• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Should the Baltic Germans be compensated by Russia?

Measuring civilization relative to other civilization is challenging. And realistically is dependant on the value of the person doing the evaluating.

Both the Gauls and the Inca had well established population centres, high levels of agriculture, and well developed artistic sensitivities. The Gauls were iron workers, however, that is more due to the ease of getting iron in NW Europe relative to the Andes than to technical ability (given the level of metalwork displayed with gold and silver). Both were non-literate cultures. The Incans did have a higher level of social organization than the Gauls did - as demonstrated by a unified political structure and the system of labour used to develop high altitude agriculture, travel and trade, as compared to the far less cohesive political/social structure of the Gauls.

Realistically, the Incan culture was probably on a higher level than the Gauls.

The Gauls had a version of the Greek alphabet AFAIK but it was in very limited use mainly by clerics who favoured oral history anyway.

But yeah. A loosely held together chiefdom can have advantages over a strongly centralized kingdom in some contexts. It's not really measurable.
 
Last edited:
The US southwest and west has an abundance of pre-Columbian pictoglyphs in the desert areas - it seems the people who lived there hundreds of years ago wanted to make their marks.


It varied. There were large settlements in places like Cahokia along the Mississippi, and even in post-contact times peoples such as the Iroquois, the Cherokee, and Choctaw had good-sized towns, as did many Southwestern tribes.

In other words, aside from the people who lived there nobody lived there. Or at least nobody important, i.e., European.

Even if one defines "history" as "what's been recorded", US history does go back further then that, back to the Spanish settlements in Florida (and if you count Puerto Rico, even earlier). There's a building in Santa Fe, New Mexico, that's been used as a government building almost continuously since 1608 (there was this thing called the Pueblo Uprising in the late 1600s).


If you can find a copy where you live, I recommend Charles Mann's book 1491 for a glimpse of current thinking on the pre-contact Americas.

Yes, thanks, I can see it on Amazon.
 
Precious few now.
The youngest (who really won't remember it) are in their 70s.



And so, for the sake of the few who perceive Karelia et al as their home, you would displace a million people for whom it is their home, and has been for several generations.

Sorry...no. That is how to get into a situation where this crap never ends.

Nobody's talking about displacement.

We have hardly anyone left who remembers WWI, apart from a few centenarians. It might also be true that the number of people who recall WWII are now in their eighties and nineties.

Does that mean we should stop remembering?
 
Nobody's talking about displacement.

We have hardly anyone left who remembers WWI, apart from a few centenarians. It might also be true that the number of people who recall WWII are now in their eighties and nineties.

Does that mean we should stop remembering?

Remembering no.
Re-arranging the entire political landscape based upon what happened in the 1930's is not remembering though.
It's just taking delayed revenge. You know, the thing that drove European conflicts for the past 1.5 millennia and which we looked to be slowly overcoming, though if the populists had their way we go back to.
 
Nobody's talking about displacement.

We have hardly anyone left who remembers WWI, apart from a few centenarians. It might also be true that the number of people who recall WWII are now in their eighties and nineties.

Does that mean we should stop remembering?
You weren't just talking about remembering. Here's the previous exchange:
I take it you are for the return of Karelia to Finland.

Absolutely.

I just wonder what V thinks will happen?
What is the goal?

Is she expecting the descendants of those who left in 40/44 to go back?
What the hell am I going to do with a farmhouse in Koivisto? I work in IT!

You wanted Karelia returned to Finland. For what? I can think of no other reason than Tolls did, viz. so that those who lived there in 1940, or their descendants, can return.
 
Nobody's talking about displacement.

So why claim Karelia then?
The vast majority of people living there have no attachment to Finland.

As Lukraak_Sisser says, that is the sort of thing that fed centuries of pointless conflict.
 
:dl: :dl: :dl:

This is the least believable imperial claim I've come across since Jean-Bédel Bokassa.

It is in the same situation as the Baltic states.

As a result of the war, the population of the Karelian Isthmus has been almost completely replaced. After the war the isthmus was included into the Leningrad Oblast and people from other parts of the Soviet Union, mostly Russian, were settled here. The vast majority of the old Finnish toponyms in the conquered territories were renamed to invented Russian ones by the government around 1948.[16] The Finnish toponyms of the territories included within Karelo-Finnish SSR and of the southern part of the isthmus (albeit assimilated) mostly remained. A lot of youth summer camps were built all over the isthmus during the time of the Soviet Union. Some of them still exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_Isthmus

Not funny at all.
 

The renaming of geographical features from what ever the indigenous peoples called them to something more in line with the new dominant group wants is rather common - for example, I'm reasonably sure the Ojibwe people didn't refer to my hometown as "The Rapids of Saint Mary" prior to European contact, or to its premier toboganning site as "Finn Hill".

The British Isles is a perfect example of that - there are very few Celtic names for places, some Roman ones remain, lots of Anglo Saxon, some Viking and lots of Norman.

That it happened in Karelia isn't a. surprising, or b. something that I'm overly concerned about.
 
No such thing, never has been such a thing, never will be such a thing.

Found some references to one on an alternate history page. So that would make the Finnish empire an alternative fact.
 
Found some references to one on an alternate history page. So that would make the Finnish empire an alternative fact.

Maybe they started to build one, but they certainly didn't finnish.


(I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.)
 
At least Bokassa had diamonds to bribe Giscard with. :)

OK so you and TubbaBubba think it's hilarious some African guy regaled himself in a ridiculous crown and ermine robes and called himself King.

But what do you think Queen Elizabeth and King Carl Gustav of Sweden (10th cousin) have done?
 
OK so you and TubbaBubba think it's hilarious some African guy regaled himself in a ridiculous crown and ermine robes and called himself King.

But what do you think Queen Elizabeth and King Carl Gustav of Sweden (10th cousin) have done?

Bokassa did not just declare himself king. He declared himself emperor while being a tin-pot dictator.
 
But what do you think Queen Elizabeth and King Carl Gustav of Sweden (10th cousin) have done?

Would that be the King Carl Gustav whose royal house was founded by Private Jean Bernadotte of the Regiment Royal-La Marine, the son of a provincial lawyer and himself a common French infantryman?

Dave
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom