The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

What everyone thinks the Russian Empire was like.

Tsarist Russia was this superstitious land of icons and cockroaches with Cossacks on thot patrol with nagaikas in hand – and it was absolutely horrific!” – Liberals, Marxists.

Tsarist Russia was this superstitious land of icons and cockroaches with Cossacks on thot patrol with nagaikas in hand – and it was absolutely great!” – Neoreactionaries.

Reality: It was in many respects socially liberal even by the standards of Western Europe.

Law

Yes, Stolypin’s neckties and all that. What Communist propagandists don’t like to mention as much is that just during the three years 1904-1907 some 4,500 Tsarist officials were murdered by what would today be classified as Far Left terrorist groups. In contrast, there were just 6,321 executions from 1825 to 1917. This is basically a rounding error by the standards of the Bolsheviks’ multicultural Coalition of the Fringes, including during their “progressive” Trotskyist phase that Western leftist academics and journalists love to laud so much. It doesn’t even compare unfavorably with the 16,000 or so executions in the US since 1700.

The Okhrana secret policy only numbered one thousand in 1900 in an empire of 150 million – it was a little baby relative to the Cheka. Exiles to Siberia essentially took the form of holidays that the “inmates” could cancel at will. Dzhugashvili (Stalin) “escaped” from Siberia around seven or nine times.

stalin-exile-1915

Stalin enjoying the Siberian sunshine.

All forms of corporal punishment were abolished in 1904, ahead of the UK and the US. Despite modern Russia’s 70 year legacy of official atheism, the irony is that Pussy Riot would have spent a maximum of three months in jail under blasphemy laws in the Russian Empire (had they gone to prison at all).

Really, if anything, the Russian Empire had become too progressive, too liberal, too humane for its own good. It was doomed by its own kindness and decency to aspiring Pol Pots. A few contemporary equivalents of free helicopter rides or just stronger enforcement of normal treason laws would have done so much good in 1917.

Social Progressivism

Access to higher education was actually more meritocratic in the late Empire than in contemporary Germany or France by a factor of 2-3x.

Women constituted about a third of Russia’s total numbers of university students, a far larger percentage than in any other European country – and Russia by 1913 had the largest number of university students in Europe (127,000 to 80,000 in Germany, around 40,000 in France and Austria each). Likewise, they constituted an absolute majority in grammar schools, many decades ahead most of the rest of Europe. In 1915, restrictions on co-ed education were dropped across a range of Russian universities by decision of the Tsar and his Council of Ministers.

womens-batallion-of-death-1917

British suffragettes? Russia raises you a Women’s Batallion of Death.

Multiculturalism

Fully half of the four mosques in Moscow were constructed under late Tsarism (including the biggest one that nationalist critics of Putin like to harp on about; he merely restored it). The other Moscow mosques include the historical Old Mosque (constructed in 1823), the Moscow Memorial Mosque (more of a war monument than a place of worship), and one that is part of a complex of religious buildings that also includes a Buddhist stuppa (so not really so much of a mosque as a political monument).

Of Saint-Petersburg’s three mosques, by far the most impressive, with capacity for 5,000 worshippers, was opened in 1913. One of them is actually more of a room than a mosque, being part of the Dagestan Cultural Center.

Culture

The Russian bobos and aristos of the late Empire loved their tattoes.

nicky-tattoo

Here’s Nicky’s.

Here’s a Russian conservative in 1909 lamenting Social Decline (TM) in the Vekhi:

The vast majority of our children enter university having lost their virginity. Who of us doesn’t know that in the senior classes of the gymnasiums there is hardly a boy to be a found who has yet to be acquainted with a maid, or a brothel

Even in France, which is associated in our minds with all sorts of sexual degeneracies, even there, in that land of the southern sun and frivolous literature, there isn’t this prevalence of “fast-ripening fruits” as in cold, northern Russia.

According to a survey of 967 students, of those who clarified their age at first sexual contact, 61% said not later than 17 years, and of them, 53 boys started it before 12 years, 152 – before 14 years.

This was reflected in the high culture of the late Empire: The Russian avant-garde, the first major penetration of post-modernism into traditional art.

Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring causes a scandalous sensation in Paris, not in Moscow or Saint-Petersburg.

Scriabin, the consummate bohémienne.

Kandinsky.

The Shukhov Tower.

Malevich.

malevich-black-square

He painted his stupid black square in 1915.

Really at this point one can almost sympathize with Mayakovsky:

“Eat your pineapples. Chew your grouse. Your last day is coming. You bourgeois louse.”

It need also be hardly pointed put at this point that the extreme social liberalism – legalization of homosexuality, abortion – and SJWism – abolition of university extrance exams – of the 1920s didn’t come out of a complete void. To the contrary, all this enjoyed the approval of some significant percentage of the Russian intelligentsia.

Stalin of course reversed this, and not only made university exams competitive again but reintroduced tuition fees. After murdering some significant percentage of the professors, and blanketing the country in a stiffling ideological orthodoxy for decades ahead that annulled any meaningful freedom of speech and relegated Russia to the margins of global culture to this day.

Russian Empire 2017

What would Russian culture have been like without the Communist occupation?

Probably a great deal more liberal, actually.

That said, one has to make allowance for the fact that the liberal-leftist strain in Russian cultural life was balanced by liberal-conservative and even a certain conservative-libertarian trend.

For instance, gun rights were very strong in the Russian Empire, unlike in the Soviet Union and its successor the Russian Federation.

chelyabinsk-gun-shop

Fin de siècle Chelyabinsk gunshop – remove the Cyrillic, and it might as well be in the Wild West.

There were also no shortage of conservative and nationalist pundits, who under a normal 20th century trajectory might have developed into US-style conservative talk radio.

Moreover, there are always cycles of social liberalism and social conservatism. To take the example of the US, you had liberalism in the 1920s, conservatism in the 1950s, liberalism in the 1970s, conservatism in the 1980s, liberalism again now – Russia was evidently in a liberal phase during the waning years of the Empire and the 1920s, but this doesn’t mean it would have stayed that way indefinitely. A moderate correction would have been expected by analogy with any other country on a normal development trajectory.

One would also have to account for there being less American influence – Russian (and European) culture would itself have been far stronger, not having undergone a ruinous World War and the stiffling effects of the twin totalitarianisms of Nazism and Stalinism. For that matter, Nazism itself is a significant – if not altogether crucial – component in Europe’s guilt complex, that would have been exceedingly unlikely to arise in the absence of the Red Menace in the early 1930s.

So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.

One undoubtedly negative aspect of the Russian Empire (from a conservative/traditionalist viewpoint) would have been the likely absence of a propiska system regulating internal migration within a surviving Russian Empire, so we can expect there to have been far more Central Asian immigrants to the Russian heartlands – especially since Russia would have been far wealthier without central planning (though their percentage of the population would have been diluted by the Russification of Belorussia and most of Ukraine, as well as a ~30% larger total ethnic Slavic population).

However, it’s not very clear that even this “silver lining” from the Soviet period is of any value. The Putin regime has in recent years made it increasingly clear that it sees Russia’s future in tight integration with Central Asia; just the other day, a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feed false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

So in all likelihood Russia will end up getting the worst of both worlds anyway.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Feminism, History, Liberalism, Tsarist Russia 
Hide 359 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.

    Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we’re still suffering under the consequences; it’s sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The lights went out all over Europe in 1914 and they've never really been turned back on. Was World War I just a "bad break," or were there forces in Europe pre-war that made some kind of conflict of that nature and scope more or less inevitable?
    , @Talha

    it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness
     
    Nietzsche 101.

    Peace.
    , @Father O'Hara
    So true
    , @Father O'Hara
    So true
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/progressive-russian-empire/#comment-2021628
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 5371 says:

    [For instance, gun rights were very strong in the Russian Empire, unlike in the Soviet Union and its successor the Russian Federation.]

    There were large numbers of privately owned firearms in the USSR.

    [a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”]

    That’s Kudrin’s gang, and much as I deplore their, and his, continued enjoyment of life and liberty, you could hardly say that their advice tends to get promptly put into practice. They have been advising complete surrender to the USA from the beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No, not really. The numbers are modest now and can't have been significantly higher in the USSR.

    http://i.imgur.com/QKdLjU2.jpg

    In the 1900s you had open carry and unrestricted sales of hunting rifles and pistols (for the latter you had to get permission from the local police constable from 1905, but it was a quick affair).

    Today acquiring even something as basic as a sporting or hunting gun (pistols are banned entirely) requires fulfilling a set of bureaucratic procedures that it's not worth the bother so far as 90% of the population are concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Mr. Hack says:

    The Putin regime has in recent years made it increasingly clear that it sees Russia’s future in tight integration with Central Asia; just the other day, a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

    What’s needed for Russia is a return to its imperial past to put it on its rightful course of future greatness. It’s clear that Putin just isn’t up to the task. Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire. An empire without a czar just doesn’t seem possible in Russia. I presume that tattoos are optional? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire.
     
    Vladimir Zhirinovsky needs a harem, I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feed false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

    Anatoly, do not misinform people–this CSR is a “container” into which Kudrin, who has now a minuscule influence on Russia’s actual policies, was moved to give him some sort of “status”. It is “connected to Kremlin” only because Kudrin used to be a FM and knows Putin personally–their economic views today are very different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. This is basically a rounding error by the standards of the Bolsheviks’ multicultural Coalition of the Fringes

    Radical socioeconomic change is no joke. Of course it’s easier to maintain the existing (even rotten) system. Try to expropriate and nationalize all (or most) private property in any western society, and then make things work somehow. More than likely, you’ll make the same kind of mess, if not worse.

    And in the end, one could easily argue, the experiment has been successful (so far), thanks to Comrades Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang…

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    And in the end, one could easily argue, the experiment has been successful (so far), thanks to Comrades Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang…
     
    Depends on one's definition of "success." Besides, it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over yet. It really never is. So while it can be easily argued, it's still too early to get smug about it.

    Besides, the claim smells of the old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument, and seems to ignore the idea that similar ends could have possibly been achieved by more civilized means, I think.

    Most 'Merkins, too, think Amerka is a great success, but their standards have always been low, materialism is typically their yardstick, and one can witness the withering of "greatness" (and "success") as we speak even though the malls are filled with dazzling trinkets.

    Communism and capitalism both suck in the hands of the degenerate and always will.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Mr. Hack

    The Putin regime has in recent years made it increasingly clear that it sees Russia’s future in tight integration with Central Asia; just the other day, a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

     

    What's needed for Russia is a return to its imperial past to put it on its rightful course of future greatness. It's clear that Putin just isn't up to the task. Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire. An empire without a czar just doesn't seem possible in Russia. I presume that tattoos are optional? :-)

    Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire.

    Vladimir Zhirinovsky needs a harem, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I was thinking of Zhirinovsky too! :-)
    , @DFH
    Haven't enough Jews ruled Russia already?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. inertial says:

    Yeah, I wanted to tell you that your comment in the other thread should’ve been made into a separate post.

    There were a few conservatives here and there among Russian pre-revolutionary elite, but in general there were quite bleeding heart liberal in the modern sense. You may even say there were “Cultural Marxists,” heh-heh. They felt guilty about their privileged position and worshiped the peasant, about whom they knew nothing. From here, it’s only a short step to idolizing the third world masses and wringing hands about “white priviledge.”

    If not for the Revolution, it was only a matter of time before these people took over the machinery of the government.

    The Revolution swept away the old elite and replaced it with the new one, who are still in charge today. Whatever else you may say about the new elite, it has a much more recent origin from among the common people. So in many respects it’s more grounded in reality. Perhaps this can explain the difference between the Eastern and Western Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    One of the most hilarious episodes in history is the Narodniks "going to the people" in 1874. Turned out "the people," showing unusual perspicacity, wanted nothing to do with them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Mr. Hack says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire.
     
    Vladimir Zhirinovsky needs a harem, I think.

    I was thinking of Zhirinovsky too! :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The world would not be so boring with him in charge, I think we can all genuinely agree.
    , @Gerard2
    Zhirinovsky is a patriot, a supreme intellectual, an entertainer, raconteur.........just the type of person that Ukraine has needed in it's last 25 years of abject failure and idiocy.

    He has also been correct on the pseudo-country of "Ukraine" throughout his political career, with incredible accuracy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Mr. Hack
    I was thinking of Zhirinovsky too! :-)

    The world would not be so boring with him in charge, I think we can all genuinely agree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Hopefully, Karlin can provide us with some better candidates?...
    , @Dan Hayes
    Daniel,

    Your understatement of the day: "The world would not be so boring with him [Zhirinovsky] in charge."

    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Mr. Hack says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The world would not be so boring with him in charge, I think we can all genuinely agree.

    Hopefully, Karlin can provide us with some better candidates?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    There are no obvious candidates from the House of Romanov or elsewhere.

    In any case I am not a big fan of absolute monarchy (anything else is pointless; only hardcore, or go home).

    I suppose if it was up to me and I was tasked with restoring monarchy to Russia, I would replace the office of the President with a namestnik (regent), and start searching for a worthy monarch in a process that may well take many years or even decades. After all, Gondor's interregnum lasted a millennium, so what's a century or two?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Dan Hayes says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The world would not be so boring with him in charge, I think we can all genuinely agree.

    Daniel,

    Your understatement of the day: “The world would not be so boring with him [Zhirinovsky] in charge.”

    Thanks.

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

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary – Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn’t more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn’t have to be cruel or morally strict to be “conservative.” Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn’t mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin’s land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism – probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world’s largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @ussr andy

    higher-IQ version of Latin America
     
    I always suspected the periphery of the Western world is always where they test-run their theories. In that sense, Russia 1917 is no different than Chile 1973.
    , @Gerard2
    I know that your're a lying tramp with severe mental problems but this latest witless BS is beyond parody.

    AK: Ok, Gerard2, I gave you fair warning, so I'm putting you on premoderation. I suggested that you and AP stop trolling each other - and in all fairness, in all the cases I can recall, AP was the one responding to you, as opposed to initiating - you said you would, but apparently that only lasted a couple of comments. This does not mean you are banned. The few people who are banned get their comments trashed automatically. My rules here don't strictly forbid ad homs so it would be unfair to ban you. That said you will stay on premod until you work out a consistent way of commenting in a civilized manner, i.e. without "lying idiot", "fucking shitbag", etc. every other sentence.



    Seeing a retard as yourself try to write as if you have even the faintest clue about Cromwell, South America ( or anything) is very amusing.

    There is liberal conservatism..a religious person who sins as much as he wants but thinks if he asks for forgiveness from God each time...then he is a perfectly good Christian.....exactly how Rasputin operated

    Then there is the social conservatism...the one who thinks being a good Christian means not sinning at all, or even thinking about sinning or promoting sinful behaviour

    Russia without Bolshevism.....cyclical famines, no inspiration of the necessary trade Union mobilisation and reforms needed in the west at the start of the 20th century. Foreign Invaders into Russia would have occured independent of whether there were Tsarist or Communist forces in charge you idiot....the rapid industrialisation would have occurred much slower under Tsarism than Communism and the Nazis would have probably won the war because of it,"Ukraine" would be a fraction of its current size.....because Bolsheviks are the creators,founders ,architects and builders of the Ukrainian state, more countries like the failed American controlled states of Columbia,Haiti,Phillipines,Gruzia and Ukraine.

    Pinochet was an evil man you shitbag....Franco and Pinochet in two very different situations.

    There was no "genocide" by Soviets you animal raping tramp. This is explained by the rapid increase in all ethnicities in Russia 30 years after the revolution (despite the massive fatalities in 1941-45). No "genocide" results in increased amounts of that population under the control of the alleged "genociders" you flea-brained fuckup. What is genocide is what has happened in Donbass, what is atheist or antireligion is what is happening to the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine
    , @Cicero

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.
     
    You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

    I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.
    , @anonymous coward

    Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church
     
    False. The Russian Church was re-instated only after the February Revolution. In Tsarist times the Church was subjugated to the state and was run by atheist functionaries.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    ... and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn’t have to be cruel or morally strict to be “conservative.”
     
    I suppose this should be clarified sooner or later.

    When I speak of "conservatism", I speak mostly of... social conservatism. The America of the 1950s. Yes, as Glossy used to argue all the time, Stalinism (though unlike him I don't view that as a Good Thing). Yes, it includes ISIS. Though the lattermost should sooner be called something like "radical conservatism."

    The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO - traditionalism.

    (Of course a further complication is that there's also a third meaning to conservatism - the entire American conservative memeplex, sometimes disparagingly called "boomer conservatism", characterized by sexual hystronics, conspicuous religiosity, 'Murica patriotism, Israel Firstism, the worship of the flag, denial of global warming, and of course moar tax cuts for the 1%).

    ... the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin’s land reforms
     
    Certainly a very important point as well in cultural terms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. ussr andy says:

    a lot of far-left bombers were acquitted by jurys. the rot set in and the ground for 1917 was laid way before 1917, probably in 1825.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    Beilis btw was acquitted (unlike Dreyfus), and the judgement in the Multan affair (some peasant kerfuffle between Russians and Finno-Ugrics) was just, too. It's like the state cared about truth or something.

    There are some things typical of Empire though, like when they call in ethnic experts to testify about some ethnic practice. This is no different than Western countries acquitting FGM and honor killing practitioners on some extreme culture relativist grounds and the like.

    Would that all countries were ethnostates. Empire distorts EVERYTHING.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. DFH says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire.
     
    Vladimir Zhirinovsky needs a harem, I think.

    Haven’t enough Jews ruled Russia already?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. ussr andy says:
    @ussr andy
    a lot of far-left bombers were acquitted by jurys. the rot set in and the ground for 1917 was laid way before 1917, probably in 1825.

    Beilis btw was acquitted (unlike Dreyfus), and the judgement in the Multan affair (some peasant kerfuffle between Russians and Finno-Ugrics) was just, too. It’s like the state cared about truth or something.

    There are some things typical of Empire though, like when they call in ethnic experts to testify about some ethnic practice. This is no different than Western countries acquitting FGM and honor killing practitioners on some extreme culture relativist grounds and the like.

    Would that all countries were ethnostates. Empire distorts EVERYTHING.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. ussr andy says:
    @AP
    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary - Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn't more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn't have to be cruel or morally strict to be "conservative." Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn't mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin's land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism - probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world's largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    higher-IQ version of Latin America

    I always suspected the periphery of the Western world is always where they test-run their theories. In that sense, Russia 1917 is no different than Chile 1973.

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

    there were just 6,321 executions from 1825 to 1917

    I thought it was much less. Once I tried to compare UK where executions were common with Russia where they were very rare in 19 century. Your high number of 6,321 includes revolution of 1905 and WWI periods. In peacetime the number will be lower by factor of 10.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. Hack
    I was thinking of Zhirinovsky too! :-)

    Zhirinovsky is a patriot, a supreme intellectual, an entertainer, raconteur………just the type of person that Ukraine has needed in it’s last 25 years of abject failure and idiocy.

    He has also been correct on the pseudo-country of “Ukraine” throughout his political career, with incredible accuracy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I think that the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand. Proof? Saakashvili, of course.

    They tried to test him whether he has the high quality genes that they so fondly remembered and admired about Stalin by giving him the governorship of the Odessa region.

    See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

    Of course, the reason why Saakashvili's test run in Odessa proved unsuccessful was because he wasn’t given the same authorization as Stalin had – which was a license to kill.

    That’s the only way anything can be accomplished in Ukraine, but then again Saakashvili would have had to kill roughly about 99% of them in order to achieve the desired result, which kind of defeats the purpose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. polskijoe says:

    I am wary of Russian imperialism.

    but certainly Tsar would be better than Commie.

    Russian counter balance to West is needed, but hopefully to Central Europe it is more nice :)

    Nicholas (the guy killed by Bolsheviks) actually killed far less Slavs (Russians, and others)
    compared to Lenin or Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2
    The drunk fascist idiot Polish President who ordered his pilot to land the plane , in conditions of poor visibility......is responsible for killing more slavs than Nicholas,Lenin and Stalin ever could conceive of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Gerard2 says:
    @polskijoe
    I am wary of Russian imperialism.

    but certainly Tsar would be better than Commie.

    Russian counter balance to West is needed, but hopefully to Central Europe it is more nice :)

    Nicholas (the guy killed by Bolsheviks) actually killed far less Slavs (Russians, and others)
    compared to Lenin or Stalin.

    The drunk fascist idiot Polish President who ordered his pilot to land the plane , in conditions of poor visibility……is responsible for killing more slavs than Nicholas,Lenin and Stalin ever could conceive of.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu, AP, Logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Gerard2 says:
    @AP
    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary - Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn't more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn't have to be cruel or morally strict to be "conservative." Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn't mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin's land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism - probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world's largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    I know that your’re a lying tramp with severe mental problems but this latest witless BS is beyond parody.

    AK: Ok, Gerard2, I gave you fair warning, so I’m putting you on premoderation. I suggested that you and AP stop trolling each other – and in all fairness, in all the cases I can recall, AP was the one responding to you, as opposed to initiating – you said you would, but apparently that only lasted a couple of comments. This does not mean you are banned. The few people who are banned get their comments trashed automatically. My rules here don’t strictly forbid ad homs so it would be unfair to ban you. That said you will stay on premod until you work out a consistent way of commenting in a civilized manner, i.e. without “lying idiot”, “fucking shitbag”, etc. every other sentence.

    [MORE]

    Seeing a retard as yourself try to write as if you have even the faintest clue about Cromwell, South America ( or anything) is very amusing.

    There is liberal conservatism..a religious person who sins as much as he wants but thinks if he asks for forgiveness from God each time…then he is a perfectly good Christian…..exactly how Rasputin operated

    Then there is the social conservatism…the one who thinks being a good Christian means not sinning at all, or even thinking about sinning or promoting sinful behaviour

    Russia without Bolshevism…..cyclical famines, no inspiration of the necessary trade Union mobilisation and reforms needed in the west at the start of the 20th century. Foreign Invaders into Russia would have occured independent of whether there were Tsarist or Communist forces in charge you idiot….the rapid industrialisation would have occurred much slower under Tsarism than Communism and the Nazis would have probably won the war because of it,”Ukraine” would be a fraction of its current size…..because Bolsheviks are the creators,founders ,architects and builders of the Ukrainian state, more countries like the failed American controlled states of Columbia,Haiti,Phillipines,Gruzia and Ukraine.

    Pinochet was an evil man you shitbag….Franco and Pinochet in two very different situations.

    There was no “genocide” by Soviets you animal raping tramp. This is explained by the rapid increase in all ethnicities in Russia 30 years after the revolution (despite the massive fatalities in 1941-45). No “genocide” results in increased amounts of that population under the control of the alleged “genociders” you flea-brained fuckup. What is genocide is what has happened in Donbass, what is atheist or antireligion is what is happening to the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Logan says:
    @inertial
    Yeah, I wanted to tell you that your comment in the other thread should've been made into a separate post.

    There were a few conservatives here and there among Russian pre-revolutionary elite, but in general there were quite bleeding heart liberal in the modern sense. You may even say there were "Cultural Marxists," heh-heh. They felt guilty about their privileged position and worshiped the peasant, about whom they knew nothing. From here, it's only a short step to idolizing the third world masses and wringing hands about "white priviledge."

    If not for the Revolution, it was only a matter of time before these people took over the machinery of the government.

    The Revolution swept away the old elite and replaced it with the new one, who are still in charge today. Whatever else you may say about the new elite, it has a much more recent origin from among the common people. So in many respects it's more grounded in reality. Perhaps this can explain the difference between the Eastern and Western Europe.

    One of the most hilarious episodes in history is the Narodniks “going to the people” in 1874. Turned out “the people,” showing unusual perspicacity, wanted nothing to do with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Cyrano says:
    @Gerard2
    Zhirinovsky is a patriot, a supreme intellectual, an entertainer, raconteur.........just the type of person that Ukraine has needed in it's last 25 years of abject failure and idiocy.

    He has also been correct on the pseudo-country of "Ukraine" throughout his political career, with incredible accuracy

    I think that the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand. Proof? Saakashvili, of course.

    They tried to test him whether he has the high quality genes that they so fondly remembered and admired about Stalin by giving him the governorship of the Odessa region.

    See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

    Of course, the reason why Saakashvili’s test run in Odessa proved unsuccessful was because he wasn’t given the same authorization as Stalin had – which was a license to kill.

    That’s the only way anything can be accomplished in Ukraine, but then again Saakashvili would have had to kill roughly about 99% of them in order to achieve the desired result, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves
     
    Bulgaria's legitimate rulers do not have a drop of local blood. One of them was actually elected PM of the entire country, not merely an appointed governor of one province:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

    Does that mean that the Bulgarian people are aware that they are "too stupid to govern themselves?"

    It never fails. Everything you accuse others of, is far more true of your own people.
    , @Mr. Hack

    the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand... See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.
     
    Really? And I think that you need to have your head examined for making such stupid statements!

    Anatoly, I applaud your recent attempts to keep the tone and content of the comments here to a civilized manner, but I don't see how one can let such blatantly asinine and demeaning statements go? Shouldn't there be some sort of a litmus test for intelligence here too? After all, you're really into that sort of thing, aren't you? :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Unlike World War II (which was a total waste), World War I is more of a mixed big, IMHO. Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides–such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer.

    Also, had your country avoided bringing the U.S. into World War I, you Germans could have really benefited from World War I. Basically, you would have had an Eastern European empire, you would have defeated your biggest enemy (Russia), and you would have had a very large part of the world’s (extremely high IQ) Ashkenazi Jewish population under your rule (specifically in your Eastern European puppet states). Imagine what great things a victorious* Germany in World War I could have achieved with the right leadership!

    *Victorious in the East, with a stalemate and an eventual status quo ante bellum peace in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides–such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer
     
    The creation of the little statelets such as Czechoslovakia was probably a bad idea. They were all too small to be able to defend themselves, and inevitably were conquered and became dominated by Germany and the Bolsheviks. It would have been much better for them to have remained in some federated form with a unified military and military-industrial complex but broad local cultural autonomy so they could collectively deal with larger neighboring powers. Of course, at that time everyone wanted to take Nationalism to its extreme, nobody wanted any kind of federation, so the tragedy was probably unavoidable. Pilsidski came closest to solving the problem with his Intermarium project, had it worked there might have been a viable solution, but he was sabotaged at home by domestic nationalists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Mr. XYZ says:

    : To be honest, I don’t think that a surviving Tsarist Russia could have resisted the democratizing trends in Europe during this time–something which would be especially true without World War I and the radicalism which it brought. Indeed, if Tsarist Russia would have refused to democratize, I don’t expect it to survive to the 21st century. (Of course, I could see something of a revival of authoritarianism after a period of democratization; however, this might require a major event such as a war or an economic depression.)

