The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Egor Kholmogorov: Nicholas II - the Tsar of Normalcy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

nicholas-ii-1914

Nicholas II & family, 1914. Colorized by Olga.

Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

As the perfect companion piece to his takedown of Stalin, here’s Egor Kholmogorov’s appraisal of Nicholas II, styled an “anti-Stalin”, written during his recent trip to Crimea, which provoked another round of teeth-gnashing among Neo-Stalinists and Sovietophiles. It should also be norws that a recent poll shows that Nicholas II has overtaken Stalin as the most positively-regarded Russian historical figure of the 20th century.

AK’s Foreword

If you appreciate these translations, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here: http://akarlin.com/donations-kholmogorov/

***

Nicholas II: The Tsar of Normalcy

Original: Николай II становится для нас анти-Сталиным

“Here’s where Nicholas II would go to visit his uncle. Yulia, get over here, grab a photo of him at this very place, I’ll take a picture of you…”, says a middle-aged man to his young daughter, two meters away from the spot where I am writing this article.

nicholas-ii-kharaks-crimea

Nicholas II in Kharaks, Crimea.

I found the above photo just three weeks ago, when all the social media feeds were overflowing with the Emperor’s portraits on his birthday. I’ve never seen so many photos and such warm comments before.

The political “exchange rate” of Nicholas II in our historical memory is on the way up. Previously, monarchism used to be retrospective and slightly abstract: sure, we respect the Russian historical statehood in general, Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality and all that stuff, and, given that this particular Tsar turned out to be the last one and died as a martyr, we’ll respect him as well while taking note of his multiple foibles.

But these days I sense more and more of a markedly personal sympathy for the Emperor and his family among the people, going hand in hand with a more level-headed appraisal of his reign, gradually freed from Communist and Liberal propaganda clichés.

It turns out that the era of Nicholas II made an enormous contribution to Russian history, and ascribing these achievements of an autocratic Empire to anyone but the Emperor is at the very least shameless.

Nicholas II becomes something of a historical meme to us, a certain kind of an anti-Stalin. To properly understand this, however, we should first deal with Stalin himself.

The personality of the “Kremlin highlander”[1] embodies the idea of extreme measures taken during an extreme era of Russian history.

Paradoxically, Stalin is loved not so much for his achievements as for his methods: executions, incarcerations, deportations, a grotesquely wasteful use of human resources in both wartime and peacetime, the exchange of thousands and millions of human lives for percentage points of industrialization and kilometers of frontline advancement.

A huge number of people believe that “over here, it can’t be done otherwise”. Or, even more masochistically, “with us, it can’t be done otherwise”.

To prove this thesis, they cite the achievements of Stalinist Socialism, such as industrialization and the construction of the military-industrial complex. The USSR crushed Nazi Germany while Tsarism lost World War I, to say nothing of the Russo-Japanese war (which was also won by Stalin). We turned into a superpower and went to space.

“Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk. No matter that the price for this Great Leap Forward were millions of Russian lives lost to the Civil War, three waves of famine, dekulakization, repression and crushing World War II defeats – after all, “with us, it can’t be done otherwise”.

It is probably a bit more complex than that.

With the Tsar in charge, Russia had no need to become a superpower; she was one. Our country lost this status due to revolutionary disintegration.

And yes, it was the Tsar who sent Gagarin to space. Russian rocket artillery was first used in the 1870s during the conquest of Central Asia. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky published his papers on rocketry during the reign of Nicholas II. Sergey Korolev’s mentor Friedrich Zander published his first studies on interplanetary travel in 1908. “Kondratyuk’s loop”, the optimal trajectory of a flight to the Moon – where the Soviets didn’t manage to send a man, unlike the US – was calculated in 1916 by Alexander Shargei, a student of the St. Petersburg Polytechnic founded under Nicholas II. Most founding fathers of the Russian space program studied in polytechnic colleges founded by the Tsar.

The Tsar didn’t lose World War I at all. When he was overthrown by a coalition of mutineers and conspirators, Russian forces had a firm foothold in the territory of two out of three the enemy powers on its frontlines. Even the Provisional Government didn’t lose World War I. Despite creeping revolutionary degeneration, the Russian army held the frontlines waiting for the inevitable Entente victory that would have given Russia its rightful place among the victors.

It was the Bolsheviks who lost World War I. They disbanded the army and signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty that enabled the occupation of all of Western Russia and pushed our borders back to the 16th century. Ascribing the Bolsheviks’ defeat to the Tsar is as smart as it is cynical.

nicholas-ii-crimea

Nicholas II & family in Crimea. Colored by KraljAleksandar.

At no point in World War I was there even a remote prospect of Moscow or St. Petersburg getting captured. Before the Bolsheviks came, no one could imagine the Germans taking Kiev and advancing into the Crimea; to the contrary, Sevastopol was to be the staging ground for an invasion of Constantinople in 1917. Even the greatest debacle of the war, General Samsonov’s campaign in East Prussia, wasn’t in the same league as the Kiev encirclement, brought about by the unparalleled strategic genius of Comrade Stalin himself.

While one can debate over who was the true Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army in 1915-17, the Tsar or General Alexeyev, there is no doubt about the following. The Tsar understood that appointing the son of a cantonist to such a position would have been impossible in a deeply stratified Russian society, hence his decision to become a figurehead and let Alexeyev’s military talents flourish. The general repaid for this with a base ungratefulness, only to realize very soon that without a Tsar, the post of Commander-in-Chief would pass to a Subaltern Krylenko or a Comrade Trotsky.

Ditto for the Russo-Japanese war. It was a conflict of three Great Powers (Russia vs. Japan, instigated by Britain). Russia fought at a remote theater of war, considered to be of tertiary importance, and narrowly avoided a catastrophe thanks to the Trans-Siberian Railroad built by Alexander III and Nicholas II. It is a huge question how things would have turned out without the revolutionary backstab, given the huge Japanese casualties.

In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire. If the Red Army had faced any true Japanese resistance, those who had defeated Hitler would have also trounced Hirohito, but we would have paid thousands upon thousands lives for this geopolitical victory.

There is no doubt that shrewdly finding new allies and piggybacking on their achievements was a major effort of Stalinist diplomacy (generously paid for with Russian blood on the Eastern Front), but “winning the war” with Japan had nothing to do with it.

The Russian industrialization had been going on since the early 1890s (otherwise where did the working class that the Bolsheviks courted come from?), and Russia was one of the fastest growing economies on the planet.

Stalinist industrialization only appeared spectacular in the context of the devastation wrought upon Russia by Bolshevik dictatorship and Civil War. While Tsarist industrialisation operated by increasing the capital intensity of industry and accumulating labor-saving machinery, Stalinist “know-how” consisted of dropping the price of another industrial factor, that of labor, to near zero.

Hence the methods of compulsive labor in collective farms, exile settlements, and gulags reminiscent of serfdom or slavery. Conversely, the equipment was last-season at best, first American, unused during the Great Depression and bought with grain squeezed from the countryside (leading to a horrific famine), then German, taken as spoils of war.

Russia had its own military industries and was capable of building airplanes designed by Sikorsky (promptly kicked out of the country by the Bolsheviks) and especially battleships, which the Soviets failed to produce a single example of. In 1941, Leningrad’s main defences consisted of battleships and the Krasnaya Gorka fort, all built under Nicholas II. Likewise, Sevastopol fought back with coastal batteries designed under the Tsar, with Battery #35 equipped with gun carriages from the Poltava, another Tsarist battleship.

If not for the Tsar’s legacy, Leningrad would have fallen and Sevastopol wouldn’t have held for almost a year.

During the Great War, thanks to Nicholas II’s efforts, Russia quickly did away with ammunition shortage (common to all belligerent parties) and created armament reserves so vast that they, unfortunately, covered the Bolsheviks’ needs during the Civil War.

Conversely, the Soviet military industry during the pre-World War II years was in the doldrums. In spite of a huge overspending of human resources in era of “5-year plans”, as of 22nd June 1941, it depended… on its main adversary. To quote Alexey Isaev and Artem Drabkin[2], who can’t be suspected of anti-Stalinism:

The equipment and cutting-edge specimens of armaments bought from the Germans invigorated Soviet military industry. For example, the most mass-produced Red Army cannon, the famous “forty-fiver” was actually a Rheinmetall-Borsig AG artillery piece upgraded by Soviet constructors. The M-17 aviation engine was nothing more than a licenced BMW VI motor… German machinery was used to produce the most advanced Soviet medium tank, the T-34-76.

Nothing suggests that the military industry of a putative Imperial Russia in 1941 would have been weaker than that of the Soviet Union. Considering that its leading engineers wouldn’t have been exiled, it would have been quite the contrary: During their march to Moscow, Guderian’s tanks could have encountered Sikorsky helicopters armed with Zander-Korolev antitank missiles.

It is also uncertain whether German tanks would have even moved in the direction of Moscow at all. If not for the Red Scares, a party led by a deeply Russophobic Hitler would not have claimed power in 1933. German elites would probably have preferred more moderate revanchists leaning towards co-operation, not war with Russia.

If a World War II had broken out at all, it would have had entirely different provisions, and would not have been an all-devouring crusade of cannibals against Russia.

There is the conundrum: With each day of new research, it becomes more obvious that all technical, geopolitical, economic, or cultural achievements claimed by the Soviets to justify the the overthrow of monarchy and the Revolution would have been achieved to at least the same if not greater extent if the course of Russian history hadn’t been interrupted by a revolutionary catastrophe.

In addition, we would not have needed to pay for those achievements with the bloodbath of the Civil War, the separatism of the borderlands, the meat-grinder of the Red Terror and de-Cossackization, the dishonour of regicide (including the execution of a disabled teenager), the torture of priests and profanation of holy relics, the three waves of famine (1921-2, 1932-3, 1946-7), the extermination of the technical and artistic intelligentsia as would-be “wreckers” and “enemies of the people”. The poet Gumilyov, the engineer Palchinsky, the biologist Vavilov, the historian Lyubavsky[3], the military theorist Svechin and many others would have remained alive. Universal primary education would have been introduced 10 years earlier, and the GOELRO plan, based on Tsarist plans, would have been implemented 5 years ahead of the Soviet schedule.

In other words, from the viewpoint of national economic development, extreme revolutionary measures were entirely historically unjustifiable.

Just as the French Revolution derailed the country’s development and stymied it with the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars, the Russian Revolution was a bloodstained exercise in self-imposed hardships.

The monstrous mechanism of repression constructed by Stalin could barely reach the same results that the “decayed Tsarism” was in the course of achieving by itself, without murdering millions.

Compare and contrast the fate of the Trans-Siberian and Murmansk Railways, built under Tsarism without mass sacrifices, and Stalin’s Transpolar Mainline, which claimed the lives of thousands of zeks and was finally abandoned until it was revived under Putin.

The last frontier of Stalinism is held by the following argument: “Well, if your Tsar was so good and kind and responsible before the country, he was still forced to abdicate, while Stalin killed all who conspired against him and clung to power”.

Indeed, there isn’t much that can be argued here.

Comrade Stalin managed to suspect and murder everybody right, left, and center. That is how he remains in history, as a suspicious, cruel, and ruthless despot, concerned above all with the preservation of his own personal power. Even in his famous Victory Toast “to the great Russian people”, he didn’t thank the Russians for the victory in the war but praised them for not ousting a horrifically incompetent government for the sake of a peace with Germany and fighting the good fight until the very end.

This, however, was a lesson learned by the Russians after they saw the consequences of deposing the government in World War I. No one wanted to repeat that.

Nicholas II, born with a sense of his right to rule and an ensuing sense of responsibility, wasn’t willing to fight for his power at any cost. He wasn’t a Machiavellian schemer or executioner. During the entirety of his reign, fewer people were executed – even counting the sentences of expedited military tribunals at the height of 1905-06 revolutionary terror – than the weekly toll of the Stalinist death machine just in 1937-38.

The Great Terror of 1937, pace the Neo-Stalinist myth, was not a purge of the corrupt Leninist “Old Guard”. It was an extermination of former nobles, officers, peasants (“kulaks”), and members of opposition parties, while Communists were but a secondary target for this wave.

The Tsar didn’t ferret out treason in his inner circle, didn’t wage war against a press and a Liberal intelligentsia that smeared him 24/7, he didn’t “wack” Guchkov, Milyukov, or his other enemies in the “political tusovka.”

The Emperor was a man who was altogether normal – a good man at a personal level, competent in administration, pious in the Orthodox faith. He was convinced that if repression was useful at all, it was only so during limited periods of extreme emergencies, as opposed to anything permanent, and that the Russians deserved much better than being ruled with blood and terror.

That is the real secret behind today’s “vogue” for Nicholas II’s personality.

If Stalin is the image of an iron fist pushing our people over a field of blood towards superpowerhood, crushing the bones of enemies real and imaginary, then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.

In him, we see an image of how Russia could have developed over the 20th century had she not been misled by the glittering mirage of Revolution that turned out out to be false gold.

nicholas-ii-inspecting-vityaz-bomber

Nicholas II inspecting the Sikorsky Russky Vityaz, precursor to the world’s first heavy bomber.

Take a look at old photos of Nicholas II. Climbing onto a Sikorsky airplane, and talking with its constructor. Trying on the uniform of a Russian infantryman. Playing with his heir on the beach. Walking through the vineyards of Danylivka with the Ayu-Dag mountain in the background. The affection that many feel for these photos is an expression of a simple dream, a dream of a ruler who would not be a torturer, a tyrant, or a paranoid mass murderer, but just a good man.

A dream of a Russia worthy of a ruler with a human face.

For this normal, non-cannibalistic ruler to preside over Russia’s normal, non-catastrophic development without being destroyed by his enemies, the nation and society itself needs to be imbued with the will for a non-revolutionary, non-extreme course of development.

That was exactly what Nicholas II didn’t have enough of, not determination or cruelty.

For the entirety of his reign, the so-called “public opinion” waged an information and political war of extermination against the Emperor. This narrow but influence slice of society flat out refused any other option for the country’s development save for Revolution. And it ended up paying its mite to what it unleashed: Most of this society was exiled, executed, sent to camps, or otherwise smothered by a regime whose emergence was completely unexpected by these “freedom fighters.”

Many years ago, the legal and moral structure in European Christian societies formed under the influence of the Gospel narrative of Jesus Christ’s judgement and crucifixion. The basis of the European justice system was preventing a repetition of His unlawful conviction (even if perhaps more as an ideal than a reality – e.g., see the case of Joan of Arc).

I believe that the modern Russian political psyche is turning towards the following assumption: If we have another kind-hearted, misunderstood, non-cruel, and non-paranoid ruler, we should avoid his demonization and overthrow, as well as all ensuing horrors, at any cost. Avoid another plunge into a Revolution and build anti-revolutionary safeguards based on prudence and self-restraint, not on cruelty and murder. Let Russia develop normally for as long as possible, instead of cannibalizing itself again.

…The girl is standing on the doorstep of a beautiful house with a portrait of Nicholas II. She already knows that he was a simple, handsome man walking through these gardens. Perhaps she also knows that he is a saint, recognized as such for his martyr’s death together with his family. She will grow up thinking that power over Russia belongs not to a “God on Earth” or a “Great Dictator” but to a man, a sinner in some matters, but a saint in what really matters.

***

Footnotes

[1] An expression from Osip Mandelstam’s (1891 – 1938) so-called Stalin Epigram (1933).

[2] Contemporary Russian historians of World War II with strong pro-Soviet/Neo-Stalinist leanings.

[3] Matvey Lyubavsky (1860 – 1936), major scholar of Medieval and Early Modern Russian history, Rector of Moscow University 1911-17, was arrested in 1930 and sentenced in 1931 to 5 years of exile.

 
Hide 335 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Mikhail says: • Website

    Robert Massie’s book on Russia’s last czar is a very good read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. AP says:

    So our comments about Nicholas II anticipated this very nice post. :-)

    The usual Sovoks will be triggered, of course.

    My great-grandfather saw him up close when Nicholas visited in Lviv in 1915. Nicholas produced a very strong and positive impression, according to my grandmother. I have a gold coin in perfect condition from that time, with his face on it.

    Overall a decent man, who made a few terrible mistakes that rendered all of his good works meaningless. Failure to stop this war (IIRC he was personally opposed or very reluctant, but went along), on the side of the regicidal Serbian government, ironically ended in his own death at the hands of monsters and completely derailed Russia’s fate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Except that the Serbian government wasn't regicidal at all. The "Mlada Bosna" folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government. Apis was convicted of high treason and executed in 1917.
    The real warmongers were in Vienna not in Belgrade. Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn't want to accept anything but total submission, which was unacceptable to a country that deemed itself sovereign. A repeat of that ultimatum happened in Rambouillet in 1999.
    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 and Franz-Ferdinand found it appropriate to demonstrate his power by visting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on June 28th, 1914. That's not really bow you win the hearts and minds
    History by rabid germanophiles and Westerners who think they're God's gift to the Mankind and that everyone should kneel before them and kiss their feet is as much bullshit as History by zionists or communists.
    Just for info, a great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander. They had to flee again when communists took over Yugoslavia, and many ended up in France, where I met quite a few of their descendants during the 1990s as they were willing to bring whatever assistance they could to Serbs as a sign of gratitude for having been given refuge seventy years earlier. But that of course is incomprehensible to people who have the memory of a goldfish and who bend History to make it fit their own prejudice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. melanf says:

    Really shameful article. I’m not a fan of the Bolsheviks at all, but the good thing they did – they executed Nicholas. What deserves to be condemned – that he was shot. Nicholas by his shameful rule deserved the gallows.
    Тhough not the Bolsheviks were to judge and hang Nicholas, but the monarchists-for the fact that he in his heinous rule destroyed the country and discredited the monarchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Absolutely wrong. You’ve been reading too many communist histories.
    , @Seraphim
    You are a fan of Bolshies, whatever your standard denials (I am not a..., but...). You are a fan of all haters of Russia. I wonder why you didn't bring Rasputin in.
    , @Alden
    Nicholas was fine. It would have taken an Ivan The Terrible or Genghis Khan to deal with the revolutionaries and the Rockefeller money that paid the mobs.

    Russia in 1917 was the fourth industrial power of the world, behind USA Britain Germany then Russia.

    3 years later one of the breadbaskets of the world couldn’t even feed itself or keep the existing (Czarist capitalist) gas and coal infrastructure going to keep warm in the winter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. utu says:

    Great article. Restores hope in humanity. Thank you Mr. Kholmogorov for writing it and Mr. Karlin for making it available in English.

    Read More
    • Agree: ussr andy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. melanf says:

    The Tsar didn’t ferret out treason in his inner circle, didn’t wage war against a press and a Liberal intelligentsia that smeared him 24/7, he didn’t “wack” Guchkov, Milyukov, or his other enemies in the “political tusovka.”

    There’s nothing good about it. For a ruler, weakness and cowardice are the worst of vices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I entirely agree. Nicolashka may have been a decent fella at heart, but thoroughly unfit to lead. Most of us could have done a better job running the country.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative), but having Nicolashka as your mascot would be self-discrediting for any movement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. melanf says:

    t no point in World War I was there even a remote prospect of Moscow or St. Petersburg getting captured. Before the Bolsheviks came, no one could imagine the Germans taking Kiev and advancing into the Crimea; to the contrary, Sevastopol was to be the staging ground for an invasion of Constantinople in 1917. Even the greatest debacle of the war, General Samsonov’s campaign in East Prussia, wasn’t in the same league as the Kiev encirclement, brought about by the unparalleled strategic genius of Comrade Stalin himself.

    What a brazen manipulation. In 1917 the war lasted 4 years and the Russian army continued to lose hopelessly to the German troops (despite the fact that the best German forces were on the Western front). So let’s compare 1941+4=1945. That’s the difference

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    In 1917 the war lasted 4 years
     
    My math tells me that 1917-1914=3. Anyway, comparing WWI, when armies had to march on their two feet (or on horseback,) to the highly mobile WWII with its tanks and airplanes makes no sense.
    , @Alden
    Wasn’t Stalin draft dodging, robbing banks and murdering local officials during the war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. melanf says:

    then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.

    Disgusting and stupid lies. The reign of this scum ended in disaster (entirely – the fault of Nicholas). Shamefully lost wars, rampant terror and the revolution of 1905 – this can not be considered a “normal” rule.

    A model example of a “normal, non-catastrophic historical development” – Catherine the Great. Peter The great is a model example of how to achieve “normal, non-catastrophic historical development” in the conditions of severe crisis. And Nicholas is an example of how stupid and cowardly scum can ruin everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    No Sovok button.
    , @inertial
    Nicholas was a fine ruler. Russia achieved a lot during his reign and at least part of the credit has to go to the man on top. His biggest mistake was entering WWI in the first place, but even in that war he didn't do such a bad job, considering what he had to work with.

    Yes, at that particular moment in 1917 Russia might have been better off with a czar who was a bloodthirsty maniac - e.g. someone like Peter the Great (whose "severe crisis" was entirely of his own creation.) But the point is, do you want such men to rule Russia as a matter of course? Do you want someone like that to be in charge now?
    , @Epigon
    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some "progressive" monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.
    , @Anonymous
    Look at his family. None of them too bright. His direct cousins Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V of England. Three grandson's of Queen Victoria. One of his cousins became queen of Spain, another Queen of Romania. And so it goes, a regular soap opera of history.
    He may have had more power than Wilhelm and George, I can't say.
    Tragic he had to be Tsar, and could not do something he was capable of.
    Imagine present day Prince Charles as King with real power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I do not share this strange new respect for Nicolas II. The man was born into incredible wealth and priviledge, and he lost it all through his own stupidity and weakness. He was like the biggest loser in history!

    Kholmogorov writes that “the Emperor” wasn’t willing to fight for power at any cost. He considers it virtue. Well, neither did president Yanukovich. I actually see similarities between Nicolashka and Yanukovich in terms of their leadership qualities. Except that Yanukovich was arguably a more formidable individual, as he wasn’t originally born into wealth and power, but somehow acquired it over time. lol

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf, Dmitry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. utu says:
    @melanf

    then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.
     
    Disgusting and stupid lies. The reign of this scum ended in disaster (entirely - the fault of Nicholas). Shamefully lost wars, rampant terror and the revolution of 1905 - this can not be considered a "normal" rule.

    A model example of a "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" - Catherine the Great. Peter The great is a model example of how to achieve "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" in the conditions of severe crisis. And Nicholas is an example of how stupid and cowardly scum can ruin everything.

    No Sovok button.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @melanf

    The Tsar didn’t ferret out treason in his inner circle, didn’t wage war against a press and a Liberal intelligentsia that smeared him 24/7, he didn’t “wack” Guchkov, Milyukov, or his other enemies in the “political tusovka.”
     
    There's nothing good about it. For a ruler, weakness and cowardice are the worst of vices.

    I entirely agree. Nicolashka may have been a decent fella at heart, but thoroughly unfit to lead. Most of us could have done a better job running the country.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative), but having Nicolashka as your mascot would be self-discrediting for any movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Nicholas has some parallels to Louis XVI. Both were fundamentally decent human beings utterly unsuited to handling the existential crises they faced.

    Louis, like Nicholas, was unwilling to kill large numbers of his people if that was what was necessary to stay in power. This can be called principle or squeamishness.

    But it doomed their peoples to decades of nightmare.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    My own views are sooner closest to yours, Felix.

    That said, here's one thing to consider. The Russian Empire was shamelessly smeared by the joint efforts of Communists and liberals throughout the 20th century, to the extent that the general picture of it that dominates today's discourse, as a land of "icons and cockroaches," "prison of nations," etc., might as well belong to a parallel reality. This is like if the liberals were to hypothetically take over Russia, and establish a dictatorship where everything that the Western media wrote about Putin's Russia would be taught as gospel for the next 70 years. How much connection to reality would this have?

    This is why I am skeptical about assigning too much blame to Nicky. I have not studied his biography in great detail, but based on what I have learned over the years on the chasm between myth and reality in the Russian Empire - in a sort of parallel to Ron Unz's "American Pravda" experience - I will be extremely surprised if he had somehow avoided the same process, as the prime representative of said Russian Empire.
    , @Dmitry

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative),

     

    He is on a political spectrum some kind of democratic nationalist and imperialist, but I think the main feature of his viewpoint is post-modernism.

    His interest is all about images, symbols, ideology, appearances, etc, mixed with crazy statements. Kind of the inversion of Karlin's blogging.

    He is a cultured and entertaining guy though. He wrote a good literary post few weeks ago on facebook about the beauty of the World Cup as a way to explore the host cities. (Impossible to find it now though, because he posts so much on facebook pushes all his old posts to the bottom every day).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Logan says:
    @Felix Keverich
    I entirely agree. Nicolashka may have been a decent fella at heart, but thoroughly unfit to lead. Most of us could have done a better job running the country.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative), but having Nicolashka as your mascot would be self-discrediting for any movement.

    Nicholas has some parallels to Louis XVI. Both were fundamentally decent human beings utterly unsuited to handling the existential crises they faced.

    Louis, like Nicholas, was unwilling to kill large numbers of his people if that was what was necessary to stay in power. This can be called principle or squeamishness.

    But it doomed their peoples to decades of nightmare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves ("forbidden" literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.

    France of course fared better because restoration happened much quicker than in Russia, was much less bloody, didn't saddle it with a doomed economic system, etc.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Nicholas II comes off as considerably worse.

    He in fact asked Grand Duke Nicholas to use the army to suppress the Revolution of 1905.

    Grand Duke Nicholas refused and threatened to shoot himself on the spot, after which Nicholas II consented to Witte's reforms instead.

    So Nicholas II was willing to shed blood to preserve the autocracy, but was unwilling to lead the effort himself. Probably because he was an idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Felix Keverich
    I entirely agree. Nicolashka may have been a decent fella at heart, but thoroughly unfit to lead. Most of us could have done a better job running the country.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative), but having Nicolashka as your mascot would be self-discrediting for any movement.

    My own views are sooner closest to yours, Felix.

    That said, here’s one thing to consider. The Russian Empire was shamelessly smeared by the joint efforts of Communists and liberals throughout the 20th century, to the extent that the general picture of it that dominates today’s discourse, as a land of “icons and cockroaches,” “prison of nations,” etc., might as well belong to a parallel reality. This is like if the liberals were to hypothetically take over Russia, and establish a dictatorship where everything that the Western media wrote about Putin’s Russia would be taught as gospel for the next 70 years. How much connection to reality would this have?

    This is why I am skeptical about assigning too much blame to Nicky. I have not studied his biography in great detail, but based on what I have learned over the years on the chasm between myth and reality in the Russian Empire – in a sort of parallel to Ron Unz’s “American Pravda” experience – I will be extremely surprised if he had somehow avoided the same process, as the prime representative of said Russian Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The cultural, economic, technological flourishing in this era is a golden age. To be honest this is not just in Russia, but across Europe - but especially in Russia, a golden age.

    At the same time, the political leadership is incompetent to unparalleled extent, crashes from one self-created crisis, to another self-created crisis - as can be read in any contemporary observers. These contemporary observers were underestimating its incompetence as well, as history sadly proved.

    Kholmogorov is mixing together different topics in a muddle-head, and relating this in a literary way to how we perceive this photo of Nicholas II.

    Anything Kholmogorov writes is still going to be better than 99% of content on Unz, excluding a certain blog. But this article, I find incompetent and muddle-headed, and feels the purpose is to reach this conclusion is emotionally to prepare us for a "weak leader", or return of President.Medvedev.

    , @inertial
    Russian Empire was certainly shamelessly smeared, it's true. But it's also true that it was far poorer than Soviet Russia (which you always, ahem, "shamelessly smear".)

    Here is a chart put together by the BBC based on the 2017 paper by Piketty et al. For those who don't read Russian: the chart shows mean per capita income in Russia as percentage of the Western European one (defined as the average of German, French, and British incomes.)

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/3E07/production/_97497851_euro.jpg

    - During the Tsarist period Russian relative income was under 40% of the European one. This ratio didn't budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn't continue like that indefinitely.

    - In the early Soviet years the relative income continued to be about where it was under Tsars. The aftermath of WWI, Civil War, and the Commie repression was destructive but apparently not all that much more so than the income plunge in Western Europe.

    - In the 1930s Soviet relative income takes off. Part of it is an artifact of Great Depression when the European incomes nosedived. But another part was a genuine improvement in Russian living standards. This is not something you hear often nowadays, yet I know it to be true (including from talking to people who were alive during that period.) The Soviets crushed the rich and the middle class but they did a lot to raise the poor. And the life in the 1930 really became "better and merrier" (as Stalin put it) for many people.

    The last point can explain a few things about the Soviet history. For example, Stalin's cult of personality. He was genuinely popular because people credited him with improving their lives. Or another puzzle - why, if the Commies were so bad, the Soviet people fought so loyally in WWII? One factor was a rapid improvement in their living standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Logan
    Nicholas has some parallels to Louis XVI. Both were fundamentally decent human beings utterly unsuited to handling the existential crises they faced.

    Louis, like Nicholas, was unwilling to kill large numbers of his people if that was what was necessary to stay in power. This can be called principle or squeamishness.

    But it doomed their peoples to decades of nightmare.

    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves (“forbidden” literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.

    France of course fared better because restoration happened much quicker than in Russia, was much less bloody, didn’t saddle it with a doomed economic system, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Western descriptions of Russia have always consisted of a few competing 'parallel universes'. There is a conscious effort to project all bad stuff on Russia (and the east of West in general). Since there is a lot of bad stuff, there is a lot to project.

    Where else than Russia could they do it? Germany has been tamed, other easterners are too small, and of course anyone with 'colour' is taboo. So happily they project all evil on Russia. Some of it is even true.
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves (“forbidden” literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.
     
    Stanley Loomis, in his excellent book on the French Revolution, Paris in the Terror (1964), wrote:

    Pre-Revolutionary France had presented the curious spectacle of a people technically at the mercy of medieval monarchic law enjoying freedom in a way that would not for an instant be tolerated by many of today's republican societies, where conformity of idea as well as manner is often considered to be the ideal. ...

    It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have a revolution - not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. These were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.
     

    It has often seemed to me that the same could have been said of pre-revolutionary Russia. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was not a very effective autocrat. Had Nicholas I ruled Russia in 1914 rather than Nicholas II, and had Louis XIV ruled France in 1789 rather than Louis XVI, it is hard to imagine that they would have allowed the development of the circumstances that led to revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Mitleser says:

    I would have preferred an article about the Czar of Peace, Nikolai’s father, Alexander III.

    Or Nikolai’s superior brother, Georgi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ivan
    So write your own, and get Mr Unz to publish it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. iffen says:

    Paradoxically, Stalin is loved not so much for his achievements as for his methods:

    This is pure erroneous propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Nope. Look no further than this very comment section for people clamouring that Nicholas II should have pulled a Stalin and used repression or mass murder to stay in power.

    In the minds of Neo-Stalinists, this image of a weak and spineless “doormat Tsar” («царь-тряпка») is combined with the “Nicholas the Bloody” of Soviet textbooks, because postmodernism is a bitch and knows no bounds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. iffen says:

    In him, we see an image of how Russia could have developed over the 20th century had she not been misled

    So why didn’t Russia follow the rest of Europe into social democracy? Any blame for the monarchists for Russia not choosing that path?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Selvar says:

    Russia may not have lost WW1 in a purely military sense, but the social, economic, and military breakdown the war was causing was simply politically unsustainable. The Bolsheviks did not “conspire” to pull Russia out of WW1–they openly ran on ending the war and that was arguably the most popular part of their political program (it certainly wasn’t the famines and farm collectivization). The provisional government lost popular support precisely because they refused to end the war. I know Russian nationalists want to imagine that if only the country had held together a few more months, it could have joined the allies in victory. But that’s the rub, isn’t it? It *couldn’t* hold on . The nation was exhausted, like a marathon runner who collapses dead right before the finish line.

    And yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that it would have taken a Stalin or an Ivan the Terrible for Russia to win that war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @iffen
    Paradoxically, Stalin is loved not so much for his achievements as for his methods:


    This is pure erroneous propaganda.

    Nope. Look no further than this very comment section for people clamouring that Nicholas II should have pulled a Stalin and used repression or mass murder to stay in power.

    In the minds of Neo-Stalinists, this image of a weak and spineless “doormat Tsar” («царь-тряпка») is combined with the “Nicholas the Bloody” of Soviet textbooks, because postmodernism is a bitch and knows no bounds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Look no further than this very comment section

    I count only two, and this will be a minority view, if not in this thread, then at large. Many will make excuses for terror, but only a few will demand that it is the "best" or preferred option.

    You blame the Bolsheviks for using terror to seize power, but the salient feature of politics and revolution is that the actions and behavior of the ruling elite determines the reaction of the people.

    "Give them an inch and they will take a mile," should be adapted to: "Give them a few inches and you are set for another generation."

    He was a monarch with power and he lost it, by definition a failed monarch.

    , @iffen
    Apparently some people think that certain ideas pushed by elites and their lackeys for time immemorial are not recognizable. Namely, run the country into the ground then blame it on the vatniks. This doesn’t always fly because some vatniks know how to read.
    , @iffen
    One last thing:

    Sovoks win – they stay. Svidomy win


    That violence (terror) is the ultimate arbitrator is explicit here.


    Who? Whom?

    Indeed!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. iffen says:
    @Fluctuarius
    Nope. Look no further than this very comment section for people clamouring that Nicholas II should have pulled a Stalin and used repression or mass murder to stay in power.

    In the minds of Neo-Stalinists, this image of a weak and spineless “doormat Tsar” («царь-тряпка») is combined with the “Nicholas the Bloody” of Soviet textbooks, because postmodernism is a bitch and knows no bounds.

    Look no further than this very comment section

    I count only two, and this will be a minority view, if not in this thread, then at large. Many will make excuses for terror, but only a few will demand that it is the “best” or preferred option.

    You blame the Bolsheviks for using terror to seize power, but the salient feature of politics and revolution is that the actions and behavior of the ruling elite determines the reaction of the people.

    “Give them an inch and they will take a mile,” should be adapted to: “Give them a few inches and you are set for another generation.”

    He was a monarch with power and he lost it, by definition a failed monarch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. iffen says:
    @Fluctuarius
    Nope. Look no further than this very comment section for people clamouring that Nicholas II should have pulled a Stalin and used repression or mass murder to stay in power.

    In the minds of Neo-Stalinists, this image of a weak and spineless “doormat Tsar” («царь-тряпка») is combined with the “Nicholas the Bloody” of Soviet textbooks, because postmodernism is a bitch and knows no bounds.

    Apparently some people think that certain ideas pushed by elites and their lackeys for time immemorial are not recognizable. Namely, run the country into the ground then blame it on the vatniks. This doesn’t always fly because some vatniks know how to read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. iffen says:
    @Fluctuarius
    Nope. Look no further than this very comment section for people clamouring that Nicholas II should have pulled a Stalin and used repression or mass murder to stay in power.

    In the minds of Neo-Stalinists, this image of a weak and spineless “doormat Tsar” («царь-тряпка») is combined with the “Nicholas the Bloody” of Soviet textbooks, because postmodernism is a bitch and knows no bounds.

    One last thing:

    Sovoks win – they stay. Svidomy win

    That violence (terror) is the ultimate arbitrator is explicit here.

    Who? Whom?

    Indeed!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Mr. Hack says:

    I just don’t get it? Unless the tranhumanists have the good czar’s body stashed away on ice somewhere, or at least a few of his cells also frozen away in some test tube repository, he aint coming back. And trying to transfer the czar’s ‘charisma’ onto the current leader, well, would be the height of folly, no matter how high his polling popularity makes him out to be. The era of Hollywood putting out films where a lost daughter or some other heir apparent is located, also seems like a thing of the past. Karlin, monarchy like your Triune theory are things of the past, devoid of any real meaning for the future. No amount of nostalgia will bring these things back, let them R.I.P…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Marcus says:

    Too optimistic, the dearly-bought success of the Brusilov Offensive was a distant memory by mid 1917, and it also precipitated the entry of Romania in the war, which extended the frontline all the way to the Black Sea; the Germans were in Riga before the October Revolution iirc. Also the perception that a bizarre mystic was running the show while Nick was away at the front didn’t exactly shore up the people’s faith in the government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    The bizarre mystic seems to have been an ardent opponent of the pro-british policies that brought Russia on the brink of disaster and a few steps further.

    If we aim to appraise the era, we have to cut through a jungle of British and bolshevik propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. inertial says:
    @melanf

    then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.
     
    Disgusting and stupid lies. The reign of this scum ended in disaster (entirely - the fault of Nicholas). Shamefully lost wars, rampant terror and the revolution of 1905 - this can not be considered a "normal" rule.

    A model example of a "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" - Catherine the Great. Peter The great is a model example of how to achieve "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" in the conditions of severe crisis. And Nicholas is an example of how stupid and cowardly scum can ruin everything.

    Nicholas was a fine ruler. Russia achieved a lot during his reign and at least part of the credit has to go to the man on top. His biggest mistake was entering WWI in the first place, but even in that war he didn’t do such a bad job, considering what he had to work with.

    Yes, at that particular moment in 1917 Russia might have been better off with a czar who was a bloodthirsty maniac – e.g. someone like Peter the Great (whose “severe crisis” was entirely of his own creation.) But the point is, do you want such men to rule Russia as a matter of course? Do you want someone like that to be in charge now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Nicholas was a fine ruler
     
    Champion League of idiocy

    czar who was a bloodthirsty maniac – e.g. someone like Peter the Great (whose “severe crisis” was entirely of his own creation.)
     
    So that Peter had arranged the Streltsy revolt of 1682? Or the split of the Orthodox Church?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Nicholas II, born with a sense of his right to rule and an ensuing sense of responsibility, wasn’t willing to fight for his power at any cost. He wasn’t a Machiavellian schemer or executioner. During the entirety of his reign, fewer people were executed – even counting the sentences of expedited military tribunals at the height of 1905-06 revolutionary terror – than the weekly toll of the Stalinist death machine just in 1937-38.

    All of the late kings, even the ones who didn’t flat out turn into democratic liberals, were all basically candy asses.

    Hence why they mostly got their heads cut off or shot in the basement (except for the ones that turned into liberals and went along with it, Spanish and English come to mind) along with all their family.

    Earlier kings put rebellions down by dismembering people, sticking their bits on sticks and using it decorate the market place. These people remained king and didn’t get their whole family killed with virtue signalling.

    This hypothesis, that these nepot fops (who were not like their great-grandfathers) basically abdicated their core responsibilities and that is why they were deposed, is validated by looking at who eventually replaced all of them (with some absolute chaos, civil war and mass bloodshed being transitional in some places). The last Bourbon, who did not act like the first Bourbon, was ultimately after the Terror replaced by Napoleon, who shows with his “whiff of grape” that he was more like the first Bourbons than the last Bourbons were when it came to dealing with the mob.

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.

    Hohenzollern marched his forces off the field before he had a deal inked, merely assumed he would be treated fairly by his enemies, ultimately accepted the treaty at Versailles instead of restarting the war to fight for more favorable surrender conditions. Thus Hitler.

    Romanov gets replaced by Lenin and Stalin who were blatantly willing to slaughter as many people as it took, and were thus successful.

    It was their decency that did them in. What would that nut Ivan have done to Lenin? The #1 job of the old kings was to protect their throne of power from ambitious nut usurpers and revolutionaries at all costs, who were willing to destroy their countries in order for themselves to climb the social ladder. Should have used more pikes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.
     
    Charles I had people whipped and their ears cut off for writing presbyterian pamphlets. I don't see how James was any more severe than him, or what measures Charles was too soft to take that would have prevented the Civil War.
    , @Anon
    The last Bourbon was Charles 10 overthrown in 1830 by the Duke of Orleans

    The Bourbon overthrown in 1790 was Charles brother.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My own views are sooner closest to yours, Felix.

    That said, here's one thing to consider. The Russian Empire was shamelessly smeared by the joint efforts of Communists and liberals throughout the 20th century, to the extent that the general picture of it that dominates today's discourse, as a land of "icons and cockroaches," "prison of nations," etc., might as well belong to a parallel reality. This is like if the liberals were to hypothetically take over Russia, and establish a dictatorship where everything that the Western media wrote about Putin's Russia would be taught as gospel for the next 70 years. How much connection to reality would this have?

    This is why I am skeptical about assigning too much blame to Nicky. I have not studied his biography in great detail, but based on what I have learned over the years on the chasm between myth and reality in the Russian Empire - in a sort of parallel to Ron Unz's "American Pravda" experience - I will be extremely surprised if he had somehow avoided the same process, as the prime representative of said Russian Empire.

    The cultural, economic, technological flourishing in this era is a golden age. To be honest this is not just in Russia, but across Europe – but especially in Russia, a golden age.

    At the same time, the political leadership is incompetent to unparalleled extent, crashes from one self-created crisis, to another self-created crisis – as can be read in any contemporary observers. These contemporary observers were underestimating its incompetence as well, as history sadly proved.

    Kholmogorov is mixing together different topics in a muddle-head, and relating this in a literary way to how we perceive this photo of Nicholas II.

    Anything Kholmogorov writes is still going to be better than 99% of content on Unz, excluding a certain blog. But this article, I find incompetent and muddle-headed, and feels the purpose is to reach this conclusion is emotionally to prepare us for a “weak leader”, or return of President.Medvedev.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. DFH says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Nicholas II, born with a sense of his right to rule and an ensuing sense of responsibility, wasn’t willing to fight for his power at any cost. He wasn’t a Machiavellian schemer or executioner. During the entirety of his reign, fewer people were executed – even counting the sentences of expedited military tribunals at the height of 1905-06 revolutionary terror – than the weekly toll of the Stalinist death machine just in 1937-38.
     
