Talk:List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article

What's the rationale about which states are considered predecessors? For most of the page I was thinking it must be the state which the current state was the successor of (in the sense that the Russian Federation was the successor of the USSR as it had most of the territory and population). But the UK has its predecessors listed as Ireland, Scotland and England. By this logic, wouldnt't (say) Germany's predecessors be, originally, all of the German states? 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The predecessor of a current state was just the state that came before it, e.g. Belarus became independent from the USSR, then it just keeps going backwards. The page is nowhere near finished yet so many predecessors are missing. The Kingdom of Ireland is a predecessor of the UK because Northern Ireland was part of Ireland at the time. And yes, you're right about Germany – that bit, among others, is going to be difficult; that's why I haven't got round the finishing the list yet. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands

I partially undid these changes to the Netherlands subsection because they were incorrect for the bigger part. Specifically:

  • why use the term Seventeen Provinces when you can use the more specific terms Habsburg Netherlands and Spanish Netherlands? Contrary to what the Spanish Netherlands article says, Spanish Netherlands was not just a name for the southern part of the country: it was the name used for the whole of the seventeen provinces after they came under the rule of the Spanish king in 1556;
  • contrary to what the article Batavian Republic suggests, the Batavian Republic did not exist from 1795 to 1806. In 1801 it was replaced by the Batavian Commonwealth, which had different administrative divisions, another governmental system with another head of state, and separation of powers. In Dutch history, this is regarded as a separate state (see Dutch Wikipedia Bataafs Gemenebest);
  • the Sovereign Principality of the United Netherlands (1813-1815) was left out of the list;
  • legally there has never been a state called "United Kingdom of the Netherlands". This is a name that has been retrospectively applied by historians to the period in which the Netherlands had sovereignty over what is now Belgium. Legally, however, the state was and is called simply "Kingdom of the Netherlands";
  • the Netherlands was never part of Nazi Germany. In contrast to e.g. Austria, which was annexed to Germany, the Netherlands (along with Belgium, France, etc.) was merely occupied and forms a legal continuum with the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being cited by the articles themselves which in turn are cited by scholarly sources as such I am going to revert to the previous edits. I would HIGHLY recommend that if Wikipedia is incorrect, that you go to those article pages and change any incorrect facts and if those edits are stable and cited then please amend this page. Much like during the Napoleonic wars The Netherlands stopped being a separate entity during WWII and was absorbed into the 3rd Reich along with many other nations. The government in exile had no control over its people, internal/external politics or its natural resources. While it was restored after the war, it was a fact on the ground that Germany controlled the Netherlands. Also it is common in history for governments/countries to be called historically something different than what they called themselves, The Byzantine Empire or the Angevin Empire is a great example of this. So please check out Portal:Netherlands and ask them to help you correcting those articles and then if there is wp:consensus among editors please amend this page ;-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is your position that Russia, Ukraine, Cyprus, Greece, Serbia, Italy, Estonia, Latvia and many others, possibly including the UK (don't forget the Channel Islands) should also include the Third Reich as a predecessor? Unfortunately this is a quagmire which is almost impossible to resolve consistently or logically. Also, I don't think that you can demand that people change other articles before they change this one. There isn't an acknowledged hierarchy of articles and someone could just as easily demand that this article must be changed first before another article is changed. If you want to include a country as a predecessor you should really find a source which says it was a predecessor. Not ruled by or controlled by but a predecessor of. Other Wikipedia articles emphatically do not count as a reliable source and even saying that those articles have reliable sources doesn't count without actually checking those sources to make sure they really do support your edits. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the channel Islands were not and are still not a part of the United Kingdom. So yes, the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey did loose full sovereignty and were under the direct control of the Third Reich so Nazi Germany was indeed the government at that time. As for Russia and Italy, they were at all points of the war under the control of their own country even if some parts were invaded or their own government changed, so much like France during WWI who was also invaded they would not have lost sovereignty. As for the others, some I know did loose sovereignty others I am not currently aware. As for edits, I do not know one editor from another, my point was those articles are actually heavily sourced and if they are incorrect please fix them and show evidence there since those articles are far more important than this page. My guess is that a few edits suggested by the editor are correct others are a bit more dubious, better to get editors who have more knowledge of the subject at hand involved and amend any errors found in articles and then after those are agreed upon come to this minor article and reflect those corrections here. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was careless of me about the Channel Islands, though I'm not sure we could talk about them losing sovereignty as they certainly weren't ever sovereign states. On the subject of the Netherlands, I don't think they were ever actually absorbed into Germany, though there were plans to do so. Admittedly, my information comes mainly from Reichskommissariat Niederlande, in contradiction to my insistence that we shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Of course I agree that the Netherlands were controlled by Germany. But I don't think the Third Reich should be a predecessor state. I'm confused by your distinction of some states losing sovereignty and others not. How do we decide? Does it depend on whether there was an explicit surrender by the government? And are you implying that if a state loses sovereignty then the state which conquered them should be a successor and so appear in these lists? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see how to make consistent decisions here. For example, is the UK really a predecessor of Cyprus? Dingo1729 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is why using the wiki pages as guidelines is very helpful, because these have been argued before and those who have more knowledge/passion about those countries have already come up with a conclusion. If you are correct that the 3rd Reich did not officially include it into their government then I am sure they had a name for it, not only that it would have still flown the swastika as its flag. It would have also had a new government. This would have been akin to Vichy France, and France is another interesting part because half of the country was still under direct control of the country but only Vichy France is listed. I guess we could think of that territory as being invaded? As for Cyprus... well... Yes! As the cyprus pages says "It was placed under British administration in 1878 until it was granted independence in 1960". -- Phoenix (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the Brits administered Cyprus, but does that really make the UK a predecessor? From 1945 to 1949 the USA administered about a quarter of Germany. I'm sure that many people would have a problem with the USA being referred to as a predecessor of Germany. To me, predecessor implies that the successor state was an integral part of the predecessor or vice versa. So I wouldn't normally refer to the UK as a predecessor of Cyprus. I'm just struggling to find some logical and consistent way to know when a state is a predecessor and when it isn't. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is what Wikipedia is for. It has already been passionately discussed and cited and agreed upon. Lets use Germany as an example. Weimar Republic→Nazi Germany→Flensburg Government→Allied-occupied Germany It is pretty straightforward and easy to source, I see no complicated issue here. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid an edit war, I won't revert most of my changes until the corresponding articles on the English Wikipedia have been changed to reflect the correct history of the Netherlands. That being said, I am certain that the timeline as I described it is correct, as can be read in the numerous articles about Dutch history on the Dutch Wikipedia, which are no less backed up by scholarly references.
There is, however, one change I am going to revert, and that is the addition of Nazi Germany to the list of predecessors. Your statement "Much like during the Napoleonic wars The Netherlands stopped being a separate entity during WWII and was absorbed into the 3rd Reich along with many other nations." does not hold truth. For one, the "Drittes Reich" (also known by the pseudo-anglicised name "Third Reich") has never actually existed. It was a vision used in Nazi propaganda that was quickly dropped after the Nazi power takeover in 1933. Contrary to the popular belief held outside Europe, the Nazis never turned Europe into a German empire. Secondly, the Netherlands was never "absorbed into", that is, annexed to, Germany. There is a historical and legal difference between annexation, such as happened to e.g. Austria, Alsace-Lorraine and Sudetenland during the Nazi era, and occupation, as happened to e.g. the Netherlands and Belgium in World War II. In WWII, the Netherlands was never de jure, nor de facto, part of Germany. In fact, the Germans administered the Netherlands as a separate Reichskommissariat Niederlande led by Arthur Seyss-Inquart. It is therefore grossly inaccurate to present the Netherlands as having been part of Nazi Germany during 1940-1945. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I used Third Reich instead of saying Nazi Germany, and that I assure you that did exist. I am British so I dont understand you comment about being outside of Europe, but now I think of it, many in the UK dont think of us as being in Europe :-P Oh and History of the Netherlands (1939–1945) is quite interesting.

