Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken
|
I agree that occupation does not have to be only by direct force (although there are always some casualties, direct or indirect) . I live in country that is occupied by other means (but all together results are same like military occupation) and that is nothing new. Example you gave above is specific from many reasons, mostly because of the beginning of WW2. But when people are AGAINST foreign presence but they can't resist, I would call it occupation.
What I wanted to say regarding Crimea (I guess you were talking about it in your post) is that it was annexation. There were no violent deaths and population wanted that. There is important military base for years and until recently (from historic perspective), Crimea was part of Russia. If someone had enough deaths , that are Russians. Leaving people to nazis undefended was something that you can't expect to happen.
We all saw blood thirsty savages that took power. That crazy Pornoshenko is still talking about war in latest statements. Fact that there were 12 000 defectors from Ukraine army says enough what people there wanted.
Real example of occupation is Kosovo.When someone goes around the world, blackmail country in a way that they can't accept and then destroy infrastructure and bomb people (thousands of civilians) and do that for 80 days. Once they are in, occupational forces help and approve forcing over 230 000 people out of occupied territory. Once it is done, you keep military base so region remains in that status. I don't want to mention that it was direct help for Muslim terrorists. I guess you see huge difference between those two examples.