    All of the late kings, even the ones who didn't flat out turn into democratic liberals, were all basically candy asses.

    Hence why they mostly got their heads cut off or shot in the basement (except for the ones that turned into liberals and went along with it, Spanish and English come to mind) along with all their family.

    Earlier kings put rebellions down by dismembering people, sticking their bits on sticks and using it decorate the market place. These people remained king and didn't get their whole family killed with virtue signalling.

    This hypothesis, that these nepot fops (who were not like their great-grandfathers) basically abdicated their core responsibilities and that is why they were deposed, is validated by looking at who eventually replaced all of them (with some absolute chaos, civil war and mass bloodshed being transitional in some places). The last Bourbon, who did not act like the first Bourbon, was ultimately after the Terror replaced by Napoleon, who shows with his "whiff of grape" that he was more like the first Bourbons than the last Bourbons were when it came to dealing with the mob.

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.

    Hohenzollern marched his forces off the field before he had a deal inked, merely assumed he would be treated fairly by his enemies, ultimately accepted the treaty at Versailles instead of restarting the war to fight for more favorable surrender conditions. Thus Hitler.

    Romanov gets replaced by Lenin and Stalin who were blatantly willing to slaughter as many people as it took, and were thus successful.

    It was their decency that did them in. What would that nut Ivan have done to Lenin? The #1 job of the old kings was to protect their throne of power from ambitious nut usurpers and revolutionaries at all costs, who were willing to destroy their countries in order for themselves to climb the social ladder. Should have used more pikes.

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.

    Charles I had people whipped and their ears cut off for writing presbyterian pamphlets. I don’t see how James was any more severe than him, or what measures Charles was too soft to take that would have prevented the Civil War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    There are many ways Charles could have handled things more aggressively and more competently. His whole fight with Parliament was a string of half measures that never worked. Maybe James is not the model for competence in government either, although he did handle the gunpowder plot effectively, but the rot was probably already baked into the dynasty even then.

    Mind you I am not saying Charles could have prevented the civil war. I'm saying he could have won it if he had started it instead of putzing around looking incompetent. I think by the time the civil war started his family had fled the country and half his advisers and supporters had already fled or been executed by parliamentarians, and the war was still started by the parliamentarians at which point Charles mainly ran around retreating from places. He did not go after the parliamentarians or the dissenters with half the bloodlust they went after him and his.
    , @anony-mouse
    Charles I started the Civil War by raising his standard at Nottingham. OTOH unlike Nicholas II he made absolutely sure his family was safe no matter what happened to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    My own views are sooner closest to yours, Felix.

    That said, here's one thing to consider. The Russian Empire was shamelessly smeared by the joint efforts of Communists and liberals throughout the 20th century, to the extent that the general picture of it that dominates today's discourse, as a land of "icons and cockroaches," "prison of nations," etc., might as well belong to a parallel reality. This is like if the liberals were to hypothetically take over Russia, and establish a dictatorship where everything that the Western media wrote about Putin's Russia would be taught as gospel for the next 70 years. How much connection to reality would this have?

    This is why I am skeptical about assigning too much blame to Nicky. I have not studied his biography in great detail, but based on what I have learned over the years on the chasm between myth and reality in the Russian Empire - in a sort of parallel to Ron Unz's "American Pravda" experience - I will be extremely surprised if he had somehow avoided the same process, as the prime representative of said Russian Empire.

    Russian Empire was certainly shamelessly smeared, it’s true. But it’s also true that it was far poorer than Soviet Russia (which you always, ahem, “shamelessly smear”.)

    Here is a chart put together by the BBC based on the 2017 paper by Piketty et al. For those who don’t read Russian: the chart shows mean per capita income in Russia as percentage of the Western European one (defined as the average of German, French, and British incomes.)

    - During the Tsarist period Russian relative income was under 40% of the European one. This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely.

    - In the early Soviet years the relative income continued to be about where it was under Tsars. The aftermath of WWI, Civil War, and the Commie repression was destructive but apparently not all that much more so than the income plunge in Western Europe.

    - In the 1930s Soviet relative income takes off. Part of it is an artifact of Great Depression when the European incomes nosedived. But another part was a genuine improvement in Russian living standards. This is not something you hear often nowadays, yet I know it to be true (including from talking to people who were alive during that period.) The Soviets crushed the rich and the middle class but they did a lot to raise the poor. And the life in the 1930 really became “better and merrier” (as Stalin put it) for many people.

    The last point can explain a few things about the Soviet history. For example, Stalin’s cult of personality. He was genuinely popular because people credited him with improving their lives. Or another puzzle – why, if the Commies were so bad, the Soviet people fought so loyally in WWII? One factor was a rapid improvement in their living standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    1. First off, I don't know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison's data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7bHL2UAAAj0Ju.png

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. "This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely."

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can't even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning - the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.
    , @inertial
    A few more observations about that chart.

    - After WWII the Commie promised to catch up to and overtake the West. They never managed to do it. However, they kept pace. You know Les Trente Glorieuses, the 30 glorious pot-war years when economic growth was so rapid? Well, it was just as rapid in the USSR! In retrospect, that's pretty amazing.

    - Soviet people were used to decades of rapid growth in the living standards. When it slowed down in the late 70s they grew unhappy. Compare and contrast to today, whether in Russia or in the West.

    - After Perestroika, Russian relative income plummeted to nearly Tsarist levels; but then, under Putin, they recovered to about the highest Soviet peak. Obviously, the Russians had never lived so well before. But we have to keep in mind that these are averages. As shown in the same paper, inequality grew exponentially in the post-Soviet period, which means that there are many people who are still below their Soviet level of consumption. I don't like when some young punks bash those people for their pro-Soviet views.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Communist Russia GDP 2/3rds that of Western Europe. LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Dmitry says:

    If we have another kind-hearted, misunderstood, non-cruel, and non-paranoid ruler, we should avoid his demonization and overthrow, as well as all ensuing horrors, at any cost. Avoid another plunge into a Revolution and build anti-revolutionary safeguards based on prudence and self-restraint, not on cruelty and murder. Let Russia develop normally for as long as possible, instead of cannibalizing itself again.

    Lol why do I feel purpose of Kholmogorov’s article is trying to emotionally prepare us for return of e.g. President Medvedev, or even writing futuristically asking people to be polite and patient, and not over-throw future weak leaders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @DFH

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.
     
    Charles I had people whipped and their ears cut off for writing presbyterian pamphlets. I don't see how James was any more severe than him, or what measures Charles was too soft to take that would have prevented the Civil War.

    There are many ways Charles could have handled things more aggressively and more competently. His whole fight with Parliament was a string of half measures that never worked. Maybe James is not the model for competence in government either, although he did handle the gunpowder plot effectively, but the rot was probably already baked into the dynasty even then.

    Mind you I am not saying Charles could have prevented the civil war. I’m saying he could have won it if he had started it instead of putzing around looking incompetent. I think by the time the civil war started his family had fled the country and half his advisers and supporters had already fled or been executed by parliamentarians, and the war was still started by the parliamentarians at which point Charles mainly ran around retreating from places. He did not go after the parliamentarians or the dissenters with half the bloodlust they went after him and his.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    I entirely agree. Nicolashka may have been a decent fella at heart, but thoroughly unfit to lead. Most of us could have done a better job running the country.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative), but having Nicolashka as your mascot would be self-discrediting for any movement.

    Not sure, where the author stands on the Russian political spectrum (monarchist, nationalist or a conservative),

    He is on a political spectrum some kind of democratic nationalist and imperialist, but I think the main feature of his viewpoint is post-modernism.

    His interest is all about images, symbols, ideology, appearances, etc, mixed with crazy statements. Kind of the inversion of Karlin’s blogging.

    He is a cultured and entertaining guy though. He wrote a good literary post few weeks ago on facebook about the beauty of the World Cup as a way to explore the host cities. (Impossible to find it now though, because he posts so much on facebook pushes all his old posts to the bottom every day).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @inertial
    Russian Empire was certainly shamelessly smeared, it's true. But it's also true that it was far poorer than Soviet Russia (which you always, ahem, "shamelessly smear".)

    Here is a chart put together by the BBC based on the 2017 paper by Piketty et al. For those who don't read Russian: the chart shows mean per capita income in Russia as percentage of the Western European one (defined as the average of German, French, and British incomes.)

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/3E07/production/_97497851_euro.jpg

    - During the Tsarist period Russian relative income was under 40% of the European one. This ratio didn't budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn't continue like that indefinitely.

    - In the early Soviet years the relative income continued to be about where it was under Tsars. The aftermath of WWI, Civil War, and the Commie repression was destructive but apparently not all that much more so than the income plunge in Western Europe.

    - In the 1930s Soviet relative income takes off. Part of it is an artifact of Great Depression when the European incomes nosedived. But another part was a genuine improvement in Russian living standards. This is not something you hear often nowadays, yet I know it to be true (including from talking to people who were alive during that period.) The Soviets crushed the rich and the middle class but they did a lot to raise the poor. And the life in the 1930 really became "better and merrier" (as Stalin put it) for many people.

    The last point can explain a few things about the Soviet history. For example, Stalin's cult of personality. He was genuinely popular because people credited him with improving their lives. Or another puzzle - why, if the Commies were so bad, the Soviet people fought so loyally in WWII? One factor was a rapid improvement in their living standards.

    1. First off, I don’t know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison’s data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. “This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely.

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can’t even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning – the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fluctuarius

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.
     
    Compare the general loyalty and discipline of the Russian army, up until a deliberate campaign of "democratisation of the army" in 1917, and the mass desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech, Ruthenian, Serbian, etc. soldiers from the Austro-Hungarian army.

    Comrade Stalin's unparalleled genius my foot.
    , @Anon
    Russian WW1 draftees had a higher literacy rate than the American draftees from southern states.

    I’ve read some of those laudatory books about the great soviet advances. For instance rural electrification BFD. Every country in the world was building electrical plants. And the Soviet’s built a subway. So did most European cities.

    After school programs and youth activities The eeeevviillll Hitler and Mussolini had youth programs too.
    Free medical care, patients had to bribe hospital workers for beds and medicine and everything else.

    I’ve read a lot about the Soviet Union and the prior Czarist government. Karlin is absolutely right.

    The Soviet Union even had affirmative action for party members which is why its manufacturing and agriculture were such disasters.

    So many of the 20th century histories of the Soviet Union have been written by useful idiot admirers of communist.

    They are not objective history, just propaganda like all the laudatory books about MLK and Obama.
    , @Wally


    said:
    "The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War."

    More received Zionist propaganda recited by Karlin.

    - "Worse than the Communists"?

    How? Proof required, please present it.

    - What alleged "Nazi brutality" are you talking about?

    Proof required, please present it.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    , @inertial

    First off, I don’t know what data that chart is based of
     
    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American
     
    Piketty et al concentrates on INCOME per capita, not GDP. The distinction is often important. For example, the industry in the Russian Empire was growing fast but the growth income was falling behind that, partly because a large portion of profits from the industrial activity was going to the British and French banks.

    Having said that, Maddison's data is not inconsistent with Piketty's. That growth spurt in the 1930 is there.

    There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom
     
    Perhaps. Or perhaps Russia would've followed Argentina - rapid industrial growth followed by ... not much. Or maybe it would've been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship - like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would've hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.

    This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s.
     
    Rich is not the word, but in the 1930s life did get more ordered and more prosperous, at least in the cities. If the freaking statistics doesn't convince you, you can get a sense of this by reading books written in this period. For example, Master and Margarita, no Soviet propaganda.

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders.
     
    Yes, some soldiers surrendered because they found themselves in impossible situations, due to novel German tactics. But the nation as a whole fought on, including both the army and the home front. And it continued to do so for four years. They must've thought they had something worth fighting for. The only other possibility was that behind every soldier or factory worker was an NKVDist with a gun to his head.

    And no, don't tell me that they were "for Russia but against the Communist regime." Only the high IQ people are are able to separate these abstractions in their minds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. inertial says:
    @inertial
    Russian Empire was certainly shamelessly smeared, it's true. But it's also true that it was far poorer than Soviet Russia (which you always, ahem, "shamelessly smear".)

    Here is a chart put together by the BBC based on the 2017 paper by Piketty et al. For those who don't read Russian: the chart shows mean per capita income in Russia as percentage of the Western European one (defined as the average of German, French, and British incomes.)

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/3E07/production/_97497851_euro.jpg

    - During the Tsarist period Russian relative income was under 40% of the European one. This ratio didn't budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn't continue like that indefinitely.

    - In the early Soviet years the relative income continued to be about where it was under Tsars. The aftermath of WWI, Civil War, and the Commie repression was destructive but apparently not all that much more so than the income plunge in Western Europe.

    - In the 1930s Soviet relative income takes off. Part of it is an artifact of Great Depression when the European incomes nosedived. But another part was a genuine improvement in Russian living standards. This is not something you hear often nowadays, yet I know it to be true (including from talking to people who were alive during that period.) The Soviets crushed the rich and the middle class but they did a lot to raise the poor. And the life in the 1930 really became "better and merrier" (as Stalin put it) for many people.

    The last point can explain a few things about the Soviet history. For example, Stalin's cult of personality. He was genuinely popular because people credited him with improving their lives. Or another puzzle - why, if the Commies were so bad, the Soviet people fought so loyally in WWII? One factor was a rapid improvement in their living standards.

    A few more observations about that chart.

    - After WWII the Commie promised to catch up to and overtake the West. They never managed to do it. However, they kept pace. You know Les Trente Glorieuses, the 30 glorious pot-war years when economic growth was so rapid? Well, it was just as rapid in the USSR! In retrospect, that’s pretty amazing.

    - Soviet people were used to decades of rapid growth in the living standards. When it slowed down in the late 70s they grew unhappy. Compare and contrast to today, whether in Russia or in the West.

    - After Perestroika, Russian relative income plummeted to nearly Tsarist levels; but then, under Putin, they recovered to about the highest Soviet peak. Obviously, the Russians had never lived so well before. But we have to keep in mind that these are averages. As shown in the same paper, inequality grew exponentially in the post-Soviet period, which means that there are many people who are still below their Soviet level of consumption. I don’t like when some young punks bash those people for their pro-Soviet views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. inertial says:
    @melanf

    t no point in World War I was there even a remote prospect of Moscow or St. Petersburg getting captured. Before the Bolsheviks came, no one could imagine the Germans taking Kiev and advancing into the Crimea; to the contrary, Sevastopol was to be the staging ground for an invasion of Constantinople in 1917. Even the greatest debacle of the war, General Samsonov’s campaign in East Prussia, wasn’t in the same league as the Kiev encirclement, brought about by the unparalleled strategic genius of Comrade Stalin himself.
     
    What a brazen manipulation. In 1917 the war lasted 4 years and the Russian army continued to lose hopelessly to the German troops (despite the fact that the best German forces were on the Western front). So let's compare 1941+4=1945. That's the difference

    In 1917 the war lasted 4 years

    My math tells me that 1917-1914=3. Anyway, comparing WWI, when armies had to march on their two feet (or on horseback,) to the highly mobile WWII with its tanks and airplanes makes no sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Anatoly Karlin
    1. First off, I don't know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison's data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7bHL2UAAAj0Ju.png

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. "This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely."

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can't even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning - the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    Compare the general loyalty and discipline of the Russian army, up until a deliberate campaign of “democratisation of the army” in 1917, and the mass desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech, Ruthenian, Serbian, etc. soldiers from the Austro-Hungarian army.

    Comrade Stalin’s unparalleled genius my foot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Got any sources on that? My impression is that their Slavic subjects (other than maybe the Serbs) were fond of the Habsburgs
    , @LH

    desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech soldiers

     

    Disloyality of Czech soldiers was exaggerated during the war (due to infighting between the A-H's top military brass) and especially after the war. The war was not popular, but not to the point of mass desertions. At the very end of WWI there were several uprisings, but the army still managed to suppress them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Marcus says:
    @Fluctuarius

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.
     
    Compare the general loyalty and discipline of the Russian army, up until a deliberate campaign of "democratisation of the army" in 1917, and the mass desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech, Ruthenian, Serbian, etc. soldiers from the Austro-Hungarian army.

    Comrade Stalin's unparalleled genius my foot.

    Got any sources on that? My impression is that their Slavic subjects (other than maybe the Serbs) were fond of the Habsburgs

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp
    , @siberiancat
    You should read the classic book The Good Soldier Švejk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. melanf says:
    @inertial
    Nicholas was a fine ruler. Russia achieved a lot during his reign and at least part of the credit has to go to the man on top. His biggest mistake was entering WWI in the first place, but even in that war he didn't do such a bad job, considering what he had to work with.

    Yes, at that particular moment in 1917 Russia might have been better off with a czar who was a bloodthirsty maniac - e.g. someone like Peter the Great (whose "severe crisis" was entirely of his own creation.) But the point is, do you want such men to rule Russia as a matter of course? Do you want someone like that to be in charge now?

    Nicholas was a fine ruler

    Champion League of idiocy

    czar who was a bloodthirsty maniac – e.g. someone like Peter the Great (whose “severe crisis” was entirely of his own creation.)

    So that Peter had arranged the Streltsy revolt of 1682? Or the split of the Orthodox Church?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Marcus
    Got any sources on that? My impression is that their Slavic subjects (other than maybe the Serbs) were fond of the Habsburgs

    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp
     
    My great-grandfather was sent there, as were two of his children. One of his wife's cousins commanded a group of Rusyns who fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    However by the time the war started, pro-Russians were perhaps only 10% of the Galician population. Maybe double that might have had some sympathy. Large majority were Ukrainian nationalists - Galicia was nicknamed Eastern Tyrol due to the widespread pro-Habsburg feelings.

    After Russians were driven form Galicia, many of the pro-Russians fled (just as the Ukrainian nationalist minority from Donbas has fled).
    , @LH

    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

     

    History of Czechoslovak Legion in Russia was complicated. It started as small volunteer group (under 1,000) of Czechs living in Russia. Russian authorities didn't look favorably on recruiting from POWs - they would need to convert to Orthodoxy and obtain new citizenship. Most POWs were more happy with their current status. As the war progressed, these requirements were abolished.

    After Bolsheviks took over and started the fight with the Czechs, the Legion decided to draft forcibly every ethnic Czech they could put their hand on. This was the period of highest numerical growth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. I understand what Kholmogorov is trying to do, but talk about viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

    We can start with Russia’s refusal to negotiate seriously with Japan helping to touch off the Russo-Japanese War. A war Nicholas II incorrectly believed would easily be won because he wrongly believed that Japanese are racially inferior to whites, and he allowed himself to be concern trolled by his cousin the Kaiser into thinking the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

    On the matter of the Kaiser, Wilhlem II repeatedly tricked Nicholas II into destroying the Franco-Russian alliance (which, for reasons of simple geography, was in Russia’s natural interests) and once even got him to sign a treaty of alliance with Germany–which Wilhelm II casually assured him wouldn’t bother the French. Fortunately for Nicholas II the Foreign Ministry thought differently and always stopped these schemes.

    Then there’s touching off the Russian Revolution of 1905 thanks to said war as well as the activities of Father Gapon, who remarkably was simultaneously in the pay of the Okhrana and the Kenpeitai. Doesn’t speak very highly of the Russian Empire’s siloviks does it?

    Incomprehensible softness with communist revolutionaries is nothing to praise. Take for instance Stalin. How many times did he escape from Siberia? Three?

    Then how about letting the idiot Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky betraying Serbia in exchange for Aehrenthal promising to “support” Russia’s position on the Straits at a time when most of its navy had recently been sunk? The only defense that can be made of the Tsar here is no one knew what Izvolsky was up to, which is not exactly high praise.

    World War I is where Nicholas II truly looks awful however. He permitted his crazy German wife to be influenced by Rasputin, who in turn had idiots like Protopopov appointed to high posts and even had troop trains en route to the front to be stopped.

    After the catastrophe of Gorlice-Tarnow, Nicholas dismissed the solid Grand Duke Nicholas (a kind of Russian equivalent of Field Marshals Kitchener and von Hindenburg) and replaced him with…himself. He appears to have occupied himself at the front with…scrapbooking. All while his crazy wife deluged him with dozens of letters a day.

    The war, to put it bluntly, was not going well at all despite the success of the Brusilov Offensive (which was against Austria-Hungary and carried out while the Germans were under enormous pressure at Verdun and the Somme, and still stopped by the Germans). Every other offensive launched on the Eastern Front by Russia that year failed, and Russia proved helpless to prevent the Central Powers from overrunning Rumania (just as they’d overrun Serbia the previous year).

    1917 brought fresh disasters despite Germany being under enormous pressure on the Western Front with the British launching massive tank offensives all along the line. Fortunately for the Germans the French Army mutinied, though this was successfully kept secret. The Germans outnumbered more than three to one, dispatched the Russians at Jugla and marched into Riga. They then carried out amphibious operations in the Baltic and established naval supremacy and then occupied the Moonsund Archipelago.

    This in turn was an intended precursor to attacking St. Petersburg itself in 1918. To be fair to the Tsar he had been deposed by the time the Germans attacked in the Baltic, but these successes still took place before the October Revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    I agree with most of what you're, saying, and would add that Nick managed to appear even more out of touch with his vacationing on luxury watercraft while the masses suffered and Europe inched toward catastrophe. However, I think the sensible approach, advocated by Sazonov and some other officials, would've been to stay out of the Balkan quagmire. Russia had much more to gain (with less risk) in divying up resource rich areas like Iran and Manchuria than playing at pan-Slavic liberator.
    , @Dmitry

    I understand what Kholmogorov is trying to do, but talk about viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

     

    To be honest, it is like an article written by a teenage girl, or published for a fashion magazine intended for teenage girls.

    His overall theme, which he concludes about - it's how people should tolerate a weak or normal family men leaders in the future and not to overthrow them. That's the reason he wants to talk in a way about these posed photographs which reminded of the articles about the Obama family in Vogue Magazine, and how they appear as a normal, nice, if rich, family.

    But he chooses as an example, one of the worst counter-example of a weak or incompetent leader in world history, and really exactly the terrible results (which we still live today) are only extenuated by the golden age in which the country was undergoing in areas of economy, culture, technology.

    So it feels like his historical selection is precisely designed to refute the conclusion of article.

    Weak and incompetent leaders are survivable in governable easily countries (perhaps America can survive incompetent leaders like Obama), in which there is a long establish institutional framework and stable population. But to lead the Russian Empire, in this historical era, with its vast and vulnerable country, difficult international events, and unresting populations?

    Well there needed to be a man like his grandfather, whose assassination was probably one of the most long-run, real tragedies for the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Marcus says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I understand what Kholmogorov is trying to do, but talk about viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

    We can start with Russia's refusal to negotiate seriously with Japan helping to touch off the Russo-Japanese War. A war Nicholas II incorrectly believed would easily be won because he wrongly believed that Japanese are racially inferior to whites, and he allowed himself to be concern trolled by his cousin the Kaiser into thinking the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

    On the matter of the Kaiser, Wilhlem II repeatedly tricked Nicholas II into destroying the Franco-Russian alliance (which, for reasons of simple geography, was in Russia's natural interests) and once even got him to sign a treaty of alliance with Germany--which Wilhelm II casually assured him wouldn't bother the French. Fortunately for Nicholas II the Foreign Ministry thought differently and always stopped these schemes.

    Then there's touching off the Russian Revolution of 1905 thanks to said war as well as the activities of Father Gapon, who remarkably was simultaneously in the pay of the Okhrana and the Kenpeitai. Doesn't speak very highly of the Russian Empire's siloviks does it?

    Incomprehensible softness with communist revolutionaries is nothing to praise. Take for instance Stalin. How many times did he escape from Siberia? Three?

    Then how about letting the idiot Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky betraying Serbia in exchange for Aehrenthal promising to "support" Russia's position on the Straits at a time when most of its navy had recently been sunk? The only defense that can be made of the Tsar here is no one knew what Izvolsky was up to, which is not exactly high praise.

    World War I is where Nicholas II truly looks awful however. He permitted his crazy German wife to be influenced by Rasputin, who in turn had idiots like Protopopov appointed to high posts and even had troop trains en route to the front to be stopped.

    After the catastrophe of Gorlice-Tarnow, Nicholas dismissed the solid Grand Duke Nicholas (a kind of Russian equivalent of Field Marshals Kitchener and von Hindenburg) and replaced him with...himself. He appears to have occupied himself at the front with...scrapbooking. All while his crazy wife deluged him with dozens of letters a day.

    The war, to put it bluntly, was not going well at all despite the success of the Brusilov Offensive (which was against Austria-Hungary and carried out while the Germans were under enormous pressure at Verdun and the Somme, and still stopped by the Germans). Every other offensive launched on the Eastern Front by Russia that year failed, and Russia proved helpless to prevent the Central Powers from overrunning Rumania (just as they'd overrun Serbia the previous year).

    1917 brought fresh disasters despite Germany being under enormous pressure on the Western Front with the British launching massive tank offensives all along the line. Fortunately for the Germans the French Army mutinied, though this was successfully kept secret. The Germans outnumbered more than three to one, dispatched the Russians at Jugla and marched into Riga. They then carried out amphibious operations in the Baltic and established naval supremacy and then occupied the Moonsund Archipelago.

    This in turn was an intended precursor to attacking St. Petersburg itself in 1918. To be fair to the Tsar he had been deposed by the time the Germans attacked in the Baltic, but these successes still took place before the October Revolution.

    I agree with most of what you’re, saying, and would add that Nick managed to appear even more out of touch with his vacationing on luxury watercraft while the masses suffered and Europe inched toward catastrophe. However, I think the sensible approach, advocated by Sazonov and some other officials, would’ve been to stay out of the Balkan quagmire. Russia had much more to gain (with less risk) in divying up resource rich areas like Iran and Manchuria than playing at pan-Slavic liberator.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Logan
    Nicholas has some parallels to Louis XVI. Both were fundamentally decent human beings utterly unsuited to handling the existential crises they faced.

    Louis, like Nicholas, was unwilling to kill large numbers of his people if that was what was necessary to stay in power. This can be called principle or squeamishness.

    But it doomed their peoples to decades of nightmare.

    Nicholas II comes off as considerably worse.

    He in fact asked Grand Duke Nicholas to use the army to suppress the Revolution of 1905.

    Grand Duke Nicholas refused and threatened to shoot himself on the spot, after which Nicholas II consented to Witte’s reforms instead.

    So Nicholas II was willing to shed blood to preserve the autocracy, but was unwilling to lead the effort himself. Probably because he was an idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. AP says:
    @Fluctuarius
    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp

    My great-grandfather was sent there, as were two of his children. One of his wife’s cousins commanded a group of Rusyns who fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    However by the time the war started, pro-Russians were perhaps only 10% of the Galician population. Maybe double that might have had some sympathy. Large majority were Ukrainian nationalists – Galicia was nicknamed Eastern Tyrol due to the widespread pro-Habsburg feelings.

    After Russians were driven form Galicia, many of the pro-Russians fled (just as the Ukrainian nationalist minority from Donbas has fled).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    What I've read suggests the Habsburgs were hated by pan-Germans (such as a young Hitler) for what was perceived as their favoritism to Slavs. Also the Church caught some flak for appointing Slavic priests to German parishes. The South Slav nationalists (a Serbian project) would've been the exception
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Marcus says:
    @AP

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp
     
    My great-grandfather was sent there, as were two of his children. One of his wife's cousins commanded a group of Rusyns who fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    However by the time the war started, pro-Russians were perhaps only 10% of the Galician population. Maybe double that might have had some sympathy. Large majority were Ukrainian nationalists - Galicia was nicknamed Eastern Tyrol due to the widespread pro-Habsburg feelings.

    After Russians were driven form Galicia, many of the pro-Russians fled (just as the Ukrainian nationalist minority from Donbas has fled).

    What I’ve read suggests the Habsburgs were hated by pan-Germans (such as a young Hitler) for what was perceived as their favoritism to Slavs. Also the Church caught some flak for appointing Slavic priests to German parishes. The South Slav nationalists (a Serbian project) would’ve been the exception

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Yugoslav/pan-South Slav nationalism was decidedly NOT a Serbian project.

    It's earlies instance is Papal intention to impose Illyrian identity from 1600 upon various regions outside of Croatia, the Catholic bulwark in the Balkans.
    Fast forward, a Catholic Archbishop Strossmayer and an unusual mix of foreigners of French, German, Czech descent (Guy, Fuchs, Frass) start a de-facto Croatian national movement, call it Illyrian, and start talking about unification of South Slavic lands - an East Herzegovinian dialect was taken as a standard for Croat language, which not a single Croat spoke then. Naturally, all under the eye of Habsburgs, who eye the Balkan area as ideal expansion. All the way to First World War, there were more Serbs under Habsburg crown than there were under Serbia crown.

    The conflict in the Balkans was precipitated by Anglo-sponsored (and Freemasonry, naturally) coup of 1903 deposing and murdering Serbian pro-Austrian/German dinasty. It was a regime change. That de facto blocked Danube and hypothetical Berlin-Baghdad route for Germans.
    The conspirators looted the royal residence and even the bodies of monarchs (fingers cut off to obtain rings) and auctioned them off in London.

    From then on, Karađorđević-led Serbia pursued Yugoslav idea to the benefit of their benefactors and supporters in London, since Yugoslavia was a perfect counter to German and Russian influence in the Balkans. Russian diplomatic efforts in the Balkans and creation of Balkan Alliance aimed at Ottomans were countered by German and British (French were centuries-long allies of Great Turk, British jumped on board due to Great Game) dominated London Conference that threw a wedge in their plans for Ottoman-free Balkans.

    British agents and operatives played their part once again in March 27th 1941 coup, and yet again in 1944 making Yugocommunists the representatives. By a mere coincidence, Churchill's own son was a liaison to Yugocommunists. From then on, Kennan doctrine and Tito creation of Unaligned movement to block integration of Second and Third World, leaving the Unaligned countries easy prey once Warsaw Pact was gone, is an easy follow-on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I understand what Kholmogorov is trying to do, but talk about viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

    We can start with Russia's refusal to negotiate seriously with Japan helping to touch off the Russo-Japanese War. A war Nicholas II incorrectly believed would easily be won because he wrongly believed that Japanese are racially inferior to whites, and he allowed himself to be concern trolled by his cousin the Kaiser into thinking the Japanese needed to be taught a lesson.

    On the matter of the Kaiser, Wilhlem II repeatedly tricked Nicholas II into destroying the Franco-Russian alliance (which, for reasons of simple geography, was in Russia's natural interests) and once even got him to sign a treaty of alliance with Germany--which Wilhelm II casually assured him wouldn't bother the French. Fortunately for Nicholas II the Foreign Ministry thought differently and always stopped these schemes.

    Then there's touching off the Russian Revolution of 1905 thanks to said war as well as the activities of Father Gapon, who remarkably was simultaneously in the pay of the Okhrana and the Kenpeitai. Doesn't speak very highly of the Russian Empire's siloviks does it?

    Incomprehensible softness with communist revolutionaries is nothing to praise. Take for instance Stalin. How many times did he escape from Siberia? Three?

    Then how about letting the idiot Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky betraying Serbia in exchange for Aehrenthal promising to "support" Russia's position on the Straits at a time when most of its navy had recently been sunk? The only defense that can be made of the Tsar here is no one knew what Izvolsky was up to, which is not exactly high praise.

    World War I is where Nicholas II truly looks awful however. He permitted his crazy German wife to be influenced by Rasputin, who in turn had idiots like Protopopov appointed to high posts and even had troop trains en route to the front to be stopped.

    After the catastrophe of Gorlice-Tarnow, Nicholas dismissed the solid Grand Duke Nicholas (a kind of Russian equivalent of Field Marshals Kitchener and von Hindenburg) and replaced him with...himself. He appears to have occupied himself at the front with...scrapbooking. All while his crazy wife deluged him with dozens of letters a day.

    The war, to put it bluntly, was not going well at all despite the success of the Brusilov Offensive (which was against Austria-Hungary and carried out while the Germans were under enormous pressure at Verdun and the Somme, and still stopped by the Germans). Every other offensive launched on the Eastern Front by Russia that year failed, and Russia proved helpless to prevent the Central Powers from overrunning Rumania (just as they'd overrun Serbia the previous year).

    1917 brought fresh disasters despite Germany being under enormous pressure on the Western Front with the British launching massive tank offensives all along the line. Fortunately for the Germans the French Army mutinied, though this was successfully kept secret. The Germans outnumbered more than three to one, dispatched the Russians at Jugla and marched into Riga. They then carried out amphibious operations in the Baltic and established naval supremacy and then occupied the Moonsund Archipelago.

    This in turn was an intended precursor to attacking St. Petersburg itself in 1918. To be fair to the Tsar he had been deposed by the time the Germans attacked in the Baltic, but these successes still took place before the October Revolution.

    I understand what Kholmogorov is trying to do, but talk about viewing the past with rose-colored glasses.

    To be honest, it is like an article written by a teenage girl, or published for a fashion magazine intended for teenage girls.

    His overall theme, which he concludes about – it’s how people should tolerate a weak or normal family men leaders in the future and not to overthrow them. That’s the reason he wants to talk in a way about these posed photographs which reminded of the articles about the Obama family in Vogue Magazine, and how they appear as a normal, nice, if rich, family.

    But he chooses as an example, one of the worst counter-example of a weak or incompetent leader in world history, and really exactly the terrible results (which we still live today) are only extenuated by the golden age in which the country was undergoing in areas of economy, culture, technology.

    So it feels like his historical selection is precisely designed to refute the conclusion of article.

    Weak and incompetent leaders are survivable in governable easily countries (perhaps America can survive incompetent leaders like Obama), in which there is a long establish institutional framework and stable population. But to lead the Russian Empire, in this historical era, with its vast and vulnerable country, difficult international events, and unresting populations?

    Well there needed to be a man like his grandfather, whose assassination was probably one of the most long-run, real tragedies for the country.

    Read More
    • Agree: Marcus, melanf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Bliss says:

    In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire.

    Long before the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Imperial Japan was decisively defeated by the Soviets at Khalkin Gol (Nomanhan to the Japanese). A pivotal battle that changed the course of WWII:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

    While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II…..support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor….Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. On 24 June 1941, two days after the war on the Eastern Front broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted a resolution “not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being”.

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

    It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed two-thirds of the Russian fleet….In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, “The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar”; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment.

    The battle was humiliating for Russia, which lost all its battleships and most of its cruisers and destroyers. The battle effectively ended the Russo-Japanese War in Japan’s favour. The Russians lost 4,380 killed and 5,917 captured, including two admirals, with a further 1,862 interned…..The Japanese lost three torpedo boats, with 117 men killed and 500 wounded.

    Imperial Russia’s prestige was badly damaged and the defeat was a blow to the Romanov dynasty.

    It was the first defeat of a European power by an Asian nation in the modern era. It also weakened the notion of white superiority that was prevalent in some Western countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    And ten years after the Japan debacle the Russian military crushed Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (which the Brit struggled against), though it was not yet a match for Germany.
    , @Mikhail

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:
     
    At play is a learning curve. The Soviets learned from 1905 to take Japan seriously in the late 1930s, much unlike how they initially viewed Finland at that point in time. BTW, a number of Russians viewed the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a chickens coming home to roost situation, given the US reply to when Japan attacked Russia at Port Arthur.

    The US had troubles in Southeast Asia, with Britain failing to keep its American colonies. Great powers can lose and still be great in stature. Russia rebounded well after 1905 and was thought at the time to be on the verge of achieving greater stature.

    The kind of thoughts typically not mentioned by leftist academicians.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Robert J.C. Butow, 'JAPAN'S Decision to Surrender', Stanford, 1954
    What made it possible for those Japanese who saw that the war was lost to offer surrender were the two atomic bombs and the destruction of the Kwantung army by the USSR
    , @ivan
    Chalk the real architect of that victory to the ever perfidious Albion. The Russians under Rokkosovsky knew that their ships were completely outclassed by those in the Japanese fleet built largely by the British to the latest standards, but they went into battle nonetheless. Britain was at its usual game of keeping 'the Continetals' occupied. The Japanese of course later returned the favour by breaking the back of the British Empire in Malaya and Burma in WWII.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @DFH

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.
     
    Charles I had people whipped and their ears cut off for writing presbyterian pamphlets. I don't see how James was any more severe than him, or what measures Charles was too soft to take that would have prevented the Civil War.

    Charles I started the Civil War by raising his standard at Nottingham. OTOH unlike Nicholas II he made absolutely sure his family was safe no matter what happened to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. 1/ Words not in the article: Rasputin, Tsushima, Protopopov, Vyrubova, cousin ‘Willi’, ‘Stupidity or Treason’

    2/ The February revolution was one of the few pure ‘people’s revolutions. It was organized by nobody (certainly not the Bolsheviks). It took 10 days, and was supported by just about everyone including the Cossacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thim
    That is how I understood it from reading Solzhenitsyn.
    , @Seraphim
    The 'pure' February revolution was organized by the German and British intelligence agents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Marcus
    Got any sources on that? My impression is that their Slavic subjects (other than maybe the Serbs) were fond of the Habsburgs

    You should read the classic book The Good Soldier Švejk

    Read More
    • Replies: @LH

    You should read the classic book The Good Soldier Švejk

     

    The book is great, but it is not a historical documentary. Czech soldiers were not deserting in masses, this is later myth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. AP says:
    @Bliss

    In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire.
     
    Long before the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Imperial Japan was decisively defeated by the Soviets at Khalkin Gol (Nomanhan to the Japanese). A pivotal battle that changed the course of WWII:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

    While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II.....support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor....Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. On 24 June 1941, two days after the war on the Eastern Front broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted a resolution "not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being".

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

    It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed two-thirds of the Russian fleet....In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, "The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar"; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment.

    The battle was humiliating for Russia, which lost all its battleships and most of its cruisers and destroyers. The battle effectively ended the Russo-Japanese War in Japan's favour. The Russians lost 4,380 killed and 5,917 captured, including two admirals, with a further 1,862 interned.....The Japanese lost three torpedo boats, with 117 men killed and 500 wounded.

    Imperial Russia's prestige was badly damaged and the defeat was a blow to the Romanov dynasty.

    It was the first defeat of a European power by an Asian nation in the modern era. It also weakened the notion of white superiority that was prevalent in some Western countries.

    And ten years after the Japan debacle the Russian military crushed Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (which the Brit struggled against), though it was not yet a match for Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    The crushing of Austria-Hungary was achieved at a cost that Russia simply couldn't bear. Even the Brusilov offensive was basically a Pyrrhic victory (boon to the West though)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @melanf
    Really shameful article. I'm not a fan of the Bolsheviks at all, but the good thing they did - they executed Nicholas. What deserves to be condemned - that he was shot. Nicholas by his shameful rule deserved the gallows.
    Тhough not the Bolsheviks were to judge and hang Nicholas, but the monarchists-for the fact that he in his heinous rule destroyed the country and discredited the monarchy.

    Absolutely wrong. You’ve been reading too many communist histories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    1. First off, I don't know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison's data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7bHL2UAAAj0Ju.png

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. "This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely."

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can't even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning - the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    Russian WW1 draftees had a higher literacy rate than the American draftees from southern states.

    I’ve read some of those laudatory books about the great soviet advances. For instance rural electrification BFD. Every country in the world was building electrical plants. And the Soviet’s built a subway. So did most European cities.

    After school programs and youth activities The eeeevviillll Hitler and Mussolini had youth programs too.
    Free medical care, patients had to bribe hospital workers for beds and medicine and everything else.

    I’ve read a lot about the Soviet Union and the prior Czarist government. Karlin is absolutely right.

    The Soviet Union even had affirmative action for party members which is why its manufacturing and agriculture were such disasters.

    So many of the 20th century histories of the Soviet Union have been written by useful idiot admirers of communist.

    They are not objective history, just propaganda like all the laudatory books about MLK and Obama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    So many of the 20th century histories of the Soviet Union have been written by useful idiot admirers of communist.
     
    A number of leftists like Solzhenitsyn's book on Russia in WW I, on account that he apparently relied a good deal on Soviet sources when he wrote that work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Nicholas II, born with a sense of his right to rule and an ensuing sense of responsibility, wasn’t willing to fight for his power at any cost. He wasn’t a Machiavellian schemer or executioner. During the entirety of his reign, fewer people were executed – even counting the sentences of expedited military tribunals at the height of 1905-06 revolutionary terror – than the weekly toll of the Stalinist death machine just in 1937-38.
     
    All of the late kings, even the ones who didn't flat out turn into democratic liberals, were all basically candy asses.

    Hence why they mostly got their heads cut off or shot in the basement (except for the ones that turned into liberals and went along with it, Spanish and English come to mind) along with all their family.

    Earlier kings put rebellions down by dismembering people, sticking their bits on sticks and using it decorate the market place. These people remained king and didn't get their whole family killed with virtue signalling.

    This hypothesis, that these nepot fops (who were not like their great-grandfathers) basically abdicated their core responsibilities and that is why they were deposed, is validated by looking at who eventually replaced all of them (with some absolute chaos, civil war and mass bloodshed being transitional in some places). The last Bourbon, who did not act like the first Bourbon, was ultimately after the Terror replaced by Napoleon, who shows with his "whiff of grape" that he was more like the first Bourbons than the last Bourbons were when it came to dealing with the mob.