    I do completely agree with you that a surviving Tsarist Russia–or even a non-Tsarist but also non-Bolshevik Russia–certainly had the potential to be an extremely formidable rival to the Anglo-American world. After all, as you said, it would have had an enormous population (probably the third-largest in the world), enormous natural resources, and an enormous number of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews to draw from (if it actually began to treat them decently, that is).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Mr. XYZ says:

    : While Anatoly voted for the LDPR, I would like to point out that Zhirinovsky would probably be a bad Russian neo-Tsar. After all, he wants Russian soldiers to be able to wash their boots in the Indian Ocean–something which implies a desire to have Russia annex a bunch of heavily Muslim-majority territories so that it can at long last have access to the Indian Ocean. In other words, we’re not only looking at a neo-Russian Central Asia here, but also at a neo-Russian Iran, Afghanistan, and/or Pakistan.

    (Also, Yes, I am aware that Zhirinovsky–or Zhirik, as I like to call him–might simply be engaging in empty bluster. However, a literal reading of this part of his agenda suggests that he wants to extremely heavily Islamize Russia–something that I know that Anatoly detests!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Shooter says:

    Doesn’t fix that 14% literacy rate, though, or the staggering debt or the foreign ownership of banks. Jews selling out Jews to Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Even by the 1897 Census the literacy was at 24% (but 48% amongst teens).

    It was 37% (57% amongst 9-49 y/o's) by the time of the Soviet 1920 Census.

    80% of Russian children had access to primary schooling by the 1910s, projected to reach

    The literacy rate amongst conscripts was 70% by 1904-1913.

    https://sputnikipogrom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/obrinf4.jpg

    With these sorts of numbers, the onset of mass literacy was inevitable, and would have occurred under almost any sort of regime.

    The Russian Empire's plan was for primary schooling to become universal (100%) by 1925.

    In reality, this was only achieved around 1930 (no other than Krupskaya complained at the 15th Congress of the CPSU in 1927 that literacy amongst that year's conscripts was lower than amongst the 1917 conscripts).

    Literally the only thing the Bolsheviks did about literacy was delay it by about 5 years and claim the achievement for their own.

    PS. If you want to find a legitimate thing to criticize about Imperial Russian educational policy, its that it took it so long for it to start implementing mass schooling (at least relative to the advanced West European powers, not to most other countries at its developmental level). But that doesn't apply from the 1890s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: Unlike World War II (which was a total waste), World War I is more of a mixed big, IMHO. Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides--such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer.

    Also, had your country avoided bringing the U.S. into World War I, you Germans could have really benefited from World War I. Basically, you would have had an Eastern European empire, you would have defeated your biggest enemy (Russia), and you would have had a very large part of the world's (extremely high IQ) Ashkenazi Jewish population under your rule (specifically in your Eastern European puppet states). Imagine what great things a victorious* Germany in World War I could have achieved with the right leadership!

    *Victorious in the East, with a stalemate and an eventual status quo ante bellum peace in the West.

    Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides–such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer

    The creation of the little statelets such as Czechoslovakia was probably a bad idea. They were all too small to be able to defend themselves, and inevitably were conquered and became dominated by Germany and the Bolsheviks. It would have been much better for them to have remained in some federated form with a unified military and military-industrial complex but broad local cultural autonomy so they could collectively deal with larger neighboring powers. Of course, at that time everyone wanted to take Nationalism to its extreme, nobody wanted any kind of federation, so the tragedy was probably unavoidable. Pilsidski came closest to solving the problem with his Intermarium project, had it worked there might have been a viable solution, but he was sabotaged at home by domestic nationalists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand. Proof? Saakashvili, of course.

    They tried to test him whether he has the high quality genes that they so fondly remembered and admired about Stalin by giving him the governorship of the Odessa region.

    See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

    Of course, the reason why Saakashvili's test run in Odessa proved unsuccessful was because he wasn’t given the same authorization as Stalin had – which was a license to kill.

    That’s the only way anything can be accomplished in Ukraine, but then again Saakashvili would have had to kill roughly about 99% of them in order to achieve the desired result, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves

    Bulgaria’s legitimate rulers do not have a drop of local blood. One of them was actually elected PM of the entire country, not merely an appointed governor of one province:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

    Does that mean that the Bulgarian people are aware that they are “too stupid to govern themselves?”

    It never fails. Everything you accuse others of, is far more true of your own people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

    Who imports leaders from countries that they not only have nothing in common with, but supposedly they should have bad memories about?

    Wait, I know, it’s the superior Slavic genes that made them do it. I kind of suspect what is the “logic” behind this, but it’s just too much out there.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

    But that logic is retarded, because the Russians kicked Saakashvili’s butt, so the debt was repaid and there are no reasons to hold further grudges against that failed anti-Russian villain. Then again, we are talking Ukrainians here, and no one has ever accused them of being too smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @German_reader

    So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.
     
    Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we're still suffering under the consequences; it's sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

    The lights went out all over Europe in 1914 and they’ve never really been turned back on. Was World War I just a “bad break,” or were there forces in Europe pre-war that made some kind of conflict of that nature and scope more or less inevitable?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Post-Napoleon, British imperial foreign policy was that no single nation would control the European continent and again freeze British trade from that market.

    Moving forward, this meant that Britain would actively engage to play one European power off against another to ensure no one country could dominate the continent. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Germany was ascendant ... so, Britain sided with France and Russia against Germany. Post-WWI, France was ascendant, which accounted for Britain siding with Germany to moderate the Treaty of Versailles and make other concessions to Germany, which facilitated the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The ultimate Anglo-Saxon fear was an alliance between Germany and Russia that would control and Asian landmass (recognizing that Europe is nothing but a promontory of Asia).

    Post-WWII, Britain returned to the pre-WWI policy of acting to "keep the Russians out and the Germans down." (Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down?) In the 1950s, when the political, financial, and military center of the Anglo-Saxon Empire moved from London to Washington (and the US Navy replaced the Royal Navy in controlling the world's sea lanes), Washington continued the British policy of "keeping the Russians out and the Germans down", and, God forbid, an alliance between the two.

    This will not last forever. Although the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that returned sovereignty to a united Germany specified that the Oder-Neisse Line formed the boundary between Germany and Poland, there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

    Indeed, when living in Germany in the 1970s, I asked a friend of mine in the German air force what the line in Poland was on a map in the train station. He said they were the "occupied territories". I ran across an Internet short the other day that related that there are circles in the newly assurgent (nationalist) AfD party in Germany that would like to revisit those boundaries.

    Here we go again!

    , @LondonBob
    Yes, that force was called the Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Actually, the creation of little states has worked pretty well in the post-World War II era. Indeed, the problem after the end of World War I was that Russia was Bolshevik and the U.S. demilitarized and withdrew back into semi-isolation.

    Heck, it is worth noting that, right now, in spite of Europe being full of small states, Europe is actually very peaceful right now (minus a few trouble areas, such as the Donbass).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Mr. XYZ says:

    Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of–and perhaps even the expansion of–both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower (if this superpower is willing to grant them broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)? Similarly, why should Iran be a medium-sized player when it can become a part of a superpower through annexation by a Greater Russia (if they are granted broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Actually, the creation of little states has worked pretty well in the post-World War II era.
     
    That's because the big powers within the union were largely destroyed or seriously weakened, and the whole thing was looked after by a distant USA.

    Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of–and perhaps even the expansion of–both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union
     
    The point of a union of small peoples (as was Austria-Hungary) is that each one is of more or less equal size and incapable of dominating the others. But collectively they present a somewhat powerful united front. Obviously A-H was weaker than Germany or Russia, but not nearly as weak as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. alone were. The Czechs were better off in A-H than in the Reich, or under the Soviet boot because Vienna was not nearly as powerful in comparison, as were Berlin or Moscow.

    After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower
     
    The point isn't to be part of a superpower but local rule. For small nations surrounded by much larger ones, the best way of insuring this is a federation of the small nations, who are collectively more powerful than any of them would be individually. This isn't possible when the population ratios are lopsided.

    Ukraine attached to Russia, three times its population, is terribly outnumbered. Two previous such unions have not worked out, for that reason. OTOH, a close Polish-Ukrainian alliance would be another story. Neither one is large enough to truly dominate the other. Austria-Hungary had been another example.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Mr. XYZ says:

    To clarify, I meant a reformed Soviet Union here (or, *perhaps,* alternatively, a Soviet Union that never ends the NEP).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Seraphim says:

    Russia might have won the war in 1917-18 had not been for the high treason of the ‘bobos and aristos’. They made the ‘revolution’, not the ‘downtrodden masses’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of--and perhaps even the expansion of--both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower (if this superpower is willing to grant them broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)? Similarly, why should Iran be a medium-sized player when it can become a part of a superpower through annexation by a Greater Russia (if they are granted broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)?

    Actually, the creation of little states has worked pretty well in the post-World War II era.

    That’s because the big powers within the union were largely destroyed or seriously weakened, and the whole thing was looked after by a distant USA.

    Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of–and perhaps even the expansion of–both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union

    The point of a union of small peoples (as was Austria-Hungary) is that each one is of more or less equal size and incapable of dominating the others. But collectively they present a somewhat powerful united front. Obviously A-H was weaker than Germany or Russia, but not nearly as weak as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. alone were. The Czechs were better off in A-H than in the Reich, or under the Soviet boot because Vienna was not nearly as powerful in comparison, as were Berlin or Moscow.

    After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower

    The point isn’t to be part of a superpower but local rule. For small nations surrounded by much larger ones, the best way of insuring this is a federation of the small nations, who are collectively more powerful than any of them would be individually. This isn’t possible when the population ratios are lopsided.

    Ukraine attached to Russia, three times its population, is terribly outnumbered. Two previous such unions have not worked out, for that reason. OTOH, a close Polish-Ukrainian alliance would be another story. Neither one is large enough to truly dominate the other. Austria-Hungary had been another example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves
     
    Bulgaria's legitimate rulers do not have a drop of local blood. One of them was actually elected PM of the entire country, not merely an appointed governor of one province:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

    Does that mean that the Bulgarian people are aware that they are "too stupid to govern themselves?"

    It never fails. Everything you accuse others of, is far more true of your own people.

    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

    Who imports leaders from countries that they not only have nothing in common with, but supposedly they should have bad memories about?

    Wait, I know, it’s the superior Slavic genes that made them do it. I kind of suspect what is the “logic” behind this, but it’s just too much out there.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

    But that logic is retarded, because the Russians kicked Saakashvili’s butt, so the debt was repaid and there are no reasons to hold further grudges against that failed anti-Russian villain. Then again, we are talking Ukrainians here, and no one has ever accused them of being too smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.
     
    You project this on all 'Ukrainians', but since Feb 22, 2014 the place has been controlled (internally) and terrorized by brown-shirts. 'They' have nothing to do with it. Besides, 'Ukrainians' as political collective is a myth anyway. Zapadentsi are currently in control, and they got nothing in common, politically, with the population east of Dnieper. It's more divergent/disjointed than Sicily vs Lombardy or Aosta.

    Notice that no -shvilies are appointed in western regions; it would've been impossible. What's happening, in effect, is that the west/center region is occupying and terrorizing the east/south region.

    , @AP

    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.
     
    Because every Georgian is the same, right? Simple Balkan thinking.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.
     
    Saakashvili and Poroshenko studied together at university in Kiev - they were old friends. Saak had a record of reforming Georgia, and these were probably the main reasons why Poroshenko appointed him to head corrupt Odessa. Pissing off the Russians may have been icing on the cake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Cicero says:
    @AP
    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary - Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn't more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn't have to be cruel or morally strict to be "conservative." Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn't mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin's land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism - probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world's largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.

    You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

    I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Isn't rather a disconnect between 'the neighbours' and the Russians?
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't buy too much into this Russia/Latin America thing.

    While they have some similarities, there are also very big differences, such as Russia having no tradition of an activist military, and being much less (genuinely) religious.

    It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany.
     
    The Inglehart-Welzel Culture Map comes to mind, but Orthodox Europe and Latin America aren't close on it.

    http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/53ac32e5eab8eab633c21c28-800-/inglehart_values_map2.svg.png
    , @AP
    In addition to historical parallels involving settling a new frontier, and social ones (traditionally agricultural societies with educated landed gentry and peasants) I've noticed certain social or cultural ones.

    Anecdotes: I have a few friends and colleagues from elite Latin American families. They strike me as being more "Slavic" than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes. Most of them enjoy Russian literature. I notice that at parties they tend to congregate with Russians and Poles. I know a central European count who married the daughter of a diplomat from south of the border. There is something similar in their traditional relations to their "peasants" although due to the racial differences the disconnect is more extreme in Latin America than in Russia. Tolstoy's peasant obsession reminds me of some upper class Mexicans with no Indian descent giving their kids Aztec names. When Karlin posted this, about more upper class Russian students:

    The vast majority of our children enter university having lost their virginity. Who of us doesn’t know that in the senior classes of the gymnasiums there is hardly a boy to be a found who has yet to be acquainted with a maid, or a brothel
     
    I'm reminded of the seemingly common practice in Latin America of fathers getting their high-school sons high-end prostitutes, to make sure the boys will know what they are doing (I know two guys from different Latin American countries who got such gifts, so I assume it's not uncommon).
    :::::::::::::::::

    So, generally speaking, I see a non-Commie Russia as developing like a place such as Argentina or Brazil, only with a significantly higher average IQ (more potential for Russian peasants as the country modernizes, than for Brazilian ones) and much larger industrial base.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Darin says:

    gun rights

    This proves your case even more – association of “gun rights” with conservatism is very novel idea, starting since 1970′s. Traditionally, “RKBA” was cause of left and extreme left. No conservative of 19th century called for “abolition of mercenary armies and universal arming of the people”.

    Looking at the shop, Russian speaking will see that the shop belonged not to private owner, not to state, but to peasant consumer cooperative. Abomination both to pro feudal and pro capitalist conservatives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Seraphim says:
    @Cicero

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.
     
    You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

    I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.

    Isn’t rather a disconnect between ‘the neighbours’ and the Russians?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Cyrano
    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

    Who imports leaders from countries that they not only have nothing in common with, but supposedly they should have bad memories about?

    Wait, I know, it’s the superior Slavic genes that made them do it. I kind of suspect what is the “logic” behind this, but it’s just too much out there.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

    But that logic is retarded, because the Russians kicked Saakashvili’s butt, so the debt was repaid and there are no reasons to hold further grudges against that failed anti-Russian villain. Then again, we are talking Ukrainians here, and no one has ever accused them of being too smart.

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

    You project this on all ‘Ukrainians’, but since Feb 22, 2014 the place has been controlled (internally) and terrorized by brown-shirts. ‘They’ have nothing to do with it. Besides, ‘Ukrainians’ as political collective is a myth anyway. Zapadentsi are currently in control, and they got nothing in common, politically, with the population east of Dnieper. It’s more divergent/disjointed than Sicily vs Lombardy or Aosta.

    Notice that no -shvilies are appointed in western regions; it would’ve been impossible. What’s happening, in effect, is that the west/center region is occupying and terrorizing the east/south region.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Warner 2 says:

    This is what Alexander Solzhenitsyn strongly argued in his “Archipelago Gulag” book – that in its last decades, the Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal, and pathetically inefficient in the suppression of leftist rebels, looking like a helpless befuddled old man. Solzhenitsyn openly said that people like him, who had felt the power of true totalitarian system on their skin, could not but laugh with bitter mockery at the early 20th century Russian liberals who felt they were so, SO oppressed by the Tsar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    It does make you think - many of the Bolshevik leaders seem to have had a pleasant life in "internal exile" -- while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door.

    Talha - I believe the "slave morality" quote is originally from Nietzsche.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Warner 2 says:

    Solzhenitsyn especially made fun of his fellow author Leo Tolstoy, who around 1907 was literally weeping and moaning about the horrible Stolypian “oppression” of Leftist revolutionaries. You could really sense that A.S. had no patience for the kind of pacifist-humanist bullshit that Tolstoy was peddling.

    Tolstoyism might have even been directly connected to “The Camp of the Saints” kind of failure of nerve in the face of chaos:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/russia-putin-revolution-lenin-nicholas-1917/521571/?utm_source=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

    “For those months, Russia’s strong, free civil society tried to take the country’s fate into its own hands, inspired by artists like Wassily Kandinsky, composer Igor Stravinsky, director Constantin Stanislavski, Ballet Russe founder Serge Diaghiliev, and writers and poets like Mikhail Bulgakov and Anna Akhmatova. Indeed, the first democratic prime minister of Russia, Georgy Lvov, was a friend and follower of Leo Tolstoy, and tried to implement a utopian ideal to create a non-violent state. He resigned in July 1917 after the first attempt by the Bolsheviks at a violent coup, saying he could not bring himself to use weapons to put down an uprising.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal

    Jeez, isn’t this a bit a much, considering its happy participation in WWI, with 12 million conscripted and 2 million killed? Which, without a doubt, was the main (by far) immediate cause of both revolutions in 1917.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    Specifically in Russia's case, the liberals were actually the most pro-war ideological grouping, because they sympathized with democratic France/Britain and for obvious reasons didn't share conservatives' fears about the political stability of the Tsarist regime.
    , @Seraphim
    Russia's participation in WWI was anything but 'happy'. It was not Russia which wanted the war. The war was imposed on her, precisely with the aim to rekindle the revolution stifled after the other war imposed on Russia by the Anglo-American Jews through the good offices of the Japanese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @5371
    [For instance, gun rights were very strong in the Russian Empire, unlike in the Soviet Union and its successor the Russian Federation.]

    There were large numbers of privately owned firearms in the USSR.

    [a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”]

    That's Kudrin's gang, and much as I deplore their, and his, continued enjoyment of life and liberty, you could hardly say that their advice tends to get promptly put into practice. They have been advising complete surrender to the USA from the beginning.

    No, not really. The numbers are modest now and can’t have been significantly higher in the USSR.

    In the 1900s you had open carry and unrestricted sales of hunting rifles and pistols (for the latter you had to get permission from the local police constable from 1905, but it was a quick affair).

    Today acquiring even something as basic as a sporting or hunting gun (pistols are banned entirely) requires fulfilling a set of bureaucratic procedures that it’s not worth the bother so far as 90% of the population are concerned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In Hungary it's probably similar (but with less opportunities to hunt than in sparsely populated Russia), but actually the bureaucratic procedure is not difficult in the sense that once you are willing to go through the motions, you'll get the licence (at least for a sports pistol or rifle) fairly easily. I know a guy who has a sports pistol and he told me the only basic requirement is a certain shooting proficiency, once you reach the required level, you'll be able to buy your own gun fairly easily. For hunters it's perhaps even easier. I think it's mostly a question of people not really needing or wanting guns, basically a lack of gun culture.

    Orbán is now planning on creating a gun culture, with shooting incorporated (at least facultatively) into high school curricula, we'll see how far that'll go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. What would Russian culture have been like without the Communist occupation?

    Probably a great deal more liberal, actually.

    But who cares about ‘liberal culture’? All these anti-communist analyses typically way overemphasize aspects of ‘high culture’, ‘freedom of speech’, and other such nonsense – while completely ignoring interests of the ordinary people. And that just makes them sound like whining with no substance or value whatsoever…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Mr. Hack
    Hopefully, Karlin can provide us with some better candidates?...

    There are no obvious candidates from the House of Romanov or elsewhere.

    In any case I am not a big fan of absolute monarchy (anything else is pointless; only hardcore, or go home).

    I suppose if it was up to me and I was tasked with restoring monarchy to Russia, I would replace the office of the President with a namestnik (regent), and start searching for a worthy monarch in a process that may well take many years or even decades. After all, Gondor’s interregnum lasted a millennium, so what’s a century or two?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don't really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn't hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country's leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @AP
    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary - Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn't more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn't have to be cruel or morally strict to be "conservative." Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn't mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin's land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism - probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world's largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church

    False. The Russian Church was re-instated only after the February Revolution. In Tsarist times the Church was subjugated to the state and was run by atheist functionaries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    We must pay more attention to the use of words. That would spare us nonsensical utterances like: the Russian Church was 'reinstated'. That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the 'bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it', an 'atheist' is to stretch credibility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @AP
    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary - Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

    In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn't more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn't have to be cruel or morally strict to be "conservative." Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

    One thing you didn't mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin's land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

    As for Russia without Bolshevism - probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world's largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

    … and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn’t have to be cruel or morally strict to be “conservative.”

    I suppose this should be clarified sooner or later.

    When I speak of “conservatism”, I speak mostly of… social conservatism. The America of the 1950s. Yes, as Glossy used to argue all the time, Stalinism (though unlike him I don’t view that as a Good Thing). Yes, it includes ISIS. Though the lattermost should sooner be called something like “radical conservatism.”

    The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO – traditionalism.

    (Of course a further complication is that there’s also a third meaning to conservatism – the entire American conservative memeplex, sometimes disparagingly called “boomer conservatism”, characterized by sexual hystronics, conspicuous religiosity, ‘Murica patriotism, Israel Firstism, the worship of the flag, denial of global warming, and of course moar tax cuts for the 1%).

    … the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin’s land reforms

    Certainly a very important point as well in cultural terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO – traditionalism.
     
    Perhaps. However, "conservatism" without the modifier is defined by Oxford as "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation." The language is clear, even though some radicals (from neocon Big State warmongers to religious fanatics and would-be theocrats) claim to be conservative and their enemies describe them as such.

    These various Puritan movements (from Cromwell to ISIS), as well as fascists and Nazis are often violently opposed to traditionalism (the Nazi song by Horst Wessel includes the lines: "Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries/March in spirit within our ranks"). They radically alter society, often making it almost unrecognizable. It is the opposite of traditional. They do change society in different ways from what radical leftists do, with their gay parades, atheism, and such, but change it they do.

    So humane and tolerant Russia under the Tsars, Austria-Hungary under the Habsburgs, were conservative in the real meaning of the word. Franco and Horthy were probably authoritarian conservatives; Hitler and Mussolini were not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Anatoly Karlin
    No, not really. The numbers are modest now and can't have been significantly higher in the USSR.

    http://i.imgur.com/QKdLjU2.jpg

    In the 1900s you had open carry and unrestricted sales of hunting rifles and pistols (for the latter you had to get permission from the local police constable from 1905, but it was a quick affair).

    Today acquiring even something as basic as a sporting or hunting gun (pistols are banned entirely) requires fulfilling a set of bureaucratic procedures that it's not worth the bother so far as 90% of the population are concerned.

    In Hungary it’s probably similar (but with less opportunities to hunt than in sparsely populated Russia), but actually the bureaucratic procedure is not difficult in the sense that once you are willing to go through the motions, you’ll get the licence (at least for a sports pistol or rifle) fairly easily. I know a guy who has a sports pistol and he told me the only basic requirement is a certain shooting proficiency, once you reach the required level, you’ll be able to buy your own gun fairly easily. For hunters it’s perhaps even easier. I think it’s mostly a question of people not really needing or wanting guns, basically a lack of gun culture.

    Orbán is now planning on creating a gun culture, with shooting incorporated (at least facultatively) into high school curricula, we’ll see how far that’ll go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Shooter
    Doesn't fix that 14% literacy rate, though, or the staggering debt or the foreign ownership of banks. Jews selling out Jews to Jews.

    Even by the 1897 Census the literacy was at 24% (but 48% amongst teens).

    It was 37% (57% amongst 9-49 y/o’s) by the time of the Soviet 1920 Census.

    80% of Russian children had access to primary schooling by the 1910s, projected to reach

    The literacy rate amongst conscripts was 70% by 1904-1913.

    With these sorts of numbers, the onset of mass literacy was inevitable, and would have occurred under almost any sort of regime.

    The Russian Empire’s plan was for primary schooling to become universal (100%) by 1925.

    In reality, this was only achieved around 1930 (no other than Krupskaya complained at the 15th Congress of the CPSU in 1927 that literacy amongst that year’s conscripts was lower than amongst the 1917 conscripts).

    Literally the only thing the Bolsheviks did about literacy was delay it by about 5 years and claim the achievement for their own.

    PS. If you want to find a legitimate thing to criticize about Imperial Russian educational policy, its that it took it so long for it to start implementing mass schooling (at least relative to the advanced West European powers, not to most other countries at its developmental level). But that doesn’t apply from the 1890s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    With these sorts of numbers, the onset of mass literacy was inevitable, and would have occurred under almost any sort of regime.
     
    Not inevitable in a time where Industrialisation had barely started in Russia,Anatoly. Centres of education and intellectualism stem from centres of Industry.....many of the modern Russian/ex Soviet towns & cities had not formed until the creation of the Soviet Union.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Cicero

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.
     
    You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

    I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.

    I don’t buy too much into this Russia/Latin America thing.

    While they have some similarities, there are also very big differences, such as Russia having no tradition of an activist military, and being much less (genuinely) religious.

    It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany.

    The Inglehart-Welzel Culture Map comes to mind, but Orthodox Europe and Latin America aren’t close on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal
     
    Jeez, isn't this a bit a much, considering its happy participation in WWI, with 12 million conscripted and 2 million killed? Which, without a doubt, was the main (by far) immediate cause of both revolutions in 1917.

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    Specifically in Russia’s case, the liberals were actually the most pro-war ideological grouping, because they sympathized with democratic France/Britain and for obvious reasons didn’t share conservatives’ fears about the political stability of the Tsarist regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany
     
    They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would've accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must've been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must've known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that "war on terror", just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should've known better that it wouldn't survive a war, at least not one which it didn't win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn't like the previous annexation of Bosnia either - they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would've been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could've prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?
     
    Yeh-yeh-yeh. I'm not an aficionado of irrelevant historical factoids, which is why I said "happy participation". Surely they could avoid full-scale fighting and keep their ancient regime for a few more years. Which, perhaps, also applicable (if to a much lesser extent) to the Soviets brotherly helping the Afghan people in the 1980s.

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?
     
    It's not. Which explains the second, October revolution (or coup, if you prefer).

    The point is, the word 'liberal' here seems to be used as synonym of 'soft', 'nonbelligerent', 'conciliatory'. Active/aggressive participation in WWI doesn't fit this image.
    , @German_reader

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany,
     
    Its general mobilization was a crucial step in the escalation of the crisis though, imo the point when a general European war - instead of a localized Austro-Serbian war - became almost inevitable (though I suppose relitigating this now is rather pointless).
    Were Russian liberals really the most pro-war faction? I would have thought pan-Slavist right-wingers would have been more enthusiastic about going to war for Serbia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    There are no obvious candidates from the House of Romanov or elsewhere.

    In any case I am not a big fan of absolute monarchy (anything else is pointless; only hardcore, or go home).