Succession of sovereignity, not succession of constitutions

I think this should be a list of the succession of sovereign entities regarding present states. It should not be a list of changes of constitutions within a state. It looks rather silly e.g. to have the list of France going France, France, France, France, just because they changed constitutions a couple of times in the 19th Century. It should just be France, it has been sovereign since the middle ages, never part of another country. Perhaps, but only perhaps, Vichy France can be considered to have been another entity. Not Really Great (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, ultimately, a list of articles that Wikipedia has on the different forms of the countries. Even if it was a just constitutional change or a name change, the resultant country was a different entity to the previous one. There is no absolute definition of predecessor so that is just the way this article has been formulated. It's more inclusive and, therefore, more useful. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should read sovereign state. A change of constitution does not make an existing country cease to become a different country. Not Really Great (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sugestion

What if we did something like this? Would that be OK even for Mclay1? If not, I urge you to come up with a better idea!

Sovereign state Predecessors Constitutional changes
Bosnia and Herzegovina
noborder Serbia (768-1371) Principality of Serbia (768-1217), Kingdom of Serbia (1217-1346), Serbian Empire (1346-1371)
noborder Bosnia (1371-1463)
 Ottoman Empire (1463-1878)
 Austria-Hungary (1878–1918)
noborder State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (1918)
 Yugoslavia (1918-1991) Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929), Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1943), Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-1946), Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1946-1991)
 Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–present)
If you think the list does not match your idea of what the article should be about, change the intro to explain the scope of the list, but the list is much better in its current form. The PS2 was a predecessor to the PS3 but they were both PlayStations; likewise, the Kingdom of France was a predecessor the French Republic even though they were both called France. (By the way, I removed a reference from you above example.) McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty

How about marking somehow all the points where a country was independent/sovereign, and all the times when it was merely a part/territory of another entity. I think bold would be a good way to do it - eg. for Albania: "Roman Republic...Albanian Kingdom" (it's unnecessary to have bold as the final line in each section - it's obvious that the last line is the current state); similarly, perhaps italic would be a good distinction of partial autonomy - eg. the Kingodom of Hungary when it was still part of Austria-Hungary?

A separate suggestion is to also have bullet points (perhaps hideable ones) underneath any sovereign state that included semi-independent states within them. eg. under the division for Russia, have all the Soviet Republics as a hideable bullet-point list below "USSR". What think you? BigSteve (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Flag of Poland.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:National Flag of Poland.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia & Africa

I updated Spain & Malta we need to work on Asia & Africa as well. 3bdulelah (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey/Byzantine?

turkey and ottoman empire have never been a part of byzantine nor they are the successors of the defunct empire.

the order is Seljuks > Ottomans > Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.21.169 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The capital of the Byzantine Empire was Constantinople ( İstanbul nowadays) and most of modern turkey was part of the Byzantine Empire 3bdulelah (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romans and Byzantines

Throughout this article, former Byzantine territories are listed as being in the Roman Empire until AD 476, and then in the Byzantine Empire. I understand why it might be preferable to list both the Roman and Byzantine Empires here for clarity's sake and out of historical convention, but even given this AD 476 doesn't really have any significance outside of the Western Empire-- Constantinople might have had a few words to say if you'd tried to tell them the Roman Empire ended in 476.

There are tons of other glaring inconsistencies with how dates are handled (some Roman territories have the dates for the entire span of the Republic and/or Empire, some just have the dates of their incorporation into Rome), but Greece et al., being in the Roman Empire until AD 476 at which point they were magically transfigured into Byzantines jumped out at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

How can anybody say that Spain was a kingdom from 1939 to 1975, when it was under general Franco the head of the State? who was the king? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.32.129.204 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic states

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ceased to exist as independent states after World War II. Whether it was a legal annexation or an "occupation", but facts are facts. The article is not about "governments in exile". A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian timeline

Why does russian statehood starts with Grand Duchy of Moscow, while Kievan Rus is generally reckognized as the first russian state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.38.230 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus

Why is Northern Cyprus here?Correctron (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed? Removing it now as Northern Cyprus is not an official country, it's only recognized by Turkey (who occupies it).