    Charles I did not do what James VI did and ended up with the despotic nut Oliver Cromwell who would.

    Hohenzollern marched his forces off the field before he had a deal inked, merely assumed he would be treated fairly by his enemies, ultimately accepted the treaty at Versailles instead of restarting the war to fight for more favorable surrender conditions. Thus Hitler.

    Romanov gets replaced by Lenin and Stalin who were blatantly willing to slaughter as many people as it took, and were thus successful.

    It was their decency that did them in. What would that nut Ivan have done to Lenin? The #1 job of the old kings was to protect their throne of power from ambitious nut usurpers and revolutionaries at all costs, who were willing to destroy their countries in order for themselves to climb the social ladder. Should have used more pikes.

    The last Bourbon was Charles 10 overthrown in 1830 by the Duke of Orleans

    The Bourbon overthrown in 1790 was Charles brother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Then there was Juan Carlos de Borbon who succeeded Franco.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Bliss

    In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire.
     
    Long before the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Imperial Japan was decisively defeated by the Soviets at Khalkin Gol (Nomanhan to the Japanese). A pivotal battle that changed the course of WWII:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

    While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II.....support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor....Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. On 24 June 1941, two days after the war on the Eastern Front broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted a resolution "not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being".

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

    It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed two-thirds of the Russian fleet....In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, "The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar"; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment.

    The battle was humiliating for Russia, which lost all its battleships and most of its cruisers and destroyers. The battle effectively ended the Russo-Japanese War in Japan's favour. The Russians lost 4,380 killed and 5,917 captured, including two admirals, with a further 1,862 interned.....The Japanese lost three torpedo boats, with 117 men killed and 500 wounded.

    Imperial Russia's prestige was badly damaged and the defeat was a blow to the Romanov dynasty.

    It was the first defeat of a European power by an Asian nation in the modern era. It also weakened the notion of white superiority that was prevalent in some Western countries.

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    At play is a learning curve. The Soviets learned from 1905 to take Japan seriously in the late 1930s, much unlike how they initially viewed Finland at that point in time. BTW, a number of Russians viewed the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a chickens coming home to roost situation, given the US reply to when Japan attacked Russia at Port Arthur.

    The US had troubles in Southeast Asia, with Britain failing to keep its American colonies. Great powers can lose and still be great in stature. Russia rebounded well after 1905 and was thought at the time to be on the verge of achieving greater stature.

    The kind of thoughts typically not mentioned by leftist academicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Great powers can lose and still be great in stature.
     
    The Age of Empires passed away. The Romanovs were doomed by the arc of history.

    Say good riddance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Anon
    Russian WW1 draftees had a higher literacy rate than the American draftees from southern states.

    I’ve read some of those laudatory books about the great soviet advances. For instance rural electrification BFD. Every country in the world was building electrical plants. And the Soviet’s built a subway. So did most European cities.

    After school programs and youth activities The eeeevviillll Hitler and Mussolini had youth programs too.
    Free medical care, patients had to bribe hospital workers for beds and medicine and everything else.

    I’ve read a lot about the Soviet Union and the prior Czarist government. Karlin is absolutely right.

    The Soviet Union even had affirmative action for party members which is why its manufacturing and agriculture were such disasters.

    So many of the 20th century histories of the Soviet Union have been written by useful idiot admirers of communist.

    They are not objective history, just propaganda like all the laudatory books about MLK and Obama.

    So many of the 20th century histories of the Soviet Union have been written by useful idiot admirers of communist.

    A number of leftists like Solzhenitsyn’s book on Russia in WW I, on account that he apparently relied a good deal on Soviet sources when he wrote that work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. WHAT says:

    Christopher Clark, “Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914″.

    Pretty much a mustread. Paints Nick as rather weak despot sometimes prevailing over and sometimes subdued by nascent parliamentary processes and two powerful ministers in a row, but so are the other monarchs. Hell, it expounds upon the beginnings of actual deep state in foreign offices of nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    GB wanted WWI.
    'Made in Germany' was a failure, more German products were bought in GB.
    And, as with the prelude to WWII, German economic expansion to the SE was feared:
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Income per capita in tsarist Russia in 1905 was reached again in the thirties
    As to revolution, it was in early 1917.
    November 1917 was a grab for power.
    Russian military capabilities in WWI, not much, as they were in 1941.
    Erich Ludendorff, ‘Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @WHAT
    Christopher Clark, "Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914".

    Pretty much a mustread. Paints Nick as rather weak despot sometimes prevailing over and sometimes subdued by nascent parliamentary processes and two powerful ministers in a row, but so are the other monarchs. Hell, it expounds upon the beginnings of actual deep state in foreign offices of nations.

    GB wanted WWI.
    ‘Made in Germany’ was a failure, more German products were bought in GB.
    And, as with the prelude to WWII, German economic expansion to the SE was feared:
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Strategically, yes, GB can't allow mitteleuropa to happen, so it will always want WWn against Germany, even if both are caliphates. Geography is destiny as much as demography.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. NotReally says:

    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn’t mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It’s one thing to be proud of a nation’s legitimate achievements but it’s a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren’t there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn’t fundamentally wrong with Russia’s society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It’s like saying “If the patient hadn’t been sick, he would not have died.” And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn’t have swept it away.

    But attributing accomplishments to leaders nilly-willy is a great pasttime. Reagan is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union when all he did was ruinously spend and run his own economy in deeper deficits. To believe this man had a plan mistakes the luck of history with genius or conscious decision. And yet many more conservative commenters need to believe that Reagan was great no matter what the historical record shows. No “credit” is given to the actual leaders of the Soviet Union which probably had much more impact on its eventual collapse if not all of it. But hey, he “won.” Paul Craig Roberts even credited him with overcoming Stagflation when he basically helped usher in the era of credit-based growth and growing inequality that now keeps repeatedly coming crashing down on our heads. Not many conservatives seem to be willing to call him the cause of what is killing us – or the climate. I would not go as far as saying that he consciously caused it, but he dumbly enacted – just like Thatcher did – the policies of ruin. He was somebody’s goon. He didn’t cure the malady. He propped the patient up for a while and now he’s dying of something worse that might find no easy cure anymore.

    And thus we come back to leaders and their legends. If a certain part of Russian nationalism needs a fake legend of how great Russia could have been if history hadn’t actually happened, fine. I stopped reading the unsubstianted glory legend 2/3s through. I’m sure many Germans also sit around and think that a little more luck and a little less dumb Hitler would have brought victory over the Soviet Union and how things might have been gravy after. At least that’s the legend the generals wanted to believe after the war. And I get the impression that many educated British people exit their schools with the impression that the Empire was great for mostly anyone and it sadly ended. I actually had discussions where they found it impossible to believe that their Empire had reduced India from a rather advanced economy into an impoverished dependent nation. So everyone gets to believe their own legends. Especially the nationalists of all stripes. Or people sitting in their basements reenacting the Civil War or pretending that Patton plus the US army plus 100,000 captive Germans could have beaten the Red Army. Or any other person who’s into entertaining ahistorical fantasies.

    I have no problems with such fantasies, I find them highly entertaining. But when they start to fuel and reinforce your political worldview, they simply become delusions. You can measure Nicholas from actual history and you might or might not arrive at a fair judgment of the man as leader, as a person, or as a historical figure. But to speculate what would have happened if his government had not basically imploded the country and to only parade out a possible best of all potential worlds… that’s just delusional. If one needs so hard to prove to himself that Stalin did not really accomplish much and that Nicholas might have accomplished much, then this specific sort of Russian nationalism is standing on clay feet of delusion. I’m sure Russians have enough actual historical achievements to be proud of, without resorting to delusional what-if histories, it just irks certain people that some like the victory over Germany happened under “the wrong people.” If Russian monarchists had done the same with double the casualties we would hear no end of it, I’m sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn’t mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It’s one thing to be proud of a nation’s legitimate achievements but it’s a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren’t there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn’t fundamentally wrong with Russia’s society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It’s like saying “If the patient hadn’t been sick, he would not have died.” And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn’t have swept it away.
     

    Then again, your comments reveal a certain irony that a good number don't seem to acknowledge about themselves. The more objective of leftists conclude that had there not been a WW I at the time it occurred (as opposed to either never or a few years later), the Bolshes wouldn't have likely prevailed. Russia was changing without them.

    Actually, there's a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would've achieved more - seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee. Moreover, there's historical overview indicating that the Soviet bureaucracy curtailed its space program.

    Russians en masse take pride in their pre-Soviet past. Look at the numerous name changes like Leningrad back to St. Petersburg, as well as the re-adoption of the tri-color and two headed eagle.

    It has been a pleasure for me to see numerous Soviet raised Russians and much younger ones sharing this sentiment.

    , @ThreeCranes
    Thank you for exposing Reagan as the nincompoop he was. I lived through it. I remember. He ran on a "balance the budget" platform, holding Carter's numbers up for ridicule and shame and then proceeded to triple Carter's deficits.

    Then, while firing the air traffic controllers and thereby showing federal support for abolishing Labor Unions, his tough anti'commie talk won the unblushing support of the working Joes for what was essentially their own demise.

    He liked the sound of the phrase "a strong dollar" and so agreed to interest rates raises that made the dollar the investment of choice for foreigners which resulted in American goods being priced out of international markets. America's century of trade surpluses came to an end, industry faltered and we started our journey on the road of ever-rising trade deficits. Wishing to remain competitive in international markets, the rush by American corporations to relocate overseas began.

    Reagan's policies were an unmitigated disaster for American working class families and yet he, as you say, is honored in myth and legend as the gritty, true friend of the working stiff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Bliss

    In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire.
     
    Long before the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Imperial Japan was decisively defeated by the Soviets at Khalkin Gol (Nomanhan to the Japanese). A pivotal battle that changed the course of WWII:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

    While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II.....support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor....Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. On 24 June 1941, two days after the war on the Eastern Front broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted a resolution "not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being".

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

    It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed two-thirds of the Russian fleet....In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, "The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar"; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment.

    The battle was humiliating for Russia, which lost all its battleships and most of its cruisers and destroyers. The battle effectively ended the Russo-Japanese War in Japan's favour. The Russians lost 4,380 killed and 5,917 captured, including two admirals, with a further 1,862 interned.....The Japanese lost three torpedo boats, with 117 men killed and 500 wounded.

    Imperial Russia's prestige was badly damaged and the defeat was a blow to the Romanov dynasty.

    It was the first defeat of a European power by an Asian nation in the modern era. It also weakened the notion of white superiority that was prevalent in some Western countries.

    Robert J.C. Butow, ‘JAPAN’S Decision to Surrender’, Stanford, 1954
    What made it possible for those Japanese who saw that the war was lost to offer surrender were the two atomic bombs and the destruction of the Kwantung army by the USSR

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. WHAT says:
    @jilles dykstra
    GB wanted WWI.
    'Made in Germany' was a failure, more German products were bought in GB.
    And, as with the prelude to WWII, German economic expansion to the SE was feared:
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975

    Strategically, yes, GB can’t allow mitteleuropa to happen, so it will always want WWn against Germany, even if both are caliphates. Geography is destiny as much as demography.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Regarding the origins of the plot to send Lenin to Russia. It was not General Ludendorff who had the original idea of sending Lenin back to Russia in the sealed train. That idea came from Israel Helphand, aka Alexander Parvus. Helphand persuaded Ludendorff to send Lenin to Russia at a meeting in early 1917. http://today-in-wwi.tumblr.com/post/158837112438/ludendorff-agrees-to-send-lenin-to-russia

    Incidentally, just lately a senior Ukrainian military official caused some controversy and made reference to Helphand/Parvus. http://www.newsweek.com/jews-want-drown-ukraine-blood-ukraines-military-prosecutor-says-amid-wave-997357

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    For the role of German agents Helphand, Lenin, Trotsky there is a copious literature which is not frequently cited as not to shatter the myth of the 'revolution of the masses' and to cover up the evidence of the heavy participation of the Jews in the so-called 'Russian Revolution'.
    But the collusion of the Germans with the Jewish socialist revolutionaries was clearly demonstrated by Fritz Fischer in his 'controversial' book "Germany's aims in the First World War" of 1961! Of course it is recommendable to read the whole book (one would gain a better understanding of the present situation in the Middle East as well!).

    "The promotion of revolution as a means of warfare was an aspect of the war aim of breaking up the British and the Russian empires. The most vulnerable points of France and Britain seemed to be among their coloured colonial subjects, while Russia offered fields for subversion among her non-Russian peoples...
    Favourable fields for Germany’s subversive activities in Russia were offered by the national movements of the non-Russian peoples from Finland to the Caucasus and by the aggravated social problem created by rapid industrialisation. Both social and the national grievances had found explosive vent in the revolution of 1905-6 and both had since continued to work in inseparable combination: The failure of the Russian revolution had further produced a great wave of emigration, which had spread all over Europe/When world war broke out the German government could at once turn to the Russian emigres as agents for revolution in Russia...
    "The Foreign Ministry had begun its preparations for the ‘liberation’ of Poland at the end of July, even before the outbreak of actual hostilities. As early as August 5, 1914, Jagow told the German ambassador in Vienna that ‘our troops are carrying in their pockets proclamations for the liberation of Poland’. On August 3 Zimmermann telegraphed instructions to the German embassy in Constantinople that the Caucasus was to be raised against Russia. ... Thus by August 6, only a week after the declaration of war, Germany’s plans for revolutionising the East from Finland to the Black Sea had been laid...
    It was in this connection that the Chancellor first sketched out his idea of Germany’s New Order in the East, a month before his September Programme. The ‘principles’ for the leaflets to be circulated in Finland were, according to Bethmann Hollweg’s instructions, to describe Germany’s war aims in the East openly as ‘liberation and security for the peoples subjugated by Russia, Russian despotism to be thrown back on Moscow’. The Ukrainian question also made its appearance at the beginning of August. Revolution was openly acknowledged as a means of warfare and as an aim of war, a fact admitted at the time by the leading German statesmen themselves.
    Instructions of August 1 1, 1914, from the Chancellor to the German embassy in Vienna, drafted by Jagow, are revealing on this point. They define the aims of German policy in the following words :

    To produce revolution, not only in Poland but also in the Ukraine, seems to us very important :
    1 . As a means of warfare against Russia,
    2. Because should the war end favourably for us the creation of several buffer states between Russia and Germany and Austria-Hungary would be desirable as a means of relieving the pressure of the Russian colossus on western Europe and thrusting Russia back to the east, as far as possible...

    In August, 1914, (the German Consul-General in Lvov) Heinze... classed the Zionist movement with the Polish and Ukrainian as the third ‘strong movement against Tsarism’. The Jews of Russia were counted as a quasi-German element, if only on account of their Yiddish speech; on the other hand, they were a minority living under a special dispensation, confined to a strip along the western frontier of Russia, and in the two decades before the World War had frequently been the victims of the notorious pogroms whereby the Tsarist regime had sought to divert attention from its own internal difficulties.
    In the days which brought the outbreak of war all German Jewry, including the Zionists (who formed only a minority), were a prey to national excitement. The Cologne Judiciary Councillor Max Bodenheimer, one of the founders of the ‘Zionist Association for Germany’, approached the military authorities in the Rhineland with a proposal for a proclamation to the Jews of Russia. Through Hutten- Czapski’s mediation he was put in touch with Diego von Bergen, the Foreign Ministry’s specialist for revolutions, who was himself thinking along similar lines. On August 1 7 official consent was secured for the foundation of a ‘Committee for the Liberation of the Jews of Russia’, the Presidency of which was assumed by the Berlin sociologist, Professor Franz Oppenheimer, with Bodenheimer as Vice- Chairman. The Committee was approved by the Central Committee of the International Zionist League in Berlin, under Professor Otto Warburg, and soon came to enjoy the support of Germany’s non- Zionist Jews as well. This development filled the German government with most sanguine hopes.
    On August 17 an appeal to the Jews of Russia, signed by the Supreme Command of the German and Austrian armies, called on them to rise in arms, promising them ‘equal civic rights for all, free exercise of their religion and their civil callings and free choice of residence within any territory occupied in future by the Central Powers’. In this as in other leaflets as, for example, those distributed by the Jewish Committees in Galicia, the Jews were adjured in burning words to avenge themselves for the pogroms: ‘Jews of Russia! Rise! Spring to arms! Help hunt the Moskal out of the West, out of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Volhynia and Podolia ! Freedom is coming from Europe . . . !’ ...

    Surprisingly, it was not Germany but Austria-Hungary which first suggested the possibility of using the Russian revolutionaries for the purposes of the Central Powers. At the beginning of August, 1914, as Tschirschky reported to Berlin on August 6, the Austrians had ‘advised all Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland to return to Russia via Austria’. Romberg, in Berne, sent a long report to the Foreign Ministry at the beginning of October pointing out the presence of numerous Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland and their potential usefulness for Germany’s purposes. On December 26 the German minister in Bucharest, von dem Bussche, reported on the beginning of a Russian revolutionary movement. He further recommended letting German Socialists collaborate, whereupon the Foreign Ministry sent Sudekum, the Reichstag deputy, to Bucharest at the beginning of January, 1915, where he negotiated with Russian revolutionaries. Finally, on January 8, 1915, Wangenheim, in Constantinople, drew the attention of the Foreign Ministry to Parvus Helphand, the key figure in the complex ramifications of the revolutionising of Russia. Helphand was at that time employed by the Turkish government as a financial expert. He had recommended himself to the German embassy in the following words :
    Russian democracy could only achieve its goals through the complete destruction of Tsarism and the dismemberment of Russia into smaller states. Germany, for her part, would not achieve full success unless she succeeded in starting a major revolution in Russia. The Russian danger would, however, continue even after the war so long as the Russian Empire was not dismembered into its component parts. The interests of the German government were identical with those of the Russian revolutionaries.
    Helphand’s idea of dismembering and weakening Russia accorded with Bethmann Hollweg’s thinking in August-September, 1914. The new element was a combination of social with national revolution.
    Zimmermann, and after him Bethmann Hollweg and Jagow, at once took up Wangenheim’s suggestion of using Helphand. The Chancellor sent his special confidant, Kurt Riezler, from General Headquarters to get in touch with Helphand, whom the Foreign Ministry had meanwhile had brought to Berlin....
    Helphand thought it particularly important to revolutionise Siberia, because its representatives in the Duma were
    Socialists. He said that it was purely a question of money to contrive the escape of the political deportees to Russia in Europe, and thus to secure thousands of ‘highly efficient agitators’. Their return would, he thought, produce an effect on the Socialist party centres and drive them into the United Front. An extensive press campaign should be initiated, especially with the help of Socialist papers in neutral countries, to support revolutionary activity in Russia. He attached great importance to agitation in North America, where the numerous Jews formed an element which was very susceptible to anti-Tsarist propaganda. If the millions of immigrants from Russia were roused, American public opinion would undoubtedly be affected. The agitation abroad must in his view inevitably be reflected in Russia; at the least it would provoke reprisals by the government against the Socialist movement which would inflame the masses still further against Tsarism and finally force the government to employ the army against the people..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Seraphim says:

    This kind of articles signal the fortunate return of Russia to normalcy. Normalcy interrupted by what was an act of high treason and collusion with the enemy by a medley of utopian hotheads and psychopathic criminals who hated Russia, abetted by the supposed ‘allies’ treachery.
    Understandably, their offspring cannot admit that their forefathers (the profiteers of the collapse of the normal Russian society) bear the blame for the catastrophe that befell Russia. The communist brainwashing has affected them irredeemably. They cannot but mouth the stale Soviet-Western slogans (Tsar bad, Lenin-Trotsky good). But their ilk is on the way out (they moved to the ‘West’ anyway). As the old Russian proverb (it is not only Russian, of course) that Putin loves to quote says: “the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on”.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Bliss says:
    @Mikhail

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:
     
    At play is a learning curve. The Soviets learned from 1905 to take Japan seriously in the late 1930s, much unlike how they initially viewed Finland at that point in time. BTW, a number of Russians viewed the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a chickens coming home to roost situation, given the US reply to when Japan attacked Russia at Port Arthur.

    The US had troubles in Southeast Asia, with Britain failing to keep its American colonies. Great powers can lose and still be great in stature. Russia rebounded well after 1905 and was thought at the time to be on the verge of achieving greater stature.

    The kind of thoughts typically not mentioned by leftist academicians.

    Great powers can lose and still be great in stature.

    The Age of Empires passed away. The Romanovs were doomed by the arc of history.

    Say good riddance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    The Age of Empires passed away. The Romanovs were doomed by the arc of history.

    Say good riddance.
     
    As is true of the USSR, which didn't last as long. The tri-color and two headed eagle are back, along with numerous name changes like Leningrad back to St. Petersburg.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Mikhail says: • Website
    @NotReally
    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn't mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It's one thing to be proud of a nation's legitimate achievements but it's a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren't there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn't fundamentally wrong with Russia's society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It's like saying "If the patient hadn't been sick, he would not have died." And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn't have swept it away.

    But attributing accomplishments to leaders nilly-willy is a great pasttime. Reagan is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union when all he did was ruinously spend and run his own economy in deeper deficits. To believe this man had a plan mistakes the luck of history with genius or conscious decision. And yet many more conservative commenters need to believe that Reagan was great no matter what the historical record shows. No "credit" is given to the actual leaders of the Soviet Union which probably had much more impact on its eventual collapse if not all of it. But hey, he "won." Paul Craig Roberts even credited him with overcoming Stagflation when he basically helped usher in the era of credit-based growth and growing inequality that now keeps repeatedly coming crashing down on our heads. Not many conservatives seem to be willing to call him the cause of what is killing us - or the climate. I would not go as far as saying that he consciously caused it, but he dumbly enacted - just like Thatcher did - the policies of ruin. He was somebody's goon. He didn't cure the malady. He propped the patient up for a while and now he's dying of something worse that might find no easy cure anymore.

    And thus we come back to leaders and their legends. If a certain part of Russian nationalism needs a fake legend of how great Russia could have been if history hadn't actually happened, fine. I stopped reading the unsubstianted glory legend 2/3s through. I'm sure many Germans also sit around and think that a little more luck and a little less dumb Hitler would have brought victory over the Soviet Union and how things might have been gravy after. At least that's the legend the generals wanted to believe after the war. And I get the impression that many educated British people exit their schools with the impression that the Empire was great for mostly anyone and it sadly ended. I actually had discussions where they found it impossible to believe that their Empire had reduced India from a rather advanced economy into an impoverished dependent nation. So everyone gets to believe their own legends. Especially the nationalists of all stripes. Or people sitting in their basements reenacting the Civil War or pretending that Patton plus the US army plus 100,000 captive Germans could have beaten the Red Army. Or any other person who's into entertaining ahistorical fantasies.

    I have no problems with such fantasies, I find them highly entertaining. But when they start to fuel and reinforce your political worldview, they simply become delusions. You can measure Nicholas from actual history and you might or might not arrive at a fair judgment of the man as leader, as a person, or as a historical figure. But to speculate what would have happened if his government had not basically imploded the country and to only parade out a possible best of all potential worlds... that's just delusional. If one needs so hard to prove to himself that Stalin did not really accomplish much and that Nicholas might have accomplished much, then this specific sort of Russian nationalism is standing on clay feet of delusion. I'm sure Russians have enough actual historical achievements to be proud of, without resorting to delusional what-if histories, it just irks certain people that some like the victory over Germany happened under "the wrong people." If Russian monarchists had done the same with double the casualties we would hear no end of it, I'm sure.

    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn’t mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It’s one thing to be proud of a nation’s legitimate achievements but it’s a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren’t there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn’t fundamentally wrong with Russia’s society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It’s like saying “If the patient hadn’t been sick, he would not have died.” And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn’t have swept it away.

    Then again, your comments reveal a certain irony that a good number don’t seem to acknowledge about themselves. The more objective of leftists conclude that had there not been a WW I at the time it occurred (as opposed to either never or a few years later), the Bolshes wouldn’t have likely prevailed. Russia was changing without them.

    Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee. Moreover, there’s historical overview indicating that the Soviet bureaucracy curtailed its space program.

    Russians en masse take pride in their pre-Soviet past. Look at the numerous name changes like Leningrad back to St. Petersburg, as well as the re-adoption of the tri-color and two headed eagle.

    It has been a pleasure for me to see numerous Soviet raised Russians and much younger ones sharing this sentiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    "Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee."

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the "working people's class struggle". Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Bliss

    Great powers can lose and still be great in stature.
     
    The Age of Empires passed away. The Romanovs were doomed by the arc of history.

    Say good riddance.

    The Age of Empires passed away. The Romanovs were doomed by the arc of history.

    Say good riddance.

    As is true of the USSR, which didn’t last as long. The tri-color and two headed eagle are back, along with numerous name changes like Leningrad back to St. Petersburg.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. ivan says:
    @Mitleser
    I would have preferred an article about the Czar of Peace, Nikolai's father, Alexander III.

    Or Nikolai's superior brother, Georgi.

    So write your own, and get Mr Unz to publish it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. ivan says:

    A very fine family in that colourised picture. No wonder the Boeotians had them killed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. ivan says:
    @Bliss

    In 1945, Stalin was reaping the consequences of America’s crushing victory over Japan and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war in the Far East was a requisition of war trophies from an already defeated empire.
     
    Long before the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Imperial Japan was decisively defeated by the Soviets at Khalkin Gol (Nomanhan to the Japanese). A pivotal battle that changed the course of WWII:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

    While this engagement is little known in the West, it played an important part in subsequent Japanese conduct in World War II.....support shifted to the South Strike Group, favored by the Navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies. Masanobu Tsuji, the Japanese colonel who had helped instigate the Nomonhan incident, was one of the strongest proponents of the attack on Pearl Harbor....Tsuji later wrote that his experience of Soviet fire-power at Nomonhan convinced him not to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. On 24 June 1941, two days after the war on the Eastern Front broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted a resolution "not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being".

    Contrast this victory of the Soviets (led by Zhukov whose ancestors were recently serfs) to the humiliating defeats of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Especially the hugely lop-sided defeat in the Battle of Tsushima:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

    It was fought on 27–28 May 1905 (14–15 May in the Julian calendar then in use in Russia) in the Tsushima Strait between Korea and southern Japan. In this battle the Japanese fleet under Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō destroyed two-thirds of the Russian fleet....In London in 1906, Sir George Sydenham Clarke wrote, "The battle of Tsu-shima is by far the greatest and the most important naval event since Trafalgar"; decades later, historian Edmund Morris agreed with this judgment.

    The battle was humiliating for Russia, which lost all its battleships and most of its cruisers and destroyers. The battle effectively ended the Russo-Japanese War in Japan's favour. The Russians lost 4,380 killed and 5,917 captured, including two admirals, with a further 1,862 interned.....The Japanese lost three torpedo boats, with 117 men killed and 500 wounded.

    Imperial Russia's prestige was badly damaged and the defeat was a blow to the Romanov dynasty.

    It was the first defeat of a European power by an Asian nation in the modern era. It also weakened the notion of white superiority that was prevalent in some Western countries.

    Chalk the real architect of that victory to the ever perfidious Albion. The Russians under Rokkosovsky knew that their ships were completely outclassed by those in the Japanese fleet built largely by the British to the latest standards, but they went into battle nonetheless. Britain was at its usual game of keeping ‘the Continetals’ occupied. The Japanese of course later returned the favour by breaking the back of the British Empire in Malaya and Burma in WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Are you sure that it was not Rozhestvensky?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Epigon says:
    @melanf

    then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.
     
    Disgusting and stupid lies. The reign of this scum ended in disaster (entirely - the fault of Nicholas). Shamefully lost wars, rampant terror and the revolution of 1905 - this can not be considered a "normal" rule.

    A model example of a "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" - Catherine the Great. Peter The great is a model example of how to achieve "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" in the conditions of severe crisis. And Nicholas is an example of how stupid and cowardly scum can ruin everything.

    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some “progressive” monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.

    Read More
    • Agree: Felix Keverich
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    That is why I consider the early Romanov Czars more sympathic than the later, more alien Romanov Emperors.
    , @ploni almoni
    The British Monarchy is also of German origin, and the first Hanoverian could not speak English but no monarch of foreign birth in recent history could be considered the agent of a foreign power. Many foreigners went to Russia, and became thoroughly Russified. Even Jews, except that they answer to a higher authority, as Hebrew National told us regarding their standards for hot dogs.
    , @melanf

    Catherine and Peter as some “progressive” monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia
     
    This is really a very stupid leftist propaganda. Serfdom in Russia appeared long before Peter (or Catherine). "Cruel Western serfdom" - this has never happened in Russia.
    If the myth of "the horrors of serfdom" is very important for you, then Peter should be your idol: after his reforms, the share of serfs in the Russian population is steadily declining (64% in 1698 and 36% in 1858 within the boundaries of 1648)


    refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur
     
    It's just a lie (borrowed from leftist propaganda)

    Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.
     
    In the 18th century through St. Petersburg went 80% of Russian exports.
    And it is 2017 (SPb - first line)
    https://ports.com.ua/vendor/laravel-filemanager/images/2017/1114tab17.jpg

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex
     
    Really? Ie Catherine is celebrated for her German origin, but not for her successful rule the country?
    And Peter (unlike his father and grandfather) became the hero of folk ballads - I wonder how you explain it? Russian peasants in the 18th century worshipped the "West"?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    "Harsh Western serfdom?" Please elaborate on where you get this notion from and what it involved.

    I am only really confident of my knowledge of English conditions. While feudal tenure was - in a sense still is - the legal basis for landed property it is notorious that the Black Death of the 1340s so depopulated the country that the price of and market forlabour effectively liberated the poorest labourer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. j2 says:

    Nicholas II tried to bring his country to the modern age and he did many things quite well. I admire his efforts. However, there were some vital things in which he failed.
    - Finns, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Jews can confirm that Russia tried to assimilate minorities, and that caused resistance. There is a Russian view of small nations as unnecessary, but the smaller nations do not think so (Poland is not so small, the others are rather small). So, this was one problem and error of the the Czar. I personally think that minorities have to be assimilated, but it is not the case if these minorities were obtained by an aggressive war. If so, then you should give these minorities back their liberty.
    - The second error was done in industrialization. The Czar needed capital and knowhow, so he opened the possibility of foreigners to build industry. On paper this seems reasonable. That is exactly what they say now. Fortunately for Poland, it did not follow the Western advisers, Russia did and lost a lot. Anyway, the Czar opened Russia for investments. Rich people from two nationalities built factories: Germans and Jews. There was no problem with the former, the latter lead to Communism in a bit complicated way that I will not reconstruct here as it is lengthy.
    - The third error is that though Papus had explained the danger to Nicholas II, the Czar did not sufficiently well take Papus’ (insider information) words into account. There was a conspiracy, Nicholas II should have believed it (are Russians so naive? do not see how this world is run? no wonder why the smaller nations want out). At that time they used secret societies, later secret parties, later lobbies.
    - Today some people ridicule conspiracies even on this site, they are allowed to do so, but if you have any brain, do not forget that they did kill Nicholas II and his family and caused a great bloodbath in Russia, and that was just the start. They have caused unbelievably much bloodshed all through the history. And then you ask: who are they? In the Sam Peckinpach film Wild bunch it is finally answered: they are the railroad men, it was the cripple from Sergio Leone’s Once Up On A Time in America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Heros says:

    Once again Karlin, by refusing to name the Jew, misses a great opportunity to tie these events of a century ago to what is happening today across the west. After Alexander rebuffed Rothschild attempts at creating a new world government at the Congress of Vienna, the Rothschild vowed that they would destroy the Romanovs and every living descendent. It is no surprise that it was an all Jewish assassination squad that murdered the Tsar and his family in a Kabalistic ritual. These Jews murdered all the Romanov blood relatives as well.

    What Karlin, and most Russians, seems blind to is the fact that no matter what these Jews hyphenate after this tribe, they are first and foremost from that tribe. Jewish Americans, Jewish Communists, Jewish Zionists, Jewish Bankers, Jewish Democrats, it doesn’t matter. Practically without exception, they are all Jews first.

    [MORE]

    When Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese naval build up before the war in 1905, it was the Rothschild owned Vickers shipyard that built the most modern dreadnoughts for the Japanese that were used to defeat Russia. That very same Jacob Schiff financed the Bolschevics with $20m in gold.

    The international Jews had all been meeting in the International Jewish Congresses going back to the 1848 revolutions that they had fomented. These congresses were just jews of every walk of life from around the planet secretly planning and coordinating the destruction of Christianity and the re-creation of Greater Israel. There are some famous Protocols from these global jewish meetings.

    After the murder of untold millions of Russians and the horrific ritual slayings of thousands of their priests and the destruction of Orthodox churches across the land, after Bela Kuhn had waged his sadistic war against Christians in Hungary, after the Republicans in Spain ritually sacrificed and murdered thousands of Priests in Spain and destroyed their churches, after all that, Christians under mind control of Jewish media couldn’t see past the wall of propaganda about communism. Of course there was Duranty’s deliberate lies in the New York Times, and Churchill’s “Uncle Joe”.

    The only Christians who could learn the truth about communism had to be outside the wall of Jewish media control. When Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, they also freed the German people from their propaganda grip. In the Soviet Union, anti-semitism was illegal and possession of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a capital crime with an instant death penalty.

    As countries liberated from Jewish Propaganda were allowed to know the truth of what the Communists had done (Communist stooges call this Hitlers “Big Lie”), they joined Hitler in attempting to prevent the communist steamroller from rolling over Europe. This is known as Operation Barbarossa, when an international coalition of Christian Nations tried to eliminate the threat of communism to the world.

    Unfortunately, and this is important for Karlin and Russians in general, unfortunately the Jews won. Not “Russia”, not “Russians”, not even Americans or British. Jews won. A coalition of Jew controlled countries, under secret leadership and control by Jews, banned together to stop the Christian coalition and continue the destruction of Christianity, and it is still on going today.

    As we head into summer in the 100 year anniversary of the end of the first Goyim holocaust, we see these same (((communists))) fomenting violence in the US and across Europe. Communists tried to assassinate Scalise at a softball games last summer, and almost broke the back of Rand Paul. The are being whipped into a frenzy by people like Maxine Waters. Karlin may believe that these are merely disgruntled youths, but if you look behind there are always jewish fingers pulling the strings, even if it is just media agitation. People should also be under no illusions that these antifa ghouls won’t be ready to murder the same way the Bolscheviks did in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Maybe the writer is ambitious. Maybe he wants to be well known, make money etc...In that case, he knows that there are some words you are not allowed to use. It's the price you have to pay.
    If you can't use THE word, then you use empty ones: bolsheviks , liberals, leftists.

    Even the great Dr Ron Paul does it. He uses "Neo-cons".

    The price one has to pay to use THE word is too high. Is it worth it ?
    In some cases, I don't believe it is. What would be achieved if Dr Paul's career as "Educator" of the American people is destroyed ?

    Agree that Mr. Karlin is an example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    Better example than the writer of this piece is the new czar of Russia. Putin is a more dangerous and powerful example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    An excellent post.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    What I've read suggests the Habsburgs were hated by pan-Germans (such as a young Hitler) for what was perceived as their favoritism to Slavs. Also the Church caught some flak for appointing Slavic priests to German parishes. The South Slav nationalists (a Serbian project) would've been the exception

    Yugoslav/pan-South Slav nationalism was decidedly NOT a Serbian project.

    It’s earlies instance is Papal intention to impose Illyrian identity from 1600 upon various regions outside of Croatia, the Catholic bulwark in the Balkans.
    Fast forward, a Catholic Archbishop Strossmayer and an unusual mix of foreigners of French, German, Czech descent (Guy, Fuchs, Frass) start a de-facto Croatian national movement, call it Illyrian, and start talking about unification of South Slavic lands – an East Herzegovinian dialect was taken as a standard for Croat language, which not a single Croat spoke then. Naturally, all under the eye of Habsburgs, who eye the Balkan area as ideal expansion. All the way to First World War, there were more Serbs under Habsburg crown than there were under Serbia crown.

    The conflict in the Balkans was precipitated by Anglo-sponsored (and Freemasonry, naturally) coup of 1903 deposing and murdering Serbian pro-Austrian/German dinasty. It was a regime change. That de facto blocked Danube and hypothetical Berlin-Baghdad route for Germans.
    The conspirators looted the royal residence and even the bodies of monarchs (fingers cut off to obtain rings) and auctioned them off in London.

    From then on, Karađorđević-led Serbia pursued Yugoslav idea to the benefit of their benefactors and supporters in London, since Yugoslavia was a perfect counter to German and Russian influence in the Balkans. Russian diplomatic efforts in the Balkans and creation of Balkan Alliance aimed at Ottomans were countered by German and British (French were centuries-long allies of Great Turk, British jumped on board due to Great Game) dominated London Conference that threw a wedge in their plans for Ottoman-free Balkans.

    British agents and operatives played their part once again in March 27th 1941 coup, and yet again in 1944 making Yugocommunists the representatives. By a mere coincidence, Churchill’s own son was a liaison to Yugocommunists. From then on, Kennan doctrine and Tito creation of Unaligned movement to block integration of Second and Third World, leaving the Unaligned countries easy prey once Warsaw Pact was gone, is an easy follow-on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Mitleser says:
    @Epigon
    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some "progressive" monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.

    That is why I consider the early Romanov Czars more sympathic than the later, more alien Romanov Emperors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Off topic, but some welcome news out of Russia:

    Liberast PR-manager of a French retail company was fired after producing fake news, trolling Russian patriots on her Facebook page.

    https://www.stav.kp.ru/daily/26851.4/3892495/

    Traditionally liberals in Russia get away with saying the most outrageous things, but lately Russia seems to be developing a culture of public opinion, that punishes people for being a swine.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Good example of civil society in action, Americanization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Wow, Mr. Karlin, seems like your well-balanced approach to Nicholas has brought out an army of Russia haters, probably descendants of the same Bolshevik Jews that stole the revolution from the Russian people, with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff.

    These are some of the same maniacs that like to play dress-up, hide their faces and go around physically attacking anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their Communist manifesto, which they have to do since they know SANE people recoil in shock at these Stalin foot soldiers, who would gladly emulate their Dear Leader by killing off a billion or two ‘useless eaters,’ and toss another billion into a 21 century Gulag.

    Someone called Stalin a malignant dwarf. I agree completely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff
     
    I would like to know how much gold and wealth was extracted form Russia by Bolsheviks who had to pay off their sponsors. How much money did Jacob Schiff make?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    Regarding the origins of the plot to send Lenin to Russia. It was not General Ludendorff who had the original idea of sending Lenin back to Russia in the sealed train. That idea came from Israel Helphand, aka Alexander Parvus. Helphand persuaded Ludendorff to send Lenin to Russia at a meeting in early 1917. http://today-in-wwi.tumblr.com/post/158837112438/ludendorff-agrees-to-send-lenin-to-russia

    Incidentally, just lately a senior Ukrainian military official caused some controversy and made reference to Helphand/Parvus. http://www.newsweek.com/jews-want-drown-ukraine-blood-ukraines-military-prosecutor-says-amid-wave-997357

    For the role of German agents Helphand, Lenin, Trotsky there is a copious literature which is not frequently cited as not to shatter the myth of the ‘revolution of the masses’ and to cover up the evidence of the heavy participation of the Jews in the so-called ‘Russian Revolution’.
    But the collusion of the Germans with the Jewish socialist revolutionaries was clearly demonstrated by Fritz Fischer in his ‘controversial’ book “Germany’s aims in the First World War” of 1961! Of course it is recommendable to read the whole book (one would gain a better understanding of the present situation in the Middle East as well!).

