File talk:EasternBlocAfter.png

This has been asked before: In which sense were Minsk and Kiew "annexed" territories? Yaan (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also think the territory of the Karelo-Finnish SSR is just not right yet. For example, the WP article on Vyborg claims it became part of the RSFSR in 1944.

I personally would also still like to know if Saaremaa and Hiiumaa are in dark red (and if yes, why?) or if this is just an optical illusion. Regards, Yaan (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a middle color. I fixed it. Minsk wasn't annexed. It's in SSRepublic that was expanded, so that SSRepublic is light red, with the green and black borders showing the newly expanded portions.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your map's legend implies Belarus and Ukraine they were annexed. But even if we say they were just expanded: as you showed yourself aware of in another discussion, the RSFSR was expanded, too. And in fact, it gained more territory than the combined surface area of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. But that is not even the core of the problem here - the main problem is what do those territorial subdivisions have to do with the concept of an "Eastern Bloc"? I can see how WWII expansion can be important here, in the context of buffer zones and the like. But painting the whole of Belarus as if it was somehow only half-Soviet really needs some more explanation than you have given until now. Did they have some special degree of autonomy, their own army or their own money? Yaan (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly couldn't be more simple. Dark red marks the total territory of the RSFSR (which was expanded), light red markst the total territory of the other expanded SSRs, pink marks the total territory of satellite states. The Soviet Union (made up of the expanded SSRs) and Satellite States are the Eastern Bloc in Europe. The whole of Belarus is in the Eastern Bloc. In fact, it's an SSR, a sovereign state, in the Soviet Union -- it's not an Oblast or ASSR in the RSFSR. It was expanded to include much of Eastern Poland, but that's not on this map, it's on the other map shown with this one in the Wikipedia article. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think made an SSR a souvereign state? That it has its own CPSU secretary? Why don't you show subdivisions of other states, too, like the Czech and Slovak Socialist Republics, or the Republics in Yugoslavia? I'd bet every little West-German Bundesland had more souvereignty than the Ukrainian SSR ever had ... UN seats notwithstanding. Yaan (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to blow a lot of time on this, but read the SSR article. They're sovereign states, though clearly obviously totally dominated by the Soviet structure, which is dominated by the RSFSR, as were the Satellite States after some brief independence attempts were hammered. For example, the Ukranian SSR was actually a founding member of the UN. That's why, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, etc. SSRs were (and still are today) independent countries while almost all Oblasts, such as Kaliningrad, which is actually to the southwest of the Baltics, is still in Russia. In any event, it doesn't really matter, as the SSRs are shown, but the Oblasts and ASSRs aren't.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are referring to the very first sentence of this article? It says "according to the Article 76 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution". I don't think you want to argue that the SSRs were sovereign states because the 1976 USSR constitution said so. Or would you claim citizens of the USSR enjoyed freedom of speech because article 50 of said constitution says so? The status of the Ukrainian and other SSRs does matter because you give the impression they are somewhat separate members of the Eastern bloc, although they themselves were neither members of the Warsaw Pact nor of the COMECON, had no own military, no own money, no own representations in other countries, not even their own puppet parties.

If you want to argue pieces of paper, why don't you argue that all the Republics were equal according to the 1936 constitution? Yaan (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Or would you claim citizens of the USSR enjoyed freedom of speech

Of course not. Nor in Satellite states such as East Germany, Hungary, etc. They were all technically sovereign countries, though that was clearly in name until the dissolution of the USSR. And they were all members of the Warsaw Pact, not that they had a choice (see Hungary in 1956 for that brief one week adventure in "independence"), but the SSRs participated because all Republics of the Soviet Union were members. Anyway, it doesn't matter, the map just purports to show SSRs and Satellites, and that's what it does, so I don't want to blow a lot of time in a debate about what an SSR really was on a Wikipedia page.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you map purports to show the Eastern Bloc. And the portrayal of the SSRs as somehow souvereign rather than as normal country subdivisions is at the very core of your map, is it not? The satellite states of the USSR had their own militaries and own economies, own parties, and they also made their own politics. If we'd apply your reasoning to a map of the western bloc, we'd have to paint Washington D.C. in a different colour than the rest of the USA. Does that sound reasonable? Yaan (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Washington D.C. is actually just a territory of the United States, whereas the Ukraine was a separate Socialist Republic within a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. More importantly, I don't care about debating about the definitions of an SSR, the map purports to show the SSRs regardless of their definition anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Yugoslavia needs to be a color, as one may mistake it for a non-communist country in that the color is similar to them.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The color was changed to gray. It's description is now in the article Eastern Bloc.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's shape is definitely incorrect, this SSR is much larger. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't include the northern slivers of Eastern Finland. I was thinking of including more of it, but it would extend the map far to the north for just some slivers of northern Finland.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fix it, but San Marino, Vatican, Corsica, Sardinia, and several small Italian islands are all green instead of grey. The Person Who Is Strange 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a mention of the year the annexations were made should be included in the image. The map title mentioned in the legend as simply Eastern Bloc is misleading, as there have been changes within that structure during its existence. sfaefaol 13:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]