That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here

[–] captcha@hexbear.net -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.

[–] Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?

[–] captcha@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.

[–] Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 2 points 1 year ago

It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".

Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.