    “The promotion of revolution as a means of warfare was an aspect of the war aim of breaking up the British and the Russian empires. The most vulnerable points of France and Britain seemed to be among their coloured colonial subjects, while Russia offered fields for subversion among her non-Russian peoples…
    Favourable fields for Germany’s subversive activities in Russia were offered by the national movements of the non-Russian peoples from Finland to the Caucasus and by the aggravated social problem created by rapid industrialisation. Both social and the national grievances had found explosive vent in the revolution of 1905-6 and both had since continued to work in inseparable combination: The failure of the Russian revolution had further produced a great wave of emigration, which had spread all over Europe/When world war broke out the German government could at once turn to the Russian emigres as agents for revolution in Russia…
    “The Foreign Ministry had begun its preparations for the ‘liberation’ of Poland at the end of July, even before the outbreak of actual hostilities. As early as August 5, 1914, Jagow told the German ambassador in Vienna that ‘our troops are carrying in their pockets proclamations for the liberation of Poland’. On August 3 Zimmermann telegraphed instructions to the German embassy in Constantinople that the Caucasus was to be raised against Russia. … Thus by August 6, only a week after the declaration of war, Germany’s plans for revolutionising the East from Finland to the Black Sea had been laid…
    It was in this connection that the Chancellor first sketched out his idea of Germany’s New Order in the East, a month before his September Programme. The ‘principles’ for the leaflets to be circulated in Finland were, according to Bethmann Hollweg’s instructions, to describe Germany’s war aims in the East openly as ‘liberation and security for the peoples subjugated by Russia, Russian despotism to be thrown back on Moscow’. The Ukrainian question also made its appearance at the beginning of August. Revolution was openly acknowledged as a means of warfare and as an aim of war, a fact admitted at the time by the leading German statesmen themselves.
    Instructions of August 1 1, 1914, from the Chancellor to the German embassy in Vienna, drafted by Jagow, are revealing on this point. They define the aims of German policy in the following words :

    To produce revolution, not only in Poland but also in the Ukraine, seems to us very important :
    1 . As a means of warfare against Russia,
    2. Because should the war end favourably for us the creation of several buffer states between Russia and Germany and Austria-Hungary would be desirable as a means of relieving the pressure of the Russian colossus on western Europe and thrusting Russia back to the east, as far as possible…

    In August, 1914, (the German Consul-General in Lvov) Heinze… classed the Zionist movement with the Polish and Ukrainian as the third ‘strong movement against Tsarism’. The Jews of Russia were counted as a quasi-German element, if only on account of their Yiddish speech; on the other hand, they were a minority living under a special dispensation, confined to a strip along the western frontier of Russia, and in the two decades before the World War had frequently been the victims of the notorious pogroms whereby the Tsarist regime had sought to divert attention from its own internal difficulties.
    In the days which brought the outbreak of war all German Jewry, including the Zionists (who formed only a minority), were a prey to national excitement. The Cologne Judiciary Councillor Max Bodenheimer, one of the founders of the ‘Zionist Association for Germany’, approached the military authorities in the Rhineland with a proposal for a proclamation to the Jews of Russia. Through Hutten- Czapski’s mediation he was put in touch with Diego von Bergen, the Foreign Ministry’s specialist for revolutions, who was himself thinking along similar lines. On August 1 7 official consent was secured for the foundation of a ‘Committee for the Liberation of the Jews of Russia’, the Presidency of which was assumed by the Berlin sociologist, Professor Franz Oppenheimer, with Bodenheimer as Vice- Chairman. The Committee was approved by the Central Committee of the International Zionist League in Berlin, under Professor Otto Warburg, and soon came to enjoy the support of Germany’s non- Zionist Jews as well. This development filled the German government with most sanguine hopes.
    On August 17 an appeal to the Jews of Russia, signed by the Supreme Command of the German and Austrian armies, called on them to rise in arms, promising them ‘equal civic rights for all, free exercise of their religion and their civil callings and free choice of residence within any territory occupied in future by the Central Powers’. In this as in other leaflets as, for example, those distributed by the Jewish Committees in Galicia, the Jews were adjured in burning words to avenge themselves for the pogroms: ‘Jews of Russia! Rise! Spring to arms! Help hunt the Moskal out of the West, out of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Volhynia and Podolia ! Freedom is coming from Europe . . . !’ …

    Surprisingly, it was not Germany but Austria-Hungary which first suggested the possibility of using the Russian revolutionaries for the purposes of the Central Powers. At the beginning of August, 1914, as Tschirschky reported to Berlin on August 6, the Austrians had ‘advised all Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland to return to Russia via Austria’. Romberg, in Berne, sent a long report to the Foreign Ministry at the beginning of October pointing out the presence of numerous Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland and their potential usefulness for Germany’s purposes. On December 26 the German minister in Bucharest, von dem Bussche, reported on the beginning of a Russian revolutionary movement. He further recommended letting German Socialists collaborate, whereupon the Foreign Ministry sent Sudekum, the Reichstag deputy, to Bucharest at the beginning of January, 1915, where he negotiated with Russian revolutionaries. Finally, on January 8, 1915, Wangenheim, in Constantinople, drew the attention of the Foreign Ministry to Parvus Helphand, the key figure in the complex ramifications of the revolutionising of Russia. Helphand was at that time employed by the Turkish government as a financial expert. He had recommended himself to the German embassy in the following words :
    Russian democracy could only achieve its goals through the complete destruction of Tsarism and the dismemberment of Russia into smaller states. Germany, for her part, would not achieve full success unless she succeeded in starting a major revolution in Russia. The Russian danger would, however, continue even after the war so long as the Russian Empire was not dismembered into its component parts. The interests of the German government were identical with those of the Russian revolutionaries.
    Helphand’s idea of dismembering and weakening Russia accorded with Bethmann Hollweg’s thinking in August-September, 1914. The new element was a combination of social with national revolution.
    Zimmermann, and after him Bethmann Hollweg and Jagow, at once took up Wangenheim’s suggestion of using Helphand. The Chancellor sent his special confidant, Kurt Riezler, from General Headquarters to get in touch with Helphand, whom the Foreign Ministry had meanwhile had brought to Berlin….
    Helphand thought it particularly important to revolutionise Siberia, because its representatives in the Duma were
    Socialists. He said that it was purely a question of money to contrive the escape of the political deportees to Russia in Europe, and thus to secure thousands of ‘highly efficient agitators’. Their return would, he thought, produce an effect on the Socialist party centres and drive them into the United Front. An extensive press campaign should be initiated, especially with the help of Socialist papers in neutral countries, to support revolutionary activity in Russia. He attached great importance to agitation in North America, where the numerous Jews formed an element which was very susceptible to anti-Tsarist propaganda. If the millions of immigrants from Russia were roused, American public opinion would undoubtedly be affected. The agitation abroad must in his view inevitably be reflected in Russia; at the least it would provoke reprisals by the government against the Socialist movement which would inflame the masses still further against Tsarism and finally force the government to employ the army against the people…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    Alexander Parvus is a historical person who is almost unknown in the west. But in Ukraine some people are aware of his role in Russian/Ukrainian history. http://www.newsweek.com/jews-want-drown-ukraine-blood-ukraines-military-prosecutor-says-amid-wave-997357
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. utu says:
    @Greg Bacon
    Wow, Mr. Karlin, seems like your well-balanced approach to Nicholas has brought out an army of Russia haters, probably descendants of the same Bolshevik Jews that stole the revolution from the Russian people, with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff.

    These are some of the same maniacs that like to play dress-up, hide their faces and go around physically attacking anyone who doesn't subscribe to their Communist manifesto, which they have to do since they know SANE people recoil in shock at these Stalin foot soldiers, who would gladly emulate their Dear Leader by killing off a billion or two 'useless eaters,' and toss another billion into a 21 century Gulag.

    Someone called Stalin a malignant dwarf. I agree completely.

    with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff

    I would like to know how much gold and wealth was extracted form Russia by Bolsheviks who had to pay off their sponsors. How much money did Jacob Schiff make?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    According to Sean Mcmeekin's book on this subject, the Tsarist gold reserves - which on the eve of the Great War were the second largest in the world, after the United States - lasted them their first two years in power. The private valuables they looted (gold, silver, jewelry, icons) lasted them another few months, but much less than they expected or hoped for, due to the propensity of local Bolshevik looters to appropriate for themselves.

    The Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West was the Jewish-Swedish Olof Aschberg. He acquired one of the world's finest collections of (stolen) Russian icons in the process, which now reside in a Swedish museum.

    PS. Incidentally, I just learned from the Wikipedia entry on him that he has a son named Robert Aschberg. He was a Maoist in his youth, and is now a mainstream anti-racist journalist.

    https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/905539115697004545

    Dollars to peanuts he's also a Russophobe, hates Putin, etc.
    , @Greg Bacon
    Probably not as much as was looted under Yeltsin--with the help of Wall Street financial sharpies--making 10 or so Russian oligarchs extremely wealthy, that now use that wealth to point at Putin and scream he's a thief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Felix Keverich
    Off topic, but some welcome news out of Russia:

    Liberast PR-manager of a French retail company was fired after producing fake news, trolling Russian patriots on her Facebook page.

    https://www.stav.kp.ru/daily/26851.4/3892495/

    Traditionally liberals in Russia get away with saying the most outrageous things, but lately Russia seems to be developing a culture of public opinion, that punishes people for being a swine.

    Good example of civil society in action, Americanization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Mikhail

    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn’t mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It’s one thing to be proud of a nation’s legitimate achievements but it’s a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren’t there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn’t fundamentally wrong with Russia’s society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It’s like saying “If the patient hadn’t been sick, he would not have died.” And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn’t have swept it away.
     

    Then again, your comments reveal a certain irony that a good number don't seem to acknowledge about themselves. The more objective of leftists conclude that had there not been a WW I at the time it occurred (as opposed to either never or a few years later), the Bolshes wouldn't have likely prevailed. Russia was changing without them.

    Actually, there's a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would've achieved more - seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee. Moreover, there's historical overview indicating that the Soviet bureaucracy curtailed its space program.

    Russians en masse take pride in their pre-Soviet past. Look at the numerous name changes like Leningrad back to St. Petersburg, as well as the re-adoption of the tri-color and two headed eagle.

    It has been a pleasure for me to see numerous Soviet raised Russians and much younger ones sharing this sentiment.

    “Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee.”

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the “working people’s class struggle”. Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    Mostly of the non-Russians wielding rifles and guns (like the Latvian Riflemen, notorious for their zeal in the suppression of anti-Bolshevik uprisings in Moscow and Yaroslavl in 1918). Or the Jews of the Cheka-NKVD.
    , @Mikhail

    “Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee.”

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the “working people’s class struggle”. Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

     

    Your point of ghosts, UFOs and similar stuff too applies to you.

    Non-Communist Russia was on the verge of recognizing Polish and Finnish independence, in addition to consider granting greater autonomy to other parts of the Russian Empire.

    For accuracy sake, you shouldn't confuse the world of today with what was evident in the early part of the 20th century. Britain at that time was considering Irish independence, much unlike such for other parts of its empire.

    The Bolshes took advantage of the horrors resulting from the timing of WW I and how the Russian government chose to engage in that conflict.
    , @Anon
    The Tsars would not have been able to modernize their country without problems, that is true. But the way the Communists did it was extremely bad. You can't prove to me that the Tsars would have been worse at the job. One thing was clear. Nicholas was more kind-hearted that Stalin ever was, and I doubt he would have been as bloody.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @utu

    with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff
     
    I would like to know how much gold and wealth was extracted form Russia by Bolsheviks who had to pay off their sponsors. How much money did Jacob Schiff make?

    According to Sean Mcmeekin’s book on this subject, the Tsarist gold reserves – which on the eve of the Great War were the second largest in the world, after the United States – lasted them their first two years in power. The private valuables they looted (gold, silver, jewelry, icons) lasted them another few months, but much less than they expected or hoped for, due to the propensity of local Bolshevik looters to appropriate for themselves.

    The Bolsheviks’ main money-man in the West was the Jewish-Swedish Olof Aschberg. He acquired one of the world’s finest collections of (stolen) Russian icons in the process, which now reside in a Swedish museum.

    PS. Incidentally, I just learned from the Wikipedia entry on him that he has a son named Robert Aschberg. He was a Maoist in his youth, and is now a mainstream anti-racist journalist.

    Dollars to peanuts he’s also a Russophobe, hates Putin, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Epigon
    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some "progressive" monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.

    The British Monarchy is also of German origin, and the first Hanoverian could not speak English but no monarch of foreign birth in recent history could be considered the agent of a foreign power. Many foreigners went to Russia, and became thoroughly Russified. Even Jews, except that they answer to a higher authority, as Hebrew National told us regarding their standards for hot dogs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Seraphim says:
    @Simpleguest
    "Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee."

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the "working people's class struggle". Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

    @Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    Mostly of the non-Russians wielding rifles and guns (like the Latvian Riflemen, notorious for their zeal in the suppression of anti-Bolshevik uprisings in Moscow and Yaroslavl in 1918). Or the Jews of the Cheka-NKVD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Jake says:

    “Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk. No matter that the price for this Great Leap Forward were millions of Russian lives lost to the Civil War, three waves of famine, dekulakization, repression and crushing World War II defeats – after all, “with us, it can’t be done otherwise”.

    Pro-Stalinists sound just like American Neocons, save for the Neocons greatly preferring Trotsky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    “Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk.
     
    What rhetorical stupidity, given that the world at the time of the Czar, didn't possess such technology.

    Russia was clearly advancing without the Bolshes and would've continued to advance (most probably better) without them..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Seraphim says:
    @ivan
    Chalk the real architect of that victory to the ever perfidious Albion. The Russians under Rokkosovsky knew that their ships were completely outclassed by those in the Japanese fleet built largely by the British to the latest standards, but they went into battle nonetheless. Britain was at its usual game of keeping 'the Continetals' occupied. The Japanese of course later returned the favour by breaking the back of the British Empire in Malaya and Burma in WWII.

    Are you sure that it was not Rozhestvensky?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Jake says:

    “If not for the Red Scares, a party led by a deeply Russophobic Hitler would not have claimed power in 1933. German elites would probably have preferred more moderate revanchists leaning towards co-operation, not war with Russia.

    If a World War II had broken out at all, it would have had entirely different provisions, and would not have been an all-devouring crusade of cannibals against Russia.”

    Yes, the Bolshevik Revolution was necessary to massive slaughter, the reverberations of which have yet to subside. The reverberations of which American Leftist imperialists and their faux-conservative allies the Neocons are damned determined to increase and, ala Trotsky, make permanent for the entire globe.

    They indeed are Globalists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. melanf says:
    @Epigon
    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some "progressive" monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.

    Catherine and Peter as some “progressive” monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia

    This is really a very stupid leftist propaganda. Serfdom in Russia appeared long before Peter (or Catherine). “Cruel Western serfdom” – this has never happened in Russia.
    If the myth of “the horrors of serfdom” is very important for you, then Peter should be your idol: after his reforms, the share of serfs in the Russian population is steadily declining (64% in 1698 and 36% in 1858 within the boundaries of 1648)

    refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur

    It’s just a lie (borrowed from leftist propaganda)

    Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    In the 18th century through St. Petersburg went 80% of Russian exports.
    And it is 2017 (SPb – first line)

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex

    Really? Ie Catherine is celebrated for her German origin, but not for her successful rule the country?
    And Peter (unlike his father and grandfather) became the hero of folk ballads – I wonder how you explain it? Russian peasants in the 18th century worshipped the “West”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. LH says:
    @Fluctuarius

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.
     
    Compare the general loyalty and discipline of the Russian army, up until a deliberate campaign of "democratisation of the army" in 1917, and the mass desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech, Ruthenian, Serbian, etc. soldiers from the Austro-Hungarian army.

    Comrade Stalin's unparalleled genius my foot.

    desertion/surrender/defection of ethnic Czech soldiers

    Disloyality of Czech soldiers was exaggerated during the war (due to infighting between the A-H’s top military brass) and especially after the war. The war was not popular, but not to the point of mass desertions. At the very end of WWI there were several uprisings, but the army still managed to suppress them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. AlexT says:

    The Holy Royal Martyrs were neither weak, nor ignorant of their fate. They accepted it as God’s will. St. John of Kronstadt prophesied the slaughter and the apostasy of the 20th century. Nicholas II was aware of it, and lived his life accordingly.
    Anyone who has anything bad to say about him, or anything good to say about his enemies, should be shot.

    http://www.orthodox.net/articles/vision-of-st-john-of-kronstadt.html

    Read More
    • LOL: Marcus
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Well said, sir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Seraphim
    For the role of German agents Helphand, Lenin, Trotsky there is a copious literature which is not frequently cited as not to shatter the myth of the 'revolution of the masses' and to cover up the evidence of the heavy participation of the Jews in the so-called 'Russian Revolution'.
    But the collusion of the Germans with the Jewish socialist revolutionaries was clearly demonstrated by Fritz Fischer in his 'controversial' book "Germany's aims in the First World War" of 1961! Of course it is recommendable to read the whole book (one would gain a better understanding of the present situation in the Middle East as well!).

    "The promotion of revolution as a means of warfare was an aspect of the war aim of breaking up the British and the Russian empires. The most vulnerable points of France and Britain seemed to be among their coloured colonial subjects, while Russia offered fields for subversion among her non-Russian peoples...
    Favourable fields for Germany’s subversive activities in Russia were offered by the national movements of the non-Russian peoples from Finland to the Caucasus and by the aggravated social problem created by rapid industrialisation. Both social and the national grievances had found explosive vent in the revolution of 1905-6 and both had since continued to work in inseparable combination: The failure of the Russian revolution had further produced a great wave of emigration, which had spread all over Europe/When world war broke out the German government could at once turn to the Russian emigres as agents for revolution in Russia...
    "The Foreign Ministry had begun its preparations for the ‘liberation’ of Poland at the end of July, even before the outbreak of actual hostilities. As early as August 5, 1914, Jagow told the German ambassador in Vienna that ‘our troops are carrying in their pockets proclamations for the liberation of Poland’. On August 3 Zimmermann telegraphed instructions to the German embassy in Constantinople that the Caucasus was to be raised against Russia. ... Thus by August 6, only a week after the declaration of war, Germany’s plans for revolutionising the East from Finland to the Black Sea had been laid...
    It was in this connection that the Chancellor first sketched out his idea of Germany’s New Order in the East, a month before his September Programme. The ‘principles’ for the leaflets to be circulated in Finland were, according to Bethmann Hollweg’s instructions, to describe Germany’s war aims in the East openly as ‘liberation and security for the peoples subjugated by Russia, Russian despotism to be thrown back on Moscow’. The Ukrainian question also made its appearance at the beginning of August. Revolution was openly acknowledged as a means of warfare and as an aim of war, a fact admitted at the time by the leading German statesmen themselves.
    Instructions of August 1 1, 1914, from the Chancellor to the German embassy in Vienna, drafted by Jagow, are revealing on this point. They define the aims of German policy in the following words :

    To produce revolution, not only in Poland but also in the Ukraine, seems to us very important :
    1 . As a means of warfare against Russia,
    2. Because should the war end favourably for us the creation of several buffer states between Russia and Germany and Austria-Hungary would be desirable as a means of relieving the pressure of the Russian colossus on western Europe and thrusting Russia back to the east, as far as possible...

    In August, 1914, (the German Consul-General in Lvov) Heinze... classed the Zionist movement with the Polish and Ukrainian as the third ‘strong movement against Tsarism’. The Jews of Russia were counted as a quasi-German element, if only on account of their Yiddish speech; on the other hand, they were a minority living under a special dispensation, confined to a strip along the western frontier of Russia, and in the two decades before the World War had frequently been the victims of the notorious pogroms whereby the Tsarist regime had sought to divert attention from its own internal difficulties.
    In the days which brought the outbreak of war all German Jewry, including the Zionists (who formed only a minority), were a prey to national excitement. The Cologne Judiciary Councillor Max Bodenheimer, one of the founders of the ‘Zionist Association for Germany’, approached the military authorities in the Rhineland with a proposal for a proclamation to the Jews of Russia. Through Hutten- Czapski’s mediation he was put in touch with Diego von Bergen, the Foreign Ministry’s specialist for revolutions, who was himself thinking along similar lines. On August 1 7 official consent was secured for the foundation of a ‘Committee for the Liberation of the Jews of Russia’, the Presidency of which was assumed by the Berlin sociologist, Professor Franz Oppenheimer, with Bodenheimer as Vice- Chairman. The Committee was approved by the Central Committee of the International Zionist League in Berlin, under Professor Otto Warburg, and soon came to enjoy the support of Germany’s non- Zionist Jews as well. This development filled the German government with most sanguine hopes.
    On August 17 an appeal to the Jews of Russia, signed by the Supreme Command of the German and Austrian armies, called on them to rise in arms, promising them ‘equal civic rights for all, free exercise of their religion and their civil callings and free choice of residence within any territory occupied in future by the Central Powers’. In this as in other leaflets as, for example, those distributed by the Jewish Committees in Galicia, the Jews were adjured in burning words to avenge themselves for the pogroms: ‘Jews of Russia! Rise! Spring to arms! Help hunt the Moskal out of the West, out of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Volhynia and Podolia ! Freedom is coming from Europe . . . !’ ...

    Surprisingly, it was not Germany but Austria-Hungary which first suggested the possibility of using the Russian revolutionaries for the purposes of the Central Powers. At the beginning of August, 1914, as Tschirschky reported to Berlin on August 6, the Austrians had ‘advised all Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland to return to Russia via Austria’. Romberg, in Berne, sent a long report to the Foreign Ministry at the beginning of October pointing out the presence of numerous Russian revolutionaries in Switzerland and their potential usefulness for Germany’s purposes. On December 26 the German minister in Bucharest, von dem Bussche, reported on the beginning of a Russian revolutionary movement. He further recommended letting German Socialists collaborate, whereupon the Foreign Ministry sent Sudekum, the Reichstag deputy, to Bucharest at the beginning of January, 1915, where he negotiated with Russian revolutionaries. Finally, on January 8, 1915, Wangenheim, in Constantinople, drew the attention of the Foreign Ministry to Parvus Helphand, the key figure in the complex ramifications of the revolutionising of Russia. Helphand was at that time employed by the Turkish government as a financial expert. He had recommended himself to the German embassy in the following words :
    Russian democracy could only achieve its goals through the complete destruction of Tsarism and the dismemberment of Russia into smaller states. Germany, for her part, would not achieve full success unless she succeeded in starting a major revolution in Russia. The Russian danger would, however, continue even after the war so long as the Russian Empire was not dismembered into its component parts. The interests of the German government were identical with those of the Russian revolutionaries.
    Helphand’s idea of dismembering and weakening Russia accorded with Bethmann Hollweg’s thinking in August-September, 1914. The new element was a combination of social with national revolution.
    Zimmermann, and after him Bethmann Hollweg and Jagow, at once took up Wangenheim’s suggestion of using Helphand. The Chancellor sent his special confidant, Kurt Riezler, from General Headquarters to get in touch with Helphand, whom the Foreign Ministry had meanwhile had brought to Berlin....
    Helphand thought it particularly important to revolutionise Siberia, because its representatives in the Duma were
    Socialists. He said that it was purely a question of money to contrive the escape of the political deportees to Russia in Europe, and thus to secure thousands of ‘highly efficient agitators’. Their return would, he thought, produce an effect on the Socialist party centres and drive them into the United Front. An extensive press campaign should be initiated, especially with the help of Socialist papers in neutral countries, to support revolutionary activity in Russia. He attached great importance to agitation in North America, where the numerous Jews formed an element which was very susceptible to anti-Tsarist propaganda. If the millions of immigrants from Russia were roused, American public opinion would undoubtedly be affected. The agitation abroad must in his view inevitably be reflected in Russia; at the least it would provoke reprisals by the government against the Socialist movement which would inflame the masses still further against Tsarism and finally force the government to employ the army against the people..."

    Alexander Parvus is a historical person who is almost unknown in the west. But in Ukraine some people are aware of his role in Russian/Ukrainian history. http://www.newsweek.com/jews-want-drown-ukraine-blood-ukraines-military-prosecutor-says-amid-wave-997357

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It was known in his time. Parvus is deliberately left out of the picture in the West, because his role reveals that the 'Russian' revolution was not Russian at all. He was a German agent, like Lenin who was also a Japanese agent in 1905. Moreover, the West goes to every extremities to deny that Jews played a determinant part in the 'Russian' revolution. And especially to cover up the involvement of the American (Jewish) banks which bankrolled both the 1905 and 1917 'revolutions'.
    The accusations that Parvus and Lenin were German agents and that Parvus transmitted the money to Lenin were brought by the Provisional Government in July 1917, based on correspondence between Parvus, Hanecki (Bolshevik representative in Stockholm), the Petrograd barrister Kozlowski and a 'business executive' Madame Sumenson, intercepted by the Russian counter-inteligence. A decree signed by the Attorney-General ordered the arrest of Parvus, Hanecki, Kozlovski and Sumenson as well as of Lenin, Zinoviev, Alexandra Kollontai. Trotsky was arrested too. Lenin and Zinoviev went in hiding. Parvus was still abroad. Naturally the culprits denied the charges and the Provisional Government made the mistake to release them on bail.
    Parvus was eventually sidelined by the Germans because he wanted that the peace negotiations be conducted between the Socialist Parties of Germany and Russia instead of the governments dreaming for a role for himself. Lenin also dumped him, which instantly turned Parvus from an exalted admirer of Bolshevism into a bitter enemy of the 'asiatic features' of Russian life and an admirer of German Social-Democracy. Besides, he was a millionaire!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. LH says:
    @Fluctuarius
    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

    Or, you know, the concentration camp for pro-Russian Ruthenians?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalerhof_internment_camp

    If so, where did the Czecho-Slovak Corps come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion

    History of Czechoslovak Legion in Russia was complicated. It started as small volunteer group (under 1,000) of Czechs living in Russia. Russian authorities didn’t look favorably on recruiting from POWs – they would need to convert to Orthodoxy and obtain new citizenship. Most POWs were more happy with their current status. As the war progressed, these requirements were abolished.

    After Bolsheviks took over and started the fight with the Czechs, the Legion decided to draft forcibly every ethnic Czech they could put their hand on. This was the period of highest numerical growth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Nobel laureate Gunter Grass described himself as “an extreme moderate” in political terms. He cited Germany’s 20th century experience as the reason. Now, it seems, a vast swath of the Russian people, in fact, are also moved to adopt a political stance of “extreme moderation” as the best way forward…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. nickels says:

    This was basically what Lenin was arguing, if I am not mistaken-that Russia was far more advanced than most people thought at the time. Far into Capitalism, he argued.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. @Heros
    Once again Karlin, by refusing to name the Jew, misses a great opportunity to tie these events of a century ago to what is happening today across the west. After Alexander rebuffed Rothschild attempts at creating a new world government at the Congress of Vienna, the Rothschild vowed that they would destroy the Romanovs and every living descendent. It is no surprise that it was an all Jewish assassination squad that murdered the Tsar and his family in a Kabalistic ritual. These Jews murdered all the Romanov blood relatives as well.

    What Karlin, and most Russians, seems blind to is the fact that no matter what these Jews hyphenate after this tribe, they are first and foremost from that tribe. Jewish Americans, Jewish Communists, Jewish Zionists, Jewish Bankers, Jewish Democrats, it doesn't matter. Practically without exception, they are all Jews first.

    When Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese naval build up before the war in 1905, it was the Rothschild owned Vickers shipyard that built the most modern dreadnoughts for the Japanese that were used to defeat Russia. That very same Jacob Schiff financed the Bolschevics with $20m in gold.

    The international Jews had all been meeting in the International Jewish Congresses going back to the 1848 revolutions that they had fomented. These congresses were just jews of every walk of life from around the planet secretly planning and coordinating the destruction of Christianity and the re-creation of Greater Israel. There are some famous Protocols from these global jewish meetings.

    After the murder of untold millions of Russians and the horrific ritual slayings of thousands of their priests and the destruction of Orthodox churches across the land, after Bela Kuhn had waged his sadistic war against Christians in Hungary, after the Republicans in Spain ritually sacrificed and murdered thousands of Priests in Spain and destroyed their churches, after all that, Christians under mind control of Jewish media couldn't see past the wall of propaganda about communism. Of course there was Duranty's deliberate lies in the New York Times, and Churchill's "Uncle Joe".

    The only Christians who could learn the truth about communism had to be outside the wall of Jewish media control. When Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, they also freed the German people from their propaganda grip. In the Soviet Union, anti-semitism was illegal and possession of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a capital crime with an instant death penalty.

    As countries liberated from Jewish Propaganda were allowed to know the truth of what the Communists had done (Communist stooges call this Hitlers "Big Lie"), they joined Hitler in attempting to prevent the communist steamroller from rolling over Europe. This is known as Operation Barbarossa, when an international coalition of Christian Nations tried to eliminate the threat of communism to the world.

    Unfortunately, and this is important for Karlin and Russians in general, unfortunately the Jews won. Not "Russia", not "Russians", not even Americans or British. Jews won. A coalition of Jew controlled countries, under secret leadership and control by Jews, banned together to stop the Christian coalition and continue the destruction of Christianity, and it is still on going today.

    As we head into summer in the 100 year anniversary of the end of the first Goyim holocaust, we see these same (((communists))) fomenting violence in the US and across Europe. Communists tried to assassinate Scalise at a softball games last summer, and almost broke the back of Rand Paul. The are being whipped into a frenzy by people like Maxine Waters. Karlin may believe that these are merely disgruntled youths, but if you look behind there are always jewish fingers pulling the strings, even if it is just media agitation. People should also be under no illusions that these antifa ghouls won't be ready to murder the same way the Bolscheviks did in Russia.

    Maybe the writer is ambitious. Maybe he wants to be well known, make money etc…In that case, he knows that there are some words you are not allowed to use. It’s the price you have to pay.
    If you can’t use THE word, then you use empty ones: bolsheviks , liberals, leftists.

    Even the great Dr Ron Paul does it. He uses “Neo-cons”.

    The price one has to pay to use THE word is too high. Is it worth it ?
    In some cases, I don’t believe it is. What would be achieved if Dr Paul’s career as “Educator” of the American people is destroyed ?

    Agree that Mr. Karlin is an example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    Better example than the writer of this piece is the new czar of Russia. Putin is a more dangerous and powerful example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    An excellent post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    I had the good fortune to get into IT many years ago, and spent my working life in a profession where politics have only a very indirect influence. Good code and well implemented projects transcend politics. I have resigned my working relationship several times over the years with employers who I believed in one manner or another had deceived me. I did refuse to sign a new contract with a bank because I had lost all respect for it.

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that no journalist can "name the jew" because this would be career suicide. I get this, journalists and writers have to tailor their message to their audience and self censor. So do scientists, and now doctors too. Civil servants, politicians, teachers, must remain squeaky clean. There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore.

    So really what you are saying is that we are already living under Noahide laws, that were passed surreptitiously in 1991.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.
     
    By this era, the Romanov family (Holstein-Gottorp family) are the same family as the British Royal Family, as they are interbred with each other through many different lines (too many different times to count).

    So to take one example of Prince Charles of England. His father is Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. (The husband of current Queen Elizabeth of England).

    The father of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is grandson of Emperor Nicholas I.

    In order to genetically test the dead bodies of Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) family who were executed in 1918, they just use some years past the DNA of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

    Another example - Lord Mountbatten of the UK, was a cousin of Nicholas II. As a result, they could not call Lord Mountbatten as "Nicky" when a child in the British Royal family, because in the family they already use "Nicky" for their cousin Nicholas II.

    -

    This large, multi-European, family itself, of course (to say the obvious), produces a mixture of competent people and incompetent people (fools), as most families.

    Prince Charles of Wales today is considered a fool. But his children (Prince William and Prince Harry) are considered to be quite competent and intelligent men.

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy, and royal family can be simply positive ambassadors and tourist attractions, since they have little political power.

    So, UK has reduced exposure to this "genetic leadership lottery" that the Russian Empire was exposed to.

    Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) branch produced many competent and intelligent leaders (we already mentioned Alexander II above). But it is a lottery as with any family, that sometimes produces complete fools.

    With Nicholas II, it was bad luck that it was born a complete fool, not at all like even his father, let alone his intelligent grandfather.

    But unlike with Prince Charles of Wales in the UK today, it was not a "harmless" fool, as he was responsible for making the most important decisions of history, in world's second largest Empire. And the end result, is his Empire (which has potential to become largest power of Europe), is in constant crisis, falling apart, and so unstable that a group of extremist/idiot terrorists could takeover country, to pursue national experiments based on radical, incorrect, theories half-understood from political economy classes, and which would have to be followed for generations after being committed into.

    -

    Present leadership systems are neither perfect, but current leadership in Russia (as for much longer in the UK) is now, at least, not exposed to a genetic lottery, from a single multinational family.

    Putin, although far from perfect or always correct (e.g. his economic priorities), grew up in a communal apartment. As a youth, he often had to beat up hooligans who threatened him.

    He climbed to power as a result of his above average intelligence and personal qualities. (This process operates as a filter).

    At various points of life, prior to becoming a leader, he was tested, and a weaker man would not have succeeded.

    But more importantly by far, every 6 years, the quality of his work is assessed by public consensus in elections. There are still many problems of leadership selection and dangers of incompetence, particularly in Russia. However, it is one of the main lessons looking on Nicholas II - to be thankful that the exposure to genetic lottery (of which Nicholas II is probably one of history's most obvious examples of weakness resulting from the lack of filtration in this selection process), is not here anymore.

    , @Dmitry

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together.
     
    Lol, looking online at the photos of them together, it is true, when young, they are almost twins.

    But there is a case of many intermarriages in their family, over a number of generations (so they are different kinds of cousins of each other, in multiple different ways), and also they are wearing the same clothing and beards.

    King George V of United Kingdom (left) and Nicholas II of Russia (right).

    http://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2017/5/xZKTBnRjQ_w.jpg

    https://cdni.rt.com/files/2017.11/original/5a006325fc7e93be4e8b4567.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/6a/b6/ff6ab6cb248373cee58a15d61efa907c.jpg

    Nicholas II (left) and George V (right)

    https://i.imgur.com/e2BzP9v.jpg

    https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/King-George-V-and-his-physically-similar-cousin-Tsar-Nicholas-II-of-Russia-in-German-military-uniforms-in-Berlin-1913-small.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. LH says:
    @siberiancat
    You should read the classic book The Good Soldier Švejk

    You should read the classic book The Good Soldier Švejk

    The book is great, but it is not a historical documentary. Czech soldiers were not deserting in masses, this is later myth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Truth says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Everyone seems to be obsessed with sexual preferences of Russian women these days:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/world-cup-russian-women-respect-europe-slut-shames-sex-protection-condoms-a8425666.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Truth
    Yo Toly; speaking of normalcy:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/sensible-politician-urges-russian-women-procreate-only-white-men/ri23903
    Read More
    • LOL: Dmitry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Heros says:
    @James Brown
    Maybe the writer is ambitious. Maybe he wants to be well known, make money etc...In that case, he knows that there are some words you are not allowed to use. It's the price you have to pay.
    If you can't use THE word, then you use empty ones: bolsheviks , liberals, leftists.

    Even the great Dr Ron Paul does it. He uses "Neo-cons".

    The price one has to pay to use THE word is too high. Is it worth it ?
    In some cases, I don't believe it is. What would be achieved if Dr Paul's career as "Educator" of the American people is destroyed ?

    Agree that Mr. Karlin is an example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    Better example than the writer of this piece is the new czar of Russia. Putin is a more dangerous and powerful example of those Russians who refuse to see.

    An excellent post.

    I had the good fortune to get into IT many years ago, and spent my working life in a profession where politics have only a very indirect influence. Good code and well implemented projects transcend politics. I have resigned my working relationship several times over the years with employers who I believed in one manner or another had deceived me. I did refuse to sign a new contract with a bank because I had lost all respect for it.

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that no journalist can “name the jew” because this would be career suicide. I get this, journalists and writers have to tailor their message to their audience and self censor. So do scientists, and now doctors too. Civil servants, politicians, teachers, must remain squeaky clean. There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore.

    So really what you are saying is that we are already living under Noahide laws, that were passed surreptitiously in 1991.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    There are some exceptions. Here (unz.com) you can read writers who call a cat a cat: PCR, Philip Giraldi, Shamir, and, not here , Peter Koenig. There are of course more writers and journalists that I don't know, who have the courage to use the word and who understand what's going on.

    "There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore."

    Disagree. In spite of the noises, and politics nowadays is essentially about noises and serving the devil, there are "places" where one can escape to.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Marcus
    Too optimistic, the dearly-bought success of the Brusilov Offensive was a distant memory by mid 1917, and it also precipitated the entry of Romania in the war, which extended the frontline all the way to the Black Sea; the Germans were in Riga before the October Revolution iirc. Also the perception that a bizarre mystic was running the show while Nick was away at the front didn't exactly shore up the people's faith in the government.

    The bizarre mystic seems to have been an ardent opponent of the pro-british policies that brought Russia on the brink of disaster and a few steps further.

    If we aim to appraise the era, we have to cut through a jungle of British and bolshevik propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    the pro-british policies
     
    Do you mean pro-French?
    , @Jake
    Absolutely true. Not jut Bolshevik propaganda, but British Empire/WASP propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. This is one of these rather silly American-style pseudo-historical arguments and Europeans shouldn’t lower themselves to such a level. It’s like football fans arguing about the 1930 World Cup!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @AlexT
    The Holy Royal Martyrs were neither weak, nor ignorant of their fate. They accepted it as God's will. St. John of Kronstadt prophesied the slaughter and the apostasy of the 20th century. Nicholas II was aware of it, and lived his life accordingly.
    Anyone who has anything bad to say about him, or anything good to say about his enemies, should be shot.

    http://www.orthodox.net/articles/vision-of-st-john-of-kronstadt.html

    Well said, sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Heros
    I had the good fortune to get into IT many years ago, and spent my working life in a profession where politics have only a very indirect influence. Good code and well implemented projects transcend politics. I have resigned my working relationship several times over the years with employers who I believed in one manner or another had deceived me. I did refuse to sign a new contract with a bank because I had lost all respect for it.

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that no journalist can "name the jew" because this would be career suicide. I get this, journalists and writers have to tailor their message to their audience and self censor. So do scientists, and now doctors too. Civil servants, politicians, teachers, must remain squeaky clean. There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore.

    So really what you are saying is that we are already living under Noahide laws, that were passed surreptitiously in 1991.

    There are some exceptions. Here (unz.com) you can read writers who call a cat a cat: PCR, Philip Giraldi, Shamir, and, not here , Peter Koenig. There are of course more writers and journalists that I don’t know, who have the courage to use the word and who understand what’s going on.

    “There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore.”

    Disagree. In spite of the noises, and politics nowadays is essentially about noises and serving the devil, there are “places” where one can escape to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    "there are “places” where one can escape to."

    I have had a couple of people comment to me here on Unz to the effect that if you live on the east coast of the US, you cannot have a well compensated career without dealing with jews as a regular part of your career. This is why I commented about my career in IT, the majority of which was completed before the globohomo's took over HR departments across the planet.

    James Damore at Google, and countless other examples, showed just what an incredible disadvantage white males entering into the IT profession at a large corporation face today. Whether it is globo-homo, semites, reverse racism, or just plain vanilla white genocide, discussing concerns facing white males at large corporations is simply taboo, and promotions and bonuses will also be few and far between.

    So I am curious where you think a young person today could start a career without being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Beckow says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves ("forbidden" literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.

    France of course fared better because restoration happened much quicker than in Russia, was much less bloody, didn't saddle it with a doomed economic system, etc.

    Western descriptions of Russia have always consisted of a few competing ‘parallel universes’. There is a conscious effort to project all bad stuff on Russia (and the east of West in general). Since there is a lot of bad stuff, there is a lot to project.

    Where else than Russia could they do it? Germany has been tamed, other easterners are too small, and of course anyone with ‘colour’ is taboo. So happily they project all evil on Russia. Some of it is even true.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vojkan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Dmitry says:
    @Dr. Krieger
    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.

    By this era, the Romanov family (Holstein-Gottorp family) are the same family as the British Royal Family, as they are interbred with each other through many different lines (too many different times to count).

    So to take one example of Prince Charles of England. His father is Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. (The husband of current Queen Elizabeth of England).

    The father of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is grandson of Emperor Nicholas I.

    In order to genetically test the dead bodies of Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) family who were executed in 1918, they just use some years past the DNA of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

    Another example – Lord Mountbatten of the UK, was a cousin of Nicholas II. As a result, they could not call Lord Mountbatten as “Nicky” when a child in the British Royal family, because in the family they already use “Nicky” for their cousin Nicholas II.

    -

    This large, multi-European, family itself, of course (to say the obvious), produces a mixture of competent people and incompetent people (fools), as most families.

    Prince Charles of Wales today is considered a fool. But his children (Prince William and Prince Harry) are considered to be quite competent and intelligent men.

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy, and royal family can be simply positive ambassadors and tourist attractions, since they have little political power.

    So, UK has reduced exposure to this “genetic leadership lottery” that the Russian Empire was exposed to.

    Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) branch produced many competent and intelligent leaders (we already mentioned Alexander II above). But it is a lottery as with any family, that sometimes produces complete fools.

    With Nicholas II, it was bad luck that it was born a complete fool, not at all like even his father, let alone his intelligent grandfather.

    But unlike with Prince Charles of Wales in the UK today, it was not a “harmless” fool, as he was responsible for making the most important decisions of history, in world’s second largest Empire. And the end result, is his Empire (which has potential to become largest power of Europe), is in constant crisis, falling apart, and so unstable that a group of extremist/idiot terrorists could takeover country, to pursue national experiments based on radical, incorrect, theories half-understood from political economy classes, and which would have to be followed for generations after being committed into.

    -

    Present leadership systems are neither perfect, but current leadership in Russia (as for much longer in the UK) is now, at least, not exposed to a genetic lottery, from a single multinational family.

    Putin, although far from perfect or always correct (e.g. his economic priorities), grew up in a communal apartment. As a youth, he often had to beat up hooligans who threatened him.

    He climbed to power as a result of his above average intelligence and personal qualities. (This process operates as a filter).

    At various points of life, prior to becoming a leader, he was tested, and a weaker man would not have succeeded.

    But more importantly by far, every 6 years, the quality of his work is assessed by public consensus in elections. There are still many problems of leadership selection and dangers of incompetence, particularly in Russia. However, it is one of the main lessons looking on Nicholas II – to be thankful that the exposure to genetic lottery (of which Nicholas II is probably one of history’s most obvious examples of weakness resulting from the lack of filtration in this selection process), is not here anymore.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy
     
    Utter bullshit. The UK has no constitution. It is technically and legally an absolutist monarchy.

    (That the ruling family cannot or will not exercise their legal rights is another issue.)

    Please don't confuse the UK and the USA. They fought a bloody war over the constitution issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @utu

    with the aid of at least 20 million USD from Wall Street bankers like Jacob Schiff
     
    I would like to know how much gold and wealth was extracted form Russia by Bolsheviks who had to pay off their sponsors. How much money did Jacob Schiff make?

