For some reason a lot of ML’s straight annex Finland into the Soviet Union because it was a Dutchy of the Russian empire. Even though it’s extremely ahistoric, flies in the face of self-determination, and neither Finland nor the Soviet Union wanted to be one nation.
Ireland can be chalked up to a failed rebellion much like our timeline. That’s not to far of a stretch as Britain would try to desperately maintain control of the isles.
I mean, about the “self-determination” thing, it is kinda complex, like, the Baltics didn’t want to be annexed by the USSR, yet they were forced to do so, same way for Ukraine and Moldova… So, why does the self-determination applies to Finland but not to the Baltics and to Ukraine and Moldova?
And also, I’ve seen this argument of “self-determination” being used by Liberals to defend the Nationalist side on the Yugoslav Civil War and also for defend Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, and so on, and also for defend socialism in one country and socialist isolationism and opposition to socialist geopolitics and to alter-globalism…
Actually, the annexation of Finland into the Soviet Union is mostly because of the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic (FSWR) and also due what happened with the Baltics… At this way, Soviet Union had no right to annex the Baltics nor to annex Kaliningrad as well.
And if “self-determination” is the case, then the self-determination was already disconsidered because the wrong side won the Finnish Civil War by the way.
What was the SSP instance on the Soviet Union? At this point, it was against self-determination what the USSR did with Czechoslovakia and with Hungary, without forget about Greece and Austria too.
If self-determination matters that much, then the partition of Germany after WW2 was a severe violation to people’s self-determination of the Germanic people, as well as the British Settlers from Rhodesia, British Raj, and South Africa also had their own to self-determination as well. And yes, it is a common argument used by liberals to justify why settler/colonial nations have the same right of “self-determination” as colonized/indigenous nations as well.
Ngl, I’ve even seen US-NATO PatSocs to use the “self-determination” argument for oppose the balkanization of the USA, of Canada and of the UK while advocating for the Balkanization of all of the BRICS+ countries, of all the AES countries, and of most non-Anglosphere countries.
And also, I’ve seen lots of Brazilian PatSocs using the “self-determination” argument for promoting Brazilian Chauvinism and Brazilian Ethno-Nationalists while opposing a Socialist version of MERCOSUR as well as oppose Socialist Geopolitics and even oppose a Geopolitical Planning of a hypothetical Socialist Brazil in LATAM and in most of the Third World.
That is mildly infuriating how much the right-wing can despite self-determination at will and do geopolitics at will but Socialists and Communists are pratically prohibited to practice geopolitics nor even economical/political blocs because it is against “self-determination”…
I’ve joined Lemmygrad thinking it would be just like r/TankieTheDeprogram is, but it seens to be even more liberalized than the liberalization of r/GenZedong on Reddit. Well, I am out of here, I just hope one day I will be able to find an actual socialist place online that is as socialist/communist as r/TankieTheDeprogram. And are not liberalized at all.
I’ve seen Communists online who even say that South Korea and Taiwan have right to self-determination yet they oppose that West Germany had right to self-determination because they support that it was the GDR/DDR that should unified Germany, which goes against the self-determination of West Germany.
![Rate my TWR Sub-mod idea - The Red Old Continent [What if the Soviets utterly won WW2?] [Alt-History]](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/229ed6b7-752b-4e9b-b630-18c98a11afe6.png){kind=link}
For some reason a lot of ML’s straight annex Finland into the Soviet Union because it was a Dutchy of the Russian empire. Even though it’s extremely ahistoric, flies in the face of self-determination, and neither Finland nor the Soviet Union wanted to be one nation.
Ireland can be chalked up to a failed rebellion much like our timeline. That’s not to far of a stretch as Britain would try to desperately maintain control of the isles.
I mean, about the “self-determination” thing, it is kinda complex, like, the Baltics didn’t want to be annexed by the USSR, yet they were forced to do so, same way for Ukraine and Moldova… So, why does the self-determination applies to Finland but not to the Baltics and to Ukraine and Moldova?
And also, I’ve seen this argument of “self-determination” being used by Liberals to defend the Nationalist side on the Yugoslav Civil War and also for defend Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, and so on, and also for defend socialism in one country and socialist isolationism and opposition to socialist geopolitics and to alter-globalism…
Actually, the annexation of Finland into the Soviet Union is mostly because of the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic (FSWR) and also due what happened with the Baltics… At this way, Soviet Union had no right to annex the Baltics nor to annex Kaliningrad as well.
And if “self-determination” is the case, then the self-determination was already disconsidered because the wrong side won the Finnish Civil War by the way.
What was the SSP instance on the Soviet Union? At this point, it was against self-determination what the USSR did with Czechoslovakia and with Hungary, without forget about Greece and Austria too.
If self-determination matters that much, then the partition of Germany after WW2 was a severe violation to people’s self-determination of the Germanic people, as well as the British Settlers from Rhodesia, British Raj, and South Africa also had their own to self-determination as well. And yes, it is a common argument used by liberals to justify why settler/colonial nations have the same right of “self-determination” as colonized/indigenous nations as well.
Ngl, I’ve even seen US-NATO PatSocs to use the “self-determination” argument for oppose the balkanization of the USA, of Canada and of the UK while advocating for the Balkanization of all of the BRICS+ countries, of all the AES countries, and of most non-Anglosphere countries.
And also, I’ve seen lots of Brazilian PatSocs using the “self-determination” argument for promoting Brazilian Chauvinism and Brazilian Ethno-Nationalists while opposing a Socialist version of MERCOSUR as well as oppose Socialist Geopolitics and even oppose a Geopolitical Planning of a hypothetical Socialist Brazil in LATAM and in most of the Third World.
That is mildly infuriating how much the right-wing can despite self-determination at will and do geopolitics at will but Socialists and Communists are pratically prohibited to practice geopolitics nor even economical/political blocs because it is against “self-determination”…
I’ve joined Lemmygrad thinking it would be just like r/TankieTheDeprogram is, but it seens to be even more liberalized than the liberalization of r/GenZedong on Reddit. Well, I am out of here, I just hope one day I will be able to find an actual socialist place online that is as socialist/communist as r/TankieTheDeprogram. And are not liberalized at all.
I’ve seen Communists online who even say that South Korea and Taiwan have right to self-determination yet they oppose that West Germany had right to self-determination because they support that it was the GDR/DDR that should unified Germany, which goes against the self-determination of West Germany.