans under General Houston defeated them at San Jacinto. Simon Bolivar was also a great story though, with him crossing the Andes Mountains with his men and, against all odds, taking control of the Viceroyaltys of Peru and New Granada while José de San Martin and Bernardo O'Higgins liberated Chile and Argentina from foreign rule as well. Note: Santa Anna was a man😂 Yes, I know that. Saying the Texans were fighting for freedom from the tyranny of Santa Anna is grammatically correct and makes sense. It is like saying the French fought tyranny under Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 5, 2017 23:57:54 GMT
No I see it. Its just your point is complete nonsense. My point is officially valid and even Russia had to agree on it not talking about USA which stated that Baltic states are under occupation more than once in time period from 1940-1990 Your point that the Singing Revolution occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is technically correct, but not the best way of phrasing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Aug 5, 2017 23:59:18 GMT
My point is officially valid and even Russia had to agree on it not talking about USA which stated that Baltic states are under occupation more than once in time period from 1940-1990 Your point that the Singing Revolution occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is technically correct, but not the best way of phrasing it. The french revolution happened because monarchy was invented |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 6, 2017 0:03:26 GMT
Your point that the Singing Revolution occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is technically correct, but not the best way of phrasing it. The french revolution happened because monarchy was invented That statement is far more general than what he said. He said the Singing Revolution because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This is still too general imo, and it would have made more sense to say it occurred because of the Soviet control of the Baltic states which occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but it wasn't that general. It's not like he said the Singing Revolution occurred because communism was thought of by Karl Marx. |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Aug 6, 2017 0:05:37 GMT
The french revolution happened because monarchy was invented That statement is far more general than what he said. He said the Singing Revolution because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This is still too general imo, and it would have made more sense to say it occurred because of the Soviet control of the Baltic states which occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but it wasn't that general. It's not like he said the Singing Revolution occurred because communism was thought of by Karl Marx. Lol, you make alot more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 6, 2017 5:45:09 GMT
The Light Bringer, I understand your point being the occupation of Baltic States were caused by the M-R pact. That, I suppose, is what you're trying to say. However, to say that it was a liberation from Mol-Rib is incorrect. The pact had already been voided at that time. It is correct though to say that it was a revolution from the system that was created from the consequences of some clauses in Mol-Rib. It was related, though not as direct as you imply it to be. I think this debate stems from inaccurate phrasing (from both sides). Regardless, that is merely a technicality in one's statement and not the general point you try to present.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 6, 2017 7:53:03 GMT
That statement is far more general than what he said. He said the Singing Revolution because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This is still too general imo, and it would have made more sense to say it occurred because of the Soviet control of the Baltic states which occurred because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but it wasn't that general. It's not like he said the Singing Revolution occurred because communism was thought of by Karl Marx. Lol, you make alot more sense. It's because I hoped that you know at least some of the backstory... |
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 6, 2017 7:57:09 GMT
The Light Bringer, I understand your point being the occupation of Baltic States were caused by the M-R pact. That, I suppose, is what you're trying to say. However, to say that it was a liberation from Mol-Rib is incorrect. The pact had already been voided at that time. It is correct though to say that it was a revolution from the system that was created from the consequences of some clauses in Mol-Rib. It was related, though not as direct as you imply it to be. I think this debate stems from inaccurate phrasing (from both sides). Regardless, that is merely a technicality in one's statement and not the general point you try to present. Revolution was for liberation of soviet occupation which was a direct consequence of M-R pact and if Germany wouldn't had been losing in 1943/44/45 Baltic states would had been under German occupation instead that's a fact too... |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 6, 2017 8:01:41 GMT
The Light Bringer , I understand your point being the occupation of Baltic States were caused by the M-R pact. That, I suppose, is what you're trying to say. However, to say that it was a liberation from Mol-Rib is incorrect. The pact had already been voided at that time. It is correct though to say that it was a revolution from the system that was created from the consequences of some clauses in Mol-Rib. It was related, though not as direct as you imply it to be. I think this debate stems from inaccurate phrasing (from both sides). Regardless, that is merely a technicality in one's statement and not the general point you try to present. Revolution was for liberation of soviet occupation which was a direct consequence of M-R pact and if Germany wouldn't had been losing in 1943/44/45 Baltic states would had been under German occupation instead that's a fact too... Yes. That is. Which is what I literally said. However, it is wrong to say that the revolution was a liberation directly from Mol-Rib, as your sentence implies. Again, a technicality. Your main point is still valid. |
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 6, 2017 8:09:52 GMT
Revolution was for liberation of soviet occupation which was a direct consequence of M-R pact and if Germany wouldn't had been losing in 1943/44/45 Baltic states would had been under German occupation instead that's a fact too... Yes. That is. Which is what I literally said. However, it is wrong to say that the revolution was a liberation directly from Mol-Rib, as your sentence implies. Again, a technicality. Your main point is still valid. Technically it is, because it basically made a background for keeping Baltic states under soviet occupation, in 1940 when USSR occupied Baltic states it was both directly bound with M-R pact and they made a fake elections for joining USSR and after the WW2 they referred to this vote to keep Baltic states under occupation and splitting the Germany already was too hard for diplomatic discussions, so it resulted in partisan war in Baltic states for a decade, it is very hard to explain it if you don't know a lot of facts about what happened in at least the level they teach here in school |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 6, 2017 8:55:29 GMT
Yes. That is. Which is what I literally said. However, it is wrong to say that the revolution was a liberation directly from Mol-Rib, as your sentence implies. Again, a technicality. Your main point is still valid. Technically it is, because it basically made a background for keeping Baltic states under soviet occupation, in 1940 when USSR occupied Baltic states it was both directly bound with M-R pact and they made a fake elections for joining USSR and after the WW2 they referred to this vote to keep Baltic states under occupation and splitting the Germany already was too hard for diplomatic discussions, so it resulted in partisan war in Baltic states for a decade, it is very hard to explain it if you don't know a lot of facts about what happened in at least the level they teach here in school So, an event stemming from Mol-Rib was the justification for Baltic occupation. That is what we already know. My point is semantics-wise, using from is incorrect phrasing. The word implies direct interaction. If I were to say I took x from y, that means y had x directly before I took it. The relation of Mol-Rib to the Singing Revolution is huge, but indirect. Again: I. Agree. With. Your. Point. |
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Aug 6, 2017 9:53:49 GMT
Technically it is, because it basically made a background for keeping Baltic states under soviet occupation, in 1940 when USSR occupied Baltic states it was both directly bound with M-R pact and they made a fake elections for joining USSR and after the WW2 they referred to this vote to keep Baltic states under occupation and splitting the Germany already was too hard for diplomatic discussions, so it resulted in partisan war in Baltic states for a decade, it is very hard to explain it if you don't know a lot of facts about what happened in at least the level they teach here in school So, an event stemming from Mol-Rib was the justification for Baltic occupation. That is what we already know. My point is semantics-wise, using from is incorrect phrasing. The word implies direct interaction. If I were to say I took x from y, that means y had x directly before I took it. The relation of Mol-Rib to the Singing Revolution is huge, but indirect. Again: I. Agree. With. Your. Point. Forgive me if I am making a bit illogical language interpretation, but English is not my native and I speak in 4 other languages from that😉 |
|