    Probably not as much as was looted under Yeltsin–with the help of Wall Street financial sharpies–making 10 or so Russian oligarchs extremely wealthy, that now use that wealth to point at Putin and scream he’s a thief.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. I don’t know much about Mr. Kholmogorov, but if he really believes that Nicholas II was the tsar of normalcy, my opinion of him is very poor.
    Let’s look at the facts.
    1. As the head of state, Nicholas II is responsible for the humiliating defeat in the war of 1905 with Japan. He appointed corrupt prime ministers and equally corrupt ministers, as the result of which military hardware supplied to the troops was defective. In the decisive naval battle of Tsushima Russian shells did hit Japanese ships, but they did not explode, being faulty. That decided the outcome of that battle and the war.
    2. Nicholas II was responsible for the Bloody Sunday (January 9, 1905), when hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were killed and wounded by his police.
    3. After mass protests in 1905-06 Nicholas II created elected Duma (a semblance of a parliament, the first in Russian history), but stripped it of all powers after the protests subsided. Arguably, this was lost chance of converting Russian Empire into a viable entity.
    4. In 1914 Nicholas II decided to enter WWI against Germany, even though Russia was not prepared for this endeavor. Setbacks on the huge Russian-German front in 1914-17 clearly showed this.
    5. Ever since Stolypin (the only competent prime minister appointed by Nicholas II during his ill-fated reign) was killed by “revolutionaries”, he kept appointing incompetent kleptocrats, who were ruining Russian economy and undermining the state. This made the revolution in February 1917 inevitable.
    6. The whole thing around Rasputin couldn’t have happened with a competent tsar at the helm.
    7. When the going got tough in 1917, Nicholas II cowardly resigned, which ruined not just the Romanov dynasty, but Russian Empire as well.
    One can continue listing his crimes and examples of his ineptitude forever, but there is no point. Key thing is, big historical events only happen when they become inevitable, and he personally shares the guilt for the upheaval in Russia in 1917 and through that for the dire consequences of that upheaval.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    In the decisive naval battle of Tsushima Russian shells did hit Japanese ships, but they did not explode, being faulty. That decided the outcome of that battle and the war.
     
    Exactly. People tend to be focused on the final battle a lot, but ignore the sheer clusterfuck leading up to it. Between being delayed, supply problems, and constant miscommunication, it was only a matter of time that someone did something that finished them all - which, of course, eventually did happen.

    But it could have only happened because it had already been such a messed up situation in the first place.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. DFH says:
    @byrresheim
    The bizarre mystic seems to have been an ardent opponent of the pro-british policies that brought Russia on the brink of disaster and a few steps further.

    If we aim to appraise the era, we have to cut through a jungle of British and bolshevik propaganda.

    the pro-british policies

    Do you mean pro-French?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Marcus says:
    @AP
    And ten years after the Japan debacle the Russian military crushed Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (which the Brit struggled against), though it was not yet a match for Germany.

    The crushing of Austria-Hungary was achieved at a cost that Russia simply couldn’t bear. Even the Brusilov offensive was basically a Pyrrhic victory (boon to the West though)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. One can’t judge by looks but the Tsar does appear to be a gentle fellow while the Comrade looks to be a sinister man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. szopen says:

    norws -> noted. Your fingers slipped one key row to the right :D

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Vojkan says:
    @AP
    So our comments about Nicholas II anticipated this very nice post. :-)

    The usual Sovoks will be triggered, of course.

    My great-grandfather saw him up close when Nicholas visited in Lviv in 1915. Nicholas produced a very strong and positive impression, according to my grandmother. I have a gold coin in perfect condition from that time, with his face on it.

    Overall a decent man, who made a few terrible mistakes that rendered all of his good works meaningless. Failure to stop this war (IIRC he was personally opposed or very reluctant, but went along), on the side of the regicidal Serbian government, ironically ended in his own death at the hands of monsters and completely derailed Russia's fate.

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government. Apis was convicted of high treason and executed in 1917.
    The real warmongers were in Vienna not in Belgrade. Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission, which was unacceptable to a country that deemed itself sovereign. A repeat of that ultimatum happened in Rambouillet in 1999.
    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 and Franz-Ferdinand found it appropriate to demonstrate his power by visting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on June 28th, 1914. That’s not really bow you win the hearts and minds
    History by rabid germanophiles and Westerners who think they’re God’s gift to the Mankind and that everyone should kneel before them and kiss their feet is as much bullshit as History by zionists or communists.
    Just for info, a great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander. They had to flee again when communists took over Yugoslavia, and many ended up in France, where I met quite a few of their descendants during the 1990s as they were willing to bring whatever assistance they could to Serbs as a sign of gratitude for having been given refuge seventy years earlier. But that of course is incomprehensible to people who have the memory of a goldfish and who bend History to make it fit their own prejudice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Right on!

    Later with the anti-Serb/anti-Russian Habsburgite BS, which the late Otto von Habsburg and some others peddled.
    , @AP

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.
     
    So head of Serbia's secret service wasn't part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission
     
    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908
     
    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand
     
    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander
     
    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia's behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @AnonFromTN
    I don’t know much about Mr. Kholmogorov, but if he really believes that Nicholas II was the tsar of normalcy, my opinion of him is very poor.
    Let’s look at the facts.
    1. As the head of state, Nicholas II is responsible for the humiliating defeat in the war of 1905 with Japan. He appointed corrupt prime ministers and equally corrupt ministers, as the result of which military hardware supplied to the troops was defective. In the decisive naval battle of Tsushima Russian shells did hit Japanese ships, but they did not explode, being faulty. That decided the outcome of that battle and the war.
    2. Nicholas II was responsible for the Bloody Sunday (January 9, 1905), when hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were killed and wounded by his police.
    3. After mass protests in 1905-06 Nicholas II created elected Duma (a semblance of a parliament, the first in Russian history), but stripped it of all powers after the protests subsided. Arguably, this was lost chance of converting Russian Empire into a viable entity.
    4. In 1914 Nicholas II decided to enter WWI against Germany, even though Russia was not prepared for this endeavor. Setbacks on the huge Russian-German front in 1914-17 clearly showed this.
    5. Ever since Stolypin (the only competent prime minister appointed by Nicholas II during his ill-fated reign) was killed by “revolutionaries”, he kept appointing incompetent kleptocrats, who were ruining Russian economy and undermining the state. This made the revolution in February 1917 inevitable.
    6. The whole thing around Rasputin couldn’t have happened with a competent tsar at the helm.
    7. When the going got tough in 1917, Nicholas II cowardly resigned, which ruined not just the Romanov dynasty, but Russian Empire as well.
    One can continue listing his crimes and examples of his ineptitude forever, but there is no point. Key thing is, big historical events only happen when they become inevitable, and he personally shares the guilt for the upheaval in Russia in 1917 and through that for the dire consequences of that upheaval.

    In the decisive naval battle of Tsushima Russian shells did hit Japanese ships, but they did not explode, being faulty. That decided the outcome of that battle and the war.

    Exactly. People tend to be focused on the final battle a lot, but ignore the sheer clusterfuck leading up to it. Between being delayed, supply problems, and constant miscommunication, it was only a matter of time that someone did something that finished them all – which, of course, eventually did happen.

    But it could have only happened because it had already been such a messed up situation in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The Russian Navy shelling British fishing trawlers in the Dogger Bank was an especially nice touch.

    Britain came close to declaring war over the incident, in which case the Baltic fleet never would've reached Tsushima to begin with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Epigon
    You do realise that your glorification of Catherine and Peter as some "progressive" monarchs is actually the celebration of arbitrary absolutists who introduced harsh Western serfdom to Russia, refered to the average Russian peasant as a slave, and expended the lives of their average subjects to pursue their delusions of grandeur? Location of St.Petersburg and the construction effort is nothing but an exercise in futility.

    The celebration of entirely foreign, German Catherine and Peter is another symptom of Russian inferiority complex, further imbued with Soviet cult of progress.

    In reality, they de-Russified Russia, Russian religion and culture, introduced a lot of bad Western influence and favoured, promoted non-Russians over Russians.

    “Harsh Western serfdom?” Please elaborate on where you get this notion from and what it involved.

    I am only really confident of my knowledge of English conditions. While feudal tenure was – in a sense still is – the legal basis for landed property it is notorious that the Black Death of the 1340s so depopulated the country that the price of and market forlabour effectively liberated the poorest labourer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. “… flight to the Moon – where the Soviets didn’t manage to send a man, unlike the US….”

    So the popular lore would have us believe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @Daniel Chieh

    In the decisive naval battle of Tsushima Russian shells did hit Japanese ships, but they did not explode, being faulty. That decided the outcome of that battle and the war.
     
    Exactly. People tend to be focused on the final battle a lot, but ignore the sheer clusterfuck leading up to it. Between being delayed, supply problems, and constant miscommunication, it was only a matter of time that someone did something that finished them all - which, of course, eventually did happen.

    But it could have only happened because it had already been such a messed up situation in the first place.

    The Russian Navy shelling British fishing trawlers in the Dogger Bank was an especially nice touch.

    Britain came close to declaring war over the incident, in which case the Baltic fleet never would’ve reached Tsushima to begin with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Dmitry says:
    @Dr. Krieger
    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together.

    Lol, looking online at the photos of them together, it is true, when young, they are almost twins.

    But there is a case of many intermarriages in their family, over a number of generations (so they are different kinds of cousins of each other, in multiple different ways), and also they are wearing the same clothing and beards.

    King George V of United Kingdom (left) and Nicholas II of Russia (right).

    Nicholas II (left) and George V (right)

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    The Duke of Kent is supposed to look like Nicholas (he also grows a beard to bring out the resemblance).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Very amusing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Wally says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    1. First off, I don't know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison's data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7bHL2UAAAj0Ju.png

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. "This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely."

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can't even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning - the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    [MORE]

    said:
    “The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.”

    More received Zionist propaganda recited by Karlin.

    - “Worse than the Communists”?

    How? Proof required, please present it.

    - What alleged “Nazi brutality” are you talking about?

    Proof required, please present it.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    AK: Correct. Get the hint? Everybody here would appreciate it if you were to leave.

    It's revealing how Karlin hides the text from easy viewing when it's not a long post at all. Another form of censorship by Karlin.



    Oh the games some people play to avoid the questions asked of them.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. DFH says:
    @Dmitry

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together.
     
    Lol, looking online at the photos of them together, it is true, when young, they are almost twins.

    But there is a case of many intermarriages in their family, over a number of generations (so they are different kinds of cousins of each other, in multiple different ways), and also they are wearing the same clothing and beards.

    King George V of United Kingdom (left) and Nicholas II of Russia (right).

    http://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2017/5/xZKTBnRjQ_w.jpg

    https://cdni.rt.com/files/2017.11/original/5a006325fc7e93be4e8b4567.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/6a/b6/ff6ab6cb248373cee58a15d61efa907c.jpg

    Nicholas II (left) and George V (right)

    https://i.imgur.com/e2BzP9v.jpg

    https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/King-George-V-and-his-physically-similar-cousin-Tsar-Nicholas-II-of-Russia-in-German-military-uniforms-in-Berlin-1913-small.jpg

    The Duke of Kent is supposed to look like Nicholas (he also grows a beard to bring out the resemblance).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This could be just my confirmation bias, but with the British, politically powerless cousin of the family, seems even in the photos a lot more confident, vigorous and stronger man.

    In the photos together, Nicholas II looks like a guy who wants stay in his bedroom, hide behind the beard, and play video games, maybe using his reportedly excellent English skills to write some witty comments on the Karlin blog.

    This English King not necessarily a genius, and was reportedly famous for his anger. But even then, it would be great for history if we could have swapped their places.


    https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/King-George-V-and-Tsar-Nicholas-II-with-their-sons-1120934.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/lvr9Ori.jpg


    And as Kholmogorov likes to post his family photos.

    Nicholas II looks to me like a father who would let his daughters take over the house and paint the dinner room pink.

    I reading the photos, that he would be a great guy to have as your teacher when you were at school (I used to love these nice teachers, who you did not have to do your homework on time).

    https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/2017.12/article/5a269bbe85600a703c159e8e.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @inertial
    Russian Empire was certainly shamelessly smeared, it's true. But it's also true that it was far poorer than Soviet Russia (which you always, ahem, "shamelessly smear".)

    Here is a chart put together by the BBC based on the 2017 paper by Piketty et al. For those who don't read Russian: the chart shows mean per capita income in Russia as percentage of the Western European one (defined as the average of German, French, and British incomes.)

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/3E07/production/_97497851_euro.jpg

    - During the Tsarist period Russian relative income was under 40% of the European one. This ratio didn't budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn't continue like that indefinitely.

    - In the early Soviet years the relative income continued to be about where it was under Tsars. The aftermath of WWI, Civil War, and the Commie repression was destructive but apparently not all that much more so than the income plunge in Western Europe.

    - In the 1930s Soviet relative income takes off. Part of it is an artifact of Great Depression when the European incomes nosedived. But another part was a genuine improvement in Russian living standards. This is not something you hear often nowadays, yet I know it to be true (including from talking to people who were alive during that period.) The Soviets crushed the rich and the middle class but they did a lot to raise the poor. And the life in the 1930 really became "better and merrier" (as Stalin put it) for many people.

    The last point can explain a few things about the Soviet history. For example, Stalin's cult of personality. He was genuinely popular because people credited him with improving their lives. Or another puzzle - why, if the Commies were so bad, the Soviet people fought so loyally in WWII? One factor was a rapid improvement in their living standards.

    Communist Russia GDP 2/3rds that of Western Europe. LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Yes, ~60% of European (and so ~40% of American) income level sounds about right. I was there, I remember.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Dmitry says:
    @DFH
    The Duke of Kent is supposed to look like Nicholas (he also grows a beard to bring out the resemblance).

    This could be just my confirmation bias, but with the British, politically powerless cousin of the family, seems even in the photos a lot more confident, vigorous and stronger man.

    In the photos together, Nicholas II looks like a guy who wants stay in his bedroom, hide behind the beard, and play video games, maybe using his reportedly excellent English skills to write some witty comments on the Karlin blog.

    This English King not necessarily a genius, and was reportedly famous for his anger. But even then, it would be great for history if we could have swapped their places.

    And as Kholmogorov likes to post his family photos.

    Nicholas II looks to me like a father who would let his daughters take over the house and paint the dinner room pink.

    I reading the photos, that he would be a great guy to have as your teacher when you were at school (I used to love these nice teachers, who you did not have to do your homework on time).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    That English King, not a genius by any standards, was an accomplice in the murder of his 'beloved' cousin. The whole 'Windsor' family is tainted by his blood, that they won't be able, like Lady Macbeth, to wash away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Anatoly Karlin
    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves ("forbidden" literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.

    France of course fared better because restoration happened much quicker than in Russia, was much less bloody, didn't saddle it with a doomed economic system, etc.

    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves (“forbidden” literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.

    Stanley Loomis, in his excellent book on the French Revolution, Paris in the Terror (1964), wrote:

    Pre-Revolutionary France had presented the curious spectacle of a people technically at the mercy of medieval monarchic law enjoying freedom in a way that would not for an instant be tolerated by many of today’s republican societies, where conformity of idea as well as manner is often considered to be the ideal. …

    It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have a revolution – not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. These were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.

    It has often seemed to me that the same could have been said of pre-revolutionary Russia. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was not a very effective autocrat. Had Nicholas I ruled Russia in 1914 rather than Nicholas II, and had Louis XIV ruled France in 1789 rather than Louis XVI, it is hard to imagine that they would have allowed the development of the circumstances that led to revolution.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @DFH
    Louis XIV was very nearly overthrown though because of the Cardinals' absolutism
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Heros says:
    @James Brown
    There are some exceptions. Here (unz.com) you can read writers who call a cat a cat: PCR, Philip Giraldi, Shamir, and, not here , Peter Koenig. There are of course more writers and journalists that I don't know, who have the courage to use the word and who understand what's going on.

    "There is practically no corner of normal existence where one can escape (((politics))) anymore."

    Disagree. In spite of the noises, and politics nowadays is essentially about noises and serving the devil, there are "places" where one can escape to.

    “there are “places” where one can escape to.”

    I have had a couple of people comment to me here on Unz to the effect that if you live on the east coast of the US, you cannot have a well compensated career without dealing with jews as a regular part of your career. This is why I commented about my career in IT, the majority of which was completed before the globohomo’s took over HR departments across the planet.

    James Damore at Google, and countless other examples, showed just what an incredible disadvantage white males entering into the IT profession at a large corporation face today. Whether it is globo-homo, semites, reverse racism, or just plain vanilla white genocide, discussing concerns facing white males at large corporations is simply taboo, and promotions and bonuses will also be few and far between.

    So I am curious where you think a young person today could start a career without being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Academic science is one such area. In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues, but you’d encounter their better facets, like smarts, rather than their tribal loyalties. The downside is that academic science is hardly a well-compensated career. You start as a graduate student for 4-6 years (with $24,000 – 28,000 annual stipend), then become a post-doc for 4-6 years with ~$50,000 annual salary (usually with decent benefits, if you work at a good University), but the pay worth writing home about starts when you become independent, i.e., find a place that hires you as a tenure-track Assistant Professor or equivalent. For that you need to be productive (in terms of number and quality of publications) during your grad school and post-doc years, i.e., you want to be a smart hard-working person in an active and productive lab. After that your career and pay totally depends on your ability to secure extramural funding (grants from NIH, NSF, CDC, DoD, etc., or contracts with government agencies or private companies), but you won’t have any bosses (if you are successful).
    , @Jeff Stryker
    "Rabbis" & Palestine

    Jews themselves tended to stay miles away from the issue of Northern Ireland though of all groups they tend to interact the most with Irish-Catholics. You never saw a Jew (In the 80's and 90's) in urban centers express an opinion on the subject to Irish-Americans.

    Just to bring up an analogous issue to Palestine.

    Additionally, no Rabbi interacts much with Gentiles LET ALONE attempts to convert them. Jews are not seeking conversions and when Jews are married to non-Jews usually neither converts or the Jewish woman does so.

    Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions.

    German-Americans, of which I'm one, tend to keep a healthy distance as well-for obvious reasons (Trump's father went so far as to claim Swedish heritage).

    So the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.
    , @James Brown
    Unless you want to make it big, to work for big corporations there are still, even in the USA companies where people with your skills can make a decent living w/o "being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general."

    Or, although there are risks, you can go it alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    According to Sean Mcmeekin's book on this subject, the Tsarist gold reserves - which on the eve of the Great War were the second largest in the world, after the United States - lasted them their first two years in power. The private valuables they looted (gold, silver, jewelry, icons) lasted them another few months, but much less than they expected or hoped for, due to the propensity of local Bolshevik looters to appropriate for themselves.

    The Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West was the Jewish-Swedish Olof Aschberg. He acquired one of the world's finest collections of (stolen) Russian icons in the process, which now reside in a Swedish museum.

    PS. Incidentally, I just learned from the Wikipedia entry on him that he has a son named Robert Aschberg. He was a Maoist in his youth, and is now a mainstream anti-racist journalist.

    https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/905539115697004545

    Dollars to peanuts he's also a Russophobe, hates Putin, etc.

    Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. DFH says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Moreover, in another parallel, the late ancien regime has also been subjected to a propaganda assault by liberals and leftists. It was growing vigorously for the time period, it provided excellent opportunities to its bourgeoisie who had access into the ranks of the nobility (for money or service), treated dissidents with kids gloves (“forbidden” literature was openly sold next to the Palais-Royal), was orders of magnitude more humane than what followed, etc., etc.
     
    Stanley Loomis, in his excellent book on the French Revolution, Paris in the Terror (1964), wrote:

    Pre-Revolutionary France had presented the curious spectacle of a people technically at the mercy of medieval monarchic law enjoying freedom in a way that would not for an instant be tolerated by many of today's republican societies, where conformity of idea as well as manner is often considered to be the ideal. ...

    It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have a revolution - not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. These were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.
     

    It has often seemed to me that the same could have been said of pre-revolutionary Russia. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was not a very effective autocrat. Had Nicholas I ruled Russia in 1914 rather than Nicholas II, and had Louis XIV ruled France in 1789 rather than Louis XVI, it is hard to imagine that they would have allowed the development of the circumstances that led to revolution.

    Louis XIV was very nearly overthrown though because of the Cardinals’ absolutism

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    Louis XIV was very nearly overthrown though because of the Cardinals’ absolutism.
     
    Louis XIV was a very young man at the time of the Fronde. He nonetheless prevailed over the rebels, dismissed Mazarin, took personal charge of government, and ruled until he died of old age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Heros
    "there are “places” where one can escape to."

    I have had a couple of people comment to me here on Unz to the effect that if you live on the east coast of the US, you cannot have a well compensated career without dealing with jews as a regular part of your career. This is why I commented about my career in IT, the majority of which was completed before the globohomo's took over HR departments across the planet.

    James Damore at Google, and countless other examples, showed just what an incredible disadvantage white males entering into the IT profession at a large corporation face today. Whether it is globo-homo, semites, reverse racism, or just plain vanilla white genocide, discussing concerns facing white males at large corporations is simply taboo, and promotions and bonuses will also be few and far between.

    So I am curious where you think a young person today could start a career without being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general?

    Academic science is one such area. In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues, but you’d encounter their better facets, like smarts, rather than their tribal loyalties. The downside is that academic science is hardly a well-compensated career. You start as a graduate student for 4-6 years (with $24,000 – 28,000 annual stipend), then become a post-doc for 4-6 years with ~$50,000 annual salary (usually with decent benefits, if you work at a good University), but the pay worth writing home about starts when you become independent, i.e., find a place that hires you as a tenure-track Assistant Professor or equivalent. For that you need to be productive (in terms of number and quality of publications) during your grad school and post-doc years, i.e., you want to be a smart hard-working person in an active and productive lab. After that your career and pay totally depends on your ability to secure extramural funding (grants from NIH, NSF, CDC, DoD, etc., or contracts with government agencies or private companies), but you won’t have any bosses (if you are successful).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    "In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues"

    Over 50% of Harvard students are Jewish, IIRC. Roughly the same applies across the Ivy league and all elite universities, for 2% of the population. Blacks and Hispanics are given handicaps on SAT's so they can get the good school vacancies.

    Once you enter the working world, all these academic institutions are owned by the globohomo's, especially HR. Grants, as you say are highly political. You never mention that by working in academia, you have accepted your existence as a tax-eater, living off of stolen loot.

    IMO, you have conceded that Academia already has virtual Noahide laws.

    The Jew revolutionaries for centuries kvetched about the privileges of the Tsar's and their Aristocracy, yet their talmudic hatred of Christianity and their tyranny is far more insidious. What we see, just as with the Communists and Jacobians, is that Jews always lie and murder to get into power, and once in, there is only one way to get them out: force. Just ask Titus. Or Hitler.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Wally says:
    @Wally


    said:
    "The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War."

    More received Zionist propaganda recited by Karlin.

    - "Worse than the Communists"?

    How? Proof required, please present it.

    - What alleged "Nazi brutality" are you talking about?

    Proof required, please present it.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    AK: Correct. Get the hint? Everybody here would appreciate it if you were to leave.

    It’s revealing how Karlin hides the text from easy viewing when it’s not a long post at all. Another form of censorship by Karlin.

    [MORE]

    Oh the games some people play to avoid the questions asked of them.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Lmao at being so irrelevant that you're forced to reply to your own comment.
    , @Wally


    That's it? That's your response to my questions?

    IOW, no one can respond to your very own claims in your articles unless they are within the parameters which you decide.

    You obviously cannot back-up what you claim and dislike being reminded of it.

    You are a hypocrite & a fraud.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds. See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Vojkan
    Except that the Serbian government wasn't regicidal at all. The "Mlada Bosna" folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government. Apis was convicted of high treason and executed in 1917.
    The real warmongers were in Vienna not in Belgrade. Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn't want to accept anything but total submission, which was unacceptable to a country that deemed itself sovereign. A repeat of that ultimatum happened in Rambouillet in 1999.
    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 and Franz-Ferdinand found it appropriate to demonstrate his power by visting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on June 28th, 1914. That's not really bow you win the hearts and minds
    History by rabid germanophiles and Westerners who think they're God's gift to the Mankind and that everyone should kneel before them and kiss their feet is as much bullshit as History by zionists or communists.
    Just for info, a great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander. They had to flee again when communists took over Yugoslavia, and many ended up in France, where I met quite a few of their descendants during the 1990s as they were willing to bring whatever assistance they could to Serbs as a sign of gratitude for having been given refuge seventy years earlier. But that of course is incomprehensible to people who have the memory of a goldfish and who bend History to make it fit their own prejudice.

    Right on!

    Later with the anti-Serb/anti-Russian Habsburgite BS, which the late Otto von Habsburg and some others peddled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Jake
    "Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk. No matter that the price for this Great Leap Forward were millions of Russian lives lost to the Civil War, three waves of famine, dekulakization, repression and crushing World War II defeats – after all, “with us, it can’t be done otherwise”.

    Pro-Stalinists sound just like American Neocons, save for the Neocons greatly preferring Trotsky.

    “Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk.

    What rhetorical stupidity, given that the world at the time of the Czar, didn’t possess such technology.

    Russia was clearly advancing without the Bolshes and would’ve continued to advance (most probably better) without them..

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.
    , @Seraphim
    In actual fact Russians were more advanced in that field than the rest of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Simpleguest
    "Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee."

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the "working people's class struggle". Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

    “Actually, there’s a basis to believe that a non-Communist Russia would’ve achieved more – seeing how talented people like Sikorsky felt the need to flee.”

    Actually, there is a basis to believe in existence of ghosts, UFOs and similar staff, too.

    Hardly.
    The Russian Empire had a plethora of unresolved burning issues, on top of the “working people’s class struggle”. Not the least, was the unresolved national issue of so many divergent nations within the empire. Communists were not going to win if they did not have the prevailing support of the population, both Russian and non-Russians.

    One must learn from past failures or else will stay deluded for all eternity.

    Your point of ghosts, UFOs and similar stuff too applies to you.

    Non-Communist Russia was on the verge of recognizing Polish and Finnish independence, in addition to consider granting greater autonomy to other parts of the Russian Empire.

    For accuracy sake, you shouldn’t confuse the world of today with what was evident in the early part of the 20th century. Britain at that time was considering Irish independence, much unlike such for other parts of its empire.

    The Bolshes took advantage of the horrors resulting from the timing of WW I and how the Russian government chose to engage in that conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Mikhail

    “Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk.
     
    What rhetorical stupidity, given that the world at the time of the Czar, didn't possess such technology.

    Russia was clearly advancing without the Bolshes and would've continued to advance (most probably better) without them..

    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.
     
    No one person alone is responsible for such instances like the advent of Nazism and the creation of the USSR.

    In a number of instances, the matter of "ifs" can be reasonably applied for analytical overview purposes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Marcus says:
    @Wally
    AK: Correct. Get the hint? Everybody here would appreciate it if you were to leave.

    It's revealing how Karlin hides the text from easy viewing when it's not a long post at all. Another form of censorship by Karlin.



    Oh the games some people play to avoid the questions asked of them.

    www.codoh.com

    Lmao at being so irrelevant that you’re forced to reply to your own comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally


    LOL. Your just another Zionist waterboy who cannot refute the information I post.
    case in point:
    from Master Chemist Germar Rudolf:
    https://youtu.be/SUc6Y_E5zb0

    The "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
    'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are to this day, ... but, but, well, umm, we can't show the court the human remains. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
     
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.

    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.

    No one person alone is responsible for such instances like the advent of Nazism and the creation of the USSR.

    In a number of instances, the matter of “ifs” can be reasonably applied for analytical overview purposes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Thim says:
    @anony-mouse
    1/ Words not in the article: Rasputin, Tsushima, Protopopov, Vyrubova, cousin 'Willi', 'Stupidity or Treason'

    2/ The February revolution was one of the few pure 'people's revolutions. It was organized by nobody (certainly not the Bolsheviks). It took 10 days, and was supported by just about everyone including the Cossacks.

    That is how I understood it from reading Solzhenitsyn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Jake says:
    @byrresheim
    The bizarre mystic seems to have been an ardent opponent of the pro-british policies that brought Russia on the brink of disaster and a few steps further.

    If we aim to appraise the era, we have to cut through a jungle of British and bolshevik propaganda.

    Absolutely true. Not jut Bolshevik propaganda, but British Empire/WASP propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. AP says:
    @Vojkan
    Except that the Serbian government wasn't regicidal at all. The "Mlada Bosna" folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government. Apis was convicted of high treason and executed in 1917.
    The real warmongers were in Vienna not in Belgrade. Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn't want to accept anything but total submission, which was unacceptable to a country that deemed itself sovereign. A repeat of that ultimatum happened in Rambouillet in 1999.
    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 and Franz-Ferdinand found it appropriate to demonstrate his power by visting Sarajevo on the anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on June 28th, 1914. That's not really bow you win the hearts and minds
    History by rabid germanophiles and Westerners who think they're God's gift to the Mankind and that everyone should kneel before them and kiss their feet is as much bullshit as History by zionists or communists.
    Just for info, a great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander. They had to flee again when communists took over Yugoslavia, and many ended up in France, where I met quite a few of their descendants during the 1990s as they were willing to bring whatever assistance they could to Serbs as a sign of gratitude for having been given refuge seventy years earlier. But that of course is incomprehensible to people who have the memory of a goldfish and who bend History to make it fit their own prejudice.

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.

    So head of Serbia’s secret service wasn’t part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission

    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908

    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand

    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander

    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia’s behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Princip and the other terrorists' weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well. Patic may not have known of the conspiracy, but he was unwilling or unable to curb the Black Hand's activities. The ultimatum may have been harsh, but it was not unreasonable for Austria-Hungary to assume it had to take matters into its own hands. Sadly, many Russian officials were sensible enough to want to stay out of the Balkan mess. The eventual Russian mobilization showed the fraught nature of the new government: they only had plans for a large mobilization against Germany, not a partial mobilization against Austrian or any other enemy.
    , @Epigon

    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.
     
    Cue the armed resistance resulting in thousands of dead in 1878-1879 and tens of thousands expelled.

    You and your identity being a result of Habsburg policies in Galizia makes you a natural proponent of Drang nach Osten, Uniatism and Habsburg desire to dominate Southeastern Europe.
    It also makes you a true believer in Habsburg bullshit about Triune Monarchy that elevates Slavs.

    There is also the unfortunate fact of Austria-Hungary preparing for a punitive war against Serbia since at least 1906, that being the year when AH General Staff started drafting invasion plans. This is due the previously explained 1903 regime change in Serbia, perpetrated by pro-British, anti-German agents.

    Calling Young Bosna Serb nationalists or Serb instruments is simply delusional. Muslims and catholics contributing, with the ultimate goal of a Yugoslavia, not Serbia. Prior to assassination, Princip visited London TWICE.
    , @Epigon
    And to further my point about Austro-Hungary and the invasion of Bosnia&Herzegovina in 1878: all three of the senior commanders: Gavrilo Rodić, Josif Filipović and Stjepan Jovanović were born in Serb Orthodox Grenzer families, their forces were mostly Grenzers, and all three were denationalised and Uniatized/Catholicized as a pre-requisite for formal military education and later on, noble titles. The same for would be the case for Field Marshal Svetozar Borojević, later on.

    You being an Ukrainian are a Galizian analogue to Grenzer assimilation. Therefore, you once again "naturally" show sympathy for Habsburgs.
    , @Vojkan
    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she's an archduchess or a complete anonymous. You're implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens. It's as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I'm beginning to believe it more and more.
    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy? Then, as a more recent exemple in the Balkans, Jovica Stanišić, secret service chief under Milošević has by his own admission single-handedly established contact with the CIA in the back of his own government, and expressed schock when he was indicted by the Hague, because you see, he collaborated with the West from the onset. One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn't hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
    Whatever, Serbia accepted that A-H investigators come to Serbia and be partners in the investigation. Serbia didn't accept that they lead the investigation and that they had unrestricted access to any document or facility on a whim. But of course, arrogant racially superior Germans cannot grasp why.
    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a first step in the realisation of that plan. The reason is simple, Southern Slavs viewed Serbia at the time as an ally in their quest for emancipation and a step towards achieving indpendence from the failing empire. You definitely can't blame Serbs for Hungary too wanting to get rid of Viennese powdered asses.
    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia's sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary's behalf. The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue. It is Germany's aggression against Serbia that precipitated Russia's entry into war.
    But of course, History and narcissism of people who are convinced to be God's gift to the mankind don't fit together. Whatever propaganda against the Serbs and / or the Russians for that matter, they will never be as loathed as the Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @NotReally
    These articles reveal more about what the author needs to believe or wants to believe than anything else. Accomplishments made during the Stalin area must be downplayed because Stalin is no figure this kind of nationalist can identify with, and Nicholas becomes showered with achievements that he neither caused or lie entirely in the realm of alternate history.

    Just because there were innovations by Sikorsky and in the use of rockets doesn't mean a Tsarist Russia would have achieved the same as the actual USSR space program or that helicopters with anti-tank rockets appear in 1941 (at least not any of _actual military impact_). What is this article, Doctor Who?

    It's one thing to be proud of a nation's legitimate achievements but it's a wholly another thing to try to invent ones that weren't there and to ignore the actual events. If something wasn't fundamentally wrong with Russia's society in the years of the first world war, how come it succumbed to a revolution so easily? It's like saying "If the patient hadn't been sick, he would not have died." And if the government of the Tsars had done better by their people, revolution wouldn't have swept it away.

    But attributing accomplishments to leaders nilly-willy is a great pasttime. Reagan is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union when all he did was ruinously spend and run his own economy in deeper deficits. To believe this man had a plan mistakes the luck of history with genius or conscious decision. And yet many more conservative commenters need to believe that Reagan was great no matter what the historical record shows. No "credit" is given to the actual leaders of the Soviet Union which probably had much more impact on its eventual collapse if not all of it. But hey, he "won." Paul Craig Roberts even credited him with overcoming Stagflation when he basically helped usher in the era of credit-based growth and growing inequality that now keeps repeatedly coming crashing down on our heads. Not many conservatives seem to be willing to call him the cause of what is killing us - or the climate. I would not go as far as saying that he consciously caused it, but he dumbly enacted - just like Thatcher did - the policies of ruin. He was somebody's goon. He didn't cure the malady. He propped the patient up for a while and now he's dying of something worse that might find no easy cure anymore.

    And thus we come back to leaders and their legends. If a certain part of Russian nationalism needs a fake legend of how great Russia could have been if history hadn't actually happened, fine. I stopped reading the unsubstianted glory legend 2/3s through. I'm sure many Germans also sit around and think that a little more luck and a little less dumb Hitler would have brought victory over the Soviet Union and how things might have been gravy after. At least that's the legend the generals wanted to believe after the war. And I get the impression that many educated British people exit their schools with the impression that the Empire was great for mostly anyone and it sadly ended. I actually had discussions where they found it impossible to believe that their Empire had reduced India from a rather advanced economy into an impoverished dependent nation. So everyone gets to believe their own legends. Especially the nationalists of all stripes. Or people sitting in their basements reenacting the Civil War or pretending that Patton plus the US army plus 100,000 captive Germans could have beaten the Red Army. Or any other person who's into entertaining ahistorical fantasies.

    I have no problems with such fantasies, I find them highly entertaining. But when they start to fuel and reinforce your political worldview, they simply become delusions. You can measure Nicholas from actual history and you might or might not arrive at a fair judgment of the man as leader, as a person, or as a historical figure. But to speculate what would have happened if his government had not basically imploded the country and to only parade out a possible best of all potential worlds... that's just delusional. If one needs so hard to prove to himself that Stalin did not really accomplish much and that Nicholas might have accomplished much, then this specific sort of Russian nationalism is standing on clay feet of delusion. I'm sure Russians have enough actual historical achievements to be proud of, without resorting to delusional what-if histories, it just irks certain people that some like the victory over Germany happened under "the wrong people." If Russian monarchists had done the same with double the casualties we would hear no end of it, I'm sure.

    Thank you for exposing Reagan as the nincompoop he was. I lived through it. I remember. He ran on a “balance the budget” platform, holding Carter’s numbers up for ridicule and shame and then proceeded to triple Carter’s deficits.

    Then, while firing the air traffic controllers and thereby showing federal support for abolishing Labor Unions, his tough anti’commie talk won the unblushing support of the working Joes for what was essentially their own demise.

    He liked the sound of the phrase “a strong dollar” and so agreed to interest rates raises that made the dollar the investment of choice for foreigners which resulted in American goods being priced out of international markets. America’s century of trade surpluses came to an end, industry faltered and we started our journey on the road of ever-rising trade deficits. Wishing to remain competitive in international markets, the rush by American corporations to relocate overseas began.

    Reagan’s policies were an unmitigated disaster for American working class families and yet he, as you say, is honored in myth and legend as the gritty, true friend of the working stiff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @melanf

    then Nicholas II represents the Russian dream of a normal, non-catastrophic historical development, uninterrupted by great upheavals and bloodbaths.
     
    Disgusting and stupid lies. The reign of this scum ended in disaster (entirely - the fault of Nicholas). Shamefully lost wars, rampant terror and the revolution of 1905 - this can not be considered a "normal" rule.

    A model example of a "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" - Catherine the Great. Peter The great is a model example of how to achieve "normal, non-catastrophic historical development" in the conditions of severe crisis. And Nicholas is an example of how stupid and cowardly scum can ruin everything.

    Look at his family. None of them too bright. His direct cousins Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V of England. Three grandson’s of Queen Victoria. One of his cousins became queen of Spain, another Queen of Romania. And so it goes, a regular soap opera of history.
    He may have had more power than Wilhelm and George, I can’t say.
    Tragic he had to be Tsar, and could not do something he was capable of.
    Imagine present day Prince Charles as King with real power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Mikhail

    There are no “ifs” in history. Historical experiments have no proper controls. Bottom line is, we don’t know and will never know what could have been w/o Bolsheviks. The only certain thing is that Nicholas II ran the Russian Empire into the ground, sharing the guilt for everything that happened afterwards.
     
    No one person alone is responsible for such instances like the advent of Nazism and the creation of the USSR.

    In a number of instances, the matter of "ifs" can be reasonably applied for analytical overview purposes.

    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?
     
    Such is the convoluted view among sovoks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @DFH
    Louis XIV was very nearly overthrown though because of the Cardinals' absolutism

    Louis XIV was very nearly overthrown though because of the Cardinals’ absolutism.

    Louis XIV was a very young man at the time of the Fronde. He nonetheless prevailed over the rebels, dismissed Mazarin, took personal charge of government, and ruled until he died of old age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Gerard2 says:

    Bizarre blog post by Karlin.

    Stalin is a near biblical figure , as with Abraham, a man who would sacrifice his son for God, Stalin would sacrifice his son for the good of the Soviet Union.

    A quiet man from poor upbringing who would become one of the greatest and most successful and charismatic figures of the 20th Century.

    No point comparing Stalin to Nicholas either…..Nicholas to Lenin would be fine , not this.

    There is no moral competition between Stalin and Nicholas….both tried to do their best for Russia…..except Stalin was a big sucess and Nicholas wasn’t…..although Stalin clearly learned from Nicholas’s errors

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Marcus says:
    @AP

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.
     
    So head of Serbia's secret service wasn't part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission
     
    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908
     
    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand
     
    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander
     
    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia's behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.

    Princip and the other terrorists’ weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well. Patic may not have known of the conspiracy, but he was unwilling or unable to curb the Black Hand’s activities. The ultimatum may have been harsh, but it was not unreasonable for Austria-Hungary to assume it had to take matters into its own hands. Sadly, many Russian officials were sensible enough to want to stay out of the Balkan mess. The eventual Russian mobilization showed the fraught nature of the new government: they only had plans for a large mobilization against Germany, not a partial mobilization against Austrian or any other enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon

    Princip and the other terrorists’ weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well.
     
    Your argument is mind-boggling.

    The coupists of March 1941 in Yugoslavia also had Serbian-manufactured weapons, and were career officers and officials in Yugoslavia. But they were organised and supported on the ground by British spies, attaches and special operations agents. British clout in Karađorđević Serbia and Yugoslavia was immense, and the British were so arrogant to have delivered an ultimatum in January 1941 on the neutrality of Yugoslavia being no longer acceptable to London, and will be considered as DOW against Britain. Naturally, Tripartite pact negotiations and eventual signing pushed British into action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Nicholas to-day is the same romantic horror that he has been since the day he abdicated. After that his martyrdom on the altar of modernity, along with the rest of his family and millions of really ‘ordinary’ Russians, earned him a heavenly crown. He’s saint Nicholas the Second – something he wasn’t, and few of his ilk have ever been. There’s a base of religion – another value of ‘old Russia’ that is today making a national resurgence Nicholas the Saint of modern Russia serves the state better in that role than he could ever do if he was revivified to lead the nation, or if one of his surviving relatives was inserted by a helpful American change agent. A Pahlavi Shah-in-waiting would stand a better chance of turning Iran into a non-threat and good corporate citizen, again, than Nicholas ever could do to Russia. He just didn’t do autocracy as well as he should have.

    So we can wallow in whatever maudlin sentimentality about him, as a generation of ‘emigres’ did, or about Uncle Joe – anther real brute redeemed by lucky circumstance. Both moved Russia where history was going to lead it anyway. If not for the Russian people they couldn’t have done much on their own.

    What we may need to look at the Russians themselves. For all the horrors, the millions of dead, the mass destruction of the modern part of their country did something to better them that I think would have destroyed most other nations on Earth. We know that America was set into an advance to the future and that it powered the reconstruction and rebirth of Europe and the resuscitation of Japan. But Russia did what it has done by tugging its own bootstraps. Twice in a century. We need to know if they could do that again.

    They may not need a czar, a Stalin – or a Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    Alexander Parvus is a historical person who is almost unknown in the west. But in Ukraine some people are aware of his role in Russian/Ukrainian history. http://www.newsweek.com/jews-want-drown-ukraine-blood-ukraines-military-prosecutor-says-amid-wave-997357

    It was known in his time. Parvus is deliberately left out of the picture in the West, because his role reveals that the ‘Russian’ revolution was not Russian at all. He was a German agent, like Lenin who was also a Japanese agent in 1905. Moreover, the West goes to every extremities to deny that Jews played a determinant part in the ‘Russian’ revolution. And especially to cover up the involvement of the American (Jewish) banks which bankrolled both the 1905 and 1917 ‘revolutions’.
    The accusations that Parvus and Lenin were German agents and that Parvus transmitted the money to Lenin were brought by the Provisional Government in July 1917, based on correspondence between Parvus, Hanecki (Bolshevik representative in Stockholm), the Petrograd barrister Kozlowski and a ‘business executive’ Madame Sumenson, intercepted by the Russian counter-inteligence. A decree signed by the Attorney-General ordered the arrest of Parvus, Hanecki, Kozlovski and Sumenson as well as of Lenin, Zinoviev, Alexandra Kollontai. Trotsky was arrested too. Lenin and Zinoviev went in hiding. Parvus was still abroad. Naturally the culprits denied the charges and the Provisional Government made the mistake to release them on bail.
    Parvus was eventually sidelined by the Germans because he wanted that the peace negotiations be conducted between the Socialist Parties of Germany and Russia instead of the governments dreaming for a role for himself. Lenin also dumped him, which instantly turned Parvus from an exalted admirer of Bolshevism into a bitter enemy of the ‘asiatic features’ of Russian life and an admirer of German Social-Democracy. Besides, he was a millionaire!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Sergey Krieger
    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?

    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?

    Such is the convoluted view among sovoks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Modern Russia owes everything to the Soviet period and people you call sovok who in every respect were heads and shoulders above current generation. Especially guys like you. Without those whom such as you call sovok Russia would have not existed. Or as third world shit hole as was said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Stalin and the Reds put as much wind up what was left of a World Order, after 1918 up to 1939 as the French Revolution did before Napoleon. Had there been any ability to stomp out the ‘nascent malignancy’as Churchill described it, it would have been stomped. Wasn’t the USA one of the ‘world powers’ fighting ‘communism’ IN Russia two years after the last gun was fired in France? Russia wasn’t invited to Versailles but it was no slouch taking back the old czarist realms forfeit to the Kaiser and the Austrian emperor by the ‘pacific’ Reds at Brest Litovsk.

    Russia put a scare in America and Britain .’ The Comintern’ almost took France a couple of times in the 30′s and it did take Spain. Only rising fascism was able to change the latter. And, of course, while looking like it should have, would have and very well could have lost the second war, Russia got some help from ‘democracy’ and possibly won it three years sooner than it might otherwise have done. (That was as much a function of Hitler (and his pan-European coalition) biting-off far more than he could chew than it was to any strategic genius coming out of the Politburo.) But Stalin was smart enough to avoid a two front war – something not many other smart guys did. When he did go after Japan, to ‘help an ally’, he undid the ‘injustices’ done to Russia at Portsmouth, Maine in 1905. And he set Russia up as the main support of an equally daunting (for us) China, to-day.

    Say what you will about evils, backwardness and seeking to re-create past glory. Russia since 1945 is nothing any Czar (Alexander I, perhaps, excepted) would have dreamed, world-power wise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...Say what you will about evils, backwardness and seeking to re-create past glory. Russia since 1945 is nothing any Czar (Alexander I, perhaps, excepted) would have dreamed, world-power wise.'

    Russia since 1945 has to have been the most pointlessly dreary, futile, and spiritually empty societies in human experience. Indeed, I doubt if any Tsar would have dreamed of it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. ‘Nicholas II has overtaken Stalin as the most positively-regarded Russian historical figure of the 20th century…’

    Meh. I could debate some of the historical claims, but the essential point is that Nicholas II was a rather weak individual and a mediocrity who deserves little credit for the progress Russia happened to be making under his reign but who does deserve much of the blame for the revolution that undid so much of it. With a strong Tsar such as his father, there might well have been no revolution.

    My nomination for greatest Russian historical figure of the twentieth century would be Stolypin. He actually did a lot. Had he lived — and had he enjoyed the whole-hearted support of the tsar — he might have saved Russia. Stolypin actually highlights the weakness and failure of Nicholas II, since his brief career shows what could still be done by a man with the requisite courage, energy, and clarity of vision.

    Other possibilities would be Khrushchev, who at least broke with the outright cannibalism of the Stalinist system when it would have been perfectly possible to continue on the well-trodden path. Finally, there is Gorbachev, who admittedly failed to save either the baby or the bathwater, but at least tried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Finally, there is Gorbachev, who admittedly failed to save either the baby or the bathwater, but at least tried.}

    I agree Khrushchev was very brave to denounce Stalin and put an end to his legacy of terror.
    But Gorbachev deserves no positive mention.

    He was either a very deep agent of the West or a total idiot.
    Soviet Union could not continue for long with its structural defects, but could have been wound down in an orderly manner. Instead of the total, catastrophic collapse that wiped out whatever was built/created during the 70 years of Soviet rule.

    Gorbachev gave up tangible strategic assets/positions for a worthless promise from US/NATO...not to expand NATO towards Russia. Gorbachev's incompetence bequeathed Russia a very weak hand, which resulted in its present predicament.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Khrushchev also heralded a second era of leftist extremism, closed down many of the Orthodox churches that had been reopened during WW1, promoted irrationally megalomaniac economic schemes (his obsession with corn), and locked the Soviet economy even further into the distortions produced by central planning.

    There was also nothing particularly laudable about his denunciation of Stalin - Stalin had already finished reformatting society into the new Communist mold, there was no longer any point to mass repressions and indeed they were dangerous to the Communist elites (indeed, denunciations of Stalin centered around his persecution of other Communists - one of the few good things Stalin actually did). So, just opportunism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Boogey google
    Stalin and the Reds put as much wind up what was left of a World Order, after 1918 up to 1939 as the French Revolution did before Napoleon. Had there been any ability to stomp out the 'nascent malignancy'as Churchill described it, it would have been stomped. Wasn't the USA one of the 'world powers' fighting 'communism' IN Russia two years after the last gun was fired in France? Russia wasn't invited to Versailles but it was no slouch taking back the old czarist realms forfeit to the Kaiser and the Austrian emperor by the 'pacific' Reds at Brest Litovsk.

    Russia put a scare in America and Britain .' The Comintern' almost took France a couple of times in the 30's and it did take Spain. Only rising fascism was able to change the latter. And, of course, while looking like it should have, would have and very well could have lost the second war, Russia got some help from 'democracy' and possibly won it three years sooner than it might otherwise have done. (That was as much a function of Hitler (and his pan-European coalition) biting-off far more than he could chew than it was to any strategic genius coming out of the Politburo.) But Stalin was smart enough to avoid a two front war - something not many other smart guys did. When he did go after Japan, to 'help an ally', he undid the 'injustices' done to Russia at Portsmouth, Maine in 1905. And he set Russia up as the main support of an equally daunting (for us) China, to-day.

    Say what you will about evils, backwardness and seeking to re-create past glory. Russia since 1945 is nothing any Czar (Alexander I, perhaps, excepted) would have dreamed, world-power wise.

    ‘…Say what you will about evils, backwardness and seeking to re-create past glory. Russia since 1945 is nothing any Czar (Alexander I, perhaps, excepted) would have dreamed, world-power wise.’

    Russia since 1945 has to have been the most pointlessly dreary, futile, and spiritually empty societies in human experience. Indeed, I doubt if any Tsar would have dreamed of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Avery says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Nicholas II has overtaken Stalin as the most positively-regarded Russian historical figure of the 20th century...'

    Meh. I could debate some of the historical claims, but the essential point is that Nicholas II was a rather weak individual and a mediocrity who deserves little credit for the progress Russia happened to be making under his reign but who does deserve much of the blame for the revolution that undid so much of it. With a strong Tsar such as his father, there might well have been no revolution.

    My nomination for greatest Russian historical figure of the twentieth century would be Stolypin. He actually did a lot. Had he lived -- and had he enjoyed the whole-hearted support of the tsar -- he might have saved Russia. Stolypin actually highlights the weakness and failure of Nicholas II, since his brief career shows what could still be done by a man with the requisite courage, energy, and clarity of vision.

    Other possibilities would be Khrushchev, who at least broke with the outright cannibalism of the Stalinist system when it would have been perfectly possible to continue on the well-trodden path. Finally, there is Gorbachev, who admittedly failed to save either the baby or the bathwater, but at least tried.

    {Finally, there is Gorbachev, who admittedly failed to save either the baby or the bathwater, but at least tried.}

    I agree Khrushchev was very brave to denounce Stalin and put an end to his legacy of terror.
    But Gorbachev deserves no positive mention.

    He was either a very deep agent of the West or a total idiot.
    Soviet Union could not continue for long with its structural defects, but could have been wound down in an orderly manner. Instead of the total, catastrophic collapse that wiped out whatever was built/created during the 70 years of Soviet rule.

    Gorbachev gave up tangible strategic assets/positions for a worthless promise from US/NATO…not to expand NATO towards Russia. Gorbachev’s incompetence bequeathed Russia a very weak hand, which resulted in its present predicament.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Seraphim says:
    @melanf
    Really shameful article. I'm not a fan of the Bolsheviks at all, but the good thing they did - they executed Nicholas. What deserves to be condemned - that he was shot. Nicholas by his shameful rule deserved the gallows.
    Тhough not the Bolsheviks were to judge and hang Nicholas, but the monarchists-for the fact that he in his heinous rule destroyed the country and discredited the monarchy.

    You are a fan of Bolshies, whatever your standard denials (I am not a…, but…). You are a fan of all haters of Russia. I wonder why you didn’t bring Rasputin in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Seraphim says:
    @anony-mouse
    1/ Words not in the article: Rasputin, Tsushima, Protopopov, Vyrubova, cousin 'Willi', 'Stupidity or Treason'

    2/ The February revolution was one of the few pure 'people's revolutions. It was organized by nobody (certainly not the Bolsheviks). It took 10 days, and was supported by just about everyone including the Cossacks.

    The ‘pure’ February revolution was organized by the German and British intelligence agents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Seraphim says:
    @Mikhail

    “Was it the Tsar who launched Gagarin into space?”, asks a commentator to a radio show where I gave a talk.
     
    What rhetorical stupidity, given that the world at the time of the Czar, didn't possess such technology.

    Russia was clearly advancing without the Bolshes and would've continued to advance (most probably better) without them..

    In actual fact Russians were more advanced in that field than the rest of the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. ErnieB says:

    Hard to believe that some people are still discussing the bell epoque well within the 21st century.
    The bolcheviques were created by the British Empire because the brits wanted full dominion of the Eurasian land.
    They got scared to death when the monster they created murdered the whole Romanov family three alive. Then they created another monster Adolf Hitler. Divide and conquer is their game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Seraphim says:
    @Dmitry
    This could be just my confirmation bias, but with the British, politically powerless cousin of the family, seems even in the photos a lot more confident, vigorous and stronger man.

    In the photos together, Nicholas II looks like a guy who wants stay in his bedroom, hide behind the beard, and play video games, maybe using his reportedly excellent English skills to write some witty comments on the Karlin blog.

    This English King not necessarily a genius, and was reportedly famous for his anger. But even then, it would be great for history if we could have swapped their places.


    https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/King-George-V-and-Tsar-Nicholas-II-with-their-sons-1120934.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/lvr9Ori.jpg


    And as Kholmogorov likes to post his family photos.

    Nicholas II looks to me like a father who would let his daughters take over the house and paint the dinner room pink.

    I reading the photos, that he would be a great guy to have as your teacher when you were at school (I used to love these nice teachers, who you did not have to do your homework on time).

    https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/2017.12/article/5a269bbe85600a703c159e8e.jpg

    That English King, not a genius by any standards, was an accomplice in the murder of his ‘beloved’ cousin. The whole ‘Windsor’ family is tainted by his blood, that they won’t be able, like Lady Macbeth, to wash away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    1. First off, I don't know what data that chart is based of.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American from 1885-2018 based on Maddison's data, which is the most highly recognized data source on historic comparative development:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM7bHL2UAAAj0Ju.png

    Note that the US and Germany in particular were growing very fast during 1885-1914. Russia would have risen relative to Britain and France during that period.

    2. "This ratio didn’t budge much for 45 years and there is no reason not to think it wouldn’t continue like that indefinitely."

    Human capital was improving at a rapid rate. By 1914, primary enrollment was at 80% of the school age population. Many of the great Soviet industrial projects of the 1920s/30s were already in their planning or incipient stages. The GOELRO plan was developed in Tsarist Russia. Construction of the Moscow Metro started in 1913. There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom, as occurred in Germany from the 1860s.

    3. This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s. Specifically in terms of consumer wealth, Russia peaked in the early 1910s, recovered it for a short while in the mid-to-late 1920s, then fell again and recovered back to that level again only around 1950.

    Moreover, one can't even directly compare Soviet GDP per capita to GDP per capita in normal capitalist countries, since (1) there is far less consumer choice under central planning - the utility hit from that alone is estimated at 15%; (2) much more of it is tied up in investment and military consumption (esp. from the 1930s), as opposed to civilian consumption.

    4. The Russians fought loyally when it became clear that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists. The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders. Despite the Nazi brutality, there were still large numbers of Hilfswillige, recreating the Civil War on a small scale in the larger course of the Great Patriotic War.

    First off, I don’t know what data that chart is based of

    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American

    Piketty et al concentrates on INCOME per capita, not GDP. The distinction is often important. For example, the industry in the Russian Empire was growing fast but the growth income was falling behind that, partly because a large portion of profits from the industrial activity was going to the British and French banks.

    Having said that, Maddison’s data is not inconsistent with Piketty’s. That growth spurt in the 1930 is there.

    There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom

    Perhaps. Or perhaps Russia would’ve followed Argentina – rapid industrial growth followed by … not much. Or maybe it would’ve been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship – like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would’ve hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.

    This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s.

    Rich is not the word, but in the 1930s life did get more ordered and more prosperous, at least in the cities. If the freaking statistics doesn’t convince you, you can get a sense of this by reading books written in this period. For example, Master and Margarita, no Soviet propaganda.

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders.

    Yes, some soldiers surrendered because they found themselves in impossible situations, due to novel German tactics. But the nation as a whole fought on, including both the army and the home front. And it continued to do so for four years. They must’ve thought they had something worth fighting for. The only other possibility was that behind every soldier or factory worker was an NKVDist with a gun to his head.

    And no, don’t tell me that they were “for Russia but against the Communist regime.” Only the high IQ people are are able to separate these abstractions in their minds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { They must’ve thought they had something worth fighting for.}

    Survival is very worth fighting for.

    It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs.
    They were killed even when they surrendered: POW wounded left untended to die, deliberately starved to death, shot outright,.....

    After that they had nothing to lose.
    Due to stupidity of Stalin - who fancied himself a military marshal - the Red Army lost millions of troops. But eventually Stalin realized he was way beyond his depth, and was probably badly frightened of the Nazis onslaught, and turned the prosecution of the war to professionals like Zhukov.

    Many military historians consider the Battle of Moscow (managed by Zhukov) as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front vs the more popular view of the Battle of Stalingrad.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.
     
    Because to be very frank having late Soviet incomes be at 70% of Western European levels is implausible.

    Detailed apples to apples consumption basket comparisons, e.g. the impressive series of blog posts by Jose Luis Rincon, have shown that the USSR was at 25% to a third of the US level. Consequently, USSR could not have been at more than 50% of the Western European level at the very most.

    Incomes in the USSR, especially post-1950s, were much more evenly distributed than in the Russian Empire - that is true enough. But consumption accounted for a much lower share of the total. And what you had in the shops did not correlate well with what people actually wanted. Low income differentials masked high differentials in terms of access.

    Or perhaps Russia would’ve followed Argentina – rapid industrial growth followed by … not much. Or maybe it would’ve been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship – like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would’ve hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.
     
    1. Unlikely, considering Russian IQ is almost 10 points higher. A more reasonable comparison would be to Spain.

    2. Unlikely. By that point, it would make it by far the world's most developed country to fall to Communism (excluded cases where it was imposed by outside force).

    3. Correct. However, a temporary (of the major Powers, only France had failed to recover its 1929 GDP by 1939, and only by a small margin) unemployment-driven depression is highly distinct from decades' worth of accumulated distortions, which had made the USSR into a continent-sized rustbelt by the 1970s.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    The only other possibility was that behind every soldier or factory worker was an NKVDist with a gun to his head.

     

    There wasn't?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. inertial says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    Communist Russia GDP 2/3rds that of Western Europe. LOL.

    Yes, ~60% of European (and so ~40% of American) income level sounds about right. I was there, I remember.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Avery says:
    @inertial

    First off, I don’t know what data that chart is based of
     
    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American
     
    Piketty et al concentrates on INCOME per capita, not GDP. The distinction is often important. For example, the industry in the Russian Empire was growing fast but the growth income was falling behind that, partly because a large portion of profits from the industrial activity was going to the British and French banks.

    Having said that, Maddison's data is not inconsistent with Piketty's. That growth spurt in the 1930 is there.

    There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom
     
    Perhaps. Or perhaps Russia would've followed Argentina - rapid industrial growth followed by ... not much. Or maybe it would've been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship - like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would've hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.

    This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s.
     
    Rich is not the word, but in the 1930s life did get more ordered and more prosperous, at least in the cities. If the freaking statistics doesn't convince you, you can get a sense of this by reading books written in this period. For example, Master and Margarita, no Soviet propaganda.

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders.
     
    Yes, some soldiers surrendered because they found themselves in impossible situations, due to novel German tactics. But the nation as a whole fought on, including both the army and the home front. And it continued to do so for four years. They must've thought they had something worth fighting for. The only other possibility was that behind every soldier or factory worker was an NKVDist with a gun to his head.

    And no, don't tell me that they were "for Russia but against the Communist regime." Only the high IQ people are are able to separate these abstractions in their minds.

    { They must’ve thought they had something worth fighting for.}

    Survival is very worth fighting for.

    It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs.
    They were killed even when they surrendered: POW wounded left untended to die, deliberately starved to death, shot outright,…..

    After that they had nothing to lose.
    Due to stupidity of Stalin – who fancied himself a military marshal – the Red Army lost millions of troops. But eventually Stalin realized he was way beyond his depth, and was probably badly frightened of the Nazis onslaught, and turned the prosecution of the war to professionals like Zhukov.

    Many military historians consider the Battle of Moscow (managed by Zhukov) as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front vs the more popular view of the Battle of Stalingrad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally


    said:
    "It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs."

    Yawn. Except you have no proof for your assertion / propaganda.

    Show it if you got it.

    Only liars demand censorship.
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Wally says:
    @Wally
    AK: Correct. Get the hint? Everybody here would appreciate it if you were to leave.

    It's revealing how Karlin hides the text from easy viewing when it's not a long post at all. Another form of censorship by Karlin.



    Oh the games some people play to avoid the questions asked of them.

    www.codoh.com

    [MORE]

    That’s it? That’s your response to my questions?

    IOW, no one can respond to your very own claims in your articles unless they are within the parameters which you decide.

    You obviously cannot back-up what you claim and dislike being reminded of it.

    You are a hypocrite & a fraud.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds. See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Wally says:
    @Marcus
    Lmao at being so irrelevant that you're forced to reply to your own comment.

    [MORE]

    LOL. Your just another Zionist waterboy who cannot refute the information I post.
    case in point:
    from Master Chemist Germar Rudolf:

    The “Holocau$t Industry” in court:
    Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are to this day, … but, but, well, umm, we can’t show the court the human remains. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.’

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Wally says:
    @Avery
    { They must’ve thought they had something worth fighting for.}

    Survival is very worth fighting for.

    It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs.
    They were killed even when they surrendered: POW wounded left untended to die, deliberately starved to death, shot outright,.....

    After that they had nothing to lose.
    Due to stupidity of Stalin - who fancied himself a military marshal - the Red Army lost millions of troops. But eventually Stalin realized he was way beyond his depth, and was probably badly frightened of the Nazis onslaught, and turned the prosecution of the war to professionals like Zhukov.

    Many military historians consider the Battle of Moscow (managed by Zhukov) as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front vs the more popular view of the Battle of Stalingrad.

    [MORE]

    said:
    “It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs.”

    Yawn. Except you have no proof for your assertion / propaganda.

    Show it if you got it.

    Only liars demand censorship.
    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Yawn. Except you have no proof for your assertion / propaganda.}

    Yawn back at you.
    You keep demanding 'proof' from everyone: who the heck you think you are, homes?
    Who appointed you arbiter?
    You keep repeating the same garbage every thread and every comment.
    How many readers have you convinced?
    All of you neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists are the same.


    {Only liars demand censorship.}
    {No name calling, }

    You are calling people 'liars' and that in your delusional world is not 'name calling'?
    And, only delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists demand proof that the earth is flat.


    {Show it if you got it.}
    Here you go: Red Army troops watching over the chopped-up chunks of Nazi pigs in Stalingrad, by the Volga river, deep inside SU. The swine fertilizer turned out to be great: Volgograd is covered with beautiful, green vegetation today.
    Heil Hitler!
    Sieg Heil!

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Heros
    "there are “places” where one can escape to."

    I have had a couple of people comment to me here on Unz to the effect that if you live on the east coast of the US, you cannot have a well compensated career without dealing with jews as a regular part of your career. This is why I commented about my career in IT, the majority of which was completed before the globohomo's took over HR departments across the planet.

    James Damore at Google, and countless other examples, showed just what an incredible disadvantage white males entering into the IT profession at a large corporation face today. Whether it is globo-homo, semites, reverse racism, or just plain vanilla white genocide, discussing concerns facing white males at large corporations is simply taboo, and promotions and bonuses will also be few and far between.

    So I am curious where you think a young person today could start a career without being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general?

    “Rabbis” & Palestine

    Jews themselves tended to stay miles away from the issue of Northern Ireland though of all groups they tend to interact the most with Irish-Catholics. You never saw a Jew (In the 80′s and 90′s) in urban centers express an opinion on the subject to Irish-Americans.

    Just to bring up an analogous issue to Palestine.

    Additionally, no Rabbi interacts much with Gentiles LET ALONE attempts to convert them. Jews are not seeking conversions and when Jews are married to non-Jews usually neither converts or the Jewish woman does so.

    Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions.

    German-Americans, of which I’m one, tend to keep a healthy distance as well-for obvious reasons (Trump’s father went so far as to claim Swedish heritage).

    So the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally


    said:
    "Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions. "

    Really?

    A Survey Calls Koreans Anti-Semitic.: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/186194/korean-anti-semitism

    Indian Anti-Semitism Seen as FM Celebrates Diplomatic Relations: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/120640

    LOL
    www.codoh.com
    , @Seraphim
    @ the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    You are disarmingly naive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Wally says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    "Rabbis" & Palestine

    Jews themselves tended to stay miles away from the issue of Northern Ireland though of all groups they tend to interact the most with Irish-Catholics. You never saw a Jew (In the 80's and 90's) in urban centers express an opinion on the subject to Irish-Americans.

    Just to bring up an analogous issue to Palestine.

    Additionally, no Rabbi interacts much with Gentiles LET ALONE attempts to convert them. Jews are not seeking conversions and when Jews are married to non-Jews usually neither converts or the Jewish woman does so.

    Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions.

    German-Americans, of which I'm one, tend to keep a healthy distance as well-for obvious reasons (Trump's father went so far as to claim Swedish heritage).

    So the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    [MORE]

    said:
    “Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions. ”

    Really?

    A Survey Calls Koreans Anti-Semitic.: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/186194/korean-anti-semitism

    Indian Anti-Semitism Seen as FM Celebrates Diplomatic Relations: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/120640

    LOL
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Koreans BENEFITED from Jewish ghetto merchants being run of Watts and other West Coast black ghettos because they took over the liquor stores, slum tenements and gas stations that Jews had run until the 1967 riots...then in 1992 the blacks burned out the Koreans the same way.

    As for Indians and Koreans calling Jews anti-Semitic names in Silicone Valley or Wall Street or rabbis trying office conversions...this is absurd.

    Your average Seoul Korean knows NOTHING about Palestine.

    Fake news does not change my opinion.

    "LOL"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Heros
    "there are “places” where one can escape to."

    I have had a couple of people comment to me here on Unz to the effect that if you live on the east coast of the US, you cannot have a well compensated career without dealing with jews as a regular part of your career. This is why I commented about my career in IT, the majority of which was completed before the globohomo's took over HR departments across the planet.

    James Damore at Google, and countless other examples, showed just what an incredible disadvantage white males entering into the IT profession at a large corporation face today. Whether it is globo-homo, semites, reverse racism, or just plain vanilla white genocide, discussing concerns facing white males at large corporations is simply taboo, and promotions and bonuses will also be few and far between.

    So I am curious where you think a young person today could start a career without being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general?

    Unless you want to make it big, to work for big corporations there are still, even in the USA companies where people with your skills can make a decent living w/o “being confronted with jewish lies, jewish bosses, jewish lawyers, jewish bankers, jewish politicians, or any rabbi in general.”

    Or, although there are risks, you can go it alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Wally


    said:
    "Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions. "

    Really?

    A Survey Calls Koreans Anti-Semitic.: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/186194/korean-anti-semitism

    Indian Anti-Semitism Seen as FM Celebrates Diplomatic Relations: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/120640

    LOL
    www.codoh.com

    Koreans BENEFITED from Jewish ghetto merchants being run of Watts and other West Coast black ghettos because they took over the liquor stores, slum tenements and gas stations that Jews had run until the 1967 riots…then in 1992 the blacks burned out the Koreans the same way.

    As for Indians and Koreans calling Jews anti-Semitic names in Silicone Valley or Wall Street or rabbis trying office conversions…this is absurd.

    Your average Seoul Korean knows NOTHING about Palestine.

    Fake news does not change my opinion.

    “LOL”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally


    I get it, I present concrete proof that what you claim is laughably wrong, so now you reject anything which goes against your easily debunked false claims.

    You remind me of Anatoly Karlin who now hides my posts because he has no answers for the challenges I present to him.

    Back to kindergarten, children

    www.codoh.com
    , @Hyperborean

    Silicone Valley
     
    Lol, I wish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Epigon says:
    @AP

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.
     
    So head of Serbia's secret service wasn't part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission
     
    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908
     
    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand
     
    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander
     
    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia's behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.

    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Cue the armed resistance resulting in thousands of dead in 1878-1879 and tens of thousands expelled.

    You and your identity being a result of Habsburg policies in Galizia makes you a natural proponent of Drang nach Osten, Uniatism and Habsburg desire to dominate Southeastern Europe.
    It also makes you a true believer in Habsburg bullshit about Triune Monarchy that elevates Slavs.

    There is also the unfortunate fact of Austria-Hungary preparing for a punitive war against Serbia since at least 1906, that being the year when AH General Staff started drafting invasion plans. This is due the previously explained 1903 regime change in Serbia, perpetrated by pro-British, anti-German agents.

    Calling Young Bosna Serb nationalists or Serb instruments is simply delusional. Muslims and catholics contributing, with the ultimate goal of a Yugoslavia, not Serbia. Prior to assassination, Princip visited London TWICE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    The Habsburgs had already been taking a beating from German nationalists for being favorable to Slavs for decades, Franz Ferdinand was particularly hated for his planned reforms. Hitler still hadn't forgotten about it in the 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ritter_von_Sch%C3%B6nerer
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    Princip and the other terrorists' weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well. Patic may not have known of the conspiracy, but he was unwilling or unable to curb the Black Hand's activities. The ultimatum may have been harsh, but it was not unreasonable for Austria-Hungary to assume it had to take matters into its own hands. Sadly, many Russian officials were sensible enough to want to stay out of the Balkan mess. The eventual Russian mobilization showed the fraught nature of the new government: they only had plans for a large mobilization against Germany, not a partial mobilization against Austrian or any other enemy.

    Princip and the other terrorists’ weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well.

    Your argument is mind-boggling.

    The coupists of March 1941 in Yugoslavia also had Serbian-manufactured weapons, and were career officers and officials in Yugoslavia. But they were organised and supported on the ground by British spies, attaches and special operations agents. British clout in Karađorđević Serbia and Yugoslavia was immense, and the British were so arrogant to have delivered an ultimatum in January 1941 on the neutrality of Yugoslavia being no longer acceptable to London, and will be considered as DOW against Britain. Naturally, Tripartite pact negotiations and eventual signing pushed British into action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    So? We aren't talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I've heard that the okhrana was, but I'm skeptical
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Indian Muslims, of course, are essentially Pakistani and so naturally they dislike Jews.

    This is not the Hindu mainstream feeling.

    Brahmin, who consider all non-Brahmin to be trash anyhow and subscribe to Aryan superiority probably do not give Jews much thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. Epigon says:
    @AP

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.
     
    So head of Serbia's secret service wasn't part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission
     
    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908
     
    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand
     
    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander
     
    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia's behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.

    And to further my point about Austro-Hungary and the invasion of Bosnia&Herzegovina in 1878: all three of the senior commanders: Gavrilo Rodić, Josif Filipović and Stjepan Jovanović were born in Serb Orthodox Grenzer families, their forces were mostly Grenzers, and all three were denationalised and Uniatized/Catholicized as a pre-requisite for formal military education and later on, noble titles. The same for would be the case for Field Marshal Svetozar Borojević, later on.

    You being an Ukrainian are a Galizian analogue to Grenzer assimilation. Therefore, you once again “naturally” show sympathy for Habsburgs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Grenzers are not an ethnic or regional subgroup. They are Serb troops who fought for Austria.

    Galicians are a subgroup of Ukrainians, as Bavarians are of Germans. They were Greek Catholic long before Galicia was part of Austria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    "Rabbis" & Palestine

    Jews themselves tended to stay miles away from the issue of Northern Ireland though of all groups they tend to interact the most with Irish-Catholics. You never saw a Jew (In the 80's and 90's) in urban centers express an opinion on the subject to Irish-Americans.

    Just to bring up an analogous issue to Palestine.

    Additionally, no Rabbi interacts much with Gentiles LET ALONE attempts to convert them. Jews are not seeking conversions and when Jews are married to non-Jews usually neither converts or the Jewish woman does so.

    Indians and Koreans for example, who do not care about Jews at all and often end up in similar fields, rarely enter into these discussions.

    German-Americans, of which I'm one, tend to keep a healthy distance as well-for obvious reasons (Trump's father went so far as to claim Swedish heritage).

    So the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    @ the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    You are disarmingly naive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    At what point in the 1980's did Jews in NYC get involved with the Irish-American conundrum of Northern Ireland?

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.

    Noooo...Jews are AFTER rural Anglo Saxons in the US hinterlands and remote towns. Not the far more competitive Asians or Irish-Catholics or Italians or even Arabs who congregate in the same population centers on the East Coast / West Coast axis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Dmitry

    I still have a hard time picking out which is Tsar Nicholas II and which is King George V in the photos of them together. I know, from reading The Guns of August, that most European Royals are related through Queen Victoria (pretty sure), but the resemblance is uncanny. Disney could have made a movie called The Monarch Trap, starring those two.
     
    By this era, the Romanov family (Holstein-Gottorp family) are the same family as the British Royal Family, as they are interbred with each other through many different lines (too many different times to count).

    So to take one example of Prince Charles of England. His father is Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. (The husband of current Queen Elizabeth of England).

    The father of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is grandson of Emperor Nicholas I.

    In order to genetically test the dead bodies of Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) family who were executed in 1918, they just use some years past the DNA of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

    Another example - Lord Mountbatten of the UK, was a cousin of Nicholas II. As a result, they could not call Lord Mountbatten as "Nicky" when a child in the British Royal family, because in the family they already use "Nicky" for their cousin Nicholas II.

    -

    This large, multi-European, family itself, of course (to say the obvious), produces a mixture of competent people and incompetent people (fools), as most families.

    Prince Charles of Wales today is considered a fool. But his children (Prince William and Prince Harry) are considered to be quite competent and intelligent men.

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy, and royal family can be simply positive ambassadors and tourist attractions, since they have little political power.

    So, UK has reduced exposure to this "genetic leadership lottery" that the Russian Empire was exposed to.

    Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp) branch produced many competent and intelligent leaders (we already mentioned Alexander II above). But it is a lottery as with any family, that sometimes produces complete fools.

    With Nicholas II, it was bad luck that it was born a complete fool, not at all like even his father, let alone his intelligent grandfather.

    But unlike with Prince Charles of Wales in the UK today, it was not a "harmless" fool, as he was responsible for making the most important decisions of history, in world's second largest Empire. And the end result, is his Empire (which has potential to become largest power of Europe), is in constant crisis, falling apart, and so unstable that a group of extremist/idiot terrorists could takeover country, to pursue national experiments based on radical, incorrect, theories half-understood from political economy classes, and which would have to be followed for generations after being committed into.

    -

    Present leadership systems are neither perfect, but current leadership in Russia (as for much longer in the UK) is now, at least, not exposed to a genetic lottery, from a single multinational family.

    Putin, although far from perfect or always correct (e.g. his economic priorities), grew up in a communal apartment. As a youth, he often had to beat up hooligans who threatened him.

    He climbed to power as a result of his above average intelligence and personal qualities. (This process operates as a filter).

    At various points of life, prior to becoming a leader, he was tested, and a weaker man would not have succeeded.

    But more importantly by far, every 6 years, the quality of his work is assessed by public consensus in elections. There are still many problems of leadership selection and dangers of incompetence, particularly in Russia. However, it is one of the main lessons looking on Nicholas II - to be thankful that the exposure to genetic lottery (of which Nicholas II is probably one of history's most obvious examples of weakness resulting from the lack of filtration in this selection process), is not here anymore.

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy

    Utter bullshit. The UK has no constitution. It is technically and legally an absolutist monarchy.

    (That the ruling family cannot or will not exercise their legal rights is another issue.)

    Please don’t confuse the UK and the USA. They fought a bloody war over the constitution issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Britain/UK is a parliamentary monarchy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Mitleser says:
    @anonymous coward

    In the UK, of course, there is full constitutional monarchy
     
    Utter bullshit. The UK has no constitution. It is technically and legally an absolutist monarchy.

    (That the ruling family cannot or will not exercise their legal rights is another issue.)

    Please don't confuse the UK and the USA. They fought a bloody war over the constitution issue.

    Britain/UK is a parliamentary monarchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Parliamentary, not constitutional. Ivan IV's ('the Terrible') Russia was also a parliamentary monarchy, and he's supposed to be the gold standard for tyrannical monarchs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Seraphim
    @ the idea that Jews show up and attempt to entangle Gentiles in their politics is incorrect.

    You are disarmingly naive.

    At what point in the 1980′s did Jews in NYC get involved with the Irish-American conundrum of Northern Ireland?

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.

    Noooo…Jews are AFTER rural Anglo Saxons in the US hinterlands and remote towns. Not the far more competitive Asians or Irish-Catholics or Italians or even Arabs who congregate in the same population centers on the East Coast / West Coast axis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.
     
    Most of the rich 'Iranians' in California are Persian Jews.
    , @Seraphim
    Does AIPAC means anything to you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Heros says:
    @AnonFromTN
    Academic science is one such area. In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues, but you’d encounter their better facets, like smarts, rather than their tribal loyalties. The downside is that academic science is hardly a well-compensated career. You start as a graduate student for 4-6 years (with $24,000 – 28,000 annual stipend), then become a post-doc for 4-6 years with ~$50,000 annual salary (usually with decent benefits, if you work at a good University), but the pay worth writing home about starts when you become independent, i.e., find a place that hires you as a tenure-track Assistant Professor or equivalent. For that you need to be productive (in terms of number and quality of publications) during your grad school and post-doc years, i.e., you want to be a smart hard-working person in an active and productive lab. After that your career and pay totally depends on your ability to secure extramural funding (grants from NIH, NSF, CDC, DoD, etc., or contracts with government agencies or private companies), but you won’t have any bosses (if you are successful).

    “In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues”

    Over 50% of Harvard students are Jewish, IIRC. Roughly the same applies across the Ivy league and all elite universities, for 2% of the population. Blacks and Hispanics are given handicaps on SAT’s so they can get the good school vacancies.

    Once you enter the working world, all these academic institutions are owned by the globohomo’s, especially HR. Grants, as you say are highly political. You never mention that by working in academia, you have accepted your existence as a tax-eater, living off of stolen loot.

    IMO, you have conceded that Academia already has virtual Noahide laws.

    The Jew revolutionaries for centuries kvetched about the privileges of the Tsar’s and their Aristocracy, yet their talmudic hatred of Christianity and their tyranny is far more insidious. What we see, just as with the Communists and Jacobians, is that Jews always lie and murder to get into power, and once in, there is only one way to get them out: force. Just ask Titus. Or Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism and Kissinger and then Reagan worked out an exchange so that Jews from Russia could immigrate to the US or Israel.

    Many of them were petty criminals-I don't deny that the crime rate went up because Gorbachev did a Castro number and emptied Gulags of Russian crims who happened to be Jewish onto Brooklyn and the Bronx.

    Okay.

    But if Communism was designed by Jews because Lenin happened to be 1/4 Jewish (And unaware of it) or Trotsky was half Jewish then what good did this do them?
    , @AnonFromTN
    Has it ever occurred to you that the US does not have cheap workforce willing to work 12-14 h per day for a meager pay, like China, or enough oil and other stuff in the ground to support all its citizens, like Bahrain or UAE? The only hope for a decent future of our country is science and high-tech and biotech it generates. The only agency farsighted enough to fund basic science is the government, as for the for-profit companies long-term usually means next quarter’s share price. The money invested in the NIH, NSF, CDC, etc., will yield more benefits for the country than enormous sums wasted on “defense” (defense from who? US military spending is already greater than that of the rest of the world combined). If this idea is totally unacceptable for you, you are hopeless, so consider this response never written. Otherwise, turn on your brains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Heros
    "In the natural sciences politics and political correctness BS don’t play much of a role. You’d still have quite a few Jews as colleagues"

    Over 50% of Harvard students are Jewish, IIRC. Roughly the same applies across the Ivy league and all elite universities, for 2% of the population. Blacks and Hispanics are given handicaps on SAT's so they can get the good school vacancies.

    Once you enter the working world, all these academic institutions are owned by the globohomo's, especially HR. Grants, as you say are highly political. You never mention that by working in academia, you have accepted your existence as a tax-eater, living off of stolen loot.

    IMO, you have conceded that Academia already has virtual Noahide laws.

    The Jew revolutionaries for centuries kvetched about the privileges of the Tsar's and their Aristocracy, yet their talmudic hatred of Christianity and their tyranny is far more insidious. What we see, just as with the Communists and Jacobians, is that Jews always lie and murder to get into power, and once in, there is only one way to get them out: force. Just ask Titus. Or Hitler.

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism and Kissinger and then Reagan worked out an exchange so that Jews from Russia could immigrate to the US or Israel.

    Many of them were petty criminals-I don’t deny that the crime rate went up because Gorbachev did a Castro number and emptied Gulags of Russian crims who happened to be Jewish onto Brooklyn and the Bronx.

    Okay.

    But if Communism was designed by Jews because Lenin happened to be 1/4 Jewish (And unaware of it) or Trotsky was half Jewish then what good did this do them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism
     
    You are an idiot.
    , @Seraphim
    You are pulling our leg. Trotsky was full Jew. Lev (Leiba) Davidovich was the son of:
    David Leontievich Bronshtein and
    Ana Lvovna Bronshtein, nee Zhivotovskaia (or Issivovskaia).
    , @Fluctuarius

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism
     
    Did they give you a wedgie in the kindergarten or something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. DFH says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    At what point in the 1980's did Jews in NYC get involved with the Irish-American conundrum of Northern Ireland?

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.

    Noooo...Jews are AFTER rural Anglo Saxons in the US hinterlands and remote towns. Not the far more competitive Asians or Irish-Catholics or Italians or even Arabs who congregate in the same population centers on the East Coast / West Coast axis.

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.

    Most of the rich ‘Iranians’ in California are Persian Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    A number of them are Jews, but far from all of them.

    I don't deny that Jews (Or Arabs, Indians, Asians, Italians) could care less about the culture or values of Americans of British descent whose ancestors were the gritty English adventurers and explorers who settled the United States with their square dancing and rodeos.

    No Italian in New Jersey or Iranian in California cares about prayer in school or abortion or what gays do. Neither do blacks.

    But I do not really know why Jews would be particularly intent on going after WASPS. Their major competitors are not WASPS from New Hampshire or even the now mostly-defunct Irish-Catholic political and religious power of the East Coast but Asians and Arabs and Hispanics.

    Jewish neighborhoods like Brooklyn or the Bronx have not been trashed by Anglo-Saxons. They were trash by Hispanic and blacks-unless you want to believe the DEATH WISH version of things that depicts Jeff Goldblum! as a mugger/home invader.

    So why would the Jews be so intent on going after Anglos?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @DFH

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.
     
    Most of the rich 'Iranians' in California are Persian Jews.

    A number of them are Jews, but far from all of them.

    I don’t deny that Jews (Or Arabs, Indians, Asians, Italians) could care less about the culture or values of Americans of British descent whose ancestors were the gritty English adventurers and explorers who settled the United States with their square dancing and rodeos.

    No Italian in New Jersey or Iranian in California cares about prayer in school or abortion or what gays do. Neither do blacks.

    But I do not really know why Jews would be particularly intent on going after WASPS. Their major competitors are not WASPS from New Hampshire or even the now mostly-defunct Irish-Catholic political and religious power of the East Coast but Asians and Arabs and Hispanics.

    Jewish neighborhoods like Brooklyn or the Bronx have not been trashed by Anglo-Saxons. They were trash by Hispanic and blacks-unless you want to believe the DEATH WISH version of things that depicts Jeff Goldblum! as a mugger/home invader.

    So why would the Jews be so intent on going after Anglos?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. utu says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism and Kissinger and then Reagan worked out an exchange so that Jews from Russia could immigrate to the US or Israel.

    Many of them were petty criminals-I don't deny that the crime rate went up because Gorbachev did a Castro number and emptied Gulags of Russian crims who happened to be Jewish onto Brooklyn and the Bronx.

    Okay.

    But if Communism was designed by Jews because Lenin happened to be 1/4 Jewish (And unaware of it) or Trotsky was half Jewish then what good did this do them?

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism

    You are an idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    UTU

    I know you are a hick who blames the inability of Anglo hicks in control the primary economies of gas, oil, mining, ranching in the US interior to do anything with their Podunk regions in post-decline and facts do not matter because Jews are responsible for the kids walking around your post-industrial Flyover acting like Eminem and reeling on pain pills because Meth is for their Mom.

    However, I am stating facts.

    Nixon and Kissinger worked out a deal with Russians to let Jews immigrate to Israel in the 70's, Reagan did the same.

    You don't know this because you're so far into the US interior square dancing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    At what point in the 1980's did Jews in NYC get involved with the Irish-American conundrum of Northern Ireland?

    Why have Iranians become successful in Jewish dominated California? They are known to dislike Jews but this has not prevented their success.

    Noooo...Jews are AFTER rural Anglo Saxons in the US hinterlands and remote towns. Not the far more competitive Asians or Irish-Catholics or Italians or even Arabs who congregate in the same population centers on the East Coast / West Coast axis.

    Does AIPAC means anything to you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Congress has a committee on foreign relations with them. What's your point?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Mitleser
    Britain/UK is a parliamentary monarchy.

    Parliamentary, not constitutional. Ivan IV’s (‘the Terrible’) Russia was also a parliamentary monarchy, and he’s supposed to be the gold standard for tyrannical monarchs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism and Kissinger and then Reagan worked out an exchange so that Jews from Russia could immigrate to the US or Israel.

    Many of them were petty criminals-I don't deny that the crime rate went up because Gorbachev did a Castro number and emptied Gulags of Russian crims who happened to be Jewish onto Brooklyn and the Bronx.

    Okay.

    But if Communism was designed by Jews because Lenin happened to be 1/4 Jewish (And unaware of it) or Trotsky was half Jewish then what good did this do them?

    You are pulling our leg. Trotsky was full Jew. Lev (Leiba) Davidovich was the son of:
    David Leontievich Bronshtein and
    Ana Lvovna Bronshtein, nee Zhivotovskaia (or Issivovskaia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    And so was Marx. But Stalin was a Georgian Muslim who implemented the massacres, not Marx or Lenin (Who at 1/4 Jew is really a stretch).

    Ayn Rand was also a Russian Jew and you'll argue that she immigrated and wrote Atlas Shrugged as a Communist subversive to encourage Anglo-Saxon individuality/libertarian to destabilize the WASP power structure in order to enable nepotism.

    Some nutter conspiracy freak on this site will mention that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @utu

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism
     
    You are an idiot.

    UTU

    I know you are a hick who blames the inability of Anglo hicks in control the primary economies of gas, oil, mining, ranching in the US interior to do anything with their Podunk regions in post-decline and facts do not matter because Jews are responsible for the kids walking around your post-industrial Flyover acting like Eminem and reeling on pain pills because Meth is for their Mom.

    However, I am stating facts.

    Nixon and Kissinger worked out a deal with Russians to let Jews immigrate to Israel in the 70′s, Reagan did the same.

    You don’t know this because you’re so far into the US interior square dancing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    He's replying to your moronic claim that USSR was "a living hell for Jews under Communism". USSR was as much a 'living hell' for Jews as life under Trump in the USA.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    He's not a hick, he's a mathematician.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Jeff Stryker
    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism and Kissinger and then Reagan worked out an exchange so that Jews from Russia could immigrate to the US or Israel.

    Many of them were petty criminals-I don't deny that the crime rate went up because Gorbachev did a Castro number and emptied Gulags of Russian crims who happened to be Jewish onto Brooklyn and the Bronx.

    Okay.

    But if Communism was designed by Jews because Lenin happened to be 1/4 Jewish (And unaware of it) or Trotsky was half Jewish then what good did this do them?

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism

    Did they give you a wedgie in the kindergarten or something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    "Did they give you a wedgie in kindergarten"

    And you hicks in the interior and Podunk regions wonder why the Asians and Jews took the country away from the descendants of those gritty English soldiers and adventurers who settled North America.

    Enjoy going outside and watching more wiggers who look like Eminem stumble around on pain killers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Seraphim
    You are pulling our leg. Trotsky was full Jew. Lev (Leiba) Davidovich was the son of:
    David Leontievich Bronshtein and
    Ana Lvovna Bronshtein, nee Zhivotovskaia (or Issivovskaia).

    And so was Marx. But Stalin was a Georgian Muslim who implemented the massacres, not Marx or Lenin (Who at 1/4 Jew is really a stretch).

    Ayn Rand was also a Russian Jew and you’ll argue that she immigrated and wrote Atlas Shrugged as a Communist subversive to encourage Anglo-Saxon individuality/libertarian to destabilize the WASP power structure in order to enable nepotism.

    Some nutter conspiracy freak on this site will mention that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It is painful to see you making a fool of yourself. It is infinitely better to keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about. Stalin Muslim! Lenin and Trotsky did indeed implemented the massacres, responsible for at least 100, 000 dead.
    Ayn Rand was a fraud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Seraphim
    Does AIPAC means anything to you?

    Congress has a committee on foreign relations with them. What’s your point?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    And so was Marx. But Stalin was a Georgian Muslim who implemented the massacres, not Marx or Lenin (Who at 1/4 Jew is really a stretch).

    Ayn Rand was also a Russian Jew and you'll argue that she immigrated and wrote Atlas Shrugged as a Communist subversive to encourage Anglo-Saxon individuality/libertarian to destabilize the WASP power structure in order to enable nepotism.

    Some nutter conspiracy freak on this site will mention that.

    It is painful to see you making a fool of yourself. It is infinitely better to keep your mouth shut when you don’t know what you are talking about. Stalin Muslim! Lenin and Trotsky did indeed implemented the massacres, responsible for at least 100, 000 dead.
    Ayn Rand was a fraud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Okay, what religion was Stalin. He wasn't a Jew. That is for certain.

    Am I denying that some of the people involved in the Revolution were Jews (Or part Jewish, more accurately). No.

    But please don't tell me Communism in Russia was invented simply so that Jews could "kill the Goy" anymore than Neo-con Jews in NYC really like Democrats putting Hispanics and Blacks in their neighborhoods.

    Because only a hick from Kansas or Alabama who never visited the Beltway or left their city would believe something like that.

    As for Ayn Rand, I was making a joke.

    The reality with Anglo-Saxon individualism versus Islam or Catholicism is that the tribalism that keeps Italians or Arabs intact as cultural group in the US do not exist. Anglo-Saxons are atomized, unlike the Italians on the East Coast or Asians or any other group.

    So of course they have no power politically or otherwise.

    This is especially true now that Federal power has grown and states power recessed so that the Beltway/NYC exerts more control over the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Fluctuarius

    I was born in 1974 and am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union became a living hell for Jews under Communism
     
    Did they give you a wedgie in the kindergarten or something?

    “Did they give you a wedgie in kindergarten”

    And you hicks in the interior and Podunk regions wonder why the Asians and Jews took the country away from the descendants of those gritty English soldiers and adventurers who settled North America.

    Enjoy going outside and watching more wiggers who look like Eminem stumble around on pain killers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Who or what is Eminem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Seraphim
    It is painful to see you making a fool of yourself. It is infinitely better to keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about. Stalin Muslim! Lenin and Trotsky did indeed implemented the massacres, responsible for at least 100, 000 dead.
    Ayn Rand was a fraud.

    Okay, what religion was Stalin. He wasn’t a Jew. That is for certain.

    Am I denying that some of the people involved in the Revolution were Jews (Or part Jewish, more accurately). No.

    But please don’t tell me Communism in Russia was invented simply so that Jews could “kill the Goy” anymore than Neo-con Jews in NYC really like Democrats putting Hispanics and Blacks in their neighborhoods.

    Because only a hick from Kansas or Alabama who never visited the Beltway or left their city would believe something like that.

    As for Ayn Rand, I was making a joke.

    The reality with Anglo-Saxon individualism versus Islam or Catholicism is that the tribalism that keeps Italians or Arabs intact as cultural group in the US do not exist. Anglo-Saxons are atomized, unlike the Italians on the East Coast or Asians or any other group.

    So of course they have no power politically or otherwise.

    This is especially true now that Federal power has grown and states power recessed so that the Beltway/NYC exerts more control over the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    I can but reach the same conclusion like #176.
    , @iffen
    Because only a hick from Kansas or Alabama


    Hey! Hey! Hey! Watch it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Okay, what religion was Stalin. He wasn't a Jew. That is for certain.

    Am I denying that some of the people involved in the Revolution were Jews (Or part Jewish, more accurately). No.

    But please don't tell me Communism in Russia was invented simply so that Jews could "kill the Goy" anymore than Neo-con Jews in NYC really like Democrats putting Hispanics and Blacks in their neighborhoods.

    Because only a hick from Kansas or Alabama who never visited the Beltway or left their city would believe something like that.

    As for Ayn Rand, I was making a joke.

    The reality with Anglo-Saxon individualism versus Islam or Catholicism is that the tribalism that keeps Italians or Arabs intact as cultural group in the US do not exist. Anglo-Saxons are atomized, unlike the Italians on the East Coast or Asians or any other group.

    So of course they have no power politically or otherwise.

    This is especially true now that Federal power has grown and states power recessed so that the Beltway/NYC exerts more control over the country.

    I can but reach the same conclusion like #176.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Jeff Stryker
    UTU

    I know you are a hick who blames the inability of Anglo hicks in control the primary economies of gas, oil, mining, ranching in the US interior to do anything with their Podunk regions in post-decline and facts do not matter because Jews are responsible for the kids walking around your post-industrial Flyover acting like Eminem and reeling on pain pills because Meth is for their Mom.

    However, I am stating facts.

    Nixon and Kissinger worked out a deal with Russians to let Jews immigrate to Israel in the 70's, Reagan did the same.

    You don't know this because you're so far into the US interior square dancing.

    He’s replying to your moronic claim that USSR was “a living hell for Jews under Communism”. USSR was as much a ‘living hell’ for Jews as life under Trump in the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    "MORONIC CLAIM"

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    "As living under Trump in the USA"

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    Oh wait, they rehearse some answer to that every Sabbath in their secret meeting place in the underground bunker, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Vojkan says:
    @AP

    Except that the Serbian government wasn’t regicidal at all. The “Mlada Bosna” folks, among whom were members of all ethnic communities of Bosnia, were manipulated by the head of the secret service Vladimir Dimitrijević Apis without any hint of any kind of involvement from the Serbian government.
     
    So head of Serbia's secret service wasn't part of the Serbian government?

    Serbia proposed full cooperation in the investigation to the murder of Franz-Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn’t want to accept anything but total submission
     
    IIRC the sticking point was that A-H wanted its investigators to go into Serbia and fund the culprit. A reasonable request. Like the Americans demanding to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden there.

    Austria-Hungary has occupied and unilaterally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908
     
    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.

    Franz-Ferdinand
     
    He planned to turn A-H into a Triune German-Slav-Hungarian political entity, elevating Slavs. This is why Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away.

    Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.

    great number of Russians who had to flee the Bolshevik orgy were taken in by King Alexander
     
    Russia stupidly and for no moral reason destroyed itself on Serbia's behalf, it was the least Alexander could do.

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous. You’re implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens. It’s as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I’m beginning to believe it more and more.
    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy? Then, as a more recent exemple in the Balkans, Jovica Stanišić, secret service chief under Milošević has by his own admission single-handedly established contact with the CIA in the back of his own government, and expressed schock when he was indicted by the Hague, because you see, he collaborated with the West from the onset. One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn’t hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
    Whatever, Serbia accepted that A-H investigators come to Serbia and be partners in the investigation. Serbia didn’t accept that they lead the investigation and that they had unrestricted access to any document or facility on a whim. But of course, arrogant racially superior Germans cannot grasp why.
    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a first step in the realisation of that plan. The reason is simple, Southern Slavs viewed Serbia at the time as an ally in their quest for emancipation and a step towards achieving indpendence from the failing empire. You definitely can’t blame Serbs for Hungary too wanting to get rid of Viennese powdered asses.
    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia’s sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary’s behalf. The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue. It is Germany’s aggression against Serbia that precipitated Russia’s entry into war.
    But of course, History and narcissism of people who are convinced to be God’s gift to the mankind don’t fit together. Whatever propaganda against the Serbs and / or the Russians for that matter, they will never be as loathed as the Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It was Germany who declared war on Russia. Germany was preparing for the war on Russia since 1912.
    , @Epigon

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous.
     
    She wasn't pregnant. At 46 years of age, with last pregnancy in 1908 ending with a stillborn and being advised against further pregnancy attempts, this is highly unlikely as a matter of simple medicine.

    Even better, the autopsy and the recovery of the bullet could have easily established the pregnancy.

    They didn't. The pregnancy has been another attempt to appeal to emotion over reason, and the tiny coffin seen between Franz and his spouse was that of their stillborn son from 1908.
    , @AP

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous
     
    Good.

    You’re implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens.

     

    I made no such implication about you personally. I wrote, about the assassination of F.F. -

    "Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away. Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do."

    Somehow, in your mind, this became a personal attack upon you.

    Your immediate projection of hatred onto another person, and bizarre attribution of personal attack, are noted.

    Is this common in the Balkans?


    It’s as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I’m beginning to believe it more and more.
     
    Hmmm...

    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy?
     
    So you don't deny that elements of the Serbian government were involcved in the murder of the heir to the throne of the Austrian state and his wife.

    In which case, A-H was completely in its rights to demand access to Serbia in order to investigate this crime.

    If the Ukrainian SBU was behind the murder of Russia's president-elect, wouldn't Russia have the right to make similar demands of Ukraine? Wouldn't any country?


    One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn’t hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
     
    Hitting two people at point blank range is easier than from 5 meters away. Is this mysterious?

    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier
     
    Nothing strange about having contingency plans. Russia had plans for a Crimean operation years before Crimea was actually taken. They probably have some plans for seizing the Baltics, or Finland. I'm sure the Americans have some dusty plans around for an invasion of Cuba.

    Serbia was invaded only after elements of the Serbian government were responsible for the murder of Austria's heir to the throne and his wife, and after Serbia refused reasonable demands by the Austrian state as a result of this terrible act.


    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia’s sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary’s behalf.
     
    Russia destroyed itself for a regidal regime. Germany went to war for a fellow monarchy that was the victim of a vile act.

    The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue.
     
    Austria-Hungary failed to conquer Serbia because it was forced to divert large numbers of its troops to the Russian front. So Russia saved the regicial Serbian regime.

    As for getting "asses kicked hard" - Austria failed to take Serbia, but Serbia failed in its attempted counterattack to grab Austrian-held lands populated by Serbia. It ended in the status quo. Both sides suffered enormous causalties, Austrian more in terms of raw numbers, Serbs far more in terms of percentage of troops/population.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Seraphim says:
    @Vojkan
    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she's an archduchess or a complete anonymous. You're implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens. It's as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I'm beginning to believe it more and more.
    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy? Then, as a more recent exemple in the Balkans, Jovica Stanišić, secret service chief under Milošević has by his own admission single-handedly established contact with the CIA in the back of his own government, and expressed schock when he was indicted by the Hague, because you see, he collaborated with the West from the onset. One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn't hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
    Whatever, Serbia accepted that A-H investigators come to Serbia and be partners in the investigation. Serbia didn't accept that they lead the investigation and that they had unrestricted access to any document or facility on a whim. But of course, arrogant racially superior Germans cannot grasp why.
    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a first step in the realisation of that plan. The reason is simple, Southern Slavs viewed Serbia at the time as an ally in their quest for emancipation and a step towards achieving indpendence from the failing empire. You definitely can't blame Serbs for Hungary too wanting to get rid of Viennese powdered asses.
    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia's sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary's behalf. The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue. It is Germany's aggression against Serbia that precipitated Russia's entry into war.
    But of course, History and narcissism of people who are convinced to be God's gift to the mankind don't fit together. Whatever propaganda against the Serbs and / or the Russians for that matter, they will never be as loathed as the Germans.

    It was Germany who declared war on Russia. Germany was preparing for the war on Russia since 1912.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Germany was preparing for war against France and the UK from even earlier. The division of resources in lands inhabited by "savages", otherwise known as colonies, was too unfair in their opinion. They wanted a bigger share. Germany wanted a bigger Germany so it was natural to prepare for war against Russia too.
    Austria-Hungary also wanted a bigger Austria-Hungary. It wanted the whole of the Balkans after the Ottomans had been kicked out.
    But History be damned, it's everybody else's fault, they didn't realise the German manifest destiny to rule the world with German historically proven benevolence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Epigon says:
    @Vojkan
    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she's an archduchess or a complete anonymous. You're implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens. It's as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I'm beginning to believe it more and more.
    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy? Then, as a more recent exemple in the Balkans, Jovica Stanišić, secret service chief under Milošević has by his own admission single-handedly established contact with the CIA in the back of his own government, and expressed schock when he was indicted by the Hague, because you see, he collaborated with the West from the onset. One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn't hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
    Whatever, Serbia accepted that A-H investigators come to Serbia and be partners in the investigation. Serbia didn't accept that they lead the investigation and that they had unrestricted access to any document or facility on a whim. But of course, arrogant racially superior Germans cannot grasp why.
    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a first step in the realisation of that plan. The reason is simple, Southern Slavs viewed Serbia at the time as an ally in their quest for emancipation and a step towards achieving indpendence from the failing empire. You definitely can't blame Serbs for Hungary too wanting to get rid of Viennese powdered asses.
    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia's sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary's behalf. The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue. It is Germany's aggression against Serbia that precipitated Russia's entry into war.
    But of course, History and narcissism of people who are convinced to be God's gift to the mankind don't fit together. Whatever propaganda against the Serbs and / or the Russians for that matter, they will never be as loathed as the Germans.

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous.

    She wasn’t pregnant. At 46 years of age, with last pregnancy in 1908 ending with a stillborn and being advised against further pregnancy attempts, this is highly unlikely as a matter of simple medicine.

    Even better, the autopsy and the recovery of the bullet could have easily established the pregnancy.

    They didn’t. The pregnancy has been another attempt to appeal to emotion over reason, and the tiny coffin seen between Franz and his spouse was that of their stillborn son from 1908.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    If we admit she wasn't, killing her still was a crime. But then I still wonder how a guy as shortsighted and as clumsy with a weapon as Gavrilo Princip managed to approach the imperial car that close and make not one but two killings within seconds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Avery says:
    @Wally


    said:
    "It quickly became obvious to Red Army troops that Nazis intended to exterminate Slavs."

    Yawn. Except you have no proof for your assertion / propaganda.

    Show it if you got it.

    Only liars demand censorship.
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    {Yawn. Except you have no proof for your assertion / propaganda.}

    Yawn back at you.
    You keep demanding ‘proof’ from everyone: who the heck you think you are, homes?
    Who appointed you arbiter?
    You keep repeating the same garbage every thread and every comment.
    How many readers have you convinced?
    All of you neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists are the same.


    {Only liars demand censorship.}
    {No name calling, }

    You are calling people ‘liars’ and that in your delusional world is not ‘name calling’?
    And, only delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists demand proof that the earth is flat.

    {Show it if you got it.}
    Here you go: Red Army troops watching over the chopped-up chunks of Nazi pigs in Stalingrad, by the Volga river, deep inside SU. The swine fertilizer turned out to be great: Volgograd is covered with beautiful, green vegetation today.
    Heil Hitler!
    Sieg Heil!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you have no proof for the fake '6,000,000'. LOL



    You're just another redneck Zionist loudmouth who has no chance in debate.

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. Only lies need censorship.
     
    Healthy Jews at Auschwitz 'liberation':
    http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/PICS31/85600.jpg
    http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/PICS31/66935a.jpg
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J2jpuEZojE0/VONvKRjmXCI/AAAAAAAABX8/-GG_ralfWJA/s1600/Auschwitz.jpg

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @anonymous coward
    He's replying to your moronic claim that USSR was "a living hell for Jews under Communism". USSR was as much a 'living hell' for Jews as life under Trump in the USA.

    “MORONIC CLAIM”

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    “As living under Trump in the USA”

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    Oh wait, they rehearse some answer to that every Sabbath in their secret meeting place in the underground bunker, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?
     
    When? These guys seem to think otherwise: https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/12/who-saved-soviet-jewry/ . But assuming it did, the answer is simple: internal politics plus "and you are lynching Negroes".

    As for why the Jews (and anybody else) did leave when they could: life in the USSR was not great for most people, Jewish or otherwise, and life in the non-communist world seen at second hand looked pretty good, better in fact than it really was.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.
     
    I'm guessing you don't get into NYC or northern NJ too often.
    , @anonymous coward

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?
     
    Who gives a rat's ass why? Probably for some stupid and pointless today Cold War reason.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.
     
    Well, it seems they can't stop complaining that "Trump is literally Hitler". Too bad there isn't a superpower today to take them on their word...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Vojkan says:
    @Seraphim
    It was Germany who declared war on Russia. Germany was preparing for the war on Russia since 1912.

    Germany was preparing for war against France and the UK from even earlier. The division of resources in lands inhabited by “savages”, otherwise known as colonies, was too unfair in their opinion. They wanted a bigger share. Germany wanted a bigger Germany so it was natural to prepare for war against Russia too.
    Austria-Hungary also wanted a bigger Austria-Hungary. It wanted the whole of the Balkans after the Ottomans had been kicked out.
    But History be damned, it’s everybody else’s fault, they didn’t realise the German manifest destiny to rule the world with German historically proven benevolence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Gotta love the Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia
    https://i0.wp.com/kamenjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cetnici-i-nijemci-na-neretvi_0.jpg?w=800&ssl=1
    , @dfordoom

    Germany was preparing for war against France and the UK from even earlier.
     
    Great powers are always preparing for war against other great powers. It's a sensible precaution. You prepare for wars that you might have to fight.

    The British Navy was making plans for a naval war against the United States in the 1920s. The U.S. Army and Navy had joint plans for war against Britain in the 1920s-1930s (War Plan Red). In fact the U.S. military had plans for fighting wars with just about the entire world. That's what militaries do in peacetime -

    Preparations for war are not necessarily proof of actual intentions to start such a war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Vojkan says:
    @Epigon

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous.
     
    She wasn't pregnant. At 46 years of age, with last pregnancy in 1908 ending with a stillborn and being advised against further pregnancy attempts, this is highly unlikely as a matter of simple medicine.

    Even better, the autopsy and the recovery of the bullet could have easily established the pregnancy.

    They didn't. The pregnancy has been another attempt to appeal to emotion over reason, and the tiny coffin seen between Franz and his spouse was that of their stillborn son from 1908.

    If we admit she wasn’t, killing her still was a crime. But then I still wonder how a guy as shortsighted and as clumsy with a weapon as Gavrilo Princip managed to approach the imperial car that close and make not one but two killings within seconds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    One cannot but wonder why the assassination of FF, (a second rank political figure) provoked such a commotion, when the relentless campaign of terror which claimed the lives of Tsar Alexander II and scores of Russian high officials (Stolypin was only one) was applauded and the assassins hailed as heroes. The assassination of the Empress Elizabeth (Sissi) in Geneva in 1898 by the Italian irredentist anarchist Luigi Lucheni didn't elicit more than angry rebuffs of Swiss police for not assuring the protection of the Empress (although she was traveling incognito). No threats to Italy and the case was showed quickly under the carpet. But Italy was then the secret ally of AH and Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Marcus says:
    @Epigon

    Princip and the other terrorists’ weapons were manufactured by the Serbian armory as well.
     
    Your argument is mind-boggling.

    The coupists of March 1941 in Yugoslavia also had Serbian-manufactured weapons, and were career officers and officials in Yugoslavia. But they were organised and supported on the ground by British spies, attaches and special operations agents. British clout in Karađorđević Serbia and Yugoslavia was immense, and the British were so arrogant to have delivered an ultimatum in January 1941 on the neutrality of Yugoslavia being no longer acceptable to London, and will be considered as DOW against Britain. Naturally, Tripartite pact negotiations and eventual signing pushed British into action.

    So? We aren’t talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I’ve heard that the okhrana was, but I’m skeptical

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    We aren't talking 1941, we are talking 1914. Great powers have always had their entries in small countries. In 1914, Serbia not only had ties with Russia but also with France. King Peter was a French military school graduate. France regarded Austria-Hungary as much a rival as Germany. Franz-Ferdinand was contested in Austria-Hungary proper. In the end, who was supposed to benefit? Serbia, no. Russia, no. The UK, no. Most of the UK cabinet resigned in opposition to war. Three great powers saw possible benefit: Austria-Hungary, Germany and France. Why is it that the basic principles of any criminal investigation suddenly don't apply in international politics?
    , @Epigon

    So? We aren’t talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I’ve heard that the okhrana was, but I’m skeptical
     
    Lets just say that Yugocommunist historiography from 1945-2000 was doing its best to erase their Anglo support and allegiance (due to obvious obfuscation reasons, like "Unaligned" and "anti-imperialism" LARPing), and take the credit for 1941 coups against "Fascists".

    However, actual historiography in the recent years has deconstructed these myths, and even identified Black Hand legacy, agents, and individual British who coordinated them and to whom they reported. The coup was led by supposedly Royalist officer Simović, who was rewarded post-war by a very nice villa (where he died of old age) by Yugocommunists (as opposed to WW1 heroes and actual fighters against Austrians and Germans who got executed along with their families).


    The Habsburgs had already been taking a beating from German nationalists for being favorable to Slavs for decades, Franz Ferdinand was particularly hated for his planned reforms. Hitler still hadn’t forgotten about it in the 1930s.
     
    When it comes to Germans, everything that isn't "exterminate the most and assimilate the rest" is "overly sympathetic to Slavs". Really, when one goes through the works of German 19th philosophers, "progressives", "social democrats" etc., one instantly recognizes Hitler in the works of Hegel, Engels (those two, together with Marx, display the worst chauvinism), Liebknecht, Naumann or in the ideas of Bismarck and his German Liberal contemporaries on Poles, not to mention German media outburst from 1848 to 1918 regarding Russians, Serbs.

    Really, ever since the Frankfurt Spring of Nations meeting, the prevailing idea among ALL segments of German policy was that Slav lands and nations are destined to be conquered by Germans, and Slav people erased from existence over time.

    True Habsburg stance towards Slavs was their behaviour towards Franz's wife and their children. I don't fall for nonsense narrative of Slavic equality, nor do I commit the mistake of missing the true nature of initially Catholic/Vatican and Habsburg funded Illyrian and Yugoslav movement, naturally under Rome and Habsburg rule.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Marcus says:
    @Epigon

    Many Bosniaks and Croats in B-H liked Austrians more than they liked Serbs. It was not simply an occupation of a hostile territory.
     
    Cue the armed resistance resulting in thousands of dead in 1878-1879 and tens of thousands expelled.

    You and your identity being a result of Habsburg policies in Galizia makes you a natural proponent of Drang nach Osten, Uniatism and Habsburg desire to dominate Southeastern Europe.
    It also makes you a true believer in Habsburg bullshit about Triune Monarchy that elevates Slavs.

    There is also the unfortunate fact of Austria-Hungary preparing for a punitive war against Serbia since at least 1906, that being the year when AH General Staff started drafting invasion plans. This is due the previously explained 1903 regime change in Serbia, perpetrated by pro-British, anti-German agents.

    Calling Young Bosna Serb nationalists or Serb instruments is simply delusional. Muslims and catholics contributing, with the ultimate goal of a Yugoslavia, not Serbia. Prior to assassination, Princip visited London TWICE.

    The Habsburgs had already been taking a beating from German nationalists for being favorable to Slavs for decades, Franz Ferdinand was particularly hated for his planned reforms. Hitler still hadn’t forgotten about it in the 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ritter_von_Sch%C3%B6nerer

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    "MORONIC CLAIM"

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    "As living under Trump in the USA"

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    Oh wait, they rehearse some answer to that every Sabbath in their secret meeting place in the underground bunker, right?

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    When? These guys seem to think otherwise: https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/12/who-saved-soviet-jewry/ . But assuming it did, the answer is simple: internal politics plus “and you are lynching Negroes”.

    As for why the Jews (and anybody else) did leave when they could: life in the USSR was not great for most people, Jewish or otherwise, and life in the non-communist world seen at second hand looked pretty good, better in fact than it really was.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    I’m guessing you don’t get into NYC or northern NJ too often.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Are Jews really worse off under Trump than Obama or Bush?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Marcus says:
    @Vojkan
    Germany was preparing for war against France and the UK from even earlier. The division of resources in lands inhabited by "savages", otherwise known as colonies, was too unfair in their opinion. They wanted a bigger share. Germany wanted a bigger Germany so it was natural to prepare for war against Russia too.
    Austria-Hungary also wanted a bigger Austria-Hungary. It wanted the whole of the Balkans after the Ottomans had been kicked out.
    But History be damned, it's everybody else's fault, they didn't realise the German manifest destiny to rule the world with German historically proven benevolence.

    Gotta love the Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Do you know who the individuals in the picture are, and what was the alternative?

    Anyway, the fate of Serbs who constituted the majority of Partisans (those from Croatia and Bosnia) is a testament to their foolishness.

    What is your point in posting this picture? Serbs were collaborators? Serbs were fascists? Serbs were nationalists? I honestly don't get it.
    , @Vojkan
    I infer that if those Serb folks are representative of all Serbs then those German folks are representative of all Germans. So far, besides resorting to ad hominem attacks, you haven't presented a single argument in support of your contention that I suffer from "Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia". You desperately want to blame someone else for the disastrous consequences of your megalomanic delusions.
    Just remind me, how many times have Serbs invaded Germany, how many times have Serbs mass murdered civilians in Germany vs how many times have Germans invaded Serbia and how many times have Germans mass-murdered civilians in Serbia? You're pathetic.
    , @Mikhail
    Marko Attila Hoare BS at play on your part.

    No mention of the Nazi wanted posters for Mihailovic and the documented account between the Partizans and Nazis to concentrate efforts against the Chetniks.

    The Allies shook Nazi hands at Munich as did the Soviets shortly thereafter with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

    The Chetniks treated Allied airmen shot down over Yugoslavia as allies and not prisoners of war. Croatia had the status of a Nazi recognized nation unlike Serbia. The Serbs didn't
    run any concentration camp along the lines of Jasenovac.

    Relative to all this is the formal presence of the Serb and Israeli leaders at the last Victory Day holiday in Moscow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Vojkan says:
    @Marcus
    So? We aren't talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I've heard that the okhrana was, but I'm skeptical

    We aren’t talking 1941, we are talking 1914. Great powers have always had their entries in small countries. In 1914, Serbia not only had ties with Russia but also with France. King Peter was a French military school graduate. France regarded Austria-Hungary as much a rival as Germany. Franz-Ferdinand was contested in Austria-Hungary proper. In the end, who was supposed to benefit? Serbia, no. Russia, no. The UK, no. Most of the UK cabinet resigned in opposition to war. Three great powers saw possible benefit: Austria-Hungary, Germany and France. Why is it that the basic principles of any criminal investigation suddenly don’t apply in international politics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon

    In the end, who was supposed to benefit?
     

    The UK, no.
     
    You now only have to explain 1903 coup, 1908 annexation crisis stance, and 1912-1913 scheming and London Conference behaviour, dismantling of Balkan Alliance and creation of Albania.

    Regarding WW1, Germans were obviously wary of accelerated Russian industrialisation and modernization efforts, and painfully aware of the ever reduced feasibility of their only way to successfuly wage a two-front war - the Schlieffen plan, in the context of Russian improvements.

    However, even before that, the British were VERY wary of Reich's rapid advance.

    I don't believe in random outcomes on such a colossal scale, nor do I believe in a hegemon who sits idly while his position is eroded away. Cue USA today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    So? We aren't talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I've heard that the okhrana was, but I'm skeptical

    So? We aren’t talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I’ve heard that the okhrana was, but I’m skeptical

    Lets just say that Yugocommunist historiography from 1945-2000 was doing its best to erase their Anglo support and allegiance (due to obvious obfuscation reasons, like “Unaligned” and “anti-imperialism” LARPing), and take the credit for 1941 coups against “Fascists”.

    However, actual historiography in the recent years has deconstructed these myths, and even identified Black Hand legacy, agents, and individual British who coordinated them and to whom they reported. The coup was led by supposedly Royalist officer Simović, who was rewarded post-war by a very nice villa (where he died of old age) by Yugocommunists (as opposed to WW1 heroes and actual fighters against Austrians and Germans who got executed along with their families).

    The Habsburgs had already been taking a beating from German nationalists for being favorable to Slavs for decades, Franz Ferdinand was particularly hated for his planned reforms. Hitler still hadn’t forgotten about it in the 1930s.

    When it comes to Germans, everything that isn’t “exterminate the most and assimilate the rest” is “overly sympathetic to Slavs”. Really, when one goes through the works of German 19th philosophers, “progressives”, “social democrats” etc., one instantly recognizes Hitler in the works of Hegel, Engels (those two, together with Marx, display the worst chauvinism), Liebknecht, Naumann or in the ideas of Bismarck and his German Liberal contemporaries on Poles, not to mention German media outburst from 1848 to 1918 regarding Russians, Serbs.

    Really, ever since the Frankfurt Spring of Nations meeting, the prevailing idea among ALL segments of German policy was that Slav lands and nations are destined to be conquered by Germans, and Slav people erased from existence over time.

    True Habsburg stance towards Slavs was their behaviour towards Franz’s wife and their children. I don’t fall for nonsense narrative of Slavic equality, nor do I commit the mistake of missing the true nature of initially Catholic/Vatican and Habsburg funded Illyrian and Yugoslav movement, naturally under Rome and Habsburg rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Tito has been referred to0 as a "Red Habsburg".

    Like Hitler, he was a corporal on the side of the Central Powers in WW I.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Anon

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?
     
    When? These guys seem to think otherwise: https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/12/who-saved-soviet-jewry/ . But assuming it did, the answer is simple: internal politics plus "and you are lynching Negroes".

    As for why the Jews (and anybody else) did leave when they could: life in the USSR was not great for most people, Jewish or otherwise, and life in the non-communist world seen at second hand looked pretty good, better in fact than it really was.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.
     
    I'm guessing you don't get into NYC or northern NJ too often.

    Are Jews really worse off under Trump than Obama or Bush?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    No, but a lot of them sure think they are, at least around here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    Gotta love the Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia
    https://i0.wp.com/kamenjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cetnici-i-nijemci-na-neretvi_0.jpg?w=800&ssl=1

    Do you know who the individuals in the picture are, and what was the alternative?

    Anyway, the fate of Serbs who constituted the majority of Partisans (those from Croatia and Bosnia) is a testament to their foolishness.

    What is your point in posting this picture? Serbs were collaborators? Serbs were fascists? Serbs were nationalists? I honestly don’t get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    His point is to prove how low he can sink.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Vojkan says:
    @Marcus
    Gotta love the Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia
    https://i0.wp.com/kamenjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cetnici-i-nijemci-na-neretvi_0.jpg?w=800&ssl=1

    I infer that if those Serb folks are representative of all Serbs then those German folks are representative of all Germans. So far, besides resorting to ad hominem attacks, you haven’t presented a single argument in support of your contention that I suffer from “Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia”. You desperately want to blame someone else for the disastrous consequences of your megalomanic delusions.
    Just remind me, how many times have Serbs invaded Germany, how many times have Serbs mass murdered civilians in Germany vs how many times have Germans invaded Serbia and how many times have Germans mass-murdered civilians in Serbia? You’re pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals, yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims, as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich! Amazing cognitive dissonance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jw9pbMUeA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Vojkan says:
    @Epigon
    Do you know who the individuals in the picture are, and what was the alternative?

    Anyway, the fate of Serbs who constituted the majority of Partisans (those from Croatia and Bosnia) is a testament to their foolishness.

    What is your point in posting this picture? Serbs were collaborators? Serbs were fascists? Serbs were nationalists? I honestly don't get it.

    His point is to prove how low he can sink.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Epigon says:
    @Vojkan
    We aren't talking 1941, we are talking 1914. Great powers have always had their entries in small countries. In 1914, Serbia not only had ties with Russia but also with France. King Peter was a French military school graduate. France regarded Austria-Hungary as much a rival as Germany. Franz-Ferdinand was contested in Austria-Hungary proper. In the end, who was supposed to benefit? Serbia, no. Russia, no. The UK, no. Most of the UK cabinet resigned in opposition to war. Three great powers saw possible benefit: Austria-Hungary, Germany and France. Why is it that the basic principles of any criminal investigation suddenly don't apply in international politics?

    In the end, who was supposed to benefit?

    The UK, no.

    You now only have to explain 1903 coup, 1908 annexation crisis stance, and 1912-1913 scheming and London Conference behaviour, dismantling of Balkan Alliance and creation of Albania.

    Regarding WW1, Germans were obviously wary of accelerated Russian industrialisation and modernization efforts, and painfully aware of the ever reduced feasibility of their only way to successfuly wage a two-front war – the Schlieffen plan, in the context of Russian improvements.

    However, even before that, the British were VERY wary of Reich’s rapid advance.

    I don’t believe in random outcomes on such a colossal scale, nor do I believe in a hegemon who sits idly while his position is eroded away. Cue USA today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Marcus says:
    @Vojkan
    I infer that if those Serb folks are representative of all Serbs then those German folks are representative of all Germans. So far, besides resorting to ad hominem attacks, you haven't presented a single argument in support of your contention that I suffer from "Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia". You desperately want to blame someone else for the disastrous consequences of your megalomanic delusions.
    Just remind me, how many times have Serbs invaded Germany, how many times have Serbs mass murdered civilians in Germany vs how many times have Germans invaded Serbia and how many times have Germans mass-murdered civilians in Serbia? You're pathetic.

    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals, yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims, as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich! Amazing cognitive dissonance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jw9pbMUeA

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon

    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals
     
    They were supposed to only collaborate with foreign power when it DETRACTS from their interests. Gotcha.

    yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims
     
    Serbian nationalists WERE hapless victims of traitorous monarchs, quasi-elite, foreign subversions and foreign invasions.
    You should research Serb analogues to White/Sovok/Vatnik/Putinist distinctions.

    as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich!
     
    Branding Milošević and his government as Serb nationalists disqualifies you from further discussion. In case you missed it, the current government took Schroeder in an advisory/consultant role. To the dismay of our Yugoslavs, "Leftist Patriots" and (other) Atlanticist scum.
    , @Mikhail
    You don't know what you're talking about for reasons detailed in comment number 230.

    No one is perfect. That doesn't mean everyone is on par with the Nazis.

    In the 1930s, some Zionists found common cause with the Nazis as highlighted by Lenni Brenner. To put that on the collective level of Jews collaborating with Nazis along the lines of the Ustasha is a severely warped comparison.

    Likewise, with linking the overall Serb WW II behavior to that of the Ustasha state in Croatia. Granted, the there were Croats who sided with the Partizans - a group which committed atrocities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals, yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims, as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich! Amazing cognitive dissonance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jw9pbMUeA

    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals

    They were supposed to only collaborate with foreign power when it DETRACTS from their interests. Gotcha.

    yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims

    Serbian nationalists WERE hapless victims of traitorous monarchs, quasi-elite, foreign subversions and foreign invasions.
    You should research Serb analogues to White/Sovok/Vatnik/Putinist distinctions.

    as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich!

    Branding Milošević and his government as Serb nationalists disqualifies you from further discussion. In case you missed it, the current government took Schroeder in an advisory/consultant role. To the dismay of our Yugoslavs, “Leftist Patriots” and (other) Atlanticist scum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Their nationalist credentials were thin at first, Milosevic was initially expected to be a Yugoslav Gorbachev (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518040490520125?journalCode=fslv20), but they embraced the usual tropes as time went on. I still opposed the West's involvement and generally am supportive of Serbia, but your tendency to retreat into victimhood is laughable when Serbs have had their own imperialist goals for a long time
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Are Jews really worse off under Trump than Obama or Bush?