Suggestion 2

Can someone put an asterisk next to each country whose section is incomplete? Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

It's very easy,

this page is not meant for enlisting every state/formation/entity in the specific covered geographic location where the present-day country lies, but those have to have some connection to it. Hayasa-Azzi (ancient people of uncertain roots), Shupria (which was a Hurrian entity), Nairi (which was only a tribal confederationion), Urartu (Hurrian-Urartian) and the Achaemenid Empire, which was a Persian/Iranian entity. Kingdom of Armenia is valid, while the formers not, even if there is some claims/speculations, but without any evidence yet (WP:NPOV, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Just curious, have you thoroughly read all those articles? In the Urartu article for instance, the 4th sentence clearly states, "The Urartians are the most easily identifiable ancestors of the Armenians"- with credible sources listed. Hence, I still fail to see how this entity has zero connection whatsoever to Armenia, as you so boldly claim. Other editors invested in this article care to weigh in? Archives908 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes especially that article needs to be updated as well, since it unilaterally states that, however, it is just an assumption, but have no academic consensus (it's enough to read the Origins and the appearance of Armenia section btw. as well), or solid evidence, even if there are some enthusiastic editors who are pushing such theories here in more pages. We have to be neutral (only you used the word zero, I did not, however claims or possible (=unproved) connections should not be confused with facts). Btw., in this article only a few entries are/seems to be in order, many others are filled with fringe entities/assuming connections, an overall cleanup will be needed soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with Kiengir, otherwise we're just going further and further back in time on ever vaguer connections. In fact, this article is in terrible shape and most of the currently listed "predecessors" should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've started doing some cleanup, but this whole article is a mess. There aren't clear criteria for what should be included and that leads to decisions like saying the Roman Empire is a predecessor of Andorra.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich:,
thank you, you did much of the job I as well wanted, so I continued on your path. Please alse see this edit ([1]), in accordance.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hi KIENGIR. Can you explain the model of states’ succession that led you to “clean up” with Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all sharing the Russian Empire as a predecessor state, yet ending up with their beginnings ranging over nearly a thousand years? Please relate this to the predecessor and successor lists we see in various country infoboxes and the conventional understanding that all three are inheritors of Kyivan Rus, which I think we could probably demonstrate are both a result of consensus editing. —Michael Z. 01:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the political controversy I would support having all three start with Kievan Rus'. I'd probably remove "Russian Empire" from Ukraine and Belarus.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What controversy is that? Do reliable sources disagree? Every book on Ukrainian history covers Kyivan Rus as a major predecessor, and describes how the Ukrainian People’s Republic split off from the Russian Republic in 1917 and 1918, and how the Ukrainian SSR was formed from part of the ruins of the Russian empire by the efforts of the Bolshevik state.
On the other hand, if we decide this page should ignore every relationship except de jure political succession, then the Bolsheviks created a new state, with no predecessor, didn’t they? —Michael Z. 14:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "what controversy"? The controversy you initially addressed: the "ownership" of Kievan Rus' between Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. I don't think I need to cite sources to show that this is something controversial in the countries themselves, just look at all the junk at Kievan Rus, including a "Great Russian Chauvinist" I was able to get not-hered not long ago.
What part of my proposal do you disagree with exactly? My only concern is that "predecessors" shouldn't include countries that are actually just parts of larger countries (e.g. Roman Empire → Andorra) or are completely unrelated (Hunnic Empire → Ukraine). I think Russian Empire → Ukraine does not qualify as a “predecessor “ of Ukraine , but of course Cossack Hetmannate does and I think Kievan Rus' is probably a special case, given cultural continuity with the three East Slavic nations as well as being based in modern Ukraine.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have some of the same concerns that I do with KIENGIR’s edit. In terms of your specific suggestions, I don’t see why you seem to evaluate the Ukrainian SSR as just part of a larger Russian empire, but the RSFSR not. Are you including other unmentioned factors in this determination?
Anyway, I think we can only proceed with this list if we try to define state succession in the intro, even in very simple terms. Otherwise editing will continue to be a circle of “what I think the content should look like (due to Un discussed reasons)” instead of working together on “what content meets the stated and agreed criteria.” I made a start. —Michael Z. 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, even if put that link in the lead, that description could be as well interpreted differently/unilaterally, with or without these is issues are not really solid and could be subject of controversy. Technically I combined more principles as one simple general guidance is not possible given the complications referred before, etc. As per reacting Ermenrich's note as well, Russian Empire's case I was also contemplating, but if we have (and we have to, also at Poland) Galicia and Lodomeria which passed through two Austrian states, that we could not ignore (on the other hand, the rest of the argumentation of @Ermenrich: I agree, we should not open a can on worms an reiterate, import old debates here, Ukraine's issues anyway have been many times discussed, the Belarus main article I decided a time to avoid, since I do not want to take part such childish debates if i.e. Lukashenka is president or not, hence I avoided discussing for now history issues as well there, while the Russian affairs I just said should be discussed in the main article's talk, probably it would end such and endless blog like other hot issues - I think this page should be kept solid, and better we avoid issues that are anyway/should be subject of other pages.