    I suppose if it was up to me and I was tasked with restoring monarchy to Russia, I would replace the office of the President with a namestnik (regent), and start searching for a worthy monarch in a process that may well take many years or even decades. After all, Gondor's interregnum lasted a millennium, so what's a century or two?

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don’t really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn’t hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country’s leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.
     
    Does it? Obviously monarchies (real ones) have not survived, so probably they were not meant to. This does not mean they weren't viable. They survived for centuries and while they existed people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives. We'll see how long post-monarchial democracies survive - I suspect, not as long.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance
     
    And all of existence seems to testify against living as a form of existence, after all, everything that has lived has also died. That something has weaknesses does not mean that it is necessarily a poor form of governance - and it doesn't mean that it can't be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    As I said I am not actually a fan of monarchy:

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.
     
    (Constitutional monarchy is just uninteresting window dressing).

    They do seem to have been consistently lost at the political evolutionary arms race since the coming of industrialism.

    I can even speculate why: Yes, intelligence.

    The top leaders of democracies average around 2 S.D. higher in IQ than the population average. The same appears to have been true of Nazi Germany and Communist regimes.

    While monarchs come from better than average stock, you only have a limited range of potential candidates to choose from (usually it has to be the firstborn son), so I suspect the average monarch is only 1 S.D. above his population mean.

    Since IQ is a very good proxy for competency, and since competency has greater multiplicative effects in a national leader than for probably any other position, monarchy has become unviable in a technologically dynamic world. (Maybe this will change if technological progress grinds to a halt).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    Specifically in Russia's case, the liberals were actually the most pro-war ideological grouping, because they sympathized with democratic France/Britain and for obvious reasons didn't share conservatives' fears about the political stability of the Tsarist regime.

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany

    They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would’ve accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must’ve been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must’ve known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”, just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should’ve known better that it wouldn’t survive a war, at least not one which it didn’t win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn’t like the previous annexation of Bosnia either – they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would’ve been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could’ve prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum
     
    In hindsight that's obviously true...but which great power could let a small "rogue state" like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that? In a way the real issue was about Austria-Hungary's great power status and the fact that Britain, France and Russia expected Austria-Hungary just to accept being humiliated like that, because they didn't really regard Austria-Hungary as an equal anymore.
    And given that Austria-Hungary was Germany's only reliable ally and German elites increasingly felt encircled by an hostile coalition (not without reason, though they themselves of course had contributed to bringing about that situation) the German reaction wasn't irrational, they just felt they couldn't let Austria-Hungary's status be eroded like that. Given how it all turned out, it was still highly irresponsible policy, but there was a certain logic behind it that's not easy to refute imo.
    , @Seraphim
    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity. War against Russia was desired by Germany, by the Zionists, by the SDAP.
    It was decided at the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912. Its immediate concerns were the successes of the Balkan League against the darling of the Germans, the Ottoman Empire, and the alarm of Austro-Hungary at the rise of Serbia. Kaiser Wilhelm urged that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia the following month, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too" adding that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway. The Army Chief of Staff, the General von Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". He wanted to launch an immediate attack, but the Admiral Tirpitz said that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly. But it was clearly established that, if there was going to be a war, the German Army wanted it to commence before the new Russian armaments program began to bear fruit.
    Well, yes, to catch Russia unprepared! The accusation that Russia engaged unprepared in such adventure because of the ineptitude of the Tsar and that led to the revolution is sheer idiocy.
    There can be little doubt that the Russians were not only aware, but informed in detail of the Austro-German intentions (the case of Colonel Alfred Redl -1913). They could not have been unaware of the push of the Germans to capture the oil fields of the Caspian in cahoots with the Ottomans.
    Not to take precautions would have been criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.
    , @melanf

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”,
     
    Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately used the Sarajevo incident to start the war (this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated). Serbia rejected not the whole the ultimatum,of Austria, but only one point of ultimatum - this Franz Joseph and Wilhelm happily used. This people (and their entourage), started WWI
    , @LondonBob
    Oh how I loathe WWI revisionism. Germany declared war on Russia for which Russian mobilisation was the excuse. Germany backed Austria-Hungary's ultimatum against Serbia and provided reassurance that they would deal with Russia, attacked neutral Belgium and declared war on France. Indeed Serbia's near acceptance of the ultimatum was lamented by the Germans as it removed a justification to start the war. That empire in Eastern Europe was a continual desire for the Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward

    Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church
     
    False. The Russian Church was re-instated only after the February Revolution. In Tsarist times the Church was subjugated to the state and was run by atheist functionaries.

    We must pay more attention to the use of words. That would spare us nonsensical utterances like: the Russian Church was ‘reinstated’. That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
     
    And indeed it was abolished. There was no organization fit to be called a 'Church' in Russia in Tsarist times. (Of course there were believers who were part of the transcendental community of Christians, but there was no Church. Similar to how there's no Church today in Brazil or China.)

    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.
     
    First, don't cherry-pick, the majority of Chief Procurators were, indeed, atheist.

    Second, to call Pobedonostsev "ultra-orthodox" is incorrect. He was a conservative and a moralizer, yes, but his orthodoxy was paper-thin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    Specifically in Russia's case, the liberals were actually the most pro-war ideological grouping, because they sympathized with democratic France/Britain and for obvious reasons didn't share conservatives' fears about the political stability of the Tsarist regime.

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    Yeh-yeh-yeh. I’m not an aficionado of irrelevant historical factoids, which is why I said “happy participation”. Surely they could avoid full-scale fighting and keep their ancient regime for a few more years. Which, perhaps, also applicable (if to a much lesser extent) to the Soviets brotherly helping the Afghan people in the 1980s.

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    It’s not. Which explains the second, October revolution (or coup, if you prefer).

    The point is, the word ‘liberal’ here seems to be used as synonym of ‘soft’, ‘nonbelligerent’, ‘conciliatory’. Active/aggressive participation in WWI doesn’t fit this image.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Seraphim says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal
     
    Jeez, isn't this a bit a much, considering its happy participation in WWI, with 12 million conscripted and 2 million killed? Which, without a doubt, was the main (by far) immediate cause of both revolutions in 1917.

    Russia’s participation in WWI was anything but ‘happy’. It was not Russia which wanted the war. The war was imposed on her, precisely with the aim to rekindle the revolution stifled after the other war imposed on Russia by the Anglo-American Jews through the good offices of the Japanese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

    And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

    Specifically in Russia's case, the liberals were actually the most pro-war ideological grouping, because they sympathized with democratic France/Britain and for obvious reasons didn't share conservatives' fears about the political stability of the Tsarist regime.

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany,

    Its general mobilization was a crucial step in the escalation of the crisis though, imo the point when a general European war – instead of a localized Austro-Serbian war – became almost inevitable (though I suppose relitigating this now is rather pointless).
    Were Russian liberals really the most pro-war faction? I would have thought pan-Slavist right-wingers would have been more enthusiastic about going to war for Serbia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Utter garbage, what did Germany have to do with Serbia, a dispute between Russia and Austria-Hungary which the Austrians initiated and drove.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Mr. Hack says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand. Proof? Saakashvili, of course.

    They tried to test him whether he has the high quality genes that they so fondly remembered and admired about Stalin by giving him the governorship of the Odessa region.

    See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

    Of course, the reason why Saakashvili's test run in Odessa proved unsuccessful was because he wasn’t given the same authorization as Stalin had – which was a license to kill.

    That’s the only way anything can be accomplished in Ukraine, but then again Saakashvili would have had to kill roughly about 99% of them in order to achieve the desired result, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand… See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

    Really? And I think that you need to have your head examined for making such stupid statements!

    Anatoly, I applaud your recent attempts to keep the tone and content of the comments here to a civilized manner, but I don’t see how one can let such blatantly asinine and demeaning statements go? Shouldn’t there be some sort of a litmus test for intelligence here too? After all, you’re really into that sort of thing, aren’t you? :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @reiner Tor

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany
     
    They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would've accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must've been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must've known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that "war on terror", just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should've known better that it wouldn't survive a war, at least not one which it didn't win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn't like the previous annexation of Bosnia either - they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would've been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could've prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum

    In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that? In a way the real issue was about Austria-Hungary’s great power status and the fact that Britain, France and Russia expected Austria-Hungary just to accept being humiliated like that, because they didn’t really regard Austria-Hungary as an equal anymore.
    And given that Austria-Hungary was Germany’s only reliable ally and German elites increasingly felt encircled by an hostile coalition (not without reason, though they themselves of course had contributed to bringing about that situation) the German reaction wasn’t irrational, they just felt they couldn’t let Austria-Hungary’s status be eroded like that. Given how it all turned out, it was still highly irresponsible policy, but there was a certain logic behind it that’s not easy to refute imo.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @AP

    In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that?
     
    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story). Russia was morally wrong to support Serbia, and moreover stupid to do so, given that every year its power was increasing. It would be like China choosing to go to war against major powers now (or rather, 5 years ago), rather than wait 20 years.

    The tragedy was of course universal. The consequences were incredibly cruel but seemed to hit the guilty ones the worst. Regicidal Serbia saw 1/3 of its population slaughtered. The Tsars who supported the regicidal regime was himself murdered, along with his family. The Russian people who overthrew their legitimate king were themselves murdered by the millions. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns who were not ultimately the most guilty ones but who went along with the war against the other real monarch lost their thrones, but were relatively speaking okay, as were their peoples. The conservative/reactionary historian John Lukacs who sees a divine hand in 20th century events may be on to something, though so many innocents perished alongside the guilty.
    , @reiner Tor
    Perhaps, but I think the Austrians at first weren't sure what to do, or how strong the ultimatum had to be. After German assurances that in case of war with Russia they'd help them out and that war was inevitable anyway and preferable at that point in time than later, they opted for the strongest possible demand list. I can understand why they did what they did, but I think it's wrong to think that they had no other choice or that all criticism is just hindsight - even at that time they weren't entirely sure.
    , @LondonBob
    So every time a country feels disrespected they should go to war? Serbia was attacked, not the other way round.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. polskijoe says:

    In response to the above comments:

    Obviously WW1 and WW2 was tragic lose of lives. Europe stopped being the power center.
    and US took over. But I am happy that countries like Poland, Czechslovakia, Yugoslavia came to being. (they got some freedom, but also had faults).

    US/UK/Germany were messing with Russia, since the Japanese war right?
    Schiff gave money to both Japan and later Bolsheviks afaik, with the same purpose in mind.

    As for monarchy, maybe some type of mix between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    No, Britain was allied with Russia, look up how Lord Kitchener died. The US had friendly relations with the Russia however Taft was forced by the newly emerging Jewish lobby to rescind the friendship treaty.

    http://holywar.org/txt/Ford/38.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany
     
    They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would've accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must've been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must've known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that "war on terror", just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should've known better that it wouldn't survive a war, at least not one which it didn't win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn't like the previous annexation of Bosnia either - they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would've been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could've prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity. War against Russia was desired by Germany, by the Zionists, by the SDAP.
    It was decided at the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912. Its immediate concerns were the successes of the Balkan League against the darling of the Germans, the Ottoman Empire, and the alarm of Austro-Hungary at the rise of Serbia. Kaiser Wilhelm urged that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia the following month, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too” adding that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway. The Army Chief of Staff, the General von Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion “a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better”. He wanted to launch an immediate attack, but the Admiral Tirpitz said that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded “only reluctantly. But it was clearly established that, if there was going to be a war, the German Army wanted it to commence before the new Russian armaments program began to bear fruit.
    Well, yes, to catch Russia unprepared! The accusation that Russia engaged unprepared in such adventure because of the ineptitude of the Tsar and that led to the revolution is sheer idiocy.
    There can be little doubt that the Russians were not only aware, but informed in detail of the Austro-German intentions (the case of Colonel Alfred Redl -1913). They could not have been unaware of the push of the Germans to capture the oil fields of the Caspian in cahoots with the Ottomans.
    Not to take precautions would have been criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity.
     
    That's projection. In fact, I stated in no uncertain terms that I considered both of these powers stupid, especially Austria-Hungary. You, on the other hand, are only willing to talk about Austrian-Hungarian and German culpability and seem to totally exonerate Russia, when in fact Russia could have simply opted out of the whole affair by not backing Serbia and not assuring the Serbs that Russia would go to war for them and then not mobilizing. By the way, mobilization was considered more important than a formal declaration of war, since with telegraph etc. the latter could be done in an hour, whereas the former required weeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    ... and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn’t have to be cruel or morally strict to be “conservative.”
     
    I suppose this should be clarified sooner or later.

    When I speak of "conservatism", I speak mostly of... social conservatism. The America of the 1950s. Yes, as Glossy used to argue all the time, Stalinism (though unlike him I don't view that as a Good Thing). Yes, it includes ISIS. Though the lattermost should sooner be called something like "radical conservatism."

    The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO - traditionalism.

    (Of course a further complication is that there's also a third meaning to conservatism - the entire American conservative memeplex, sometimes disparagingly called "boomer conservatism", characterized by sexual hystronics, conspicuous religiosity, 'Murica patriotism, Israel Firstism, the worship of the flag, denial of global warming, and of course moar tax cuts for the 1%).

    ... the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin’s land reforms
     
    Certainly a very important point as well in cultural terms.

    The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO – traditionalism.

    Perhaps. However, “conservatism” without the modifier is defined by Oxford as “commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.” The language is clear, even though some radicals (from neocon Big State warmongers to religious fanatics and would-be theocrats) claim to be conservative and their enemies describe them as such.

    These various Puritan movements (from Cromwell to ISIS), as well as fascists and Nazis are often violently opposed to traditionalism (the Nazi song by Horst Wessel includes the lines: “Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries/March in spirit within our ranks”). They radically alter society, often making it almost unrecognizable. It is the opposite of traditional. They do change society in different ways from what radical leftists do, with their gay parades, atheism, and such, but change it they do.

    So humane and tolerant Russia under the Tsars, Austria-Hungary under the Habsburgs, were conservative in the real meaning of the word. Franco and Horthy were probably authoritarian conservatives; Hitler and Mussolini were not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    If you know anything about that period of history or the man himself you would know Cromwell was deeply conservative, as was reflected in his rule and decisions he made.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. AP says:
    @German_reader

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum
     
    In hindsight that's obviously true...but which great power could let a small "rogue state" like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that? In a way the real issue was about Austria-Hungary's great power status and the fact that Britain, France and Russia expected Austria-Hungary just to accept being humiliated like that, because they didn't really regard Austria-Hungary as an equal anymore.
    And given that Austria-Hungary was Germany's only reliable ally and German elites increasingly felt encircled by an hostile coalition (not without reason, though they themselves of course had contributed to bringing about that situation) the German reaction wasn't irrational, they just felt they couldn't let Austria-Hungary's status be eroded like that. Given how it all turned out, it was still highly irresponsible policy, but there was a certain logic behind it that's not easy to refute imo.

    In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that?

    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story). Russia was morally wrong to support Serbia, and moreover stupid to do so, given that every year its power was increasing. It would be like China choosing to go to war against major powers now (or rather, 5 years ago), rather than wait 20 years.

    The tragedy was of course universal. The consequences were incredibly cruel but seemed to hit the guilty ones the worst. Regicidal Serbia saw 1/3 of its population slaughtered. The Tsars who supported the regicidal regime was himself murdered, along with his family. The Russian people who overthrew their legitimate king were themselves murdered by the millions. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns who were not ultimately the most guilty ones but who went along with the war against the other real monarch lost their thrones, but were relatively speaking okay, as were their peoples. The conservative/reactionary historian John Lukacs who sees a divine hand in 20th century events may be on to something, though so many innocents perished alongside the guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story)
     
    Except Serbia acceded to the reasonable demands that would have allowed prosecution of the criminals. The demands were deliberately unreasonable to give an excuse for invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don't really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn't hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country's leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.

    Does it? Obviously monarchies (real ones) have not survived, so probably they were not meant to. This does not mean they weren’t viable. They survived for centuries and while they existed people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives. We’ll see how long post-monarchial democracies survive – I suspect, not as long.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives.
     
    Did they? Wasn't it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes? It reminded me a bit of a similar debate over which political system in Europe caused fewer deaths to its own and neighboring countries, Russian Communist or German Nazi. Although a tyrant himself, wasn't a whole boatload of great European art created during and after the anti-monarchical sentiment unleashed during Bonaparte's 'liberating' reign of terror? For all of its shortcomings, I'd suspect that you're a great fan of the Soviet school of realism?...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. AP says:
    @Cicero

    Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.
     
    You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

    I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.

    In addition to historical parallels involving settling a new frontier, and social ones (traditionally agricultural societies with educated landed gentry and peasants) I’ve noticed certain social or cultural ones.

    Anecdotes: I have a few friends and colleagues from elite Latin American families. They strike me as being more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes. Most of them enjoy Russian literature. I notice that at parties they tend to congregate with Russians and Poles. I know a central European count who married the daughter of a diplomat from south of the border. There is something similar in their traditional relations to their “peasants” although due to the racial differences the disconnect is more extreme in Latin America than in Russia. Tolstoy’s peasant obsession reminds me of some upper class Mexicans with no Indian descent giving their kids Aztec names. When Karlin posted this, about more upper class Russian students:

    The vast majority of our children enter university having lost their virginity. Who of us doesn’t know that in the senior classes of the gymnasiums there is hardly a boy to be a found who has yet to be acquainted with a maid, or a brothel

    I’m reminded of the seemingly common practice in Latin America of fathers getting their high-school sons high-end prostitutes, to make sure the boys will know what they are doing (I know two guys from different Latin American countries who got such gifts, so I assume it’s not uncommon).
    :::::::::::::::::

    So, generally speaking, I see a non-Commie Russia as developing like a place such as Argentina or Brazil, only with a significantly higher average IQ (more potential for Russian peasants as the country modernizes, than for Brazilian ones) and much larger industrial base.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Latin-Americans "more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes"

    That may come as a surprise only for the Anglos. Their demeanor and attitudes are the exception here.
    Both Latin-American and 'Slavic' societies were traditional societies sharing the values, the demeanor and attitudes of the 'Old World' fashioned by the Christian 'Weltanschauung' and perpetuated by the Church. They are not so obsessed with their 'whiteness' and superior IQ as the WASPs. They are less materialistic, individualistic and self-centered and appreciate more spiritual things and warm human relations than the worshippers of the Golden Calf and 'manifest destinies'.
    Latin America is more of an 'Old World' located in the 'New World' . Like it or not, Latin America is by and large a creation of the Catholic Church and of the Spanish Golden Age (one of the peak moments of European culture) in a syncretic process with the native cultures ('La Nuestra Signora de Guadalupe', whose image is the lovingly worshipped protectrice of Mexico, was the banner of the supposedly hated conquistadores!).
    Anyhow the 'New World' here has to be taken in geographical terms only. The real 'New World' in civilizational terms is just the spread over the American continent of the essentially 'non-European' (and actually 'anti-European') simple-minded mental disease of the Judeo-Anglo-Dutch-German-Protestant 'culture', in its obstinate attempt to replace the Spanish (and destroy their cultural paradigm) in their settlements in America and beyond (in the Pacific, that's it).
    Russia was an 'Old World' operating in the traditional framework of the 'Old World' (of the Silk Roads, if you want). Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the 'conquest of the Canaan' which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America. It doesn't fit the Marxo-Lenino-Trotskoid memes of 'colonialism', 'imperialism' either. Of course, Russians fought the twin scourges of Judaism and Islam, did convert many retarded tribes to Orthodoxy, integrating them into a higher form of civilization (that of the Roman-Christian Empire). Her expansion is not a 'New World frontier' type phenomenon. Hence the futile ramblings about the belonging of Russia to 'Europe' or to 'Eurasia'. This cannot be a basis for a value judgement of Russia. Russia has 'an elbow in Europe and the other in Asia' by her sheer geographical position (as the famous Westernizing 'madman' Chaadaev was forced to admit). What we are facing today is the reassertion of the traditional order of things, which cannot but raise the frantic alarm among the 'new worlders' that their time of unbridled piracy - called euphemistically 'free trade', 'free market', 'open seas', 'open societies', 'open sphincters' -, comes to an inglorious end.
    Just as an aside, since we touched the subject of Argentina, we may meditate on 'Borges becoming, in a way, an agent of distribution of Russian culture among Spanish-speaking reading public'.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. DFH says:
    @AP

    In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that?
     
    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story). Russia was morally wrong to support Serbia, and moreover stupid to do so, given that every year its power was increasing. It would be like China choosing to go to war against major powers now (or rather, 5 years ago), rather than wait 20 years.

    The tragedy was of course universal. The consequences were incredibly cruel but seemed to hit the guilty ones the worst. Regicidal Serbia saw 1/3 of its population slaughtered. The Tsars who supported the regicidal regime was himself murdered, along with his family. The Russian people who overthrew their legitimate king were themselves murdered by the millions. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns who were not ultimately the most guilty ones but who went along with the war against the other real monarch lost their thrones, but were relatively speaking okay, as were their peoples. The conservative/reactionary historian John Lukacs who sees a divine hand in 20th century events may be on to something, though so many innocents perished alongside the guilty.

    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story)

    Except Serbia acceded to the reasonable demands that would have allowed prosecution of the criminals. The demands were deliberately unreasonable to give an excuse for invasion.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @AP
    Austria-Hungary demanded that Austrian investigators be sent into Serbia to root out the terrorists. Serbia said this violated their sovereignty (so elements of the Serbian state sent terrorists to commit regicide in Austria, but Austria couldn't send its team into Serbia).

    It was similar to the ultimatum given by the USA to the Taliban in response to the 9-11 terror attack, and equally justified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

    They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

    Who imports leaders from countries that they not only have nothing in common with, but supposedly they should have bad memories about?

    Wait, I know, it’s the superior Slavic genes that made them do it. I kind of suspect what is the “logic” behind this, but it’s just too much out there.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

    But that logic is retarded, because the Russians kicked Saakashvili’s butt, so the debt was repaid and there are no reasons to hold further grudges against that failed anti-Russian villain. Then again, we are talking Ukrainians here, and no one has ever accused them of being too smart.

    You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

    Because every Georgian is the same, right? Simple Balkan thinking.

    They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

    Saakashvili and Poroshenko studied together at university in Kiev – they were old friends. Saak had a record of reforming Georgia, and these were probably the main reasons why Poroshenko appointed him to head corrupt Odessa. Pissing off the Russians may have been icing on the cake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. AP says:
    @DFH

    There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story)
     
    Except Serbia acceded to the reasonable demands that would have allowed prosecution of the criminals. The demands were deliberately unreasonable to give an excuse for invasion.

    Austria-Hungary demanded that Austrian investigators be sent into Serbia to root out the terrorists. Serbia said this violated their sovereignty (so elements of the Serbian state sent terrorists to commit regicide in Austria, but Austria couldn’t send its team into Serbia).

    It was similar to the ultimatum given by the USA to the Taliban in response to the 9-11 terror attack, and equally justified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The parallel is there but not how you see it, war was sought and an excuse was made.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Mr. Hack
    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don't really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn't hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country's leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance

    And all of existence seems to testify against living as a form of existence, after all, everything that has lived has also died. That something has weaknesses does not mean that it is necessarily a poor form of governance – and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.
     
    Quit talking in Orwellian doublespeak and tell us more about the wonders of a dystopian future guided by the omniscient and guiding Big Brother. It's already been described in detail in Orwell's '1984'. Thank god that more than 30 years have passed, and we're still not quite there yet! Do we really need 'thoughtpolice' (the checka) to guide us in the future?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.
     
    Does it? Obviously monarchies (real ones) have not survived, so probably they were not meant to. This does not mean they weren't viable. They survived for centuries and while they existed people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives. We'll see how long post-monarchial democracies survive - I suspect, not as long.

    people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives.

    Did they? Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes? It reminded me a bit of a similar debate over which political system in Europe caused fewer deaths to its own and neighboring countries, Russian Communist or German Nazi. Although a tyrant himself, wasn’t a whole boatload of great European art created during and after the anti-monarchical sentiment unleashed during Bonaparte’s ‘liberating’ reign of terror? For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes?
     
    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy? There had been no serfdom for a couple generations when the Russian monarchy fell.

    For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism
     
    The golden and silver ages of Russian literature/culture were during the monarchy.

    The Bolsheviks murdered Russia and created a grotesque Frankenstein's monster out of the corpse. Of course this creature included some features of the beautiful thing that was destroyed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mr. Hack says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance
     
    And all of existence seems to testify against living as a form of existence, after all, everything that has lived has also died. That something has weaknesses does not mean that it is necessarily a poor form of governance - and it doesn't mean that it can't be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.

    and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.

    Quit talking in Orwellian doublespeak and tell us more about the wonders of a dystopian future guided by the omniscient and guiding Big Brother. It’s already been described in detail in Orwell’s ’1984′. Thank god that more than 30 years have passed, and we’re still not quite there yet! Do we really need ‘thoughtpolice’ (the checka) to guide us in the future?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    And are you happy with the fruit of cumulative mass ignorance? You like the ride that we're going on, with a dystopia future guided by the omniscience and frantic cult of victimhood, that exchanges a single tyrant for a mob of mini-tyrants? Is a hereditary king worse than the self-appointed master that is Google and Facebook?

    I'm not convinced. In a world of terrible choices, I'll rather go with a slightly less terrible one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives.
     
    Did they? Wasn't it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes? It reminded me a bit of a similar debate over which political system in Europe caused fewer deaths to its own and neighboring countries, Russian Communist or German Nazi. Although a tyrant himself, wasn't a whole boatload of great European art created during and after the anti-monarchical sentiment unleashed during Bonaparte's 'liberating' reign of terror? For all of its shortcomings, I'd suspect that you're a great fan of the Soviet school of realism?...

    Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes?

    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy? There had been no serfdom for a couple generations when the Russian monarchy fell.

    For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism

    The golden and silver ages of Russian literature/culture were during the monarchy.

    The Bolsheviks murdered Russia and created a grotesque Frankenstein’s monster out of the corpse. Of course this creature included some features of the beautiful thing that was destroyed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy?
     
    Helots (basically a colonial population) were in Sparta...which was a very peculiar society even by ancient Greek standards.
    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city. Modern criticism of it as "undemocratic" because it excluded women, foreigners and slaves from political life seems rather misguided imo.
    Anyway, I don't see how monarchy could come back in this day and age.
    , @gerad
    AK:
    1. I explicitly said no more khokhlosrach on this thread.
    2. I also said no more gratuitous ad homs.
    3. Stop evading your premoderation, Gerard2. I will lift your premoderation once you start posting civilly. If, however, you continue evading it while continuing the behavior that led to this sanction in the first place, I will consider upgrading the premoderation to a full ban.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Hupa says:

    without the Communist occupation?

    You have a bad impression of your own country. What about Herzen, Bakunin or Radishchev? Would they be considered “occupants”? Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly), even Solzhenistyn blamed the Russians for communism

    So what would a Russian Empire be like without communism? It would be like contemporary Western states, because “liberalism is communism in slow motion”. Liberalism and communism are the same thing, only they progress with different pace, but both towards unification of people and egalitarianism

    The reason why bolshevism won in Russia is because since Peter the Great, the elites quickly rejected Orthodoxy and didn’t take it seriously (given it justified the injustices of the government in Russia), thus they have rejected traditional forms, decided to copy the West and engage in self-hatred

    Over time, the same thing happened more or less to lower classes. Russia became a formless blob that wasn’t strongly enough bound together by its tradition, and so a small, ruthless elite aware of what they want to achieve, decided to give Russia a new form and the russian lumpenproletariat indifferent enough to anything, decided to serve them. The resistance was too weak, because over time the bonds of tradition faded and people became indifferent, divided and disoriented, except the bolsheviks

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly)
     
    Funny then that the Communist revolution involved very few actual Russians

    The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Ouritski Jew
    Volodarski Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Krylenko Russian
    Lounatcharski Russian



    “The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

    MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
    President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
    Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
    Agriculture Protian Armenian
    Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Food Schlichter Jew
    Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    State Control Lander Jew
    State Lands Kauffman Jew
    Works V. Schmidt Jew
    Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
    Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
    Religions Spitzberg Jew
    Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Hygiene Anvelt Jew
    Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
    Press Volodarski Jew
    Elections Ouritski Jew
    Justice I. Steinberg Jew
    Refugees Fenigstein Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew



    “The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Sverdlov (president) Jew
    Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
    Bruno Lett
    Babtchinski Jew
    Bukharin Russian
    Weinberg Jew
    Gailiss Jew
    Ganzburg Jew
    Danichevski Jew
    Starck German
    Sachs Jew
    Scheinmann Jew
    Erdling Jew
    Landauer Jew
    Linder Jew
    Wolach Czech
    Dimanstein Jew
    Encukidze Georgian
    Ermann Jew
    Joffe Jew
    Karkline Jew
    Knigissen Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Krylenko Russian
    KrassikofSachs Jew
    Kaprik Jew
    Kaoul Lett
    Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
    Latsis Jew
    Lander Jew
    Lounatcharski Russian
    Peterson Lett
    Peters Lett
    Roudzoutas Jew
    Rosine Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Stoutchka Lett
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Sosnovski Jew
    Skrytnik Jew
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Teodorovitch Jew
    Terian Armenian
    Ouritski Jew
    Telechkine Russian
    Feldmann Jew
    Froumkine Jew
    Souriupa Ukranian
    Tchavtchevadze Georgian
    Scheikmann Jew
    Rosental Jew
    Achkinazi Imeretian
    Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
    Rose Jew
    Sobelson (Radek) Jew
    Sclichter Jew
    Schikolini Jew
    Chklianski Jew
    Levine (Pravdine) Jew



    “The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Dzerjinski (president) Pole
    Peters (vice-president) Lett
    Chklovski Jew
    Kheifiss Jew
    Zeistine Jew
    Razmirovitch Jew
    Kronberg Jew
    Khaikina Jewess
    Karlson Lett
    Schaumann Jew
    Leontovitch Jew
    Jacob Goldine Jew
    Glaperstein Jew
    Kniggisen Jew
    Latzis Lett
    Schillenkuss Jew
    Janson Lett
    Rivkine Jew
    Antonof Russian
    Delafabre Jew
    Tsitkine Jew
    Roskirovitch Jew
    G. Sverdlof Jew
    Biesenski Jew
    Blioumkine Jew
    Alexandrevitch Russian
    I. Model Jew
    Routenberg Jew
    Pines Jew
    Sachs Jew
    Daybol Lett
    Saissoune Armenian
    Deylkenen Lett
    Liebert Jew
    Vogel German
    Zakiss Lett




    http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Mr. Hack

    and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.
     
    Quit talking in Orwellian doublespeak and tell us more about the wonders of a dystopian future guided by the omniscient and guiding Big Brother. It's already been described in detail in Orwell's '1984'. Thank god that more than 30 years have passed, and we're still not quite there yet! Do we really need 'thoughtpolice' (the checka) to guide us in the future?

    And are you happy with the fruit of cumulative mass ignorance? You like the ride that we’re going on, with a dystopia future guided by the omniscience and frantic cult of victimhood, that exchanges a single tyrant for a mob of mini-tyrants? Is a hereditary king worse than the self-appointed master that is Google and Facebook?

    I’m not convinced. In a world of terrible choices, I’ll rather go with a slightly less terrible one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @AP

    Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes?
     
    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy? There had been no serfdom for a couple generations when the Russian monarchy fell.

    For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism
     
    The golden and silver ages of Russian literature/culture were during the monarchy.

    The Bolsheviks murdered Russia and created a grotesque Frankenstein's monster out of the corpse. Of course this creature included some features of the beautiful thing that was destroyed.

    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy?

    Helots (basically a colonial population) were in Sparta…which was a very peculiar society even by ancient Greek standards.
    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city. Modern criticism of it as “undemocratic” because it excluded women, foreigners and slaves from political life seems rather misguided imo.
    Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city.
     
    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens' population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves. At that time, slaves weren't even considered to be human (this idea came with Christianity), they were seen as some sort of animate tools to whom a person could do as he wished.

    Coming back to the 19th century - were democratic systems really more humane than monarchies? The Irish were treated much worse by parliamentary Britain than anyone was treated by the Tsars and Kaisers. The death penalty was much more liberally applied in Britain than in Russia. Chattel slavery was far worse than serfdom. Etc. etc.

    Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age
     
    Agreed. Monarchy is dead, and cannot be resurrected. Which doesn't mean that it's loss isn't a tragedy or that the world hasn't become worse as a result.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Mr. Hack
    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don't really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn't hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country's leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.

    As I said I am not actually a fan of monarchy:

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.

    (Constitutional monarchy is just uninteresting window dressing).

    They do seem to have been consistently lost at the political evolutionary arms race since the coming of industrialism.

    I can even speculate why: Yes, intelligence.

    The top leaders of democracies average around 2 S.D. higher in IQ than the population average. The same appears to have been true of Nazi Germany and Communist regimes.

    While monarchs come from better than average stock, you only have a limited range of potential candidates to choose from (usually it has to be the firstborn son), so I suspect the average monarch is only 1 S.D. above his population mean.

    Since IQ is a very good proxy for competency, and since competency has greater multiplicative effects in a national leader than for probably any other position, monarchy has become unviable in a technologically dynamic world. (Maybe this will change if technological progress grinds to a halt).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Makes sense. But this also explains why monarchies tended to be more humane and decent. Monarchs were born to rule (power was taken for granted, it wasn't something to take), they viewed their lands as their patrimony, their subjects as their people. They were often very dedicated and conscientious (old Franz Josef worked 12 hour days up until his death in old age). I'm not trying to idealize monarchs as heroic humanitarians necessarily, but at the least they viewed their country as a guy who inherited his family farm views his farm- something to look after, take care of, and pass on to his heirs in decent condition. In democracies, in contrast, getting to the top involves not birth but the ability to manipulate others, a thirst for power, fame or both.* So the leaders are indeed going to be smarter, but probably less moral and less decent as people.

    *To be sure, this is still better than post-monarchial non-democracies. Democracy at least involves persuasion rather than coercion, so the end product is more humane. Hitler being an obvious counterexample, but he's an exception.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. AP says:
    @German_reader

    Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy?
     
    Helots (basically a colonial population) were in Sparta...which was a very peculiar society even by ancient Greek standards.
    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city. Modern criticism of it as "undemocratic" because it excluded women, foreigners and slaves from political life seems rather misguided imo.
    Anyway, I don't see how monarchy could come back in this day and age.

    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city.

    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens’ population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves. At that time, slaves weren’t even considered to be human (this idea came with Christianity), they were seen as some sort of animate tools to whom a person could do as he wished.

    Coming back to the 19th century – were democratic systems really more humane than monarchies? The Irish were treated much worse by parliamentary Britain than anyone was treated by the Tsars and Kaisers. The death penalty was much more liberally applied in Britain than in Russia. Chattel slavery was far worse than serfdom. Etc. etc.

    Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age

    Agreed. Monarchy is dead, and cannot be resurrected. Which doesn’t mean that it’s loss isn’t a tragedy or that the world hasn’t become worse as a result.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens’ population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves.
     
    That seems exaggerated to me; but it's true that only a minority of the Athenian population were male citizens with political rights; they were outnumbered by women, slaves and resident foreigners (metics).
    Anyway, you're probably right that democratic regimes aren't necessarily more humane than monarchies, e.g. democratization certainly can lead to intolerant majorities acting out harshly against other groups.
    , @Anon

    Monarchy is dead
     
    True; the exceptions prove the rule.

    cannot be resurrected
     
    This is going too far: "is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort" more suits the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Talha says:
    @German_reader

    So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.
     
    Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we're still suffering under the consequences; it's sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

    it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness

    Nietzsche 101.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn't interest me much...but I know he's beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results ("finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!").
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    As I said I am not actually a fan of monarchy:

    Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.
     
    (Constitutional monarchy is just uninteresting window dressing).

    They do seem to have been consistently lost at the political evolutionary arms race since the coming of industrialism.

    I can even speculate why: Yes, intelligence.

    The top leaders of democracies average around 2 S.D. higher in IQ than the population average. The same appears to have been true of Nazi Germany and Communist regimes.

    While monarchs come from better than average stock, you only have a limited range of potential candidates to choose from (usually it has to be the firstborn son), so I suspect the average monarch is only 1 S.D. above his population mean.

    Since IQ is a very good proxy for competency, and since competency has greater multiplicative effects in a national leader than for probably any other position, monarchy has become unviable in a technologically dynamic world. (Maybe this will change if technological progress grinds to a halt).

    Makes sense. But this also explains why monarchies tended to be more humane and decent. Monarchs were born to rule (power was taken for granted, it wasn’t something to take), they viewed their lands as their patrimony, their subjects as their people. They were often very dedicated and conscientious (old Franz Josef worked 12 hour days up until his death in old age). I’m not trying to idealize monarchs as heroic humanitarians necessarily, but at the least they viewed their country as a guy who inherited his family farm views his farm- something to look after, take care of, and pass on to his heirs in decent condition. In democracies, in contrast, getting to the top involves not birth but the ability to manipulate others, a thirst for power, fame or both.* So the leaders are indeed going to be smarter, but probably less moral and less decent as people.

    *To be sure, this is still better than post-monarchial non-democracies. Democracy at least involves persuasion rather than coercion, so the end product is more humane. Hitler being an obvious counterexample, but he’s an exception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bb.
    this reminds me of an article by H. H. Hoppe on the Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy>https://mises.org/library/political-economy-monarchy-and-democracy

    basically, it boils down to the same conflict that a firm faces between managers and owners. Obviously, both have different incentives and behavior derived from it. It comes down to scaling and unfortunately, there is limited supply of Peter the Greats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Talha says:

    Dag yo! I thought that video was a joke or something and then the women start screaming and stuff and I’m thinking – oh crap, they’re going nahi anil munkar Saudi-style on these people!

    Saudi Police: “No, no – you’re doing it all wrong – you’re suppose to whip them and put the mask on their faces! Silly Russians!”

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. @AP

    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city.
     
    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens' population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves. At that time, slaves weren't even considered to be human (this idea came with Christianity), they were seen as some sort of animate tools to whom a person could do as he wished.

    Coming back to the 19th century - were democratic systems really more humane than monarchies? The Irish were treated much worse by parliamentary Britain than anyone was treated by the Tsars and Kaisers. The death penalty was much more liberally applied in Britain than in Russia. Chattel slavery was far worse than serfdom. Etc. etc.

    Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age
     
    Agreed. Monarchy is dead, and cannot be resurrected. Which doesn't mean that it's loss isn't a tragedy or that the world hasn't become worse as a result.

    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens’ population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves.

    That seems exaggerated to me; but it’s true that only a minority of the Athenian population were male citizens with political rights; they were outnumbered by women, slaves and resident foreigners (metics).
    Anyway, you’re probably right that democratic regimes aren’t necessarily more humane than monarchies, e.g. democratization certainly can lead to intolerant majorities acting out harshly against other groups.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Talha

    it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness
     
    Nietzsche 101.

    Peace.

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much…but I know he’s beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results (“finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much
     
    You think the first because of the second statement in that phrase.

    Nietzsche was at various and increasing stages of dementia which can be seen in his work; his philosophy as a whole is not really a result of mental illness as such. I'll leave it to Nietzscheans, of whom I know there are a number on Unz, to debate the issue.

    Nothingness is way more Sartre than Nietzsche imo anyway. Nietzsche would be better described as somethingness. Incidentally I think a lot of the popular appeal of Islam (as opposed to its actual content) is a sort of will-to-power Nietzshceanism, which will open a rabbit hole here but which I might want to expand on elsewhere. Talha quoted to me the other day a Muslim apologist who was only just shy of describing Christian ethics as a slave morality-- I think this sort of rhetoric is not actually that uncommon.

    finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!
     
    You mean one more honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!
    , @Talha

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi
     
    Possibly. Nazism is Darwinism taken to a logical conclusion based on certain key assumptions.

    secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results
     
    It won't any more than modernization as long as it's kept in check. Nietzche was solid! He at least made an attempt to think the whole thing through in its long term prospects. I take him far more seriously than the buffoon New-Atheists that think they can remove the "ground of being" from beneath man and everything will turn out OK because they got rid of "evil religion" and "muh humanism" will save the day.

    “The death of the spirit is the price of progress. Nietzsche revealed this mystery of the Western apocalypse when he announced that God was dead and that He had been murdered. This Gnostic murder is constantly committed by the men who sacrificed God to civilization. The more fervently all human energies are thrown into the great enterprise of salvation through world–immanent action, the farther the human beings who engage in this enterprise move away from the life of the spirit. And since the life the spirit is the source of order in man and society, the very success of a Gnostic civilization is the cause of its decline. A civilization can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time—but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves; the limit is reached when an activist sect which represents the Gnostic truth organizes the civilization into an empire under its rule. Totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists, is the end form of progressive civilization.” —Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 1952

    Peace.
    , @Seraphim
    Nietzsche was a demented filo-semite and rabid anti-Christian. His toxic influence appealed to anarchists (he has almost prophetic status among the 'post-leftists' anarchists and 'Third Positionists') as well as to Zionists ("Nietzsche and Herzl both opposed the Christian God as the degeneration of the primordial, Dionysian deity of Yahweh, the tribal God of Israel, instead of the passive sufferer of cosmopolitan Christianity. It has been argued, not without reason, Nietzsche's work greatly influenced Theodore Herzl, and Martin Buber went so far as to extol Nietzsche as a "creator" and "emissary of life").
    He did indeed influence Mussolini (and Jabotinski, for that matter - he compared himself with Nietzsche's 'superman'). "A girlfriend of Mussolini, Margherita Sarfatti, who was Jewish, relates that Nietzsche virtually was the transforming factor in Mussolini's "conversion" from hard socialism to spiritualistic, ascetic fascism... It has been suggested that Theodore Roosevelt read Nietzsche and was profoundly influenced by him".
    It had a strong influence on the likes of Adorno and Horkheimer who insisted that Nietzsche must be rescued from fascist and racist appropriations!
    The reality was that Nietzsche was an opponent of volkist pan-Germanism and advocated a nobiliary, trans-national pan-Europeanism incorporating the cultural-spiritual elite from all Western nations, including Judea or Israel (direct inspiration for the 'Praktischer Idealismus' of Coudenhove-Kalergi).
    Here is what Nietzsche had to say about the Germans: “They are my enemies, these Germans... They have twisted and tangled everything they touched.” He called German hatred of Jews, Poles and French a “stupidity” and said anti-Semites should be expelled from the country, that they try to excite blockheads and one should “associate with no man who takes part in the mendacious race swindle.”

    Proto-Nazi? Give us a break.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AP

    Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city.
     
    I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens' population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves. At that time, slaves weren't even considered to be human (this idea came with Christianity), they were seen as some sort of animate tools to whom a person could do as he wished.

    Coming back to the 19th century - were democratic systems really more humane than monarchies? The Irish were treated much worse by parliamentary Britain than anyone was treated by the Tsars and Kaisers. The death penalty was much more liberally applied in Britain than in Russia. Chattel slavery was far worse than serfdom. Etc. etc.

    Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age
     
    Agreed. Monarchy is dead, and cannot be resurrected. Which doesn't mean that it's loss isn't a tragedy or that the world hasn't become worse as a result.

    Monarchy is dead

    True; the exceptions prove the rule.

    cannot be resurrected

    This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.
     
    Perhaps. Monarchial systems developed organically over hundreds of years. I suppose they could theoretically develop once again, but it seems highly unlikely. The chance for a return would have been after World War II in central Europe due to a brief break of 25 years (it came close, in Bavaria and perhaps Austria, but the Americans shot it down).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn't interest me much...but I know he's beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results ("finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!").

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much

    You think the first because of the second statement in that phrase.

    Nietzsche was at various and increasing stages of dementia which can be seen in his work; his philosophy as a whole is not really a result of mental illness as such. I’ll leave it to Nietzscheans, of whom I know there are a number on Unz, to debate the issue.

    Nothingness is way more Sartre than Nietzsche imo anyway. Nietzsche would be better described as somethingness. Incidentally I think a lot of the popular appeal of Islam (as opposed to its actual content) is a sort of will-to-power Nietzshceanism, which will open a rabbit hole here but which I might want to expand on elsewhere. Talha quoted to me the other day a Muslim apologist who was only just shy of describing Christian ethics as a slave morality– I think this sort of rhetoric is not actually that uncommon.

    finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!

    You mean one more honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    will-to-power Nietzshceanism
     
    Definitely the discourse among many modernist-Islamist types - that is for sure. Completely lacking any spiritual nuance or reflection or metaphysical grounding; which is why they tend to lose miserably. This is delusion, there is no might or power except by God's will.

    For the traditional-minded - there is no "will to power" because that assumes we humans can will ourselves into success:
    "Say: 'O God, absolute Master of all dominion! You give sovereignty to whom You will, and take away sovereignty from whom You will. And You exalt and honor whom You will, and abase whom You will. In Your hand is all good; surely You have full power over everything.'" (3:26)

    Sometimes the best place for one to be is in a state of powerlessness and humiliation (you will not hear this from the will-to-power types):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdu_jxjitCw

    Christian ethics as a slave morality
     
    Which guy was that again?

    Actually - ours is pretty much a slave morality too. When the Creator gives you rules to abide by, obedient slaves don't balk at following orders.
    "...And they say, 'We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.'" (2:285)

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. DFH says:
    @Hupa

    without the Communist occupation?
     
    You have a bad impression of your own country. What about Herzen, Bakunin or Radishchev? Would they be considered "occupants"? Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly), even Solzhenistyn blamed the Russians for communism

    So what would a Russian Empire be like without communism? It would be like contemporary Western states, because "liberalism is communism in slow motion". Liberalism and communism are the same thing, only they progress with different pace, but both towards unification of people and egalitarianism

    The reason why bolshevism won in Russia is because since Peter the Great, the elites quickly rejected Orthodoxy and didn't take it seriously (given it justified the injustices of the government in Russia), thus they have rejected traditional forms, decided to copy the West and engage in self-hatred

    Over time, the same thing happened more or less to lower classes. Russia became a formless blob that wasn't strongly enough bound together by its tradition, and so a small, ruthless elite aware of what they want to achieve, decided to give Russia a new form and the russian lumpenproletariat indifferent enough to anything, decided to serve them. The resistance was too weak, because over time the bonds of tradition faded and people became indifferent, divided and disoriented, except the bolsheviks

    Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly)

    Funny then that the Communist revolution involved very few actual Russians

    The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Ouritski Jew
    Volodarski Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Krylenko Russian
    Lounatcharski Russian

    “The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

    MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
    President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
    Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
    Agriculture Protian Armenian
    Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Food Schlichter Jew
    Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    State Control Lander Jew
    State Lands Kauffman Jew
    Works V. Schmidt Jew
    Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
    Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
    Religions Spitzberg Jew
    Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Hygiene Anvelt Jew
    Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
    Press Volodarski Jew
    Elections Ouritski Jew
    Justice I. Steinberg Jew
    Refugees Fenigstein Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

    “The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Sverdlov (president) Jew
    Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
    Bruno Lett
    Babtchinski Jew
    Bukharin Russian
    Weinberg Jew
    Gailiss Jew
    Ganzburg Jew
    Danichevski Jew
    Starck German
    Sachs Jew
    Scheinmann Jew
    Erdling Jew
    Landauer Jew
    Linder Jew
    Wolach Czech
    Dimanstein Jew
    Encukidze Georgian
    Ermann Jew
    Joffe Jew
    Karkline Jew
    Knigissen Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Krylenko Russian
    KrassikofSachs Jew
    Kaprik Jew
    Kaoul Lett
    Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
    Latsis Jew
    Lander Jew
    Lounatcharski Russian
    Peterson Lett
    Peters Lett
    Roudzoutas Jew
    Rosine Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Stoutchka Lett
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Sosnovski Jew
    Skrytnik Jew
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Teodorovitch Jew
    Terian Armenian
    Ouritski Jew
    Telechkine Russian
    Feldmann Jew
    Froumkine Jew
    Souriupa Ukranian
    Tchavtchevadze Georgian
    Scheikmann Jew
    Rosental Jew
    Achkinazi Imeretian
    Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
    Rose Jew
    Sobelson (Radek) Jew
    Sclichter Jew
    Schikolini Jew
    Chklianski Jew
    Levine (Pravdine) Jew

    “The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Dzerjinski (president) Pole
    Peters (vice-president) Lett
    Chklovski Jew
    Kheifiss Jew
    Zeistine Jew
    Razmirovitch Jew
    Kronberg Jew
    Khaikina Jewess
    Karlson Lett
    Schaumann Jew
    Leontovitch Jew
    Jacob Goldine Jew
    Glaperstein Jew
    Kniggisen Jew
    Latzis Lett
    Schillenkuss Jew
    Janson Lett
    Rivkine Jew
    Antonof Russian
    Delafabre Jew
    Tsitkine Jew
    Roskirovitch Jew
    G. Sverdlof Jew
    Biesenski Jew
    Blioumkine Jew
    Alexandrevitch Russian
    I. Model Jew
    Routenberg Jew
    Pines Jew
    Sachs Jew
    Daybol Lett
    Saissoune Armenian
    Deylkenen Lett
    Liebert Jew
    Vogel German
    Zakiss Lett

    http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925
     
    Well, perhaps, in part, because his list is bullshit. Just looking at the Central Committee, and thinking of some well-known names: Stalin certainly was there, as well as Dzerzhinsky. Volodarsky, however, never was. And this is just from looking at his list for 10 seconds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Talha says:
    @German_reader
    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn't interest me much...but I know he's beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results ("finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!").

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi

    Possibly. Nazism is Darwinism taken to a logical conclusion based on certain key assumptions.

    secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results

    It won’t any more than modernization as long as it’s kept in check. Nietzche was solid! He at least made an attempt to think the whole thing through in its long term prospects. I take him far more seriously than the buffoon New-Atheists that think they can remove the “ground of being” from beneath man and everything will turn out OK because they got rid of “evil religion” and “muh humanism” will save the day.

    “The death of the spirit is the price of progress. Nietzsche revealed this mystery of the Western apocalypse when he announced that God was dead and that He had been murdered. This Gnostic murder is constantly committed by the men who sacrificed God to civilization. The more fervently all human energies are thrown into the great enterprise of salvation through world–immanent action, the farther the human beings who engage in this enterprise move away from the life of the spirit. And since the life the spirit is the source of order in man and society, the very success of a Gnostic civilization is the cause of its decline. A civilization can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time—but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves; the limit is reached when an activist sect which represents the Gnostic truth organizes the civilization into an empire under its rule. Totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists, is the end form of progressive civilization.” —Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 1952

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Nice Voegelin citation!

    Peace.
    Et cum spiritu tuo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi
     
    Possibly. Nazism is Darwinism taken to a logical conclusion based on certain key assumptions.

    secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results
     
    It won't any more than modernization as long as it's kept in check. Nietzche was solid! He at least made an attempt to think the whole thing through in its long term prospects. I take him far more seriously than the buffoon New-Atheists that think they can remove the "ground of being" from beneath man and everything will turn out OK because they got rid of "evil religion" and "muh humanism" will save the day.

    “The death of the spirit is the price of progress. Nietzsche revealed this mystery of the Western apocalypse when he announced that God was dead and that He had been murdered. This Gnostic murder is constantly committed by the men who sacrificed God to civilization. The more fervently all human energies are thrown into the great enterprise of salvation through world–immanent action, the farther the human beings who engage in this enterprise move away from the life of the spirit. And since the life the spirit is the source of order in man and society, the very success of a Gnostic civilization is the cause of its decline. A civilization can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time—but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves; the limit is reached when an activist sect which represents the Gnostic truth organizes the civilization into an empire under its rule. Totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists, is the end form of progressive civilization.” —Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 1952

    Peace.

    Nice Voegelin citation!

    Peace.
    Et cum spiritu tuo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. AP says:
    @Anon

    Monarchy is dead
     
    True; the exceptions prove the rule.

    cannot be resurrected
     
    This is going too far: "is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort" more suits the case.

    This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.

    Perhaps. Monarchial systems developed organically over hundreds of years. I suppose they could theoretically develop once again, but it seems highly unlikely. The chance for a return would have been after World War II in central Europe due to a brief break of 25 years (it came close, in Bavaria and perhaps Austria, but the Americans shot it down).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Perhaps. The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @Anon

    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much
     
    You think the first because of the second statement in that phrase.

    Nietzsche was at various and increasing stages of dementia which can be seen in his work; his philosophy as a whole is not really a result of mental illness as such. I'll leave it to Nietzscheans, of whom I know there are a number on Unz, to debate the issue.

    Nothingness is way more Sartre than Nietzsche imo anyway. Nietzsche would be better described as somethingness. Incidentally I think a lot of the popular appeal of Islam (as opposed to its actual content) is a sort of will-to-power Nietzshceanism, which will open a rabbit hole here but which I might want to expand on elsewhere. Talha quoted to me the other day a Muslim apologist who was only just shy of describing Christian ethics as a slave morality-- I think this sort of rhetoric is not actually that uncommon.

    finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!
     
    You mean one more honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!

    will-to-power Nietzshceanism

    Definitely the discourse among many modernist-Islamist types – that is for sure. Completely lacking any spiritual nuance or reflection or metaphysical grounding; which is why they tend to lose miserably. This is delusion, there is no might or power except by God’s will.

    For the traditional-minded – there is no “will to power” because that assumes we humans can will ourselves into success:
    “Say: ‘O God, absolute Master of all dominion! You give sovereignty to whom You will, and take away sovereignty from whom You will. And You exalt and honor whom You will, and abase whom You will. In Your hand is all good; surely You have full power over everything.’” (3:26)

    Sometimes the best place for one to be is in a state of powerlessness and humiliation (you will not hear this from the will-to-power types):

    Christian ethics as a slave morality

    Which guy was that again?

    Actually – ours is pretty much a slave morality too. When the Creator gives you rules to abide by, obedient slaves don’t balk at following orders.
    “…And they say, ‘We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.’” (2:285)

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    When we were discussing international law-- I didn't recall the exact phrasing but did remember the impression which I now see was made by the conjunction of words: "Christianity seeks to remake human nature ... makes hypocrites of its warriors. Islam’s great advantage is that it seeks only to govern human nature as it is"

    Probably there is nothing wrong with this guy's orthodoxy, but he seems to have a tendency to strange turns of phrase sometimes.
    , @Anon
    I should probably mention that Nietzsche would have viewed Christianity as an expression of the will to power. It was a way of seeing the world; not by any means his only one-- Nietzsche seems to have been in the habit of tossing up worldviews and catching them like balls (to quote or paraphrase Chesterton depending on how good my memory is).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha

    will-to-power Nietzshceanism
     
    Definitely the discourse among many modernist-Islamist types - that is for sure. Completely lacking any spiritual nuance or reflection or metaphysical grounding; which is why they tend to lose miserably. This is delusion, there is no might or power except by God's will.

    For the traditional-minded - there is no "will to power" because that assumes we humans can will ourselves into success:
    "Say: 'O God, absolute Master of all dominion! You give sovereignty to whom You will, and take away sovereignty from whom You will. And You exalt and honor whom You will, and abase whom You will. In Your hand is all good; surely You have full power over everything.'" (3:26)

    Sometimes the best place for one to be is in a state of powerlessness and humiliation (you will not hear this from the will-to-power types):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdu_jxjitCw

    Christian ethics as a slave morality
     
    Which guy was that again?

    Actually - ours is pretty much a slave morality too. When the Creator gives you rules to abide by, obedient slaves don't balk at following orders.
    "...And they say, 'We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.'" (2:285)

    Peace.

    When we were discussing international law– I didn’t recall the exact phrasing but did remember the impression which I now see was made by the conjunction of words: “Christianity seeks to remake human nature … makes hypocrites of its warriors. Islam’s great advantage is that it seeks only to govern human nature as it is”

    Probably there is nothing wrong with this guy’s orthodoxy, but he seems to have a tendency to strange turns of phrase sometimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Oh - no that was a non-Muslim journalist (Tom Junod) writing about the life of John Walker Lindh.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Talha says:
    @Anon
    When we were discussing international law-- I didn't recall the exact phrasing but did remember the impression which I now see was made by the conjunction of words: "Christianity seeks to remake human nature ... makes hypocrites of its warriors. Islam’s great advantage is that it seeks only to govern human nature as it is"

    Probably there is nothing wrong with this guy's orthodoxy, but he seems to have a tendency to strange turns of phrase sometimes.

    Oh – no that was a non-Muslim journalist (Tom Junod) writing about the life of John Walker Lindh.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Okay, that explains it. I hadn't actually read the whole article but assumed you were quoting Lindh.

    As per the Odd Couple, I should know what happens when one assumes...

    Thanks for clearing that up!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Oh - no that was a non-Muslim journalist (Tom Junod) writing about the life of John Walker Lindh.

    Peace.

    Okay, that explains it. I hadn’t actually read the whole article but assumed you were quoting Lindh.

    As per the Odd Couple, I should know what happens when one assumes…

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Doubly stupid of me because Lindh's orthodoxy is certainly less than could be desired!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Okay, that explains it. I hadn't actually read the whole article but assumed you were quoting Lindh.

    As per the Odd Couple, I should know what happens when one assumes...

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    Doubly stupid of me because Lindh’s orthodoxy is certainly less than could be desired!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Warner 2
    This is what Alexander Solzhenitsyn strongly argued in his "Archipelago Gulag" book - that in its last decades, the Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal, and pathetically inefficient in the suppression of leftist rebels, looking like a helpless befuddled old man. Solzhenitsyn openly said that people like him, who had felt the power of true totalitarian system on their skin, could not but laugh with bitter mockery at the early 20th century Russian liberals who felt they were so, SO oppressed by the Tsar.

    It does make you think – many of the Bolshevik leaders seem to have had a pleasant life in “internal exile” — while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door.

    Talha – I believe the “slave morality” quote is originally from Nietzsche.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ah OK - I was thinking from a different angle. I didn't know he may have been hinting at the basis/roots of ethics that Nietzsche was writing about:
    http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Nietzsche/NietzscheMasterSlave.pdf

    while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door
     
    Wow - did this actually happen? Sounds a bit like of Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. kar says:

    my argument is against communism responsible for Nazism.

    1.just because the name of nazi party has socialist in it does not mean nazism is a reaction to socialism/communism.
    2.why nazism rose only in Germany only?
    3.communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )
    4.germany ruling elites must have been influenced by France,UK,USA etc., than Russia which is less developed than other EU countries(Russia GDP 10% of UK in 1900)
    5.communists did not come to power in Germany and were murdered by nazi’s. a reaction can come only if they are strong .(So,communism was strong neither inside Germany or USSR doesnot have a sufficient influence on ruling classes in Germany )
    6.Also germans might be thinking about west europeans more due to versailles treaty(1919) than say USSR
    7.Hitler & his ideas must be central to rise of nazism
    8.Also USSR wasable to raise it’s GDP to 50% of Developed countries in a very short span (1928-1950) unequalled by any country except China(1980-2010).To top it there was the second world war when russia lost 27 million population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )
     
    Don't be silly, the argument clearly is that Nazism (and other forms of fascism in interwar Europe) was, at least in part, a reaction to the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, to the experience of shorter-lived commie regimes like Bela Kun's regime in Hungary and to the subversive activities of communist parties during the 1920s and early 1930s (e.g. communists attempted several insurgencies during the early Weimar republic).
    And Germany's communist party was fairly strong in the late Weimar republic, they got 13,1% in the 1930 elections, 16,9% in the November 1932 elections; the commies also had paramilitary party militias and employed political violence (not just in street fighting against Nazis, also things like killing policemen, like young Erich Mielke, the later head of East Germany's Stasi, did in 1931).
    There were other factors in the rise of Nazism (and Nazism's core ideas had been around in preWW1-Germany, but then they were limited to a political fringe), but (maybe exaggerated) fear of a Communist takeover certainly was an important factor...in a way Commie universalism bred an extreme racist particularism as a reaction, something today's enthusiasts for globalism and mass immigration would do well to consider.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany
     
    They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would've accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must've been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must've known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that "war on terror", just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should've known better that it wouldn't survive a war, at least not one which it didn't win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn't like the previous annexation of Bosnia either - they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would've been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could've prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”,

    Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately used the Sarajevo incident to start the war (this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated). Serbia rejected not the whole the ultimatum,of Austria, but only one point of ultimatum – this Franz Joseph and Wilhelm happily used. This people (and their entourage), started WWI

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated
     
    Fischer's thesis was just political demonology and paid no attention to the actions of the other great powers; it's more relevant as a source for the intellectual climate of 1960s West Germany and debates about the Nazi past than for what actually happened in 1914. It amazes me it's still taken seriously.
    , @reiner Tor
    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war. They could've opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence (not controlling their intelligence services) or malice (if they did control the intelligence services perpetrating the terrorist attack).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @kar
    my argument is against communism responsible for Nazism.

    1.just because the name of nazi party has socialist in it does not mean nazism is a reaction to socialism/communism.
    2.why nazism rose only in Germany only?
    3.communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )
    4.germany ruling elites must have been influenced by France,UK,USA etc., than Russia which is less developed than other EU countries(Russia GDP 10% of UK in 1900)
    5.communists did not come to power in Germany and were murdered by nazi's. a reaction can come only if they are strong .(So,communism was strong neither inside Germany or USSR doesnot have a sufficient influence on ruling classes in Germany )
    6.Also germans might be thinking about west europeans more due to versailles treaty(1919) than say USSR
    7.Hitler & his ideas must be central to rise of nazism
    8.Also USSR wasable to raise it's GDP to 50% of Developed countries in a very short span (1928-1950) unequalled by any country except China(1980-2010).To top it there was the second world war when russia lost 27 million population.

    communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )

    Don’t be silly, the argument clearly is that Nazism (and other forms of fascism in interwar Europe) was, at least in part, a reaction to the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, to the experience of shorter-lived commie regimes like Bela Kun’s regime in Hungary and to the subversive activities of communist parties during the 1920s and early 1930s (e.g. communists attempted several insurgencies during the early Weimar republic).
    And Germany’s communist party was fairly strong in the late Weimar republic, they got 13,1% in the 1930 elections, 16,9% in the November 1932 elections; the commies also had paramilitary party militias and employed political violence (not just in street fighting against Nazis, also things like killing policemen, like young Erich Mielke, the later head of East Germany’s Stasi, did in 1931).
    There were other factors in the rise of Nazism (and Nazism’s core ideas had been around in preWW1-Germany, but then they were limited to a political fringe), but (maybe exaggerated) fear of a Communist takeover certainly was an important factor…in a way Commie universalism bred an extreme racist particularism as a reaction, something today’s enthusiasts for globalism and mass immigration would do well to consider.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @melanf

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”,
     
    Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately used the Sarajevo incident to start the war (this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated). Serbia rejected not the whole the ultimatum,of Austria, but only one point of ultimatum - this Franz Joseph and Wilhelm happily used. This people (and their entourage), started WWI

    this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated

    Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology and paid no attention to the actions of the other great powers; it’s more relevant as a source for the intellectual climate of 1960s West Germany and debates about the Nazi past than for what actually happened in 1914. It amazes me it’s still taken seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology...
     
    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn't want to start a war with Russia? That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Talha says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    It does make you think - many of the Bolshevik leaders seem to have had a pleasant life in "internal exile" -- while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door.

    Talha - I believe the "slave morality" quote is originally from Nietzsche.

    Ah OK – I was thinking from a different angle. I didn’t know he may have been hinting at the basis/roots of ethics that Nietzsche was writing about:

    http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Nietzsche/NietzscheMasterSlave.pdf

    while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door

    Wow – did this actually happen? Sounds a bit like of Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Apparently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

    I should have put "slave morality" in quotes or something-- it wasn't necessarily obvious that I was making that reference.

    More on Tom Junod: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600497.html . I don't know if he is a Nietzschean but he is certainly no Muslim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated
     
    Fischer's thesis was just political demonology and paid no attention to the actions of the other great powers; it's more relevant as a source for the intellectual climate of 1960s West Germany and debates about the Nazi past than for what actually happened in 1914. It amazes me it's still taken seriously.

    Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology…

    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia? That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia?
     
    Depends what you mean by "want to start a war with Russia".
    If it means evil Germans plotting a war of conquest (like actually happened in WW2), no, I don't think so.
    If it means not doing enough to avoid war, out of a somewhat fatalistic idea "It's inevitable anyway, better now than in 5-10 years when our position is weaker", that attitude certainly was present among German decision-makers in 1914.

    That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?
     
    The real - and pretty extreme - provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists who went on to murder the Austrian heir to the throne. Austria-Hungary had to react in some way to that.
    Russia shouldn't have backed Serbia...its alliance with Serbia was hardly a vital national interest (certainly much less so than the alliance with Austria-Hungary was for Germany), and without Russian support the Serbs might have surrendered to the Austrian ultimatum without war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Ah OK - I was thinking from a different angle. I didn't know he may have been hinting at the basis/roots of ethics that Nietzsche was writing about:
    http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Nietzsche/NietzscheMasterSlave.pdf

    while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door
     
    Wow - did this actually happen? Sounds a bit like of Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

    Peace.

    Apparently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

    I should have put “slave morality” in quotes or something– it wasn’t necessarily obvious that I was making that reference.

    More on Tom Junod: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600497.html . I don’t know if he is a Nietzschean but he is certainly no Muslim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Apparently some people are confused as to what the purpose of a bacon sandwich is*. Too bad he had to go to prison - I think third grade may have been more appropriate to learn about basics of nutrition (food pyramid and all that). Would have cost the tax payers far less.

    Peace.

    *Though I can see various deli-meat purveyors trying to up-sell the other guys:
    "Oscar Meyer, for when only the juiciest and choicest ham will do for the sandwich you want to staple to the local mosque carpet."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @melanf

    Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology...
     
    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn't want to start a war with Russia? That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?

    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia?

    Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.
    If it means evil Germans plotting a war of conquest (like actually happened in WW2), no, I don’t think so.
    If it means not doing enough to avoid war, out of a somewhat fatalistic idea “It’s inevitable anyway, better now than in 5-10 years when our position is weaker”, that attitude certainly was present among German decision-makers in 1914.

    That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?

    The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists who went on to murder the Austrian heir to the throne. Austria-Hungary had to react in some way to that.
    Russia shouldn’t have backed Serbia…its alliance with Serbia was hardly a vital national interest (certainly much less so than the alliance with Austria-Hungary was for Germany), and without Russian support the Serbs might have surrendered to the Austrian ultimatum without war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.
     
    Want to start a war with Russia that's what I mean. German elite thought that the Sarajevo incident is a a great opportunity to start a war. The incident can be resolved peacefully - but the Kaiser deliberately acted to provoke a war

    "Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, returning to his post from leave in the middle of July 1914, already knew about the conversation at Potsdam on 5 July, when Wilhelm assured the Austrian Ambassador that Germany would support Austria against Serbia, and against Russia . He (Austrian Ambassador ) learned from the leaders of German policy that "there will be nothing wrong if these events will cause a war with Russia" (es wird auch nichts schaden wenn daraus ein Krieg mit Russland entstehen soil)...... Lichnowsky did everything to prevent the catastrophe, but his efforts failed. Lichnowsky writes: "Of course, one sign from Berlin was enough to make count Berchtold satisfied with a diplomatic success and to solve the Serbian crisis, but this sign was not followed. On the contrary, (Austro-Hungary) was pushing for war... All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior in question, which after all did not concern us directly. Persistent requests Sazonova, even humiliated telegrams of the tsar, repeated proposals of sir Edward Grey, the warnings of the Marquis San Giuliano my persistent advice, nothing helped"
    Yevgeny Tarle "History of imperialism"

    And no doubt, Germany had planned vast conquests in Europe and in the colonies (of course the Entente had similar plans).


    The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists
     
    "Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy"
    The same Tarle.

    As far as I know, for the past 90 years (after the publication of the "History of imperialism"), the evidence has not been found

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Awesome. Surprise is information.

    I always thought Russian Empire was the ideal of NRx. Moldbug quoted that one Russian ambassador/writer quite a bit. Carlyle and his circle certainly liked the Empire.

    Seems like the perfect combination of good governance and SWPL culture that Moldbug was going for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Apparently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

    I should have put "slave morality" in quotes or something-- it wasn't necessarily obvious that I was making that reference.

    More on Tom Junod: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600497.html . I don't know if he is a Nietzschean but he is certainly no Muslim.

    Apparently some people are confused as to what the purpose of a bacon sandwich is*. Too bad he had to go to prison – I think third grade may have been more appropriate to learn about basics of nutrition (food pyramid and all that). Would have cost the tax payers far less.

    Peace.

    *Though I can see various deli-meat purveyors trying to up-sell the other guys:
    “Oscar Meyer, for when only the juiciest and choicest ham will do for the sandwich you want to staple to the local mosque carpet.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I love the picture in the article-- somehow they got a baconless door, though. With the 95 theses-- if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke.

    I hope there's a typo in this sentence:

    A St George flag with the words 'no mosques' was also tied to the fence outside the building in Totterdown, Bristol, and shouted racial abuse at a worshipper.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Are you sure that IQ is a good proxy for competency? After all, by your own calculations, Hitler had an IQ of around 125, and yet he committed one of the most atrocious, immoral, and stupidest blunders in history by murdering most of Europe’s Ashkenazi Jewish cognitive elite. (This would be especially felt at the utmost right tail of the IQ bell curve, where Jews can be disproportionately represented by a factor of up to 100!)

    Also, the high-IQ Western European leaders who are flooding their countries with Third World migrants don’t appear to be that competent. After all, competent leaders wouldn’t do that.

    In addition to this, in regards to Tsarist Russia, while your post here is certainly pretty good and very interesting, it does neglect to mention Tsarist Russia’s awful treatment of its Jewish population. Even if Tsarist Russia’s Jewish university quotas could be justified as being a form of affirmative action for the non-Jewish population (though the quotas were still sometimes too low, considering that Jews made up over 10% of the total population in certain parts of the Pale of Settlement), this still doesn’t excuse the existence of the Pale of Settlement in the first place as well as the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. Indeed, even in the racist Jim Crow Southern U.S., I don’t think that there were restrictions on movement for Black people; in other words, unlike Russian Jews who wanted to move out of the Pale of Settlement, Blacks in the Southern U.S. who disliked the Jim Crow system could move to other, more tolerant U.S. states.

    Also, in regards to its treatment of Jews, had Tsarist Russia treated its Jews better, less of them would have probably emigrated and less of them would have probably supported the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries. Indeed, in its treatment of the Jews, Tsarist Russia appears to have been *very* boneheaded! :(

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia?
     
    Depends what you mean by "want to start a war with Russia".
    If it means evil Germans plotting a war of conquest (like actually happened in WW2), no, I don't think so.
    If it means not doing enough to avoid war, out of a somewhat fatalistic idea "It's inevitable anyway, better now than in 5-10 years when our position is weaker", that attitude certainly was present among German decision-makers in 1914.

    That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?
     
    The real - and pretty extreme - provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists who went on to murder the Austrian heir to the throne. Austria-Hungary had to react in some way to that.
    Russia shouldn't have backed Serbia...its alliance with Serbia was hardly a vital national interest (certainly much less so than the alliance with Austria-Hungary was for Germany), and without Russian support the Serbs might have surrendered to the Austrian ultimatum without war.

    Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.

    Want to start a war with Russia that’s what I mean. German elite thought that the Sarajevo incident is a a great opportunity to start a war. The incident can be resolved peacefully – but the Kaiser deliberately acted to provoke a war

    “Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, returning to his post from leave in the middle of July 1914, already knew about the conversation at Potsdam on 5 July, when Wilhelm assured the Austrian Ambassador that Germany would support Austria against Serbia, and against Russia . He (Austrian Ambassador ) learned from the leaders of German policy that “there will be nothing wrong if these events will cause a war with Russia” (es wird auch nichts schaden wenn daraus ein Krieg mit Russland entstehen soil)…… Lichnowsky did everything to prevent the catastrophe, but his efforts failed. Lichnowsky writes: “Of course, one sign from Berlin was enough to make count Berchtold satisfied with a diplomatic success and to solve the Serbian crisis, but this sign was not followed. On the contrary, (Austro-Hungary) was pushing for war… All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior in question, which after all did not concern us directly. Persistent requests Sazonova, even humiliated telegrams of the tsar, repeated proposals of sir Edward Grey, the warnings of the Marquis San Giuliano my persistent advice, nothing helped”
    Yevgeny Tarle “History of imperialism”

    And no doubt, Germany had planned vast conquests in Europe and in the colonies (of course the Entente had similar plans).

    The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists

    “Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy”
    The same Tarle.

    As far as I know, for the past 90 years (after the publication of the “History of imperialism”), the evidence has not been found

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    “Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy”
    The same Tarle.
     
    Well, maybe not Serbia's government, but the Serbian intelligence service certainly was behind the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand; iirc they trained the terrorists in Serbia, supplied them with Serbian army weapons etc. How deeply civilian authorities were involved in this, is hard to tell, maybe they really couldn't control the extremist elements in their intelligence service, maybe they deliberately gave them the liberty to pursue Serbian foreign policy objectives by unconventional means while the civilian leadership maintained plausible deniability.
    Regarding the extent of German responsibility for WW1, I disagree; I can only suggest you take a look at Clark's Sleepwalkers book (which may be somewhat too easy on the German leadership, but is a useful corrective imo to the Fischer view which really isn't tenable anymore imo).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Mr. XYZ says:

    : By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no? After all, both the Slavs and the Muslims would compromise about half of the population in such a union and thus no one side would be able to utterly nominate the other, no?

    Likewise, by your logic here, if one ignores the IQ issue (which should hopefully eventually become a moot point due to IQ-enhancing technology), increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct? (Indeed, the U.S. was around 85% white in the mid-20th century but the youngest cohorts right now are only about 50% White and shrinking with every new year of children being born.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no?
     
    Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power. Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks.

    Increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct?
     
    It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?

    Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn't just easily grab the Czechs' lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc.

    And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren't nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren't numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren't subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands.

    * This was the Austrian part. With Hungary it was a little more complicated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Mr. XYZ says:

    : In regards to Russia going to war in 1914, Yes, it could certainly be viewed as a blunder. However, please keep in mind that going to war in 1914 ensured that Russia would have Britain, Italy, and eventually the U.S. as its allies.

    In contrast, had Russia waited a couple of decades to go to war, it would have only had France as an ally and it might have very well had Britain and perhaps eventually even the U.S. among the ranks of its enemies. Indeed, had Russia and France had to fight a coalition of Britain, Germany, *and* the U.S., I could certainly see such a war ending in a Franco-Russian defeat even if this war had broken out in, say, 1940 or 1950 rather than in 1914.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @melanf

    Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.
     
    Want to start a war with Russia that's what I mean. German elite thought that the Sarajevo incident is a a great opportunity to start a war. The incident can be resolved peacefully - but the Kaiser deliberately acted to provoke a war

    "Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, returning to his post from leave in the middle of July 1914, already knew about the conversation at Potsdam on 5 July, when Wilhelm assured the Austrian Ambassador that Germany would support Austria against Serbia, and against Russia . He (Austrian Ambassador ) learned from the leaders of German policy that "there will be nothing wrong if these events will cause a war with Russia" (es wird auch nichts schaden wenn daraus ein Krieg mit Russland entstehen soil)...... Lichnowsky did everything to prevent the catastrophe, but his efforts failed. Lichnowsky writes: "Of course, one sign from Berlin was enough to make count Berchtold satisfied with a diplomatic success and to solve the Serbian crisis, but this sign was not followed. On the contrary, (Austro-Hungary) was pushing for war... All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior in question, which after all did not concern us directly. Persistent requests Sazonova, even humiliated telegrams of the tsar, repeated proposals of sir Edward Grey, the warnings of the Marquis San Giuliano my persistent advice, nothing helped"
    Yevgeny Tarle "History of imperialism"

    And no doubt, Germany had planned vast conquests in Europe and in the colonies (of course the Entente had similar plans).


    The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists
     
    "Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy"
    The same Tarle.

    As far as I know, for the past 90 years (after the publication of the "History of imperialism"), the evidence has not been found

    “Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy”
    The same Tarle.

    Well, maybe not Serbia’s government, but the Serbian intelligence service certainly was behind the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand; iirc they trained the terrorists in Serbia, supplied them with Serbian army weapons etc. How deeply civilian authorities were involved in this, is hard to tell, maybe they really couldn’t control the extremist elements in their intelligence service, maybe they deliberately gave them the liberty to pursue Serbian foreign policy objectives by unconventional means while the civilian leadership maintained plausible deniability.
    Regarding the extent of German responsibility for WW1, I disagree; I can only suggest you take a look at Clark’s Sleepwalkers book (which may be somewhat too easy on the German leadership, but is a useful corrective imo to the Fischer view which really isn’t tenable anymore imo).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Apparently some people are confused as to what the purpose of a bacon sandwich is*. Too bad he had to go to prison - I think third grade may have been more appropriate to learn about basics of nutrition (food pyramid and all that). Would have cost the tax payers far less.

    Peace.

    *Though I can see various deli-meat purveyors trying to up-sell the other guys:
    "Oscar Meyer, for when only the juiciest and choicest ham will do for the sandwich you want to staple to the local mosque carpet."

    I love the picture in the article– somehow they got a baconless door, though. With the 95 theses– if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke.

    I hope there’s a typo in this sentence:

    A St George flag with the words ‘no mosques’ was also tied to the fence outside the building in Totterdown, Bristol, and shouted racial abuse at a worshipper.

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

    if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke

    I would certainly have been impressed – it may have eventually been placed in a museum as the “shot” of fatty meat heard round the world as Europe wakens from its stupor – realizes what is at steak – sorry, stake – and prepares for a final push to expunge all the non-bacon eaters from its hallowed shores!

    “Pork – there’s a reason why it’s called ‘the other White meat’!”

    To think it all started with a few strips of greasy meat…

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha

    if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke
     
    I would certainly have been impressed - it may have eventually been placed in a museum as the "shot" of fatty meat heard round the world as Europe wakens from its stupor - realizes what is at steak - sorry, stake - and prepares for a final push to expunge all the non-bacon eaters from its hallowed shores!

    http://www.baconcoma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bacon-Flag.png

    "Pork - there's a reason why it's called 'the other White meat'!"

    To think it all started with a few strips of greasy meat...

    Peace.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    A news social hierarchy will arise! A White man shall be at its center and the rankings of its elite will be well-defined:

    https://oracleofbacon.org/

    Peace.

    Damn - Adam West has a bacon-factor of 2!!! Impressive!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Talha says:
    @Anon

    A news social hierarchy will arise! A White man shall be at its center and the rankings of its elite will be well-defined:

    https://oracleofbacon.org/

    Peace.

    Damn – Adam West has a bacon-factor of 2!!! Impressive!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That site is more interesting than I would have imagined.

    Will making tukey bacon be a criminal offense?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. To say anything else is a conspiracy theory and I propose an automatic permaban for anyone who suggests as much.

    I don’t understand why Putin banned the DailyStormer. Putin wants to increase civil discord in the US right? DailyStormer did more than any other website to do just that.

    Big own goal by Putin on this one. I’m still really pissed and feel betrayed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
     
    You evidently didn't read the link...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Seraphim says:
    @German_reader
    Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn't interest me much...but I know he's beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results ("finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!").