    No, but a lot of them sure think they are, at least around here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Jews are democrats...they've been calling Presidents fascist since Nixon was in office.
    , @Wally


    No, they wish they were worse off. Curious isn't it?
    Why do Jews want 6M Jews to be dead? Jews should be elated to know that 6M of their brethren were not murdered.
    See the 'holocaust' scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Jeff Stryker
    "MORONIC CLAIM"

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    "As living under Trump in the USA"

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    Oh wait, they rehearse some answer to that every Sabbath in their secret meeting place in the underground bunker, right?

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?

    Who gives a rat’s ass why? Probably for some stupid and pointless today Cold War reason.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.

    Well, it seems they can’t stop complaining that “Trump is literally Hitler”. Too bad there isn’t a superpower today to take them on their word…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Abie Hoffman called Nixon a Fascist too...its common for Leftists, of which Jews often comprise a majority.

    There are LESS Jewish left-wingers than there used to be because some swung over to Neo-Conservatism.

    Besides, every hippie on campus is calling Trump Hitler even though his grandfather dodged the draft and came to America in the first place!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Marcus says:
    @Epigon

    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals
     
    They were supposed to only collaborate with foreign power when it DETRACTS from their interests. Gotcha.

    yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims
     
    Serbian nationalists WERE hapless victims of traitorous monarchs, quasi-elite, foreign subversions and foreign invasions.
    You should research Serb analogues to White/Sovok/Vatnik/Putinist distinctions.

    as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich!
     
    Branding Milošević and his government as Serb nationalists disqualifies you from further discussion. In case you missed it, the current government took Schroeder in an advisory/consultant role. To the dismay of our Yugoslavs, "Leftist Patriots" and (other) Atlanticist scum.

    Their nationalist credentials were thin at first, Milosevic was initially expected to be a Yugoslav Gorbachev (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518040490520125?journalCode=fslv20), but they embraced the usual tropes as time went on. I still opposed the West’s involvement and generally am supportive of Serbia, but your tendency to retreat into victimhood is laughable when Serbs have had their own imperialist goals for a long time

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    He was a Yugoslav Gorbachev, but Yugoslavia was a Cold War proxy of USA that was no longer needed.
    Staunch Montenegrin YugoCommunist, US banking background.
    Besides, he wasn’t the last President of Yugoslavia, nor did he have control, while he was facing BND-supported separatists. USA jumpee on board later on, to deny the reinvigorated reunited Germany the total clout on Balkans. It started with Brioni meetings, German and Vatican lobbying and change of heart of France on the issue of Yugoslav breakup by September 1991. Naturally, Helsinki Acts, UN Charter and a whole lot of other international treaties and laws were broken. BND also lavishly supported UČK.
    To tell you the truth, downfall of Yugoslavia and the THIRD time Serbs got killed en mass by their “brothers” and “comrades” was in the long run a good thing. They would just assimilated and further dissolved in the republics within Yugoslavia, parallel to becoming part of EU and NATO. With that out of picture, and with restoration of Serb government in Belgrade after a century of non-Serb, gives hope for better times in the future, albeit distant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Colin Wright
    'Nicholas II has overtaken Stalin as the most positively-regarded Russian historical figure of the 20th century...'

    Meh. I could debate some of the historical claims, but the essential point is that Nicholas II was a rather weak individual and a mediocrity who deserves little credit for the progress Russia happened to be making under his reign but who does deserve much of the blame for the revolution that undid so much of it. With a strong Tsar such as his father, there might well have been no revolution.

    My nomination for greatest Russian historical figure of the twentieth century would be Stolypin. He actually did a lot. Had he lived -- and had he enjoyed the whole-hearted support of the tsar -- he might have saved Russia. Stolypin actually highlights the weakness and failure of Nicholas II, since his brief career shows what could still be done by a man with the requisite courage, energy, and clarity of vision.

    Other possibilities would be Khrushchev, who at least broke with the outright cannibalism of the Stalinist system when it would have been perfectly possible to continue on the well-trodden path. Finally, there is Gorbachev, who admittedly failed to save either the baby or the bathwater, but at least tried.

    Khrushchev also heralded a second era of leftist extremism, closed down many of the Orthodox churches that had been reopened during WW1, promoted irrationally megalomaniac economic schemes (his obsession with corn), and locked the Soviet economy even further into the distortions produced by central planning.

    There was also nothing particularly laudable about his denunciation of Stalin – Stalin had already finished reformatting society into the new Communist mold, there was no longer any point to mass repressions and indeed they were dangerous to the Communist elites (indeed, denunciations of Stalin centered around his persecution of other Communists – one of the few good things Stalin actually did). So, just opportunism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Is there any substance in the claim that Khruschev stunted urban population growth and number of kids per family by constructing cramped, horrible tenements as opposed to more spacious, quality ones during Stalin?
    , @Colin Wright
    'Khrushchev also...'

    Yeah, but...

    It could have been worse. Khrushchev could have also been like the Kims of Korea, and simply continued in the path laid down by his predecessor.

    To be frank, 'greatest Russian leader of the Twentieth Century' doesn't offer a very appealing selection. Stolypin really was the best I could come up with. The winner certainly wasn't bloody Tsar Nicholas II, the Indecisive.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Mikhail

    So, creation of the Soviet union aka Soviet Russia was something comparable to Third Reich according to your post? So, being third world shithole would be preferable to russia highest moment of glory and the best Russia has ever had it through her long history?
     
    Such is the convoluted view among sovoks.

    Modern Russia owes everything to the Soviet period and people you call sovok who in every respect were heads and shoulders above current generation. Especially guys like you. Without those whom such as you call sovok Russia would have not existed. Or as third world shit hole as was said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Modern Russia owes everything to the Soviet period and people you call sovok who in every respect were heads and shoulders above current generation. Especially guys like you. Without those whom such as you call sovok Russia would have not existed. Or as third world shit hole as was said.
     
    To a noticeably considerable extent, modern Russia has competently junked a good deal of the Sovok legacy, while looking back with pride at the positives regarding Russia's pre-Soviet era. Included in this position is the reasoned view that progress in Russia was happening without the Bolshes and would've arguably been more productive without them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    Their nationalist credentials were thin at first, Milosevic was initially expected to be a Yugoslav Gorbachev (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518040490520125?journalCode=fslv20), but they embraced the usual tropes as time went on. I still opposed the West's involvement and generally am supportive of Serbia, but your tendency to retreat into victimhood is laughable when Serbs have had their own imperialist goals for a long time

    He was a Yugoslav Gorbachev, but Yugoslavia was a Cold War proxy of USA that was no longer needed.
    Staunch Montenegrin YugoCommunist, US banking background.
    Besides, he wasn’t the last President of Yugoslavia, nor did he have control, while he was facing BND-supported separatists. USA jumpee on board later on, to deny the reinvigorated reunited Germany the total clout on Balkans. It started with Brioni meetings, German and Vatican lobbying and change of heart of France on the issue of Yugoslav breakup by September 1991. Naturally, Helsinki Acts, UN Charter and a whole lot of other international treaties and laws were broken. BND also lavishly supported UČK.
    To tell you the truth, downfall of Yugoslavia and the THIRD time Serbs got killed en mass by their “brothers” and “comrades” was in the long run a good thing. They would just assimilated and further dissolved in the republics within Yugoslavia, parallel to becoming part of EU and NATO. With that out of picture, and with restoration of Serb government in Belgrade after a century of non-Serb, gives hope for better times in the future, albeit distant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Epigon says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Khrushchev also heralded a second era of leftist extremism, closed down many of the Orthodox churches that had been reopened during WW1, promoted irrationally megalomaniac economic schemes (his obsession with corn), and locked the Soviet economy even further into the distortions produced by central planning.

    There was also nothing particularly laudable about his denunciation of Stalin - Stalin had already finished reformatting society into the new Communist mold, there was no longer any point to mass repressions and indeed they were dangerous to the Communist elites (indeed, denunciations of Stalin centered around his persecution of other Communists - one of the few good things Stalin actually did). So, just opportunism.

    Is there any substance in the claim that Khruschev stunted urban population growth and number of kids per family by constructing cramped, horrible tenements as opposed to more spacious, quality ones during Stalin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No, the khrushchevki are of course very unprestigious today, but they were cheap and easy to construct, and provided more space than the old kommunalki (many families crammed together into apartments build under the ancien regime and expropriated by the Bolsheviks).

    There was no increase in the per capita urban Russian housing stock between 1914 and ~1950. Stalin focused on constructing high quality brick buildings for the elites, which still enjoy high prestige today and are the most expensive category of building in Russia today, apart from modern luxury housing. However, housing construction soared fourfold from the mid-1950s, and was thereafter aimed at common people.
    , @Alden
    Stalin didn’t build any housing except for the party elite. They looked like apartments but they were actually fortresses. Walls were 6 ft thick. There were several levels of sub basements leading to tunnels connecting to other apartment fortresses. Many had big windows overlooking the inner courtyards and smaller windows on the streeet.

    Storage rooms had stocks of food and arms in case the reactionary enemy bourgeoisie managed a revolution.

    Don’t sneer at Kruschev era tiny apartments. It’s the future of America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. as someone who acknowledges the value f monarchy and what it has meant for human advancement, i appreciate this article.

    the end of russian monarchy- what a tragic turn of events forthat family and for russia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. @Anatoly Karlin
    Khrushchev also heralded a second era of leftist extremism, closed down many of the Orthodox churches that had been reopened during WW1, promoted irrationally megalomaniac economic schemes (his obsession with corn), and locked the Soviet economy even further into the distortions produced by central planning.

    There was also nothing particularly laudable about his denunciation of Stalin - Stalin had already finished reformatting society into the new Communist mold, there was no longer any point to mass repressions and indeed they were dangerous to the Communist elites (indeed, denunciations of Stalin centered around his persecution of other Communists - one of the few good things Stalin actually did). So, just opportunism.

    ‘Khrushchev also…’

    Yeah, but…

    It could have been worse. Khrushchev could have also been like the Kims of Korea, and simply continued in the path laid down by his predecessor.

    To be frank, ‘greatest Russian leader of the Twentieth Century’ doesn’t offer a very appealing selection. Stolypin really was the best I could come up with. The winner certainly wasn’t bloody Tsar Nicholas II, the Indecisive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree with that.
    , @AP
    Nicholas II was better than Lenin, whose war for power killed millions and led to largescale loss of territory, or Stalin, who killed more millions. He might not have been "better" than the post-Stalin leaders but the country's long-term prospects were much more compromised under them than they had been under Nicholas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @inertial

    First off, I don’t know what data that chart is based of
     
    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.

    Here is Russian/Soviet GDP per capita as a percentage of American
     
    Piketty et al concentrates on INCOME per capita, not GDP. The distinction is often important. For example, the industry in the Russian Empire was growing fast but the growth income was falling behind that, partly because a large portion of profits from the industrial activity was going to the British and French banks.

    Having said that, Maddison's data is not inconsistent with Piketty's. That growth spurt in the 1930 is there.

    There is every reason to think that Russia was on the cusp of an industrial boom
     
    Perhaps. Or perhaps Russia would've followed Argentina - rapid industrial growth followed by ... not much. Or maybe it would've been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship - like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would've hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.

    This is the first time I hear that Soviets became richer in the 1930s.
     
    Rich is not the word, but in the 1930s life did get more ordered and more prosperous, at least in the cities. If the freaking statistics doesn't convince you, you can get a sense of this by reading books written in this period. For example, Master and Margarita, no Soviet propaganda.

    The early stages were, of course, punctuated by repeated mass surrenders.
     
    Yes, some soldiers surrendered because they found themselves in impossible situations, due to novel German tactics. But the nation as a whole fought on, including both the army and the home front. And it continued to do so for four years. They must've thought they had something worth fighting for. The only other possibility was that behind every soldier or factory worker was an NKVDist with a gun to his head.

    And no, don't tell me that they were "for Russia but against the Communist regime." Only the high IQ people are are able to separate these abstractions in their minds.

    The citation is right there in the chart. If you think the data is incorrect you should explain why.

    Because to be very frank having late Soviet incomes be at 70% of Western European levels is implausible.

    Detailed apples to apples consumption basket comparisons, e.g. the impressive series of blog posts by Jose Luis Rincon, have shown that the USSR was at 25% to a third of the US level. Consequently, USSR could not have been at more than 50% of the Western European level at the very most.

    Incomes in the USSR, especially post-1950s, were much more evenly distributed than in the Russian Empire – that is true enough. But consumption accounted for a much lower share of the total. And what you had in the shops did not correlate well with what people actually wanted. Low income differentials masked high differentials in terms of access.

    Or perhaps Russia would’ve followed Argentina – rapid industrial growth followed by … not much. Or maybe it would’ve been rapid growth followed by 30 years of chaos and then followed by a Communist dictatorship – like China. What is certain is that Great Depression (or some event like that) would’ve hit Russia disproportionately hard due to its high dependence on foreign investments.

    1. Unlikely, considering Russian IQ is almost 10 points higher. A more reasonable comparison would be to Spain.

    2. Unlikely. By that point, it would make it by far the world’s most developed country to fall to Communism (excluded cases where it was imposed by outside force).

    3. Correct. However, a temporary (of the major Powers, only France had failed to recover its 1929 GDP by 1939, and only by a small margin) unemployment-driven depression is highly distinct from decades’ worth of accumulated distortions, which had made the USSR into a continent-sized rustbelt by the 1970s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    A close relation of mine went to a big cultural event in 1981 in Moscow and St Petrrsburg where she was provided with a personal interpreter, a Jewish woman. She was quizzed about her life in Australia and the mention of the commonplace fact of having not just one car but two cars in the family and a holiday house as well as a city house was just disbelieved as being what all Western delegates were told to say in the Soviet Union.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. I do not see mentioned the pre 1914 secret agreements between GB, France and the tsar to carve up three empires: the German, the Habsburg and the Ottoman.
    Trotski found the treaty’s in 1917 and published them.
    WWI was the end of the Russian monarchy.
    The carving up was a great success, Wilson’s war ‘to end all wars’ led to endless wars.
    As Churchill said ‘it is best to see the whole period 1914 as one long war’.
    At the end of this long war all old empires had gone.
    The new ones were USA, USSR and China.
    At present we see the end of the USA empire.
    ‘War’, a historian wrote, ‘is the way politicians dispose of superfluous wealth’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Tell us about those secret treaties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AP says:
    @Vojkan
    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she's an archduchess or a complete anonymous. You're implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens. It's as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I'm beginning to believe it more and more.
    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy? Then, as a more recent exemple in the Balkans, Jovica Stanišić, secret service chief under Milošević has by his own admission single-handedly established contact with the CIA in the back of his own government, and expressed schock when he was indicted by the Hague, because you see, he collaborated with the West from the onset. One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn't hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
    Whatever, Serbia accepted that A-H investigators come to Serbia and be partners in the investigation. Serbia didn't accept that they lead the investigation and that they had unrestricted access to any document or facility on a whim. But of course, arrogant racially superior Germans cannot grasp why.
    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a first step in the realisation of that plan. The reason is simple, Southern Slavs viewed Serbia at the time as an ally in their quest for emancipation and a step towards achieving indpendence from the failing empire. You definitely can't blame Serbs for Hungary too wanting to get rid of Viennese powdered asses.
    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia's sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary's behalf. The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue. It is Germany's aggression against Serbia that precipitated Russia's entry into war.
    But of course, History and narcissism of people who are convinced to be God's gift to the mankind don't fit together. Whatever propaganda against the Serbs and / or the Russians for that matter, they will never be as loathed as the Germans.

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous

    Good.

    You’re implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens.

    I made no such implication about you personally. I wrote, about the assassination of F.F. –

    “Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away. Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do.”

    Somehow, in your mind, this became a personal attack upon you.

    Your immediate projection of hatred onto another person, and bizarre attribution of personal attack, are noted.

    Is this common in the Balkans?

    It’s as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I’m beginning to believe it more and more.

    Hmmm…

    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy?

    So you don’t deny that elements of the Serbian government were involcved in the murder of the heir to the throne of the Austrian state and his wife.

    In which case, A-H was completely in its rights to demand access to Serbia in order to investigate this crime.

    If the Ukrainian SBU was behind the murder of Russia’s president-elect, wouldn’t Russia have the right to make similar demands of Ukraine? Wouldn’t any country?

    One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn’t hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.

    Hitting two people at point blank range is easier than from 5 meters away. Is this mysterious?

    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier

    Nothing strange about having contingency plans. Russia had plans for a Crimean operation years before Crimea was actually taken. They probably have some plans for seizing the Baltics, or Finland. I’m sure the Americans have some dusty plans around for an invasion of Cuba.

    Serbia was invaded only after elements of the Serbian government were responsible for the murder of Austria’s heir to the throne and his wife, and after Serbia refused reasonable demands by the Austrian state as a result of this terrible act.

    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia’s sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary’s behalf.

    Russia destroyed itself for a regidal regime. Germany went to war for a fellow monarchy that was the victim of a vile act.

    The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue.

    Austria-Hungary failed to conquer Serbia because it was forced to divert large numbers of its troops to the Russian front. So Russia saved the regicial Serbian regime.

    As for getting “asses kicked hard” – Austria failed to take Serbia, but Serbia failed in its attempted counterattack to grab Austrian-held lands populated by Serbia. It ended in the status quo. Both sides suffered enormous causalties, Austrian more in terms of raw numbers, Serbs far more in terms of percentage of troops/population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Really amazing how deeply they've taken to heart the notion of a manichaean struggle between Germanics and Slavs, when their nationalist heroes were willing to collaborate with the freaking Nazis to achieve their aims. I'm sure it was akin to the Ukrainian nationalists' relationship with the Nazis (both sides trying to use each other much more out of pragmatism than ideological affinity), but the facts remain that IRL there was no Huntington-style clash of civilizations.

    The initial campaign was pretty impressive on Serbia's behalf even though Austria-Hungary couldn't concentrate its forces, remember that Serbia had just finished fighting two Balkan wars and was short on ammunition and food stores. Also interesting to note that Belgrade has the unfortunate distinction of being the first and last European city to be shelled in the 20th century.

    , @Alden
    Sorry for nitpicking but it would be nice if people didn’t use initials others don’t understand. I’ve never seen the Hapsburg or Austrian Hungarian Empire referred to as AH.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @anonymous coward

    So why did Nixon work out a deal with Russia pressuring their government to allow the Jews to immigrate to Israel.

    And why did the US State Department publicly condemn the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union under the Nixon administration?
     
    Who gives a rat's ass why? Probably for some stupid and pointless today Cold War reason.

    Ask a Jew living under Trump if they would have preferred the Soviet Union.
     
    Well, it seems they can't stop complaining that "Trump is literally Hitler". Too bad there isn't a superpower today to take them on their word...

    Abie Hoffman called Nixon a Fascist too…its common for Leftists, of which Jews often comprise a majority.

    There are LESS Jewish left-wingers than there used to be because some swung over to Neo-Conservatism.

    Besides, every hippie on campus is calling Trump Hitler even though his grandfather dodged the draft and came to America in the first place!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Epigon
    Is there any substance in the claim that Khruschev stunted urban population growth and number of kids per family by constructing cramped, horrible tenements as opposed to more spacious, quality ones during Stalin?

    No, the khrushchevki are of course very unprestigious today, but they were cheap and easy to construct, and provided more space than the old kommunalki (many families crammed together into apartments build under the ancien regime and expropriated by the Bolsheviks).

    There was no increase in the per capita urban Russian housing stock between 1914 and ~1950. Stalin focused on constructing high quality brick buildings for the elites, which still enjoy high prestige today and are the most expensive category of building in Russia today, apart from modern luxury housing. However, housing construction soared fourfold from the mid-1950s, and was thereafter aimed at common people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Colin Wright
    'Khrushchev also...'

    Yeah, but...

    It could have been worse. Khrushchev could have also been like the Kims of Korea, and simply continued in the path laid down by his predecessor.

    To be frank, 'greatest Russian leader of the Twentieth Century' doesn't offer a very appealing selection. Stolypin really was the best I could come up with. The winner certainly wasn't bloody Tsar Nicholas II, the Indecisive.

    I agree with that.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Anon
    No, but a lot of them sure think they are, at least around here.

    Jews are democrats…they’ve been calling Presidents fascist since Nixon was in office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Jews didn’t like Eisenhower much either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. AP says:
    @Epigon
    And to further my point about Austro-Hungary and the invasion of Bosnia&Herzegovina in 1878: all three of the senior commanders: Gavrilo Rodić, Josif Filipović and Stjepan Jovanović were born in Serb Orthodox Grenzer families, their forces were mostly Grenzers, and all three were denationalised and Uniatized/Catholicized as a pre-requisite for formal military education and later on, noble titles. The same for would be the case for Field Marshal Svetozar Borojević, later on.

    You being an Ukrainian are a Galizian analogue to Grenzer assimilation. Therefore, you once again "naturally" show sympathy for Habsburgs.

    Grenzers are not an ethnic or regional subgroup. They are Serb troops who fought for Austria.

    Galicians are a subgroup of Ukrainians, as Bavarians are of Germans. They were Greek Catholic long before Galicia was part of Austria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Weren't grenzers Croats at least as often as Serbs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. AP says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Khrushchev also...'

    Yeah, but...

    It could have been worse. Khrushchev could have also been like the Kims of Korea, and simply continued in the path laid down by his predecessor.

    To be frank, 'greatest Russian leader of the Twentieth Century' doesn't offer a very appealing selection. Stolypin really was the best I could come up with. The winner certainly wasn't bloody Tsar Nicholas II, the Indecisive.

    Nicholas II was better than Lenin, whose war for power killed millions and led to largescale loss of territory, or Stalin, who killed more millions. He might not have been “better” than the post-Stalin leaders but the country’s long-term prospects were much more compromised under them than they had been under Nicholas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2

    Nicholas II was better than Lenin, whose war for power killed millions and led to largescale loss of territory, or Stalin, who killed more millions. He might not have been “better” than the post-Stalin leaders but the country’s long-term prospects were much more compromised under them than they had been under Nicholas.
     
    errrrr...Stalin didn't kill "millions" you dumb sack of faeces. Face, it he wasn't a sadist,loser turncoat fuckwit as Bandera or Shukheyevich, he was a practical man....in a very short period of time these freaks killed a few 100,000 innocent civilians you idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Wally says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Koreans BENEFITED from Jewish ghetto merchants being run of Watts and other West Coast black ghettos because they took over the liquor stores, slum tenements and gas stations that Jews had run until the 1967 riots...then in 1992 the blacks burned out the Koreans the same way.

    As for Indians and Koreans calling Jews anti-Semitic names in Silicone Valley or Wall Street or rabbis trying office conversions...this is absurd.

    Your average Seoul Korean knows NOTHING about Palestine.

    Fake news does not change my opinion.

    "LOL"

    [MORE]

    I get it, I present concrete proof that what you claim is laughably wrong, so now you reject anything which goes against your easily debunked false claims.

    You remind me of Anatoly Karlin who now hides my posts because he has no answers for the challenges I present to him.

    Back to kindergarten, children

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Wally says:
    @Anon
    No, but a lot of them sure think they are, at least around here.

    [MORE]

    No, they wish they were worse off. Curious isn’t it?
    Why do Jews want 6M Jews to be dead? Jews should be elated to know that 6M of their brethren were not murdered.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Marcus says:
    @AP
    Grenzers are not an ethnic or regional subgroup. They are Serb troops who fought for Austria.

    Galicians are a subgroup of Ukrainians, as Bavarians are of Germans. They were Greek Catholic long before Galicia was part of Austria.

    Weren’t grenzers Croats at least as often as Serbs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    By later periods, yes, because present Croats are a political identity, not ethnolinguistic.
    In my previous posts, I named several people who were born in Serb Orthodox Grenzer families yet even identified as Croats in their later life.
    The most extreme examples were probably during Counter-Reformation, when people of Serb Orthodox descent would end up as Jesuit educated Inquisitors of Orthodox people, Uniatic Vladikas or even Bishops of Zagreb.
    The best proof of the gradual assimilation is the fluctuation in number of Uniats over the centuries, and it was a one way street. One has to remember that in Habsburg service, nobility and higher officer ranks demanded at least Uniatism, while Catholicism was preferred. In Venetian ruled Dalmatia, no Orthodox could live in urban settlements.
    The starkest demonstration of this fact is the family tree of the founder of Croatian nationalism Starčević and his psychopatic 180 degree transformation after having been turned down as an aspiring teacher at Orthodox Gymnasium in Zagreb and Belgrade University.
    The executed Croat rebels of the failed Rakovica rebellion led by his disciple Kvaternik also had very interesting names.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Marcus
    Gotta love the Serb ultranationalist historical amnesia
    https://i0.wp.com/kamenjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cetnici-i-nijemci-na-neretvi_0.jpg?w=800&ssl=1

    Marko Attila Hoare BS at play on your part.

    No mention of the Nazi wanted posters for Mihailovic and the documented account between the Partizans and Nazis to concentrate efforts against the Chetniks.

    The Allies shook Nazi hands at Munich as did the Soviets shortly thereafter with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

    The Chetniks treated Allied airmen shot down over Yugoslavia as allies and not prisoners of war. Croatia had the status of a Nazi recognized nation unlike Serbia. The Serbs didn’t
    run any concentration camp along the lines of Jasenovac.

    Relative to all this is the formal presence of the Serb and Israeli leaders at the last Victory Day holiday in Moscow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Marcus says:
    @AP

    As an Orthodox, I can only feel revulsion at the assassination of a pregnant woman, regardless of whether she’s an archduchess or a complete anonymous
     
    Good.

    You’re implying that I somehow justify it is equally repugnant. It actually says that you stink hatred and racism to high heavens.

     

    I made no such implication about you personally. I wrote, about the assassination of F.F. -

    "Serbian nationalists hated him, and murdered him and his Czech wife at close range. The Serbian hero shot her right in the stomach, a couple feet away. Coming to the aid of these monsters was a bad thing for Nicholas II to do."

    Somehow, in your mind, this became a personal attack upon you.

    Your immediate projection of hatred onto another person, and bizarre attribution of personal attack, are noted.

    Is this common in the Balkans?


    It’s as if I said that every German woman raped by a migrant nowadays deserve it because Germans are a race of genocidal psychopaths. Actually, I’m beginning to believe it more and more.
     
    Hmmm...

    To return to the subject of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand, secret services doing stuff behind the back of the government is far from unusual. Who assassinated Kennedy?
     
    So you don't deny that elements of the Serbian government were involcved in the murder of the heir to the throne of the Austrian state and his wife.

    In which case, A-H was completely in its rights to demand access to Serbia in order to investigate this crime.

    If the Ukrainian SBU was behind the murder of Russia's president-elect, wouldn't Russia have the right to make similar demands of Ukraine? Wouldn't any country?


    One last thing, it still remains a mystery how a guy who had the eyesight of a mole and couldn’t hit an oak from five meters, managed to get that close to his victims and fire two killing shots at point blank.
     
    Hitting two people at point blank range is easier than from 5 meters away. Is this mysterious?

    As for what lead to WWI, documents exist that prove that Austria-Hungary had been preparing for war to crush Serbia once and for all from 1906 and possibly earlier
     
    Nothing strange about having contingency plans. Russia had plans for a Crimean operation years before Crimea was actually taken. They probably have some plans for seizing the Baltics, or Finland. I'm sure the Americans have some dusty plans around for an invasion of Cuba.

    Serbia was invaded only after elements of the Serbian government were responsible for the murder of Austria's heir to the throne and his wife, and after Serbia refused reasonable demands by the Austrian state as a result of this terrible act.


    As for Russia destroying herself for Serbia’s sake, the same can be said of Germany on Austria-Hungary’s behalf.
     
    Russia destroyed itself for a regidal regime. Germany went to war for a fellow monarchy that was the victim of a vile act.

    The Austrians got their asses kicked hard by Serbs before Germany ran to their rescue.
     
    Austria-Hungary failed to conquer Serbia because it was forced to divert large numbers of its troops to the Russian front. So Russia saved the regicial Serbian regime.

    As for getting "asses kicked hard" - Austria failed to take Serbia, but Serbia failed in its attempted counterattack to grab Austrian-held lands populated by Serbia. It ended in the status quo. Both sides suffered enormous causalties, Austrian more in terms of raw numbers, Serbs far more in terms of percentage of troops/population.

    Really amazing how deeply they’ve taken to heart the notion of a manichaean struggle between Germanics and Slavs, when their nationalist heroes were willing to collaborate with the freaking Nazis to achieve their aims. I’m sure it was akin to the Ukrainian nationalists’ relationship with the Nazis (both sides trying to use each other much more out of pragmatism than ideological affinity), but the facts remain that IRL there was no Huntington-style clash of civilizations.

    The initial campaign was pretty impressive on Serbia’s behalf even though Austria-Hungary couldn’t concentrate its forces, remember that Serbia had just finished fighting two Balkan wars and was short on ammunition and food stores. Also interesting to note that Belgrade has the unfortunate distinction of being the first and last European city to be shelled in the 20th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Epigon

    So? We aren’t talking about 1941. Are you saying the British were supportive of the Black Hand as well? I’ve heard that the okhrana was, but I’m skeptical
     
    Lets just say that Yugocommunist historiography from 1945-2000 was doing its best to erase their Anglo support and allegiance (due to obvious obfuscation reasons, like "Unaligned" and "anti-imperialism" LARPing), and take the credit for 1941 coups against "Fascists".

    However, actual historiography in the recent years has deconstructed these myths, and even identified Black Hand legacy, agents, and individual British who coordinated them and to whom they reported. The coup was led by supposedly Royalist officer Simović, who was rewarded post-war by a very nice villa (where he died of old age) by Yugocommunists (as opposed to WW1 heroes and actual fighters against Austrians and Germans who got executed along with their families).


    The Habsburgs had already been taking a beating from German nationalists for being favorable to Slavs for decades, Franz Ferdinand was particularly hated for his planned reforms. Hitler still hadn’t forgotten about it in the 1930s.
     
    When it comes to Germans, everything that isn't "exterminate the most and assimilate the rest" is "overly sympathetic to Slavs". Really, when one goes through the works of German 19th philosophers, "progressives", "social democrats" etc., one instantly recognizes Hitler in the works of Hegel, Engels (those two, together with Marx, display the worst chauvinism), Liebknecht, Naumann or in the ideas of Bismarck and his German Liberal contemporaries on Poles, not to mention German media outburst from 1848 to 1918 regarding Russians, Serbs.

    Really, ever since the Frankfurt Spring of Nations meeting, the prevailing idea among ALL segments of German policy was that Slav lands and nations are destined to be conquered by Germans, and Slav people erased from existence over time.

    True Habsburg stance towards Slavs was their behaviour towards Franz's wife and their children. I don't fall for nonsense narrative of Slavic equality, nor do I commit the mistake of missing the true nature of initially Catholic/Vatican and Habsburg funded Illyrian and Yugoslav movement, naturally under Rome and Habsburg rule.

    Tito has been referred to0 as a “Red Habsburg“.

    Like Hitler, he was a corporal on the side of the Central Powers in WW I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Yugoslavia glorified the assassins (a key monument to them was removed by Muslim militias in the 1990s). Tito was just a scumbag opportunist. Sure, the Ustase were the most fanatically pro-Axis, but that doesn't mean the Chetniks using the opportunity to begin their ethnic cleansing project can be overlooked. I'm not a moral absolutist, so I have no particular gripe with this, but they also shouldn't pretend that they were simple martyrs at the hands of the Nazi war machine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Marcus
    That Serbian nationalists readily collaborated with foreign powers (including Germans), when it helped advance their goals, yet today they like to portray themselves as hapless victims, as seen in your posts or in Serb propaganda during the Yugoslav wars about Schroeder creating a Fourth Reich! Amazing cognitive dissonance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5jw9pbMUeA

    You don’t know what you’re talking about for reasons detailed in comment number 230.

    No one is perfect. That doesn’t mean everyone is on par with the Nazis.

    In the 1930s, some Zionists found common cause with the Nazis as highlighted by Lenni Brenner. To put that on the collective level of Jews collaborating with Nazis along the lines of the Ustasha is a severely warped comparison.

    Likewise, with linking the overall Serb WW II behavior to that of the Ustasha state in Croatia. Granted, the there were Croats who sided with the Partizans – a group which committed atrocities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Sergey Krieger
    Modern Russia owes everything to the Soviet period and people you call sovok who in every respect were heads and shoulders above current generation. Especially guys like you. Without those whom such as you call sovok Russia would have not existed. Or as third world shit hole as was said.

    Modern Russia owes everything to the Soviet period and people you call sovok who in every respect were heads and shoulders above current generation. Especially guys like you. Without those whom such as you call sovok Russia would have not existed. Or as third world shit hole as was said.

    To a noticeably considerable extent, modern Russia has competently junked a good deal of the Sovok legacy, while looking back with pride at the positives regarding Russia’s pre-Soviet era. Included in this position is the reasoned view that progress in Russia was happening without the Bolshes and would’ve arguably been more productive without them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2

    To a noticeably considerable extent, modern Russia has competently junked a good deal of the Sovok legacy, while looking back with pride at the positives regarding Russia’s pre-Soviet era. Included in this position is the reasoned view that progress in Russia was happening without the Bolshes and would’ve arguably been more productive without them.
     
    Official World Cup promotional imagery has been exclusively Soviet in style. Space acheivements, Soviet-era people, the great Patriotic war, Soviet- era music ( of course a huge amount of tsarist time classical music also) , much of the Soviet-era public transport...these are many of the things Russia has promoted to present itself to the World during the World Cup. Same thing with the architecture...this split between the Tsarist,soviet and Modern Russia times.

    Much of the bureacracy remains, the reestablishment of the Soviet "collective" is making a strong comeback
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Marcus says:
    @Mikhail
    Tito has been referred to0 as a "Red Habsburg".

    Like Hitler, he was a corporal on the side of the Central Powers in WW I.

    Yugoslavia glorified the assassins (a key monument to them was removed by Muslim militias in the 1990s). Tito was just a scumbag opportunist. Sure, the Ustase were the most fanatically pro-Axis, but that doesn’t mean the Chetniks using the opportunity to begin their ethnic cleansing project can be overlooked. I’m not a moral absolutist, so I have no particular gripe with this, but they also shouldn’t pretend that they were simple martyrs at the hands of the Nazi war machine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    What you say doesn't at all negate what's said in comment 233:

    No one is perfect. That doesn’t mean everyone is on par with the Nazis.

    In the 1930s, some Zionists found common cause with the Nazis as highlighted by Lenni Brenner. To put that on the collective level of Jews collaborating with Nazis along the lines of the Ustasha is a severely warped comparison.

    Likewise, with linking the overall Serb WW II behavior to that of the Ustasha state in Croatia. Granted, the there were Croats who sided with the Partizans – a group which committed atrocities.
     

    as well as 230:

    Marko Attila Hoare BS at play on your part.

    No mention of the Nazi wanted posters for Mihailovic and the documented account between the Partizans and Nazis to concentrate efforts against the Chetniks.

    The Allies shook Nazi hands at Munich as did the Soviets shortly thereafter with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

    The Chetniks treated Allied airmen shot down over Yugoslavia as allies and not prisoners of war. Croatia had the status of a Nazi recognized nation unlike Serbia. The Serbs didn’t
    run any concentration camp along the lines of Jasenovac.

    Relative to all this is the formal presence of the Serb and Israeli leaders at the last Victory Day holiday in Moscow.

     

    You're right about Tito being an opportunist, who also had plenty of blood on his hands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Marcus
    Yugoslavia glorified the assassins (a key monument to them was removed by Muslim militias in the 1990s). Tito was just a scumbag opportunist. Sure, the Ustase were the most fanatically pro-Axis, but that doesn't mean the Chetniks using the opportunity to begin their ethnic cleansing project can be overlooked. I'm not a moral absolutist, so I have no particular gripe with this, but they also shouldn't pretend that they were simple martyrs at the hands of the Nazi war machine.

    What you say doesn’t at all negate what’s said in comment 233:

    No one is perfect. That doesn’t mean everyone is on par with the Nazis.

    In the 1930s, some Zionists found common cause with the Nazis as highlighted by Lenni Brenner. To put that on the collective level of Jews collaborating with Nazis along the lines of the Ustasha is a severely warped comparison.

    Likewise, with linking the overall Serb WW II behavior to that of the Ustasha state in Croatia. Granted, the there were Croats who sided with the Partizans – a group which committed atrocities.

    as well as 230:

    Marko Attila Hoare BS at play on your part.

    No mention of the Nazi wanted posters for Mihailovic and the documented account between the Partizans and Nazis to concentrate efforts against the Chetniks.

    The Allies shook Nazi hands at Munich as did the Soviets shortly thereafter with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

    The Chetniks treated Allied airmen shot down over Yugoslavia as allies and not prisoners of war. Croatia had the status of a Nazi recognized nation unlike Serbia. The Serbs didn’t
    run any concentration camp along the lines of Jasenovac.

    Relative to all this is the formal presence of the Serb and Israeli leaders at the last Victory Day holiday in Moscow.

    You’re right about Tito being an opportunist, who also had plenty of blood on his hands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Tito may have been an executioner for the Comintern during the Spanish Civil War and his retribution against collaborators in 1945 was brutal even by communist standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Epigon says:
    @Marcus
    Weren't grenzers Croats at least as often as Serbs?

    By later periods, yes, because present Croats are a political identity, not ethnolinguistic.
    In my previous posts, I named several people who were born in Serb Orthodox Grenzer families yet even identified as Croats in their later life.
    The most extreme examples were probably during Counter-Reformation, when people of Serb Orthodox descent would end up as Jesuit educated Inquisitors of Orthodox people, Uniatic Vladikas or even Bishops of Zagreb.
    The best proof of the gradual assimilation is the fluctuation in number of Uniats over the centuries, and it was a one way street. One has to remember that in Habsburg service, nobility and higher officer ranks demanded at least Uniatism, while Catholicism was preferred. In Venetian ruled Dalmatia, no Orthodox could live in urban settlements.
    The starkest demonstration of this fact is the family tree of the founder of Croatian nationalism Starčević and his psychopatic 180 degree transformation after having been turned down as an aspiring teacher at Orthodox Gymnasium in Zagreb and Belgrade University.
    The executed Croat rebels of the failed Rakovica rebellion led by his disciple Kvaternik also had very interesting names.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Marcus says:
    @Mikhail
    What you say doesn't at all negate what's said in comment 233:

    No one is perfect. That doesn’t mean everyone is on par with the Nazis.

    In the 1930s, some Zionists found common cause with the Nazis as highlighted by Lenni Brenner. To put that on the collective level of Jews collaborating with Nazis along the lines of the Ustasha is a severely warped comparison.

    Likewise, with linking the overall Serb WW II behavior to that of the Ustasha state in Croatia. Granted, the there were Croats who sided with the Partizans – a group which committed atrocities.
     

    as well as 230:

    Marko Attila Hoare BS at play on your part.

    No mention of the Nazi wanted posters for Mihailovic and the documented account between the Partizans and Nazis to concentrate efforts against the Chetniks.

    The Allies shook Nazi hands at Munich as did the Soviets shortly thereafter with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

    The Chetniks treated Allied airmen shot down over Yugoslavia as allies and not prisoners of war. Croatia had the status of a Nazi recognized nation unlike Serbia. The Serbs didn’t
    run any concentration camp along the lines of Jasenovac.

    Relative to all this is the formal presence of the Serb and Israeli leaders at the last Victory Day holiday in Moscow.

     

    You're right about Tito being an opportunist, who also had plenty of blood on his hands.

    Tito may have been an executioner for the Comintern during the Spanish Civil War and his retribution against collaborators in 1945 was brutal even by communist standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epigon
    But he didn’t target collaborators.
    He targeted professors, teachers, priests, burgeoisie, actors, artists, WW1 veterans.
    You know, the quality segments of a nation.
    Tito and his Yugocommunist band were the definition of traitors, seeing how they welcomed the Axis invasion in April 1941 and avoided actually fighting against invading “NaziFascists”, and how they served external powers.
    Moreover, they openly explained their primary enemies were Belgrade-centered Serb hegemony and burgeoisie, and as early as 1920 rejected Yugoslav nation, defined akin to Russian Tri-Une nation, in favour of separate republics and identities built in them. So despite claiming class struggle and antinationalism, they were VERY nationally conscious.
    Moreover, their field instructions were to primarily fight Royalists, followed by Croats, and only DEFEND against Germans.
    Even better, between Axis invasion, founding of Croatian state, start of mass crimes, and Barbarossa, the Yugocommunist “antifascists” didn’t do anything, let alone opposed the perpetrators. Until Italian armistice and post-Zitadelle, the Partisans were a non-factor, and pretty much exclusively Serb apart from Commisars and Party leadership. Likewise, not a single concentration camp on Yugoslav territory was attacked during the entirety of war.

    The key to understanding how and why all Ustashe leadership made their escape from Europe has been revealed: the British were protecting their asset Pavelić, recruited in 1926 by MI6.

    , @Mikhail
    Regarding Draza Mihailovic:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tnw-W4qoE7Hy5gKrmY5g&q=david+martin+patriot+or+traitor&oq=david+martin+patriot+or+traitor&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1620.13826.0.14625.31.31.0.0.0.0.101.2264.30j1.31.0

    The Serbs who were more extreme than him weren't at the proportional level of Croats in the Ustasha.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments