Absolutely. I can't see how it's remotely democratic that someone is governed by an entity that has no accountability to that person. It violates the most basic premise of democracy to condition accountability on citizenship.

"no accountability"?

noncitizens still have judicial recourse and (again, 3rd time now, I think) a baseline of rights

they just don't get say in what the society's laws will be, due to the fact that they aren't actually a member of that society

should people with advantaged mobility therefor have more political influence/representation globally?

Judicial recourse is not accountability, it's redress.

The judiciary is an inherently undemocratic institution that proves useful in protecting the democratic institutions from themselves. But it is a last resort, and that it functioins at all for the ordinary person is mostly a corollary of how democratic the overall governance is. Without accountability there is no redress via the judiciary.

you're gonna have to do a little more to distinguish those two concepts

What if I told you that most trial judges, at the state level, are democratically elected?

What if I told you that even all appointed judges are selected by a democratically elected representative (and at the federal level, confirmed by still more democratically elected representatives)?

What if I told you that juries are the earliest expression of democracy in the history of anglo-american politics?

You have this completely backwards.

That judges are elected or appointed via processes subject to democratic controls doesn't mean that the judiciary is a democratic institution. Actually, it reflects precisely the opposite and an effort to institutionalize a minimal form of democratic control over the institution. Once in place a judge is subject to no such control. Don't confuse process with structure. (I've voted for judges.)

The historical antecedents of the jury system are not terribly relevant in contemporary USA, where most legal processes never get to trial. In any case, juries aren't part of the judiciary properly speaking, and your argument there is just a misdirect.

The idea that "germans" "wanted" to be part of germany, but were "subjected" to the Czech Government is Natzi Propaganda. These people were no more German that people living in Chinatown are "Chinese" and therefore should be part of China. Hitler used these false racial ideas to whip up frenzy and invade Czechloslovakia. It is a lie that America subverted the will of the "german" people, it is a lie that Germans were somehow being separated. It was Hitler and Germany alone who were responsible for what they did. To try and blame the US or the Czechs for this is absolute rubbish. You are parroting Natzi propaganda.

Interesting read: https://www.wired.com/story/russian-...enqXWhDIi_O6GU

I might be parroting Nazi propaganda, but then so is

wikipedia:

britannica:


J. W. Bruegel, Czech-born historian published in the Cambridge University Press in 1973:




Bad analogy. Obviously, Chinese emigres are not aspiring to Chinese nationality on US soil, and the Sudeten Germans were not emigres, they had simply been there as the empires/regimes over them changed.

that judges are elected doesn't make the judiciary a democratic institution?

what if I told you that panels of judges vote to resolve appellate disputes?

how is the legislature democratic iyo? the executive?

Juries are an essential component of the judicial system. Your allusion to the high likelihood of resolution via settlement or plea bargain is an example of people opting out of the (democratic) judicial process, typically for fear of what The People will have to say once the facts come to light.

You are confusing voting/elections with "democratic".

Even the Soviet Union held elections. Even the Politburo voted.

Pressure to provoke a land war in Asia grows:

Ann Garrison: George, the hostilities between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia continue to escalate in the Sea of Azov, the Kerch Strait, and the Black Sea. What do you think the latest odds of a shooting war between NATO and Russia are, if one hasn’t started by the time this is published?

George Szamuely: Several weeks ago, when we first talked about this, I said 60 percent. Now I’d say, maybe 70 percent. The problem is that Trump seems determined to be the anti-Obama. Obama, in Trump’s telling, “allowed” Russia to take Crimea and to “invade” Ukraine. Therefore, it will be up to Trump to reverse this. Just as he, Trump, reversed Obama’s policy on Iran by walking away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. So expect ever-increasing US involvement in Ukraine.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/1...to-and-russia/

Had a longer reply but lost it. Ethnicity != Nationality. Ethnic Germans and Ethnic Czech's lived side by side for hundreds of years in Bohemia and in the Austria Hungary Empire. This land was historically always part of Bohemia.

This paragraph in particular from wikipedia pisses me off.