(p.s., sometimes we had to take into account geographical, sometimes other legal issues (and/or interlaced), or relations i.e. I ignored Styria by Slovenia, since it may had a tiny part of the present country, but really have no more sense (and I ignored as well Kingdom of Hungary, which held Prekmurje, Hungary is not really a predecessor of the Slovenian state), as well Ermenrich removed my "romantic" Hunnic empire (just kidding :-) ) which many Hungarian scholars also claim (regardless of partial/possibly validity that would infer like any Slavic people could claim anything containing a little Slavic, etc.), as Great Moravia which is part of the Slovak romanticism, or similar issues, so we went on a path largely affecting many other countries not mentioned here, not ignoring common sense but keep professionality as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I think you aren't necessarily understanding me, Mzajac, because I am generally in agreement with you. The Ukrainian SSR is obviously a predecessor of Ukraine. It is not a successor of the Russian Empire though, any more than Finland is. The only successor of the Russian Empire is either the USSR as a whole or potentially the RFSSR. I would describe the Russian Federation as the only country whose predecessor is the USSR though - something which was recognized internationally when it took over the USSR's UN veto, etc. Let's say the United States broke up into 50 independent countries tomorrow. I would not describe the US as the predecessor of any of those states, but the US states themselves. If, on the other hand, the US underwent a coup and a new nation were formed (let's call it Gilead), then the United States would be a predecessor of that country. Does that make sense?
We can try to formulate what we mean in the lead, I don't see any harm at least, although KIENGIR brings up some valid points.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sometimes harder issues which include more aspects. Kingdom of Galicia and L. is included only/primarily e.g. because it's territory shared a significant part of the present-country (it's status change does not mean Austria would be predecessor of Ukraine as well), so it fills the timeline gap along with the Russian Empire (as Poland is as well filled during it dissolution times). Apart from this, regarding your U.S. example, I would describe the whole as predecessor (althogh the question wold be how we define sovereign states, since globally the US is a state recognized in one, of course you could argue as well non-recognized states are present in the lists (and yes, i.e. soviet socialist republics are listed on their own, and not just Soviet Union on the whole...)...anyway, the list is converging to be more tidy and solid, step-by step.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Kiengir, that link in the intro is a starting point, and an improvement on nothing. It gives us a basis for the concept, especially the key difference between succession and continuation (which view clearly has not been recognized by some editors, even in this “cleanup” spree), and even has some examples. None of us or any new editor has a clue about all of the issues you considered when you or someone else made some edits. All we have is the intro and the state of the list, and without that someone will show up with a completely different ideas and mess it all up again, ad infinitum.
Ermenrich, it doesn’t sound like you have read the link I added, to succession of states. Seems pretty clear that the UNR (with ZUNR) was the successor to both the Russian and Austria-Hungarian empires on its territory, and the Ukrainian SSR was its successor in eastern Ukraine before it joined the USSR. The Soviet Union has fifteen successor states, that left it and split up its territory and assets, its population, and its UNSC and UNGA seats, treaty privileges and obligations, military, etc. (the RSFSR got much of it with the assent of the others, but Ukraine does dispute the RF’s claim to be the sole legal continuation state, although this is academic for the purpose of this list). —Michael Z. 01:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if we use those criteria we’d need to remove all sub national entities, which are usually actually more significant I would say.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are you counter-proposing?
But why? “Ukraine: Soviet Union (in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR) < Ukrainian SSR 1919–22 < Poland (in eastern Galicia), Romania (Bukovyna and Budzhak), Czechoslovakia (Transcarpathia) < Ukrainian People’s Republic and West Ukrainian People’s Republic < Russian Empire, Austro-Hungary (in Galicia and Lodomeria),” etc. Why wouldn’t we describe it factually, thus? If it’s understood that “a successor state is a sovereign state over a territory and populace that was previously under the sovereignty of another state,” then maybe the context is self-explanatory in many cases. —Michael Z. 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done a little reading on the subject. The terms successor state and state succession are sometimes used a bit loosely, but they represent a pretty specific and broadly accepted concept, as well as an even more precise legal definition. A few things are clearly demonstrated by reliable sources:

  1. After it ceased to exist in 1917, the Russian Empire had multiple successor states, including Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Russian SFSR, but also Belarus (1918–1919), the Transcaucasian SFSR (1922), the Ukrainian People’s Republic (1917–1920) which declared independence and was recognized in a legal treaty by the RSFSR in 1918, and the Ukrainian SSR (1919–1922).
  2. (The RSFSR was not a continuation state of the Russian empire, as it refused to take on any of its rights and responsibilities. It was a new entity.)
  3. The USSR was not a direct successor state of the Russian Empire, as five years intervened between their respective existences.
  4. In 1922 the USSR was a direct continuator of Belarus, the Russian republic, Transcaucasia, and Ukraine, which created an equal union.
  5. There are twelve or fifteen successor states of the USSR, which ceased to exist in December 1991: the exact plural noun phrase “successor states of the Soviet Union” is found 15,900 times in Google Books search.
  6. State succession is about succession of states. There was only one Soviet state up to 1990, when republics started leaving. Before this, none of them had any independent foreign policy, nor the rights and responsibilities of a state. The Ukrainian SSR/Ukraine declared its independence and changed its name in December 1991, thus becoming a successor to the USSR on its territory (as did the RSFSR/RF, shortly thereafter).
  7. (Whether the three Baltics are its successor states may be debatable, since they are generally considered to be independent since 1918 and occupied by the Soviets from 1940 to 1990.)
  8. (The RF considers itself the sole continuation state of the USSR, but this is disputed by Ukraine. All fifteen republics directly inherited its territory and assets, and many of its treaty rights and obligations.)

Some of the editors discussing it here seem to want this to be a list of state continuation. The title, intro, and content make it clear that it is not. If it is of value, I would help make such a list.

Others seem to feel it is based on some less well-defined concept of poetic or moral succession. It is not. But if you can please show us the sources that define and support this as something more than an emotional or nationalist concept, we can make such a list too. —Michael Z. 00:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List format

Each list in a table cell should be formatted according to MOS:LIST, either as bulleted or unbulleted list. Using line breaks and indents is contrary to WP:ACCESS#Lists. Any objections based on the guidelines? —Michael Z. 21:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also deprecated by WP:PSEUDOLIST. —Michael Z. 15:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_predecessors_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe"