Talk:Act of Return

I must admit I realy like the basic idea of the "act of return". The implementation you described though I think could be changed. While I understand the reasoning behind it (propaganda to tryi and make russia not look like too much of a monster), I think it would have been over complex and costly for the government. Much cheaper would have been to simply allow people to sell their asset (only to russians of course) then make the receiving government pay to set up "colonies" in their own countries (the act would require a high level of colaboration in any case). Obviously some of these colonies might end up looking more like refugee camp then anything. --Marc Pasquin 17:09, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

Very logical, and (in its own way) insidious. I'm curious--was this passed in response to the disruptions of the Second Great War (then still underway)? Zahir 17:26, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

I don't think *too* much organisation would be needed; mass deportations of entire nations happened in the real-world Soviet Union (Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingushetians, etc.) and it was pretty well organised (although in those cases the people of those nations later had to build their own houses somewhere in the Kazakh SSR or Siberia, thus, it was somewhat easier than here explained as no exchange was necessary). It is also necessary to note that although the official way of implementation might seem as time consuming, in reality not that much time was spent by the administrating people to find a good home and such, while people in the camps probably lived on very little food, and those who have stayed in the camps for longer were probably froced to grow food for themselves, or to work some job - most likely to work in the Committees and thus help the further implementation of the act, thus further reducing the costs of the implementation (similarly as the reindustrialisation of the Soviet Union in the real world was cheap because most of the required things were built by unpaid labour from prisons of political prisoners and the prisoners of war). Also, I would like to note that not only Russians were resettled, but as well Belarusians, Skuodians, Ukrainians (in the homes from which the Lithuanians, Latvians (in case of northern Skuodia) and other ethnicities were deported), and of course non-Slavic nationalities as well, just that their states in general became smaller while Slavic ones were expanded. Due to this reason in general Slavic persons were used to be resettled quickly as it was easy to find new good homes for them (usually Slavs would be deported only after the new home is found for them), while it was not that easy for non-Slavs as less people had been deported from their receiving countries. Abdul-aziz 09:51, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

The reasons for passing the act probably included the wish to expand the area of Slavic nations and their countries (Belarus, Malorussia, Russia); to some extent this could have been part of pre-war agreement between the countries that e.g. Belarus and Ukraine/Malorussia would get Belarusian and Ukrainian inhabitted areas of Lithuania after the war; and, of course, it was according the wish of all SNORist nations to increase the percentage of the titular ethnicity of the territory and decrease the ammount of other ethnicities, thus the Act of Return was useful to them. Resistance against the Snorist governments during the Second Great War might have also been one of the reasons. Abdul-aziz 09:51, 13 April 2006 (PDT)