Notice how they use the word "demanded" to paint the Czechs as the aggressors. Notice how they use "despite" to imply that ceding a large swath of territory based solely on ethnicity is the natural behavior. It is absurd,

They are acting like Czechs made this land grab and forced the ethnic germans to be part of their country. This is untrue, these were Czech lands and Czech and German citizens lived side by side. The idea to create a "German" nation was a Natzi one. To them an ethnic German in Czechloslovakia was German, and an ethnic Czech in Germany was Czech. To Czechloslovakia, an ethnic German living in Czechloslovakia was a Czech, and an ethnic Czech living in Germany was a German.

Not a perfect analogy but it will do. Many people living in Chinatown are probably not first generation immigrants. They may not have aspirations of Chinese nationality now, but neither did the ethnic Germans until this racial frenzy was whipped up.

Of course Sudentenland was really never about the "Germans" for the Natzis. It had easily defensible and heavily fortified terrain. Once it was handed over, Czechloslovakia was defenseless.

lots of question-begging, there (historically..., the lands belonged to..., ethnic not national...)

lots of ignoring the history of the pre-Nazi, post-WW1 conference to carve up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, & 2/3 of the sources I quoted (focusing instead only on Wikipedia, and that in a manner predisposed towards your conclusion)


all-in-all, not terribly convincing, sorry

You aren't going back far enough. History did not start at the post WW1 conference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_...Bohemian_Crown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Bohemia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland
Germans were invited into these lands by the Czech king Wenceslaus. Again, Czechs and Germans living side by side in the Kingdom of Bohemia.

The Sudentenland was part of Bohemia for hundreds of years, including during the time of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Ethnic Germans were invited in by Bohemia, hundreds of years before. Why should this land suddenly become part of Germany after the fall of the empire?

From britanica.
Right, because it was always a pretext to take over the country.

Why does pre-conference history matter?

What matters is whether 1921 Sudeten Germans wanted to be a part of Germany, whether 1938 Germans did, etc.

Even if it's due solely to propoganda, government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate. Kinda shocking that this principle is getting such push back.

It is not so simple. That area is strategically valuable. It is mountainous terrain. Giving it up would leave the country defenseless. Once the Czechs were forced to at the Munich Conference, Germany easily took over the resy of the country six months later.

Because it does? Not sure what kind of answer you want here. The land was part of Bohemia from at least the 1200s. Why should Germany suddenly get it?

hint: not due to its strategic, geopolitical value

Should Russia return Königsberg to Germany?

So the Czechs should have given an aggressive, nationalistic Germany that was just defeated in World War 1 a strategic piece of territory the Czechs had owned for hundreds of years?

I don't know enough about the situation to comment.

if the vast majority of people living in that territory wanted to be a part of Germany and not a part of Czechoslovakia - yes

it's totally understandable that Cz wouldn't be happy with that, but that's totally irrelevant to the question of political legitimacy

I understand where you are coming from but disagree. Czechloslovakia had a duty to all of its citizens, not just the ethnic Germans in one part of the state. Germany had shown it could not be trusted. It had already acted belligerently, was rife with antisemitism even as far back as before the end of WW1, and had a pan-Germanic idea that was dangerous to all of its neighbors. Cz giving up its border region was a non starter. If the ethnic Germans wanted to be part of Germany, emigration was the correct option.

Looking further ahead to the 1990s, Czechloslovakia let the Slovaks create their own state of Slovakia. Why do you think these two situations were handled differently?

Should the Russians in Crimea have emigrated?

What are you talking about? Thats a map from 1815:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congre...815_map_en.png

The history of Europe is far more complex and you cant just say the Czechs owned that piece of land for hundreds of years. Bohema was part of the Holy Roman Empire. The new country emerged after WWI in 1918.

Can you explain the point you are making with the map? I see Bohemia as part of the Austrian Empire. Are you seeing something different?

This land had been part of Bohemia and then Czechloslovakia. Giving it away is what Chamberlain did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement . It did not stop the war.

Not sure, just here for the derail.