If Russia is made to give up Kaliningrad, who should it go to?

[ag]

This could only happen at the end of a major war during which the area is largely depopulated. Or else, if Russia itself disintegrates into numerous small "principalities".  In both cases, the enormity of the event would be such that Kaliningrad issue would be a minor distraction.

Otherwise, as people said here: the current population fully identifies as Russian and that is, basically, it. Two injustices do not make a justice. In the same way that Nazi crimes should not have justified removing the civilian population of Konigsberg, nothing that Russia does would justify doing the same with the population of Kaliningrad. And modern Kaliningraders are Russian. Furthermore, touching borders in Europe is a very dangerous thing. This particular issue is settled: it should not be reopened. I could see some formal German role for maintaining cultural and architectural heritage, though. And it would be great for Russians to acknowledge the original injustice.

Resist Russia when it attacks, by all means. But do not justify its own irredentism and paranoia. Russians should know that their claims are unacceptable: not that others are trying to model their own policies on them.

[ag]

It would be difficult to give that region to anyone but Russia. Thanks to their resettlement policy, the region is almost 90% ethnic Russian, and by giving this territory to someone, such as Poland, tensions could blare. The most likely result is either Russia keeps it, or it receives independence of some form.

This could only happen at the end of a major war during which the area is largely depopulated. Or else, if Russia itself disintegrates into numerous small "principalities".  In both cases, the enormity of the event would be such that Kaliningrad issue would be a minor distraction.

Otherwise, as people said here: the current population fully identifies as Russian and that is, basically, it. Two injustices do not make a justice. In the same way that Nazi crimes should not have justified removing the civilian population of Konigsberg, nothing that Russia does would justify doing the same with the population of Kaliningrad. And modern Kaliningraders are Russian. Furthermore, touching borders in Europe is a very dangerous thing. This particular issue is settled: it should not be reopened. I could see some formal German role for maintaining cultural and architectural heritage, though. And it would be great for Russians to acknowledge the original injustice.

Resist Russia when it attacks, by all means. But do not justify its own irredentism and paranoia. Russians should know that their claims are unacceptable: not that others are trying to model their own policies on them.

If this scenario were to happen Germany should probably consider forcefully deporting the descendants of the Russian/bolshevik colonisers back to Russia, replace them with ethnic Germans, destroy the russian made monuments and rename the city back to Königsburg.

You all misspelled ethnic cleansing.

Would be anachronistic to apply that term to the 1940s, wouldn't it?

[ag]

Considering for most of modern history Kaliningrad was Prussia, Germany would be the most natural choice.

At this point, none of historic Prussia belongs to Germany. We forget about his because for much of its history the name "Prussia" was associated with Brandenburg, but Markgraviate/Electorate of Brandenburg was, originally, quite separate from the Duchy of Prussia. The latter was not even part of the Holy Roman Empire, but rather was a fief of the Kingdom of Poland (though the Dukes themselves were German). In later years, Dukes of Prussia, while remaining Polish vassals, became also rulers of Brandenburg, which, indeed was a German state and a part of the Holy Roman Empire. But this was a personal union and the countries retained distinct existene for a while longer. Later, the rulers of Prussia were able to get full independence from Poland, which allowed them to declare themselves Kings. Naturally, "King of Prussia" sounded better than "Elector of Brandenburg"(and implied freedom from any feudal submission), so that is what they became known as.

And, of course, the name "Prussia" itself refers to the original people populating the land, the Old Prussians, who were neither Germans nor Poles, but, rather, a Baltic people, related to Lithuanians and Latvians.

In any case, none of the old Duchy of Prussia is within German boundaries. It is split between Lithuania (Memel/Klaipeda), Russia (Konigsberg/Kaliningrad) and Poland (the rest).  Lithuanians have claims there based on the fact that Old Prussians, like themselves, were Balts, and Poles, of course, were the old sovereigns of the territory even for much of the Hohenzollern rule. Of course, Russians have pretty much no historical claim whatsoever: it is a spoil of war, pure and simple. But after 73 years there is very little that can be done, which would not involve, hmm, yes... I guess ethnic cleansing.

Germany, of course, retains Brandenburg (including Berlin) - but that only became "Prussia" at a pretty late date. There is a good reason why the current German Land is not called Prussia, but Brandenburg - that is what it, really, is.

[ag]

Considering for most of modern history Kaliningrad was Prussia, Germany would be the most natural choice.

For that matter, look at Poland... the territory it was granted after WWII was punitive against Germany, and directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans who historically lived there.

Well, Poland had little choice there: it was, basically, moved West by force, with USSR annexing much of what had been Poland before the war. Then, again, much of the rural population in the annexed areas in the East was, indeed, Belorussian/Lithuanian/Ukrainian, with Poles being, mostly, dominant in the cities - they were deported West. Again, there had been some Polish and/or Polabian (Kaszubian) population in the newly Polish lands taken from Germany. Over the course of history the boundary between the Germanic and the Slavic population had moved back and forth, so Poles could argue to have both historic and population claims to those parts they got. But, again, they had no say in any of it.

In any case, if we start figuring out what bit of Europe "rightfully" belongs to whom, we shall quickly go back to the old European norm: continuous wars. The borders have been fixed. Be very careful touching them.

[ag]

Given the strong claims multiple regional powers have on the place, it should be put under the administration of a neutral third party - Israel.

Great idea. But only if this can be combined with establishing proper neutral administration in Jerusalem. I nominate the Japanese emperor as the Protector, to be supported by a contingent of Nepali Gurkhas. I am sure there will be enough space on the Temple Mount to set up both a Shinto and a Hindu temple to serve both their spiritual needs.

[ag]

Actually there has been movement to revive Old Prussian language.

https://culture.pl/en/article/little-prince-published-in-prussian

So best solution would be Independent Prussia, with Prussian as official language.

Considering how little is known of actual Prussian, that thing is likely to be more like a Baltic esperanto. What is it that thing in the water in Vilna that makes them invent languages?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

[ag]

With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

...and due to the mass deportation of Tatars by Stalin.

Just a minor detail.

Though there are a few others.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

[ag]

If there is a constant in Russian politics - it's an absolute desire of 90+% of it's population to hold as much territory as possible, and - even bigger.

And that, irrespective of anything else in this thread, is the main problem with Russia.

Ask US to give back Alaska, and then observe the reaction. In any case - it's a thing that will NOT change next 50 years. And i have little interest in what will be later (partially - because i will NOT be alive then)

Ask Mexicans and Canadians what they would think if Americans still openly wanted to make their country "bigger".

Americans surely want this.

In every American society I have been familiar with, expressing such an opinion would have been considered indecent for the last 50 years at the very least. But, ok, you do not have to go by my word: we can ask the many estadounidenses present here

In fact - both countries were really built on expansionist idea. And, after collapse of Soviet Union, when close to 1/4 of territory was lost (if we compare present Russia with it) - there is rather natural desire "not to lose more" in Russia. Add to this, that Crimea takes a special place in many Russian's hearts, because of circumstances of it becoming part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev's decision (my mother, who is 92, remembers that, and, though she is NOT Putin's supporter on most issues, Crimea for her is really "ours"). But i know fery few people here really interested in Donetsk or Luhansk, for example. It's all rather complicated)))

Would you remind me the circumstances under which Crimea became (ethnically) Russian?

Well, after Peter I managed to get it from Turkey it became a mixture of Tatars, Ukranians and Russians. With time and increasing role of Crimea as a base for Russian (and then - Soviet) fleet - Russians became to play bigger and bigger role.

Are you sure you are not suffering from age-related amnesia? Or is it what you learned at a Russian school?

Of course i studied in Russian school. But it's not so difficult to find demographic data about Crimea))))

History is easy to learn as well. But you never bothered. What would Prince Potemkin say?

You begin to remind Proto to me)) And i always had excellent grade in history)))

At a Russian school, so that is not saying much.

Now, if you do not mind, please read up on Prince Potemkin of Taurida. That is still not banned in Russia, is it?

I read a lot about him. And other Russian politicians and military men, who dealt with Crimea. No one in Russia has an idea of banning it. In fact - in some aspects there is more liberty in Russia then in US))) And less foolishness, like "sexual harrassment" campaigns..

P.S. Russian schools of Soviet period were ideologized, but, besides that, better then 99% of American schools i know)))))

Shoot. You are stubborn in your ignorance. Open the freaking Wikipedia at History of Crimea and stop being ridiculous. I have not been talking about Potemkin randomly, you know.

Everything one has to know about teaching history in Russian schools you've illustrated perfectly. I, of course, did not need the illustration: been there myself.

As i said - i was there many times, so i need an illustration even less. Let's end our "discussion" on this.

Who conquered Crimea, for Giray Khan's sake?!! Are all the Russian tsas the same to you?

It really doesn't matter who exactly. Peter was mostly interested in sea, Ekaterina (i prefer Russian transcription here)  - in land. What really important to me - that was in 18th century. Since then considerable numbers of Russians lived there and considered Crimea to be their  motherland. In Soviet time - substantially more, then Ukranians and Tatars. So - there was a logic in Crimea being part of Russian Federation, and considerable voluntarism in Khrushchev's decision. But, as both were parts of Soviet Union - it didn't mattered too much THEN.

As i wrote before - i am well aware about Potemkin's effort to colonize Crimea. So what?

And what was the Russian port in the area under Peter?

You know shyte about Russian history, as you have so nicely demonstrated here.  I mean, you know more about CAGOP than you know about Crimea.

Azov. Naturally, i studied US politics for 45+ years. Not so long - history of Crimea. For almost every Russian the only important thing is - it was under Tatars until 18th century, then became part of Russian Empire, then - Soviet Union (as part of Russian Federation), then was given to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of USSR too (by Khrushchev) in 1954.

Ok, not Rabinovich, but Chaimovich, and not chess but poker, but ok.

And, now, where did the Tartars go? What happened to them? Mind enlightening us?

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

Oh, battles with Crimea had been going on long before. Like that  time a Giray had Moscow burnt. That is long before the unfortunate Sofia. The one hiding in the Kremlin was tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, if my memory serves me right.

[ag]

Expelled (those, who survived) by Stalin. Mostly to Kazahstan. But at that time (after WWII) russians were already close to majority of population. Look at demographic data for 1939 year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics

Finally, you managed to bring up this minor detail. Unlike the circumstances of the Crimean conquest, of which you, simply, knew nothing (which did not, alas, prevent you from expounding on them), this is something you knew about and chose not to talk about from the beginning. A choice that says a lot about you.

Ah, and, BTW, though I am not going to take issue with Slavic preponderance in Crimea by WWII, you should know that one should not ever be citing the 1939 census results for any purpose, since that census was deliberately faked after the 1937 census had shown many fewer people in the USSR than old Joe had stated there were. Detailed results from 1937 census are not readily available, but there should be enough out there to make your point. But you, once again, chose to bring up fake data in support of your claims. Another interesting choice.

[ag]

For those mystified by the whole discussion. Our dear Russian Patriot here said something like: "when the US got Louisiana from Spain in the 17th century" - enough to understand that he has heard smthg about the actual events, but has very little clue. And instead of saying, as I would do, "shoot, I goofed up, shame on me", he first insisted and than said: "it does not matter".

Such are Russian patriots. And such is their knowledge of Russian history.

Again - you catch fleas. Battles for Crimea began even before Peter I, during Sophia time. They continued during Peter's years and ended under Ekaterina. Yes. i made mistake saying that Crimea was taken by Peter, he was mostly interested in ports and waterways. Again - SO WHAT?

And, yes, i am VERY proud to be a partiot of my contry. Did you expected anything else?

Oh, battles with Crimea had been going on long before. Like that  time a Giray had Moscow burnt. That is long before the unfortunate Sofia. The one hiding in the Kremlin was tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, if my memory serves me right.

It serves you right. I remembered general flow of events too (and the fact, that Moscow was burnt), but not Giray's name....

Hard for me to forget : I actually know some Girays. Those same Girays

[ag]

Third - i trust english (and russian too) version of Wikipedia. Much more then your conspirological theories.

You mean, the 1937 and 1939 censuses? It is not a conspirological theory. It is a well-know fact in the social science community. Every Russian historian/demographer/economist knows this. I could not imagine that anybody is unfamiliar with this fact - it is one of those things that should be known by every educated Russian. If you trust Wikipedia, enjoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

(also the Russian page, if you like).

It is widely considered a serious faux pas in research to take seriously the 1939 results without, at least, trying to correct for possible miscount. The moment I see a paper which uses those numbers, I start being very suspicious of anything and everything in its conclusions.  And so is every serious researcher I know. While I never done any related research myself, I believe some 1937 data tables have survived (a friend once mentioned he actually had a copy - his grandfather had been a prominent Soviet demographer, so I was not surprised). Not enough for most serious research purposes (just some summary stats, if I am not mistaken), but should be there at the level of a wikipedia article

[ag]

In any case my final conclusion stands - at the moment of Khrushchev's decisions there were considerably more Russians, then Ukranians or Tatars, in Crimea. So, for almost all Russians Khrushchev's decision was voluntarism, pure and simple.

Ah, horrible, horrible voluntarist Khurshchev. I mean, Stalin, almost literally, invented the Uzbeks, but that is ok, because he killed enough people and because those were, in any case, some "churkas", so who cares what they are called and how they are sorted, but oh Khrushchov mortally wounded the Russian heart by taking the Crimea from it.

If anything, Khrushchov's main crime here was to keep the Tartars in exile. He returned most of the rest, but Crimea was too sweet a spot for the Tartars to have it back. Hence the Crimean Tartar national movement as one of the most important components of the Soviet dissidence and one of the high points of non-violent resistence internationally. Every liberal ex-Soviet cannot forget it. Ukrainian dissidents across the spectrum, from hardcore nationlists to the likes of gen. Grigorenko always knew it and always fought side-by-side  together with the Tartars. But Russians seem never to have noticed. Wonder, why I am so sceptical of Russian liberalism? In my book, it is about as fake as the soveign democracy you are presently enjoying.

[ag]

Second - every country has pages in it's history it must be ashamed of.

And they lynch the Negroes in America

True to form.