    Nietzsche was a demented filo-semite and rabid anti-Christian. His toxic influence appealed to anarchists (he has almost prophetic status among the ‘post-leftists’ anarchists and ‘Third Positionists’) as well as to Zionists (“Nietzsche and Herzl both opposed the Christian God as the degeneration of the primordial, Dionysian deity of Yahweh, the tribal God of Israel, instead of the passive sufferer of cosmopolitan Christianity. It has been argued, not without reason, Nietzsche’s work greatly influenced Theodore Herzl, and Martin Buber went so far as to extol Nietzsche as a “creator” and “emissary of life”).
    He did indeed influence Mussolini (and Jabotinski, for that matter – he compared himself with Nietzsche’s ‘superman’). “A girlfriend of Mussolini, Margherita Sarfatti, who was Jewish, relates that Nietzsche virtually was the transforming factor in Mussolini’s “conversion” from hard socialism to spiritualistic, ascetic fascism… It has been suggested that Theodore Roosevelt read Nietzsche and was profoundly influenced by him”.
    It had a strong influence on the likes of Adorno and Horkheimer who insisted that Nietzsche must be rescued from fascist and racist appropriations!
    The reality was that Nietzsche was an opponent of volkist pan-Germanism and advocated a nobiliary, trans-national pan-Europeanism incorporating the cultural-spiritual elite from all Western nations, including Judea or Israel (direct inspiration for the ‘Praktischer Idealismus’ of Coudenhove-Kalergi).
    Here is what Nietzsche had to say about the Germans: “They are my enemies, these Germans… They have twisted and tangled everything they touched.” He called German hatred of Jews, Poles and French a “stupidity” and said anti-Semites should be expelled from the country, that they try to excite blockheads and one should “associate with no man who takes part in the mendacious race swindle.”

    Proto-Nazi? Give us a break.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William
    Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. To say anything else is a conspiracy theory and I propose an automatic permaban for anyone who suggests as much.


    I don't understand why Putin banned the DailyStormer. Putin wants to increase civil discord in the US right? DailyStormer did more than any other website to do just that.

    Big own goal by Putin on this one. I'm still really pissed and feel betrayed.

    Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

    You evidently didn’t read the link…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AP

    This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.
     
    Perhaps. Monarchial systems developed organically over hundreds of years. I suppose they could theoretically develop once again, but it seems highly unlikely. The chance for a return would have been after World War II in central Europe due to a brief break of 25 years (it came close, in Bavaria and perhaps Austria, but the Americans shot it down).

    Perhaps. The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?
     
    I don't remember the details. I think the Americans shot down Otto's bid after World War II.

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?
     
    I have an old photo of my grandfather's brother with Karl, taken outside in somewhere in Italy. There is a weird lighting effect of rays of sunshine over Karl, almost like a halo. If he is recognized as a saint maybe I'll crop it, print it, get blessed and turn it into an icon :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. AP says:
    @Anon
    Perhaps. The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?

    The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

    I don’t remember the details. I think the Americans shot down Otto’s bid after World War II.

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?

    I have an old photo of my grandfather’s brother with Karl, taken outside in somewhere in Italy. There is a weird lighting effect of rays of sunshine over Karl, almost like a halo. If he is recognized as a saint maybe I’ll crop it, print it, get blessed and turn it into an icon :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Then you'll appreciate this story. It was told by one of Zita's descendants, archduchess Sophia (not the actress). On the eve of Carl being beatified, Zita was received by John Paul II. She knelt and kissed the Fisherman's ring. Then John Paul took both her hands and said: "Now allow me to kiss the hand of my Empress." His father hand been an officer in the Empire.

    John Paul once sent a laconic message to a european historian: "Canes debent latrare". Also, there's "Zita, intimate portrait of an empress" by Cyrille Debris I think, and she gives out interesting details of their deposing.

    Cropping might be in your future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP: By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no? After all, both the Slavs and the Muslims would compromise about half of the population in such a union and thus no one side would be able to utterly nominate the other, no?

    Likewise, by your logic here, if one ignores the IQ issue (which should hopefully eventually become a moot point due to IQ-enhancing technology), increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct? (Indeed, the U.S. was around 85% white in the mid-20th century but the youngest cohorts right now are only about 50% White and shrinking with every new year of children being born.)

    By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no?

    Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power. Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks.

    Increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct?

    It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?

    Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc.

    And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands.

    * This was the Austrian part. With Hungary it was a little more complicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Seraphim says:
    @AP
    In addition to historical parallels involving settling a new frontier, and social ones (traditionally agricultural societies with educated landed gentry and peasants) I've noticed certain social or cultural ones.

    Anecdotes: I have a few friends and colleagues from elite Latin American families. They strike me as being more "Slavic" than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes. Most of them enjoy Russian literature. I notice that at parties they tend to congregate with Russians and Poles. I know a central European count who married the daughter of a diplomat from south of the border. There is something similar in their traditional relations to their "peasants" although due to the racial differences the disconnect is more extreme in Latin America than in Russia. Tolstoy's peasant obsession reminds me of some upper class Mexicans with no Indian descent giving their kids Aztec names. When Karlin posted this, about more upper class Russian students:

    The vast majority of our children enter university having lost their virginity. Who of us doesn’t know that in the senior classes of the gymnasiums there is hardly a boy to be a found who has yet to be acquainted with a maid, or a brothel
     
    I'm reminded of the seemingly common practice in Latin America of fathers getting their high-school sons high-end prostitutes, to make sure the boys will know what they are doing (I know two guys from different Latin American countries who got such gifts, so I assume it's not uncommon).
    :::::::::::::::::

    So, generally speaking, I see a non-Commie Russia as developing like a place such as Argentina or Brazil, only with a significantly higher average IQ (more potential for Russian peasants as the country modernizes, than for Brazilian ones) and much larger industrial base.

    @Latin-Americans “more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes”

    That may come as a surprise only for the Anglos. Their demeanor and attitudes are the exception here.
    Both Latin-American and ‘Slavic’ societies were traditional societies sharing the values, the demeanor and attitudes of the ‘Old World’ fashioned by the Christian ‘Weltanschauung’ and perpetuated by the Church. They are not so obsessed with their ‘whiteness’ and superior IQ as the WASPs. They are less materialistic, individualistic and self-centered and appreciate more spiritual things and warm human relations than the worshippers of the Golden Calf and ‘manifest destinies’.
    Latin America is more of an ‘Old World’ located in the ‘New World’ . Like it or not, Latin America is by and large a creation of the Catholic Church and of the Spanish Golden Age (one of the peak moments of European culture) in a syncretic process with the native cultures (‘La Nuestra Signora de Guadalupe’, whose image is the lovingly worshipped protectrice of Mexico, was the banner of the supposedly hated conquistadores!).
    Anyhow the ‘New World’ here has to be taken in geographical terms only. The real ‘New World’ in civilizational terms is just the spread over the American continent of the essentially ‘non-European’ (and actually ‘anti-European’) simple-minded mental disease of the Judeo-Anglo-Dutch-German-Protestant ‘culture’, in its obstinate attempt to replace the Spanish (and destroy their cultural paradigm) in their settlements in America and beyond (in the Pacific, that’s it).
    Russia was an ‘Old World’ operating in the traditional framework of the ‘Old World’ (of the Silk Roads, if you want). Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the ‘conquest of the Canaan’ which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America. It doesn’t fit the Marxo-Lenino-Trotskoid memes of ‘colonialism’, ‘imperialism’ either. Of course, Russians fought the twin scourges of Judaism and Islam, did convert many retarded tribes to Orthodoxy, integrating them into a higher form of civilization (that of the Roman-Christian Empire). Her expansion is not a ‘New World frontier’ type phenomenon. Hence the futile ramblings about the belonging of Russia to ‘Europe’ or to ‘Eurasia’. This cannot be a basis for a value judgement of Russia. Russia has ‘an elbow in Europe and the other in Asia’ by her sheer geographical position (as the famous Westernizing ‘madman’ Chaadaev was forced to admit). What we are facing today is the reassertion of the traditional order of things, which cannot but raise the frantic alarm among the ‘new worlders’ that their time of unbridled piracy – called euphemistically ‘free trade’, ‘free market’, ‘open seas’, ‘open societies’, ‘open sphincters’ -, comes to an inglorious end.
    Just as an aside, since we touched the subject of Argentina, we may meditate on ‘Borges becoming, in a way, an agent of distribution of Russian culture among Spanish-speaking reading public’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the ‘conquest of the Canaan’ which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America.

    Unfortunately the history of Russia's expansion is not really well know in the West. How the native populations were treated and how it compares to what Brits did in America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Yes, when I think of 1905′s Bloody Sunday and broader semi-revolution, and the ensuing response by Tsarist state security forces, what comes to mind is an overwhelming impression of a kindly and naïve government that simply didn’t realize you could deal with political dissent through violent repression.

    And yes, yes, of course, there were Stolypin’s famous neckties, if you want to be tedious. Liberals, Marxists, etc. like to bring up this piece of factual evidence that contradicts my argument, but because they bring it up so often it can be dismissed as evidence. (I hasten to note that I genuinely think Stolypin was a great and courageous statesman who, had his reforms not been stymied and he not been assassinated, would have had a perhaps immensely positive effect on 20th century history.)

    Yes, Stolypin’s neckties and all that. What Communist propagandists don’t like to mention as much is that just during the three years 1904-1907 some 4,500 Tsarist officials were murdered by what would today be classified as Far Left terrorist groups.This is basically a rounding error by the standards of the Bolsheviks’ multicultural Coalition of the Fringes, including during their “progressive” Trotskyist phase that Western leftist academics and journalists love to laud so much.

    Certainly, the Communist-controlled Russian state killed far more people than the Tsarist-controlled one. (Though to be fair, some of this was during the civil war, in which anti-Communist right-wing forces, though less systematic about it than the Bolsheviks, were hardly blushing innocents themselves.)

    But the early USSR was one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th century, not the modal European polity circa 1914. It would make much more sense to compare Tsarist Russia’s record to that of Victorian England, France’s Third Republic, the German Kaiserreich, etc. And such nations were indeed generally notably further along the path to liberal democracy than Tsarist Russia, which is why the stereotype of Russian governance as tyrannical was popular in that era. (Generally, stereotypes tend to be decent if imperfect guides to reality.)

    Russia by 1913 had the largest number of university students in Europe (127,000 to 80,000 in Germany, around 40,000 in France and Austria each).

    Obviously per capita numbers, as well as evidence for the quality of education such as the literacy rate and scientific/technical accomplishments, compared to other European countries at the time, would be more relevant here.

    In closing, I’d like to note that I generally very much enjoy Mr. Karlin’s writing—I just have a strong tendency to want to disagree with contrarian pieces that go like: “Most, even educated, people think [x]. But ACTUALLY, it’s [y], why does everyone suffer from the insane delusion that it’s [x]?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Mr. XYZ says:

    “Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power.”

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia). Thus, the same logic that you use to reject a Ukrainian union with Russia could have been used by other countries to reject Poland’s Intermarium project in the past.

    Plus, this is not to mention that even when one ethnic group enjoys overwhelming dominance, sufficiently large-scale autonomy can be given to majority-minority areas. For instance, take a look at South Tyrol in Italy or Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in the U.K.

    “Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks.”

    True; however, some of these consequences might be alleviated if IQ-enhancing technology becomes widespread.

    “It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?”

    As you and I both know, Western countries have their reasons for doing this.

    “Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc.”

    I get your point; I just don’t think that I fully agree with it. After all, I could just as easily say that the reason that Czechoslovakia was able to be bullied by Germany is because Britain and France refused to stand up for it. Indeed, had Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. been able to establish collective security in Europe after the end of World War I–similar to what was done after the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War–small countries such as Czechoslovakia would be able to resist bullying by other, more powerful countries.

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state during World War I in real life, I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary’s unity wouldn’t have protected it from being dismantled and dismembered (even if Britain and France would have tried militarily intervening to save it) due to the simple fact that Germany and Russia combined were much more powerful than it was (even if one adds Britain and France to the war on Austria-Hungary’s side).

    “And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands.”

    True, the ethnic balance in Austria helped prevent German domination of the country. However, this didn’t fully eliminate this problem. As I said above, Austria-Hungary’s increasing dependence on Germany gradually allowed the former to dominate the latter more and more (true, World War I certainly helped, but with Russia’s growing power, Germany would have been more and more crucial for Austria-Hungary’s defense either way). In addition, had Germany allied with Russia around 1890 and threw Austria-Hungary under the bus, Austria-Hungary’s size and population probably wouldn’t have prevented it from eventually being dismembered if that is what Germany and Russia would have wished to jointly do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    Do you believe Intermarium
    would be enough to stop both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union?
    , @AP

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).
     
    Or, Russia could have cut a deal with one of the non-Russian groups and then run roughshod over the others. There would have simply been too much of an imbalance. Moreover, each of the smaller peoples have their own interests, and rather than pursuing those they would just spend their energy containing Russia.

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia).
     
    True. For them it would have been a lesser evil scenario. They are all much closer to Poland in terms of population than to Russia or Germany. So while some sort of second-status would have been likely, it would have been less total. For example, the Baltics collectively have about 15% of Poland's population but only 4% of Russia's population. The Czech Republic has 1/4 of Poland's population but a fraction of Germany's. USA lightens, somewhat, discrepancies between small and large states though the electoral college, presumably Intermarium would do something similar.

    That being said, Intermarium, really depended/depends on Ukraine to provide balance. Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state
     
    Even a satellite state (and it would never quite get that far - A-H was too big to simply become a Warsaw Pact-era Czechoslovakia to Germany's USSR) would have been far preferable to annexation and total submission. Moreover, the internal workings of Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian peoples within the A-H junior partner were beyond the scale of Berlin's relationship.

    I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy.
     
    This is true. Although Germany and Russia were fundamentally different with respect to the Ottoman lands - Russia wanted the Balkans and Constantinople, Germany was reliant on Middle Eastern oil and wanted guaranteed access to it through its own allies. This was a difficult circle to square.

    Moreover, invading and partitioning a genuine power with millions of soldiers would have been much harder than grabbing a bunch of little countries, one at a time. Just because it could have been done does not mean that it would have been done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mr. XYZ says:

    Indeed, for what it’s worth, having Germany throw Austria-Hungary and ally with Russia might have been the best for Europe. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary would have either attempted to joint he German-Russian alliance *on German-Russian terms* or would have resisted and probably eventually gotten dismembered. True, an eventual dismemberment of Austria-Hungary might have still eventually sparked World War I, but the different power balance might have very well ensured that it wouldn’t have been as nasty of a war–with consequences as nasty as in real life–in this scenario.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @Seraphim
    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity. War against Russia was desired by Germany, by the Zionists, by the SDAP.
    It was decided at the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912. Its immediate concerns were the successes of the Balkan League against the darling of the Germans, the Ottoman Empire, and the alarm of Austro-Hungary at the rise of Serbia. Kaiser Wilhelm urged that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia the following month, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too" adding that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway. The Army Chief of Staff, the General von Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". He wanted to launch an immediate attack, but the Admiral Tirpitz said that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly. But it was clearly established that, if there was going to be a war, the German Army wanted it to commence before the new Russian armaments program began to bear fruit.
    Well, yes, to catch Russia unprepared! The accusation that Russia engaged unprepared in such adventure because of the ineptitude of the Tsar and that led to the revolution is sheer idiocy.
    There can be little doubt that the Russians were not only aware, but informed in detail of the Austro-German intentions (the case of Colonel Alfred Redl -1913). They could not have been unaware of the push of the Germans to capture the oil fields of the Caspian in cahoots with the Ottomans.
    Not to take precautions would have been criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity.

    That’s projection. In fact, I stated in no uncertain terms that I considered both of these powers stupid, especially Austria-Hungary. You, on the other hand, are only willing to talk about Austrian-Hungarian and German culpability and seem to totally exonerate Russia, when in fact Russia could have simply opted out of the whole affair by not backing Serbia and not assuring the Serbs that Russia would go to war for them and then not mobilizing. By the way, mobilization was considered more important than a formal declaration of war, since with telegraph etc. the latter could be done in an hour, whereas the former required weeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Why are you pussyfooting around the incontrovertible proof of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912?
    Germany was on the course of war against Russia since the 'dropping of the pilot' Bismarck, the cool head of German politics who never tired to warn the hothead war hawks against the insanity of engaging in an unwinnable war with the Bear and against dabbling in the maze of Balkan politics with the silly intention of pissing off Russia (he is on record saying in 1888, after the lapsing of the 'League of the three Emperors': “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans").
    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia (or any other pesky 'balkaniks', who didn't like too much the 'nemtsi' - they still don't).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @melanf

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”,
     
    Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately used the Sarajevo incident to start the war (this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated). Serbia rejected not the whole the ultimatum,of Austria, but only one point of ultimatum - this Franz Joseph and Wilhelm happily used. This people (and their entourage), started WWI

    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war. They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence (not controlling their intelligence services) or malice (if they did control the intelligence services perpetrating the terrorist attack).

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war.
     
    Prince Lichnowsky (German Ambassador in Britain in 1914):
    "All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior ....Persistent requests of Sazonov (Russian foreign Minister), even humiliated (for Nicholas II) telegrams of the tsar.... nothing helped”"

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

    They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence
     
    In 1938 England and France just telling the Czechs (which oppressed the German population of the annexed German territories) to live with the consequences of their incompetence . This has helped?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @German_reader

    Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum
     
    In hindsight that's obviously true...but which great power could let a small "rogue state" like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that? In a way the real issue was about Austria-Hungary's great power status and the fact that Britain, France and Russia expected Austria-Hungary just to accept being humiliated like that, because they didn't really regard Austria-Hungary as an equal anymore.
    And given that Austria-Hungary was Germany's only reliable ally and German elites increasingly felt encircled by an hostile coalition (not without reason, though they themselves of course had contributed to bringing about that situation) the German reaction wasn't irrational, they just felt they couldn't let Austria-Hungary's status be eroded like that. Given how it all turned out, it was still highly irresponsible policy, but there was a certain logic behind it that's not easy to refute imo.

    Perhaps, but I think the Austrians at first weren’t sure what to do, or how strong the ultimatum had to be. After German assurances that in case of war with Russia they’d help them out and that war was inevitable anyway and preferable at that point in time than later, they opted for the strongest possible demand list. I can understand why they did what they did, but I think it’s wrong to think that they had no other choice or that all criticism is just hindsight – even at that time they weren’t entirely sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    You're probably right about this, the German leadership certainly took several key decisions which tended to escalate the crisis instead of defusing it, and their unconditional backing of Austria-Hungary was one of them. They thought a general European war was an acceptable risk or maybe inevitable anyway, so they didn't try hard enough to avoid it. It certainly was very irresponsible policy. However, they took those decisions based on assumptions (Germany being more or less encircled by an hostile bloc, Austria-Hungary the only real ally who had to be kept at Germany's side and whose status had to be preserved) that at least weren't totally wrong in the international situation of 1914. The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened imo; it surprises me how common it still is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @reiner Tor
    Perhaps, but I think the Austrians at first weren't sure what to do, or how strong the ultimatum had to be. After German assurances that in case of war with Russia they'd help them out and that war was inevitable anyway and preferable at that point in time than later, they opted for the strongest possible demand list. I can understand why they did what they did, but I think it's wrong to think that they had no other choice or that all criticism is just hindsight - even at that time they weren't entirely sure.

    You’re probably right about this, the German leadership certainly took several key decisions which tended to escalate the crisis instead of defusing it, and their unconditional backing of Austria-Hungary was one of them. They thought a general European war was an acceptable risk or maybe inevitable anyway, so they didn’t try hard enough to avoid it. It certainly was very irresponsible policy. However, they took those decisions based on assumptions (Germany being more or less encircled by an hostile bloc, Austria-Hungary the only real ally who had to be kept at Germany’s side and whose status had to be preserved) that at least weren’t totally wrong in the international situation of 1914. The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened imo; it surprises me how common it still is.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened
     
    Exactly. We were focusing on Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, but even France and the UK weren't entirely blameless either. Also the American view that they "saved Europe" is astonishingly bizarre. They saved some European countries against some other European countries, eventually leading to the destruction of those other European powers. That's not "saving Europe".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Seraphim
    We must pay more attention to the use of words. That would spare us nonsensical utterances like: the Russian Church was 'reinstated'. That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the 'bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it', an 'atheist' is to stretch credibility.

    That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!

    And indeed it was abolished. There was no organization fit to be called a ‘Church’ in Russia in Tsarist times. (Of course there were believers who were part of the transcendental community of Christians, but there was no Church. Similar to how there’s no Church today in Brazil or China.)

    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.

    First, don’t cherry-pick, the majority of Chief Procurators were, indeed, atheist.

    Second, to call Pobedonostsev “ultra-orthodox” is incorrect. He was a conservative and a moralizer, yes, but his orthodoxy was paper-thin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You are talking absolute nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @German_reader
    You're probably right about this, the German leadership certainly took several key decisions which tended to escalate the crisis instead of defusing it, and their unconditional backing of Austria-Hungary was one of them. They thought a general European war was an acceptable risk or maybe inevitable anyway, so they didn't try hard enough to avoid it. It certainly was very irresponsible policy. However, they took those decisions based on assumptions (Germany being more or less encircled by an hostile bloc, Austria-Hungary the only real ally who had to be kept at Germany's side and whose status had to be preserved) that at least weren't totally wrong in the international situation of 1914. The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened imo; it surprises me how common it still is.

    The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened

    Exactly. We were focusing on Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, but even France and the UK weren’t entirely blameless either. Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre. They saved some European countries against some other European countries, eventually leading to the destruction of those other European powers. That’s not “saving Europe”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre.
     
    Tbh my impression has always been that most Americans aren't even really aware of WW1, they're totally focused on their WW2 victory cult (and there mostly on the European theater, the war against the Japanese with its firebombings and use of nuclear weapons seems to have become un-pc in retrospect).
    I did once encounter an annoying American (a naturalized ex-German, so he had all the zeal of a convert) who said shortly after 9/11 "We beat the Kaiser, the Nazis, the communists...and now we're gonna beat the terrorists too!", but WW1 in general seems to be more prominent for anti-interventionist Americans who regret America's intervention and the loss of civil liberties during it.
    And yes, I'd agree that even France and Britain weren't entirely guiltless regarding WW1, though with them (especially Britain) it was probably more what they had done in the years before 1914 to bring about an international situation full of tensions than what they did during the July crisis itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @reiner Tor

    The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened
     
    Exactly. We were focusing on Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, but even France and the UK weren't entirely blameless either. Also the American view that they "saved Europe" is astonishingly bizarre. They saved some European countries against some other European countries, eventually leading to the destruction of those other European powers. That's not "saving Europe".

    Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre.

    Tbh my impression has always been that most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1, they’re totally focused on their WW2 victory cult (and there mostly on the European theater, the war against the Japanese with its firebombings and use of nuclear weapons seems to have become un-pc in retrospect).
    I did once encounter an annoying American (a naturalized ex-German, so he had all the zeal of a convert) who said shortly after 9/11 “We beat the Kaiser, the Nazis, the communists…and now we’re gonna beat the terrorists too!”, but WW1 in general seems to be more prominent for anti-interventionist Americans who regret America’s intervention and the loss of civil liberties during it.
    And yes, I’d agree that even France and Britain weren’t entirely guiltless regarding WW1, though with them (especially Britain) it was probably more what they had done in the years before 1914 to bring about an international situation full of tensions than what they did during the July crisis itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1
     
    I've frequently encountered some version of the claim that "we [i.e. the US] saved Europe twice in the world wars and then again with NATO", so at least a lot of the American chattering classes are aware of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @German_reader

    Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre.
     
    Tbh my impression has always been that most Americans aren't even really aware of WW1, they're totally focused on their WW2 victory cult (and there mostly on the European theater, the war against the Japanese with its firebombings and use of nuclear weapons seems to have become un-pc in retrospect).
    I did once encounter an annoying American (a naturalized ex-German, so he had all the zeal of a convert) who said shortly after 9/11 "We beat the Kaiser, the Nazis, the communists...and now we're gonna beat the terrorists too!", but WW1 in general seems to be more prominent for anti-interventionist Americans who regret America's intervention and the loss of civil liberties during it.
    And yes, I'd agree that even France and Britain weren't entirely guiltless regarding WW1, though with them (especially Britain) it was probably more what they had done in the years before 1914 to bring about an international situation full of tensions than what they did during the July crisis itself.

    most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1

    I’ve frequently encountered some version of the claim that “we [i.e. the US] saved Europe twice in the world wars and then again with NATO”, so at least a lot of the American chattering classes are aware of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, you're right, that's quite common...but if you asked most of those people what actually happened in 1917/18 they probably couldn't tell you much (maybe, if they make an effort, how imperial Germany was simply a proto-Nazi empire...I doubt they would make a cogent case for why exactly Austria-Hungary needed to be broken up). Details don't matter anyway if you're convinced that America is always a force for good in the world (and even if it f***s up spectacularly, "hey, at least we meant well!").
    , @polskijoe
    more accurate:

    Americans helped "save" Western Europe.
    Americans helped "save" China
    Soviets helped "save" Eastern and Central Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. I’m confused… are we becoming Soviet America or Tsarist America?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @reiner Tor

    most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1
     
    I've frequently encountered some version of the claim that "we [i.e. the US] saved Europe twice in the world wars and then again with NATO", so at least a lot of the American chattering classes are aware of it.

    Yes, you’re right, that’s quite common…but if you asked most of those people what actually happened in 1917/18 they probably couldn’t tell you much (maybe, if they make an effort, how imperial Germany was simply a proto-Nazi empire…I doubt they would make a cogent case for why exactly Austria-Hungary needed to be broken up). Details don’t matter anyway if you’re convinced that America is always a force for good in the world (and even if it f***s up spectacularly, “hey, at least we meant well!”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity.
     
    That's projection. In fact, I stated in no uncertain terms that I considered both of these powers stupid, especially Austria-Hungary. You, on the other hand, are only willing to talk about Austrian-Hungarian and German culpability and seem to totally exonerate Russia, when in fact Russia could have simply opted out of the whole affair by not backing Serbia and not assuring the Serbs that Russia would go to war for them and then not mobilizing. By the way, mobilization was considered more important than a formal declaration of war, since with telegraph etc. the latter could be done in an hour, whereas the former required weeks.

    Why are you pussyfooting around the incontrovertible proof of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912?
    Germany was on the course of war against Russia since the ‘dropping of the pilot’ Bismarck, the cool head of German politics who never tired to warn the hothead war hawks against the insanity of engaging in an unwinnable war with the Bear and against dabbling in the maze of Balkan politics with the silly intention of pissing off Russia (he is on record saying in 1888, after the lapsing of the ‘League of the three Emperors’: “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans”).
    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia (or any other pesky ‘balkaniks’, who didn’t like too much the ‘nemtsi’ – they still don’t).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The German Imperial War Council is not "incontrovertible proof" of anything, except that many in the German leadership thought a war was inevitable, and that if war was to be started, it was better to start earlier than later. In July 1914 the same thoughts would resurface. I have already criticized this thinking, so I'm not sure what's your point here.

    Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact that a European war was easily avoidable by the Russians. You ignore the fact that the Serbian intelligence services were sponsoring terrorism in order to destabilize Austria-Hungary.


    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia
     
    Where the hell did you get this idea? I surely didn't write anything about it.
    , @AP

    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia
     
    He didn't write that, but in the case of a Serbian government agency responsible for the murder of Austria-Hungary's crown prince and his wife, Serbia was clearly in the wrong and Austria-Hungary was morally correct in its demands (even if, practically speaking, the resulting events ended in disaster).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward

    That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
     
    And indeed it was abolished. There was no organization fit to be called a 'Church' in Russia in Tsarist times. (Of course there were believers who were part of the transcendental community of Christians, but there was no Church. Similar to how there's no Church today in Brazil or China.)

    Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.
     
    First, don't cherry-pick, the majority of Chief Procurators were, indeed, atheist.

    Second, to call Pobedonostsev "ultra-orthodox" is incorrect. He was a conservative and a moralizer, yes, but his orthodoxy was paper-thin.

    You are talking absolute nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    You are talking absolute nonsense.
     
    No, technically, you are. Your post is literally a knee-jerk reaction without any sensible point or argument.

    But back to the topic: you need to differentiate the Church as the body or Christ ("one, holy, catholic and apostolic") and the Church as a social and political organization, with the attendant rules, regulations and traditions.

    The great tragedy is that Russians are a deeply and seriously religious people who had no Church for 200 years. The situation parallels that of today's China: there are lots of Christians in China, but no Church. There are Church-shaped simulacra, but they are wholly subjugated to a non-Christian government and denied the right to follow Christian canon law.

    This tragedy ultimately led to the Empire's downfall.

    (Note that this is mistake the Soviets and post-Soviets will not be making: despite the wide-scale persecution, the Soviet government never dared to deny the Church the right to exist.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Seraphim
    Why are you pussyfooting around the incontrovertible proof of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912?
    Germany was on the course of war against Russia since the 'dropping of the pilot' Bismarck, the cool head of German politics who never tired to warn the hothead war hawks against the insanity of engaging in an unwinnable war with the Bear and against dabbling in the maze of Balkan politics with the silly intention of pissing off Russia (he is on record saying in 1888, after the lapsing of the 'League of the three Emperors': “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans").
    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia (or any other pesky 'balkaniks', who didn't like too much the 'nemtsi' - they still don't).

    The German Imperial War Council is not “incontrovertible proof” of anything, except that many in the German leadership thought a war was inevitable, and that if war was to be started, it was better to start earlier than later. In July 1914 the same thoughts would resurface. I have already criticized this thinking, so I’m not sure what’s your point here.

    Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact that a European war was easily avoidable by the Russians. You ignore the fact that the Serbian intelligence services were sponsoring terrorism in order to destabilize Austria-Hungary.

    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia

    Where the hell did you get this idea? I surely didn’t write anything about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You didn't write it specifically, but it is implicit in all you have written. Austria good, Serbia bad, Russia the worst.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor
    The German Imperial War Council is not "incontrovertible proof" of anything, except that many in the German leadership thought a war was inevitable, and that if war was to be started, it was better to start earlier than later. In July 1914 the same thoughts would resurface. I have already criticized this thinking, so I'm not sure what's your point here.

    Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact that a European war was easily avoidable by the Russians. You ignore the fact that the Serbian intelligence services were sponsoring terrorism in order to destabilize Austria-Hungary.


    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia
     
    Where the hell did you get this idea? I surely didn't write anything about it.

    You didn’t write it specifically, but it is implicit in all you have written. Austria good, Serbia bad, Russia the worst.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. TheJester says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    The lights went out all over Europe in 1914 and they've never really been turned back on. Was World War I just a "bad break," or were there forces in Europe pre-war that made some kind of conflict of that nature and scope more or less inevitable?

    Post-Napoleon, British imperial foreign policy was that no single nation would control the European continent and again freeze British trade from that market.

    Moving forward, this meant that Britain would actively engage to play one European power off against another to ensure no one country could dominate the continent. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Germany was ascendant … so, Britain sided with France and Russia against Germany. Post-WWI, France was ascendant, which accounted for Britain siding with Germany to moderate the Treaty of Versailles and make other concessions to Germany, which facilitated the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The ultimate Anglo-Saxon fear was an alliance between Germany and Russia that would control and Asian landmass (recognizing that Europe is nothing but a promontory of Asia).

    Post-WWII, Britain returned to the pre-WWI policy of acting to “keep the Russians out and the Germans down.” (Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down?) In the 1950s, when the political, financial, and military center of the Anglo-Saxon Empire moved from London to Washington (and the US Navy replaced the Royal Navy in controlling the world’s sea lanes), Washington continued the British policy of “keeping the Russians out and the Germans down”, and, God forbid, an alliance between the two.

    This will not last forever. Although the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that returned sovereignty to a united Germany specified that the Oder-Neisse Line formed the boundary between Germany and Poland, there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

    Indeed, when living in Germany in the 1970s, I asked a friend of mine in the German air force what the line in Poland was on a map in the train station. He said they were the “occupied territories”. I ran across an Internet short the other day that related that there are circles in the newly assurgent (nationalist) AfD party in Germany that would like to revisit those boundaries.

    Here we go again!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, "Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918":
    "For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity" (p. XVIII).
    , @German_reader

    there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.
     
    No, there aren't. Granted, the AfD may have some deranged people in their ranks who care about that issue (or rather non-issue since it was settled long ago). But most German right-wingers today don't care...we don't want present-day Germany overrun by Muslims and Africans, the lost Eastern territories don't matter anymore.
    , @LondonBob
    Britain made the Germans invade Belgium in WWI and Poland in WWII.
    , @jacques sheete
    OMG. For once, a decent capsule summary of why the lights went out all over 19th and 20th century Europe. Nicely done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Seraphim says:
    @TheJester
    Post-Napoleon, British imperial foreign policy was that no single nation would control the European continent and again freeze British trade from that market.

    Moving forward, this meant that Britain would actively engage to play one European power off against another to ensure no one country could dominate the continent. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Germany was ascendant ... so, Britain sided with France and Russia against Germany. Post-WWI, France was ascendant, which accounted for Britain siding with Germany to moderate the Treaty of Versailles and make other concessions to Germany, which facilitated the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The ultimate Anglo-Saxon fear was an alliance between Germany and Russia that would control and Asian landmass (recognizing that Europe is nothing but a promontory of Asia).

    Post-WWII, Britain returned to the pre-WWI policy of acting to "keep the Russians out and the Germans down." (Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down?) In the 1950s, when the political, financial, and military center of the Anglo-Saxon Empire moved from London to Washington (and the US Navy replaced the Royal Navy in controlling the world's sea lanes), Washington continued the British policy of "keeping the Russians out and the Germans down", and, God forbid, an alliance between the two.

    This will not last forever. Although the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that returned sovereignty to a united Germany specified that the Oder-Neisse Line formed the boundary between Germany and Poland, there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

    Indeed, when living in Germany in the 1970s, I asked a friend of mine in the German air force what the line in Poland was on a map in the train station. He said they were the "occupied territories". I ran across an Internet short the other day that related that there are circles in the newly assurgent (nationalist) AfD party in Germany that would like to revisit those boundaries.

    Here we go again!

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:
    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).
     
    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon ... but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I'm starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany "down". Germany's economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel's bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also "froze" Germany's borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually "frozen" by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I'm beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel's charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany's WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany's economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is "up" ... not "down". What next?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. bb. says:
    @AP
    Makes sense. But this also explains why monarchies tended to be more humane and decent. Monarchs were born to rule (power was taken for granted, it wasn't something to take), they viewed their lands as their patrimony, their subjects as their people. They were often very dedicated and conscientious (old Franz Josef worked 12 hour days up until his death in old age). I'm not trying to idealize monarchs as heroic humanitarians necessarily, but at the least they viewed their country as a guy who inherited his family farm views his farm- something to look after, take care of, and pass on to his heirs in decent condition. In democracies, in contrast, getting to the top involves not birth but the ability to manipulate others, a thirst for power, fame or both.* So the leaders are indeed going to be smarter, but probably less moral and less decent as people.

    *To be sure, this is still better than post-monarchial non-democracies. Democracy at least involves persuasion rather than coercion, so the end product is more humane. Hitler being an obvious counterexample, but he's an exception.

    this reminds me of an article by H. H. Hoppe on the Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy>https://mises.org/library/political-economy-monarchy-and-democracy

    basically, it boils down to the same conflict that a firm faces between managers and owners. Obviously, both have different incentives and behavior derived from it. It comes down to scaling and unfortunately, there is limited supply of Peter the Greats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Some sort of mixed system seems to be the best. An owner ultimately in charge, looking after long-term interests, hiring the most skilled managers; the relationship between Wilhelm I and Bismarck comes to mind. In contrasting Wilhelm I to Wilhelm II, Ernst Junger observed that the most important piece on the chessboard, the king, does not move the most.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @DFH

    Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly)
     
    Funny then that the Communist revolution involved very few actual Russians

    The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Ouritski Jew
    Volodarski Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Krylenko Russian
    Lounatcharski Russian



    “The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

    MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
    President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
    Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
    Agriculture Protian Armenian
    Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Food Schlichter Jew
    Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    State Control Lander Jew
    State Lands Kauffman Jew
    Works V. Schmidt Jew
    Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
    Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
    Religions Spitzberg Jew
    Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Hygiene Anvelt Jew
    Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
    Press Volodarski Jew
    Elections Ouritski Jew
    Justice I. Steinberg Jew
    Refugees Fenigstein Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew



    “The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Sverdlov (president) Jew
    Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
    Bruno Lett
    Babtchinski Jew
    Bukharin Russian
    Weinberg Jew
    Gailiss Jew
    Ganzburg Jew
    Danichevski Jew
    Starck German
    Sachs Jew
    Scheinmann Jew
    Erdling Jew
    Landauer Jew
    Linder Jew
    Wolach Czech
    Dimanstein Jew
    Encukidze Georgian
    Ermann Jew
    Joffe Jew
    Karkline Jew
    Knigissen Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Krylenko Russian
    KrassikofSachs Jew
    Kaprik Jew
    Kaoul Lett
    Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
    Latsis Jew
    Lander Jew
    Lounatcharski Russian
    Peterson Lett
    Peters Lett
    Roudzoutas Jew
    Rosine Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Stoutchka Lett
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Sosnovski Jew
    Skrytnik Jew
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Teodorovitch Jew
    Terian Armenian
    Ouritski Jew
    Telechkine Russian
    Feldmann Jew
    Froumkine Jew
    Souriupa Ukranian
    Tchavtchevadze Georgian
    Scheikmann Jew
    Rosental Jew
    Achkinazi Imeretian
    Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
    Rose Jew
    Sobelson (Radek) Jew
    Sclichter Jew
    Schikolini Jew
    Chklianski Jew
    Levine (Pravdine) Jew



    “The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

    NAME NATIONALITY
    Dzerjinski (president) Pole
    Peters (vice-president) Lett
    Chklovski Jew
    Kheifiss Jew
    Zeistine Jew
    Razmirovitch Jew
    Kronberg Jew
    Khaikina Jewess
    Karlson Lett
    Schaumann Jew
    Leontovitch Jew
    Jacob Goldine Jew
    Glaperstein Jew
    Kniggisen Jew
    Latzis Lett
    Schillenkuss Jew
    Janson Lett
    Rivkine Jew
    Antonof Russian
    Delafabre Jew
    Tsitkine Jew
    Roskirovitch Jew
    G. Sverdlof Jew
    Biesenski Jew
    Blioumkine Jew
    Alexandrevitch Russian
    I. Model Jew
    Routenberg Jew
    Pines Jew
    Sachs Jew
    Daybol Lett
    Saissoune Armenian
    Deylkenen Lett
    Liebert Jew
    Vogel German
    Zakiss Lett




    http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

    Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925

    Well, perhaps, in part, because his list is bullshit. Just looking at the Central Committee, and thinking of some well-known names: Stalin certainly was there, as well as Dzerzhinsky. Volodarsky, however, never was. And this is just from looking at his list for 10 seconds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    Notice the mangled French spelling of the names. These "lists of Jews" were composed by White emigres in Paris sometimes in 1920's and copied ever since (and the names were even more distorted with each transcription).
    , @Stolidarity Forever
    Well, perhaps, in part, because his list is bullshit. Just looking at the Central Committee, and thinking of some well-known names: Stalin certainly was there, as well as Dzerzhinsky. Volodarsky, however, never was. And this is just from looking at his list for 10 seconds.

    From the Wikipedia entry for "Moisei Markovich Goldstein (later V. Volodarsky)":

    "At the Second Congress of Soviets during the October Revolution of 1917, Volodarsky was elected to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK)."

    Apparently, Wikipedia has been taken over by ill-informed anti-Semites. Who would have imagined?
    , @Malla
    My Dear Comerade Mao,

    President Putin himself admitted that 85% of the Bolshevik government were made of Juus. I am sure the President of Russia with a history in the KGB knows a thing or two you do not know. No?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN8ianIJ1Sk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AP

    The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?
     
    I don't remember the details. I think the Americans shot down Otto's bid after World War II.

    It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?
     
    I have an old photo of my grandfather's brother with Karl, taken outside in somewhere in Italy. There is a weird lighting effect of rays of sunshine over Karl, almost like a halo. If he is recognized as a saint maybe I'll crop it, print it, get blessed and turn it into an icon :-)

    Then you’ll appreciate this story. It was told by one of Zita’s descendants, archduchess Sophia (not the actress). On the eve of Carl being beatified, Zita was received by John Paul II. She knelt and kissed the Fisherman’s ring. Then John Paul took both her hands and said: “Now allow me to kiss the hand of my Empress.” His father hand been an officer in the Empire.

    John Paul once sent a laconic message to a european historian: “Canes debent latrare”. Also, there’s “Zita, intimate portrait of an empress” by Cyrille Debris I think, and she gives out interesting details of their deposing.

    Cropping might be in your future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. polskijoe says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    "Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power."

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia's. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia). Thus, the same logic that you use to reject a Ukrainian union with Russia could have been used by other countries to reject Poland's Intermarium project in the past.

    Plus, this is not to mention that even when one ethnic group enjoys overwhelming dominance, sufficiently large-scale autonomy can be given to majority-minority areas. For instance, take a look at South Tyrol in Italy or Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in the U.K.

    "Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks."

    True; however, some of these consequences might be alleviated if IQ-enhancing technology becomes widespread.

    "It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?"

    As you and I both know, Western countries have their reasons for doing this.

    "Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc."

    I get your point; I just don't think that I fully agree with it. After all, I could just as easily say that the reason that Czechoslovakia was able to be bullied by Germany is because Britain and France refused to stand up for it. Indeed, had Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. been able to establish collective security in Europe after the end of World War I--similar to what was done after the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War--small countries such as Czechoslovakia would be able to resist bullying by other, more powerful countries.

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn't be dominated by Germany, you are--*to a large extent*--wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state during World War I in real life, I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary's unity wouldn't have protected it from being dismantled and dismembered (even if Britain and France would have tried militarily intervening to save it) due to the simple fact that Germany and Russia combined were much more powerful than it was (even if one adds Britain and France to the war on Austria-Hungary's side).

    "And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands."

    True, the ethnic balance in Austria helped prevent German domination of the country. However, this didn't fully eliminate this problem. As I said above, Austria-Hungary's increasing dependence on Germany gradually allowed the former to dominate the latter more and more (true, World War I certainly helped, but with Russia's growing power, Germany would have been more and more crucial for Austria-Hungary's defense either way). In addition, had Germany allied with Russia around 1890 and threw Austria-Hungary under the bus, Austria-Hungary's size and population probably wouldn't have prevented it from eventually being dismembered if that is what Germany and Russia would have wished to jointly do.

    Do you believe Intermarium
    would be enough to stop both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Not both at the same time, but it would have been formidable enough for there to be different calculations by each of the powers after World War II. An Intermarium might have forced Germany to stop rearming in the mid 1930's; Poland alone could not do it when the French refused.

    The division and domination of the lands between Germany and Russia would not have been assured.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. polskijoe says:
    @reiner Tor

    most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1
     
    I've frequently encountered some version of the claim that "we [i.e. the US] saved Europe twice in the world wars and then again with NATO", so at least a lot of the American chattering classes are aware of it.

    more accurate:

    Americans helped “save” Western Europe.
    Americans helped “save” China
    Soviets helped “save” Eastern and Central Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @TheJester
    Post-Napoleon, British imperial foreign policy was that no single nation would control the European continent and again freeze British trade from that market.

    Moving forward, this meant that Britain would actively engage to play one European power off against another to ensure no one country could dominate the continent. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Germany was ascendant ... so, Britain sided with France and Russia against Germany. Post-WWI, France was ascendant, which accounted for Britain siding with Germany to moderate the Treaty of Versailles and make other concessions to Germany, which facilitated the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The ultimate Anglo-Saxon fear was an alliance between Germany and Russia that would control and Asian landmass (recognizing that Europe is nothing but a promontory of Asia).

    Post-WWII, Britain returned to the pre-WWI policy of acting to "keep the Russians out and the Germans down." (Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down?) In the 1950s, when the political, financial, and military center of the Anglo-Saxon Empire moved from London to Washington (and the US Navy replaced the Royal Navy in controlling the world's sea lanes), Washington continued the British policy of "keeping the Russians out and the Germans down", and, God forbid, an alliance between the two.

    This will not last forever. Although the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that returned sovereignty to a united Germany specified that the Oder-Neisse Line formed the boundary between Germany and Poland, there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

    Indeed, when living in Germany in the 1970s, I asked a friend of mine in the German air force what the line in Poland was on a map in the train station. He said they were the "occupied territories". I ran across an Internet short the other day that related that there are circles in the newly assurgent (nationalist) AfD party in Germany that would like to revisit those boundaries.

    Here we go again!

    there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

    No, there aren’t. Granted, the AfD may have some deranged people in their ranks who care about that issue (or rather non-issue since it was settled long ago). But most German right-wingers today don’t care…we don’t want present-day Germany overrun by Muslims and Africans, the lost Eastern territories don’t matter anymore.

    Read More
    • Agree: polskijoe
    • Replies: @Talha
    Wow - how the mighty have fallen! These are Germans we are talking about.

    German right-wing circa 1940's: "We are the master race - the world is ours!"

    German right-wing currently: "Can't we just get the niggers out? Please?"

    Peace.
    , @TheJester
    Snippets below from a casual 30-minutes of surfing the Internet. But, ignore this ... nothing going on that is taking Northern Europe to the "right" politically. As in the United States, if the MSM in Germany says it isn't happening, it isn't happening.

    I'm seeing this differently ... as magma boiling in the cauldron at the base of a volcano ready to erupt, just as it did in the 1930s for many of the same reasons. The original post-WWI Weimar Republic lasted 15 years, including an 11-year French occupation of the Rhineland. The second post-WWII Weimar Republic has lasted 72 years, including a 45-year military occupation of what was left of Germany by the Allied powers. Frau Merkel represents the last of the Weimar II politicians.

    How to understand the recent explosion of Russophobia in America, Britain, the Baltics, etc.? America, Britain, and other European countries fear a historic German-Russian rapprochement is in the works. They are paranoid that the longstanding Western strategy of keeping the "Germans down and the Russians out" is no longer working. Well, if you can't keep the Germans "down", at least desperately, desperately try to keep the Russians "out".

    Germany basically owns the economies of Western Europe. A rapprochement with Russia is the next logical move.

    ---------------

    Germany, Austria Lash Back at US Move to Tighten Sanctions on Russia ...

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201706161054690864-us-sanctions-lashback/

    Dozens of neo-Nazis arrested after violent clashes in Sweden ...

    https://www.rt.com/news/405150-neo-nazis-arrested-violence-sweden/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

    Denmark deploys armed troops on streets, German border to help police ...

    https://www.rt.com/news/405128-denmark-armed-soldiers-police/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

    Return of the German Volk ...

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-must-distant-germany-rather-than-the-golan-heights-take-in-syrian-refugees/

    The end of the Merkel era is within sight ...

    https://www.ft.com/content/477cdd7a-7997-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89

    Merkel Wins German Election After Major Populist Uprising ...

    http://www.trunews.com/article/merkel-wins-german-election-after-major-populist-uprising

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Talha says:
    @German_reader

    there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.
     
    No, there aren't. Granted, the AfD may have some deranged people in their ranks who care about that issue (or rather non-issue since it was settled long ago). But most German right-wingers today don't care...we don't want present-day Germany overrun by Muslims and Africans, the lost Eastern territories don't matter anymore.

    Wow – how the mighty have fallen! These are Germans we are talking about.

    German right-wing circa 1940′s: “We are the master race – the world is ours!”

    German right-wing currently: “Can’t we just get the niggers out? Please?”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The Prussian soul is good at everything it sets its mind to: methodical, unsentimental, and efficient. This includes self-destruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Talha
    Wow - how the mighty have fallen! These are Germans we are talking about.

    German right-wing circa 1940's: "We are the master race - the world is ours!"

    German right-wing currently: "Can't we just get the niggers out? Please?"

    Peace.

    The Prussian soul is good at everything it sets its mind to: methodical, unsentimental, and efficient. This includes self-destruction.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war. They could've opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence (not controlling their intelligence services) or malice (if they did control the intelligence services perpetrating the terrorist attack).

    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war.

    Prince Lichnowsky (German Ambassador in Britain in 1914):
    All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior ….Persistent requests of Sazonov (Russian foreign Minister), even humiliated (for Nicholas II) telegrams of the tsar…. nothing helped””

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

    They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence

    In 1938 England and France just telling the Czechs (which oppressed the German population of the annexed German territories) to live with the consequences of their incompetence . This has helped?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?
    , @German_reader

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war
     
    I can't remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers...unfortunately the war party won (how else would you explain Russia's mobilization? And again, Serbia could hardly be called a vital national interest of Russia...in a way it could even be said that the Serbs with their insane machinations dragged Russia into a war that proved to be catastrophically ruinous for Russia).
    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn't really work imo, the issues weren't comparable. Sorry, but this reminds me somewhat of US neocons for whom it's always a repeat of Munich and about avoiding "appeasement".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. TheJester says:
    @Seraphim
    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, "Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918":
    "For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity" (p. XVIII).

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).

    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon … but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I’m starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany “down”. Germany’s economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel’s bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also “froze” Germany’s borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually “frozen” by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I’m beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel’s charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany’s WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany’s economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is “up” … not “down”. What next?

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Not down so much as hooked up to a eco-political framework where Germany would invest its energies into doing a lot of economic good while being politically unable to invade its neighbors. The Western Allies figured out pretty quickly after the war that if Europe was to avoid starving, let alone reach prosperity, West Germany-still the industrial and population hub of the region, no matter how prostrate-would need to get back on its feet, ASAP.

    Germany is reverting to its long-time cultural pre-1945 (and especially pre-1933) position as the "third way" bridge between Western Europe and the Slavic World. This is causing a lot of discomfort in Washington, but it should have been eminently predictable with the reunification of Germany and the fall of the USSR in 1990. It's a testament to the long shadow of 1945 and the success of Adenauer's efforts to permanently integrate into the West that it has taken long, really. Stupid Wilsonians.

    >However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually “frozen” by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost.

    You give the former Allies too much credit. The Germans themselves, or at least the generation in charge, don't want a real military, let alone go to war for... just about anything, even probably to defend themselves. This is a country whose political establishment, and their media allies, will not even tolerate the mere suggestion that Germany should remain... German in any way, shape, or form, from a moral basis. All of Western Europe suffers from this to some extent, but Germany takes it to a completely different level. Given that Holocaust memorialism and WWII guilt have been turned into a religion (a completely negative one, defined only by what they are against) by the public establishment, it shouldn't be surprising that Germans find their youth tentatively exploring the concept of national pride to be a sign of incipient fascism.

    , @Seraphim
    You may find it at
    https://www.scribd.com/document/245952405/John-W-WHEELER-BENNETT-Brest-Litovsk-The-Forgotten-Peace-March-1918
    , @Seraphim
    You may find it at
    https://www.scribd.com/document/245952405/John-W-WHEELER-BENNETT-Brest-Litovsk-The-Forgotten-Peace-March-1918
    , @Anon 2
    With its extremely low fertility rate, Germany without the migrants
    would be losing 200-250,000 residents per year. Hence based on
    demography alone Germany is getting weaker. That's probably
    one reason why Merkel wants more migrants. Another factor is the
    low rate of home ownership in Germany. As a result, millions of
    Germans' net wealth is surprisingly close to zero, surprising at
    least by American standards. In the U.S. home ownership is the
    foundation of wealth, and the main reason why whites are so
    much richer than blacks.

    Moreover, when visiting Germany one cannot escape the impression
    of growing chaos. Of course, the migrants don't help but the slow
    descent into chaos started decades ago. This is no longer the Germany
    of the 1890s. Whatever happened to Ordnung muß sein? Notice
    the paucity of the Nobel Prizes won by Germany since WW II
    as compared to the pre-1939 era. Germans are always complaining
    that their books and research papers are barely noticed in the U.S.

    All in all, this doesn't look like the stereotypical Deutschland that
    cannot wait to get back to its historical modus operandi - Go mighty
    Germania! First conquer Slavia. Then turn your attention west.
    Use Paris and London for target practice! You've done it before.
    You can do it again. Nothing is as intoxicating as military expansionism!

    But to get serious again - I don't see this type of scenario in Europe's
    future anytime soon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. AP says:
    @Seraphim
    Why are you pussyfooting around the incontrovertible proof of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912?
    Germany was on the course of war against Russia since the 'dropping of the pilot' Bismarck, the cool head of German politics who never tired to warn the hothead war hawks against the insanity of engaging in an unwinnable war with the Bear and against dabbling in the maze of Balkan politics with the silly intention of pissing off Russia (he is on record saying in 1888, after the lapsing of the 'League of the three Emperors': “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans").
    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia (or any other pesky 'balkaniks', who didn't like too much the 'nemtsi' - they still don't).

    You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia

    He didn’t write that, but in the case of a Serbian government agency responsible for the murder of Austria-Hungary’s crown prince and his wife, Serbia was clearly in the wrong and Austria-Hungary was morally correct in its demands (even if, practically speaking, the resulting events ended in disaster).

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

    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war.
     
    Prince Lichnowsky (German Ambassador in Britain in 1914):
    "All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior ....Persistent requests of Sazonov (Russian foreign Minister), even humiliated (for Nicholas II) telegrams of the tsar.... nothing helped”"

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

    They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence
     
    In 1938 England and France just telling the Czechs (which oppressed the German population of the annexed German territories) to live with the consequences of their incompetence . This has helped?

    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?
     
    If that's important to you, it's "pre-Stalin era" book, polemizing with the official party line of the time

    But regardless of this, enlighten me - excerpt from the memoirs of Prince Lichnowski (below) is a forgery? Or Lichnowsky, too, was "Stalin-era ...."

    «Конечно, достаточно было одного знака из Берлина, чтобы заставить графа Берхтольда удовлетвориться дипломатическим успехом и успокоиться на сербском ответе, — пишет Лихновский, — но этот знак не последовал. Напротив, толкали к войне… Все больше укреплялось впечатление, что мы хотим войны при всяких обстоятельствах. Иначе вовсе нельзя было понять нашего поведения в вопросе, который ведь совсем нас не касался прямо. Настойчивые просьбы и определенные заявления г. Сазонова, позже даже униженные телеграммы царя, повторные предложения сэра Эдуарда Грея, предостережения маркиза Сан-Джулиано и г. Болати, мои настойчивые советы, — ничто не помогало»
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @melanf

    Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war.
     
    Prince Lichnowsky (German Ambassador in Britain in 1914):
    "All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior ....Persistent requests of Sazonov (Russian foreign Minister), even humiliated (for Nicholas II) telegrams of the tsar.... nothing helped”"

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

    They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence
     
    In 1938 England and France just telling the Czechs (which oppressed the German population of the annexed German territories) to live with the consequences of their incompetence . This has helped?

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

    I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won (how else would you explain Russia’s mobilization? And again, Serbia could hardly be called a vital national interest of Russia…in a way it could even be said that the Serbs with their insane machinations dragged Russia into a war that proved to be catastrophically ruinous for Russia).
    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo, the issues weren’t comparable. Sorry, but this reminds me somewhat of US neocons for whom it’s always a repeat of Munich and about avoiding “appeasement”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won
     
    This is true, but the military party won only after attempts to negotiate with Germany had failed... Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point - but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo
     
    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction - do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
    , @LondonBob
    Mobilisation isn't invasion, perhaps Germany and Austria-Hungary should have waited for that inevitable Russian invasion rather than inviting a two front war by invading Serbia, Belgium, France etc. Is Serbia a vital interest to Germany or Austria-Hungary any more than it is for Russia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. AP says:
    @polskijoe
    Do you believe Intermarium
    would be enough to stop both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union?

    Not both at the same time, but it would have been formidable enough for there to be different calculations by each of the powers after World War II. An Intermarium might have forced Germany to stop rearming in the mid 1930′s; Poland alone could not do it when the French refused.

    The division and domination of the lands between Germany and Russia would not have been assured.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. AP says:
    @bb.
    this reminds me of an article by H. H. Hoppe on the Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy>https://mises.org/library/political-economy-monarchy-and-democracy

    basically, it boils down to the same conflict that a firm faces between managers and owners. Obviously, both have different incentives and behavior derived from it. It comes down to scaling and unfortunately, there is limited supply of Peter the Greats.

    Some sort of mixed system seems to be the best. An owner ultimately in charge, looking after long-term interests, hiring the most skilled managers; the relationship between Wilhelm I and Bismarck comes to mind. In contrasting Wilhelm I to Wilhelm II, Ernst Junger observed that the most important piece on the chessboard, the king, does not move the most.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. melanf says:
    @AP
    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?

    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?

    If that’s important to you, it’s “pre-Stalin era” book, polemizing with the official party line of the time

    But regardless of this, enlighten me – excerpt from the memoirs of Prince Lichnowski (below) is a forgery? Or Lichnowsky, too, was “Stalin-era ….”

    «Конечно, достаточно было одного знака из Берлина, чтобы заставить графа Берхтольда удовлетвориться дипломатическим успехом и успокоиться на сербском ответе, — пишет Лихновский, — но этот знак не последовал. Напротив, толкали к войне… Все больше укреплялось впечатление, что мы хотим войны при всяких обстоятельствах. Иначе вовсе нельзя было понять нашего поведения в вопросе, который ведь совсем нас не касался прямо. Настойчивые просьбы и определенные заявления г. Сазонова, позже даже униженные телеграммы царя, повторные предложения сэра Эдуарда Грея, предостережения маркиза Сан-Джулиано и г. Болати, мои настойчивые советы, — ничто не помогало»

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    People can be quote historical figures out of context or produce memories of one person that contradict those of others, in pursuit of their agenda. Tarle's biography indicates that he was not free to publish what he wanted and that "his" views changed with the requirements of the Bolshevik state overseers. Not a credible source.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    "Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power."

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia's. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia). Thus, the same logic that you use to reject a Ukrainian union with Russia could have been used by other countries to reject Poland's Intermarium project in the past.

    Plus, this is not to mention that even when one ethnic group enjoys overwhelming dominance, sufficiently large-scale autonomy can be given to majority-minority areas. For instance, take a look at South Tyrol in Italy or Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in the U.K.

    "Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks."

    True; however, some of these consequences might be alleviated if IQ-enhancing technology becomes widespread.

    "It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?"

    As you and I both know, Western countries have their reasons for doing this.

    "Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc."

    I get your point; I just don't think that I fully agree with it. After all, I could just as easily say that the reason that Czechoslovakia was able to be bullied by Germany is because Britain and France refused to stand up for it. Indeed, had Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. been able to establish collective security in Europe after the end of World War I--similar to what was done after the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War--small countries such as Czechoslovakia would be able to resist bullying by other, more powerful countries.

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn't be dominated by Germany, you are--*to a large extent*--wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state during World War I in real life, I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary's unity wouldn't have protected it from being dismantled and dismembered (even if Britain and France would have tried militarily intervening to save it) due to the simple fact that Germany and Russia combined were much more powerful than it was (even if one adds Britain and France to the war on Austria-Hungary's side).

    "And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands."

    True, the ethnic balance in Austria helped prevent German domination of the country. However, this didn't fully eliminate this problem. As I said above, Austria-Hungary's increasing dependence on Germany gradually allowed the former to dominate the latter more and more (true, World War I certainly helped, but with Russia's growing power, Germany would have been more and more crucial for Austria-Hungary's defense either way). In addition, had Germany allied with Russia around 1890 and threw Austria-Hungary under the bus, Austria-Hungary's size and population probably wouldn't have prevented it from eventually being dismembered if that is what Germany and Russia would have wished to jointly do.

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

    Or, Russia could have cut a deal with one of the non-Russian groups and then run roughshod over the others. There would have simply been too much of an imbalance. Moreover, each of the smaller peoples have their own interests, and rather than pursuing those they would just spend their energy containing Russia.

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia).

    True. For them it would have been a lesser evil scenario. They are all much closer to Poland in terms of population than to Russia or Germany. So while some sort of second-status would have been likely, it would have been less total. For example, the Baltics collectively have about 15% of Poland’s population but only 4% of Russia’s population. The Czech Republic has 1/4 of Poland’s population but a fraction of Germany’s. USA lightens, somewhat, discrepancies between small and large states though the electoral college, presumably Intermarium would do something similar.

    That being said, Intermarium, really depended/depends on Ukraine to provide balance. Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state

    Even a satellite state (and it would never quite get that far – A-H was too big to simply become a Warsaw Pact-era Czechoslovakia to Germany’s USSR) would have been far preferable to annexation and total submission. Moreover, the internal workings of Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian peoples within the A-H junior partner were beyond the scale of Berlin’s relationship.

    I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy.

    This is true. Although Germany and Russia were fundamentally different with respect to the Ottoman lands – Russia wanted the Balkans and Constantinople, Germany was reliant on Middle Eastern oil and wanted guaranteed access to it through its own allies. This was a difficult circle to square.

    Moreover, invading and partitioning a genuine power with millions of soldiers would have been much harder than grabbing a bunch of little countries, one at a time. Just because it could have been done does not mean that it would have been done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)
     
    Ukraine is destined to remain poor, unstable and unworthy as long as its citizens and supporters view the nation as simply the anti-Russia, or not-Russia. The idea that Russia is building up animosity between Ukraine and Poland is ridiculous, the exact opposite is true. Russia has driven Ukraine into Poland's loving embrace.

    The whole cult of Bandera thing that is pissing off the Poles is a Ukrainian phenomenon, Russia isn't emphasizing anything. I understand that blaming Russia for everything is all the rage in modern day Ukraine, but the country needs to own its own fails, and correct them itself. Otherwise, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the Russians are probably right that the nation is simply not viable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war
     
    I can't remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers...unfortunately the war party won (how else would you explain Russia's mobilization? And again, Serbia could hardly be called a vital national interest of Russia...in a way it could even be said that the Serbs with their insane machinations dragged Russia into a war that proved to be catastrophically ruinous for Russia).
    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn't really work imo, the issues weren't comparable. Sorry, but this reminds me somewhat of US neocons for whom it's always a repeat of Munich and about avoiding "appeasement".

    I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won

    This is true, but the military party won only after attempts to negotiate with Germany had failed… Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation
     
    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

    The point it rejected was no wildly unreasonable - to allow Austrian investogators onto Serbian soil to root out the culprits. This is what the Americans demanded of the Taliban afer 9-11.

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
     
    Allowing Austrian investigators into Serbia was not "destruction."

    And if you mean destruction by war - Serbia lost 1/3 of its population anyways. That didn't change by Russian entrance into the war.

    I don't know if some event would have triggered a war in 1915 or 1916. But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.
    , @German_reader

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
     
    Very hard question...maybe a major war would eventually have happened anyway. On the other hand it's also possible international tensions would have declined in the years after 1914 (e.g. there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement, the issue of Germany's naval programme that had poisoned Anglo-German relations was essentially over by 1914 iirc; I also can't see any fundamental clash in interests between Russia and Germany...the whole Balkans issue was a stupid diversion imo).
    And I'm not sure Serbia would have been destroyed if it had surrendered to Austria's ultimatum (which it might well have done without Russian backing)...more likely it would have lost part of its sovereignty. But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn't really complain about that imo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. AP says:
    @melanf

    Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?
     
    If that's important to you, it's "pre-Stalin era" book, polemizing with the official party line of the time

    But regardless of this, enlighten me - excerpt from the memoirs of Prince Lichnowski (below) is a forgery? Or Lichnowsky, too, was "Stalin-era ...."

    «Конечно, достаточно было одного знака из Берлина, чтобы заставить графа Берхтольда удовлетвориться дипломатическим успехом и успокоиться на сербском ответе, — пишет Лихновский, — но этот знак не последовал. Напротив, толкали к войне… Все больше укреплялось впечатление, что мы хотим войны при всяких обстоятельствах. Иначе вовсе нельзя было понять нашего поведения в вопросе, который ведь совсем нас не касался прямо. Настойчивые просьбы и определенные заявления г. Сазонова, позже даже униженные телеграммы царя, повторные предложения сэра Эдуарда Грея, предостережения маркиза Сан-Джулиано и г. Болати, мои настойчивые советы, — ничто не помогало»

    People can be quote historical figures out of context or produce memories of one person that contradict those of others, in pursuit of their agenda. Tarle’s biography indicates that he was not free to publish what he wanted and that “his” views changed with the requirements of the Bolshevik state overseers. Not a credible source.

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

    I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won
     
    This is true, but the military party won only after attempts to negotiate with Germany had failed... Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point - but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo
     
    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction - do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

    Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

    The point it rejected was no wildly unreasonable – to allow Austrian investogators onto Serbian soil to root out the culprits. This is what the Americans demanded of the Taliban afer 9-11.

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

    Allowing Austrian investigators into Serbia was not “destruction.”

    And if you mean destruction by war – Serbia lost 1/3 of its population anyways. That didn’t change by Russian entrance into the war.

    I don’t know if some event would have triggered a war in 1915 or 1916. But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”. The don’t want to be “Western”, they don’t have either the geography or the religion – like Ukraine ”has” – to back up those claims of being western.

    As I said before, Serbs and the Russians are in a class of their own compared to the rest of the Slavs. The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.
    , @melanf

    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.
     
    Well, of course.
    " This ultimatum demanded that the Serbian government's formal condemnation of all propaganda against Austria waged in Serbia, the condemnation of all Serbian officials and officers involved in this propaganda, the statement that it is the Serbian government, disapproves and rejects every thought of any intervention in the fate of the inhabitants of any part of Austro-Hungarian territory. All this the king is obliged to report in order for the Serbian army and printed in the official organ of the Serbian army and the Serbian government on "the first page". In addition, the Serbian government undertakes to prohibit all publications hostile to Austria-Hungary or the "General direction of which is against the territorial integrity of Austria"; immediately close the society "national defense"; to confiscate the means of propaganda and to do the same with all the other hostile to Austro-Hungarian companies; to remove immediately all those teachers who are agitating against Austria; to eradicate, in addition, in teaching all that "can serve as" propaganda against Austria; to remove from military service and from the administration all officers and officials whose names the Austro-Hungarian government will indicate to Serbian; start a judicial investigation of all circumstances relating to the participants in the conspiracy, a victim who was Franz Ferdinand, and "delegates of the Austro-Hungarian government will take part in the investigation "; the arrest of major Lapkovich and Ciganovich; to punish customs officials, who helped the murderers of the Archduke to cross the border; to provide explanations about the "unacceptable" words of the highest Serbian officials concerning the Sarajevo murders. To do all this immediately and within forty-eight hours to answer all these requirements "

    Now let's imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism). Ukraine will agree to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Ukraine whatever FSB wants. After that, Russia will move tanks to Kiev. AP what do you think which country is the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict?


    Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported). Germany agrees to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Germany whatever FSB want. After that, Russia will start air strikes on German cities.

    All the debunkers of bloody Serbia must agree that the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict is Germany


    But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.
     
    I agree that Russia was better not to participate in the conflict and did not support the Serbs. But this has no relation to the question - who started WWI?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @melanf

    I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won
     
    This is true, but the military party won only after attempts to negotiate with Germany had failed... Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point - but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

    Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo
     
    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction - do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

    Very hard question…maybe a major war would eventually have happened anyway. On the other hand it’s also possible international tensions would have declined in the years after 1914 (e.g. there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement, the issue of Germany’s naval programme that had poisoned Anglo-German relations was essentially over by 1914 iirc; I also can’t see any fundamental clash in interests between Russia and Germany…the whole Balkans issue was a stupid diversion imo).
    And I’m not sure Serbia would have been destroyed if it had surrendered to Austria’s ultimatum (which it might well have done without Russian backing)…more likely it would have lost part of its sovereignty. But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement
     
    In 1914, King George V explicitly demanded from his foreign minister a pretext for war with Germany.

    But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.
     
    Princip, a poor hack, did what he did practically on his own. He was driven by passion. And that passion was shared with dozens of his classmates. Even the extremely taciturn person that was nobelist writer Ivo Andric, was a member of Princip's organisation Young Bosnia. The usually brash Serbs regularly accuse each other of terrorism in recent times, but in a hundred years they have hardly provided much in evidence of Serbian state intelligence support for Young Bosnia. When practicing his gun days earlier, Princip couldn't hit a rock. At least they could have taught him how to shoot.

    The prevalent view is still Fisher's version of Germany being most culpable.

    Massie in Dreadnought shows clearly that Russia backtracked from its prior positions a number of times in the previous years, most notably in the case of A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia. No one can accuse Nikolai, a weak statesman in every which way, not backtracking enough. To reduce warring, every power has to project an image of strength. In this case, it was about an ultimatum that's unprecedented. Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services, and were never met with nearly such a response. For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.

    The British crown demanded a war and it's the elephant in the room.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Darin says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925
     
    Well, perhaps, in part, because his list is bullshit. Just looking at the Central Committee, and thinking of some well-known names: Stalin certainly was there, as well as Dzerzhinsky. Volodarsky, however, never was. And this is just from looking at his list for 10 seconds.

    Notice the mangled French spelling of the names. These “lists of Jews” were composed by White emigres in Paris sometimes in 1920′s and copied ever since (and the names were even more distorted with each transcription).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Oy Vey, my Communist brother, those evil anti semites blame the juus for everything, no? Why not blame the Tartars.
    President Putin himself admitted that the Russian revolution was 85% Jewish.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN8ianIJ1Sk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. nebulafox says:
    @TheJester

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).
     
    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon ... but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I'm starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany "down". Germany's economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel's bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also "froze" Germany's borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually "frozen" by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I'm beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel's charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany's WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany's economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is "up" ... not "down". What next?

    Not down so much as hooked up to a eco-political framework where Germany would invest its energies into doing a lot of economic good while being politically unable to invade its neighbors. The Western Allies figured out pretty quickly after the war that if Europe was to avoid starving, let alone reach prosperity, West Germany-still the industrial and population hub of the region, no matter how prostrate-would need to get back on its feet, ASAP.

    Germany is reverting to its long-time cultural pre-1945 (and especially pre-1933) position as the “third way” bridge between Western Europe and the Slavic World. This is causing a lot of discomfort in Washington, but it should have been eminently predictable with the reunification of Germany and the fall of the USSR in 1990. It’s a testament to the long shadow of 1945 and the success of Adenauer’s efforts to permanently integrate into the West that it has taken long, really. Stupid Wilsonians.

    >However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually “frozen” by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost.

    You give the former Allies too much credit. The Germans themselves, or at least the generation in charge, don’t want a real military, let alone go to war for… just about anything, even probably to defend themselves. This is a country whose political establishment, and their media allies, will not even tolerate the mere suggestion that Germany should remain… German in any way, shape, or form, from a moral basis. All of Western Europe suffers from this to some extent, but Germany takes it to a completely different level. Given that Holocaust memorialism and WWII guilt have been turned into a religion (a completely negative one, defined only by what they are against) by the public establishment, it shouldn’t be surprising that Germans find their youth tentatively exploring the concept of national pride to be a sign of incipient fascism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation
     
    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

    The point it rejected was no wildly unreasonable - to allow Austrian investogators onto Serbian soil to root out the culprits. This is what the Americans demanded of the Taliban afer 9-11.

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
     
    Allowing Austrian investigators into Serbia was not "destruction."

    And if you mean destruction by war - Serbia lost 1/3 of its population anyways. That didn't change by Russian entrance into the war.

    I don't know if some event would have triggered a war in 1915 or 1916. But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”. The don’t want to be “Western”, they don’t have either the geography or the religion – like Ukraine ”has” – to back up those claims of being western.

    As I said before, Serbs and the Russians are in a class of their own compared to the rest of the Slavs. The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.
     
    The Serbs can pretend to be Russia's best friends, because they have a lot of real estate between them to separate them. Besides, the Serbs don't have to experience the incessant attempts to denigrate their language and culture, as the Ukrainians do. And then there's the little thing about ripping off their neighbor's real estate and fomenting war in other parts of Ukraine. How can you try to have good relations with such an avaricious neighbor?...
    , @AP

    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”
     
    Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years. They just don't like Europeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. melanf says:
    @AP

    Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation
     
    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

    The point it rejected was no wildly unreasonable - to allow Austrian investogators onto Serbian soil to root out the culprits. This is what the Americans demanded of the Taliban afer 9-11.

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
     
    Allowing Austrian investigators into Serbia was not "destruction."

    And if you mean destruction by war - Serbia lost 1/3 of its population anyways. That didn't change by Russian entrance into the war.

    I don't know if some event would have triggered a war in 1915 or 1916. But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

    Well, of course.
    This ultimatum demanded that the Serbian government’s formal condemnation of all propaganda against Austria waged in Serbia, the condemnation of all Serbian officials and officers involved in this propaganda, the statement that it is the Serbian government, disapproves and rejects every thought of any intervention in the fate of the inhabitants of any part of Austro-Hungarian territory. All this the king is obliged to report in order for the Serbian army and printed in the official organ of the Serbian army and the Serbian government on “the first page”. In addition, the Serbian government undertakes to prohibit all publications hostile to Austria-Hungary or the “General direction of which is against the territorial integrity of Austria”; immediately close the society “national defense”; to confiscate the means of propaganda and to do the same with all the other hostile to Austro-Hungarian companies; to remove immediately all those teachers who are agitating against Austria; to eradicate, in addition, in teaching all that “can serve as” propaganda against Austria; to remove from military service and from the administration all officers and officials whose names the Austro-Hungarian government will indicate to Serbian; start a judicial investigation of all circumstances relating to the participants in the conspiracy, a victim who was Franz Ferdinand, and “delegates of the Austro-Hungarian government will take part in the investigation “; the arrest of major Lapkovich and Ciganovich; to punish customs officials, who helped the murderers of the Archduke to cross the border; to provide explanations about the “unacceptable” words of the highest Serbian officials concerning the Sarajevo murders. To do all this immediately and within forty-eight hours to answer all these requirements

    Now let’s imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism). Ukraine will agree to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Ukraine whatever FSB wants. After that, Russia will move tanks to Kiev. AP what do you think which country is the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict?

    Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported). Germany agrees to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Germany whatever FSB want. After that, Russia will start air strikes on German cities.

    All the debunkers of bloody Serbia must agree that the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict is Germany

    But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

    I agree that Russia was better not to participate in the conflict and did not support the Serbs. But this has no relation to the question – who started WWI?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Now let’s imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism)
     
    The Austrian government didn't act under some pretext. Serbian intelligence agency trained and helped the terrorist who murdered the heir to the Austrian throne. If the Ukrainian government, or a branch of it, were stupid enough to arm and train and send into Russia someone who killed Putin or his political heir (he has none yet) Russia would be justified in making similar demands of Ukraine.

    Also. the Austrian police weren't going to do whatever they want, but to specifically conduct their investigation of the outrageous crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Mr. Hack says:
    @Cyrano
    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”. The don’t want to be “Western”, they don’t have either the geography or the religion – like Ukraine ”has” – to back up those claims of being western.

    As I said before, Serbs and the Russians are in a class of their own compared to the rest of the Slavs. The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

    The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

    The Serbs can pretend to be Russia’s best friends, because they have a lot of real estate between them to separate them. Besides, the Serbs don’t have to experience the incessant attempts to denigrate their language and culture, as the Ukrainians do. And then there’s the little thing about ripping off their neighbor’s real estate and fomenting war in other parts of Ukraine. How can you try to have good relations with such an avaricious neighbor?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I think that living in a shadow of such a powerful neighbour like Russia, prevents Ukraine from getting sunburn. On the other hand, living in their shadow, might cause Ukraine to catch a cold from time to time, which is better than the rabies that they are currently suffering from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported).

    That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.
    Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials at the investigations was a sensible demand, Serbia proved that it didn’t want to reform itself by rejecting it. The Austrians should have considered other options than full-scale war though like an economic blockade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.
     
    Harbouring of terrorists is calculated as direct aid? Austria was definitely involved:

    In January 2010, Akhmed Сhatayev (terrorist wanted by Russia) detained in Ukraine....However, the extradition did not happen. The reason for this was the European court of human rights (ECHR) which urged Ukraine not to extradite Сhatayev, since Chatayev was granted political asylum in Austria ... In June 2016 Chatayev blew himself up as a "suicide bomber" at the airport in Istanbul (killing several dozen passengers )

    approximate analogue - Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)


    Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials
     
    I also think that the destruction of the fugitive Chechen terrorists (in Europe) should be entrusted to the FSB, since it was to be expected that the Europeans would try a cover-up....

    However, any such request of Russia (that FSB freely operate on foreign territory), will be categorically rejected by any European country. This justifies the war aganist these countries?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    A news social hierarchy will arise! A White man shall be at its center and the rankings of its elite will be well-defined:

    https://oracleofbacon.org/

    Peace.

    Damn - Adam West has a bacon-factor of 2!!! Impressive!

    That site is more interesting than I would have imagined.

    Will making tukey bacon be a criminal offense?

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

    The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.
     
    The Serbs can pretend to be Russia's best friends, because they have a lot of real estate between them to separate them. Besides, the Serbs don't have to experience the incessant attempts to denigrate their language and culture, as the Ukrainians do. And then there's the little thing about ripping off their neighbor's real estate and fomenting war in other parts of Ukraine. How can you try to have good relations with such an avaricious neighbor?...

    I think that living in a shadow of such a powerful neighbour like Russia, prevents Ukraine from getting sunburn. On the other hand, living in their shadow, might cause Ukraine to catch a cold from time to time, which is better than the rabies that they are currently suffering from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The sunburn that has turned into rabies is in no small part due to the war that is being instigated at Russia's direction. Had Yanukovych signed the EU Associate Agreement, as he was preparing to do, instead of doing an about face, things would be much better in Ukraine today. Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don't hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?...Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia's accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Mr. Hack says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that living in a shadow of such a powerful neighbour like Russia, prevents Ukraine from getting sunburn. On the other hand, living in their shadow, might cause Ukraine to catch a cold from time to time, which is better than the rabies that they are currently suffering from.

    The sunburn that has turned into rabies is in no small part due to the war that is being instigated at Russia’s direction. Had Yanukovych signed the EU Associate Agreement, as he was preparing to do, instead of doing an about face, things would be much better in Ukraine today. Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don’t hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?…Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia’s accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Russia has never objected to the eastern European cockroaches joining EU. They have repeatedly said so. Joining NATO is a different matter. Unfortunately, almost all of EU members are NATO members as well.

    This is seen kind of as a badge of honor for the Eastern Europeans which they get for “successfully” passing the test of “democracy” and their commitment to capitalism.

    Russia offered far better deal to Ukraine than EU can ever even contemplate of doing. Ukraine thought that they can continue to milk Russia for the true benefits that they offer – transit of Russian gas, and using Russia as a market for their crappy goods and at the same time getting integrated into EU.

    Russia would have been OK with all of that, except for Ukraine joining NATO. Anybody who doesn’t see why Russia would have problems with that, doesn’t understand the basic principles of geopolitics.

    The membership in EU was offered to Ukraine simply as a bribe to get them into NATO - not because the west (US) cares for the economic well-being of Ukraine. They don’t give a rat’s a** about the Ukraine’s standard of living.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported).
     
    That's news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.
    Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me...since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials at the investigations was a sensible demand, Serbia proved that it didn't want to reform itself by rejecting it. The Austrians should have considered other options than full-scale war though like an economic blockade.

    That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.

    Harbouring of terrorists is calculated as direct aid? Austria was definitely involved:

    In January 2010, Akhmed Сhatayev (terrorist wanted by Russia) detained in Ukraine….However, the extradition did not happen. The reason for this was the European court of human rights (ECHR) which urged Ukraine not to extradite Сhatayev, since Chatayev was granted political asylum in Austria … In June 2016 Chatayev blew himself up as a “suicide bomber” at the airport in Istanbul (killing several dozen passengers )

    approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)

    Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials

    I also think that the destruction of the fugitive Chechen terrorists (in Europe) should be entrusted to the FSB, since it was to be expected that the Europeans would try a cover-up….

    However, any such request of Russia (that FSB freely operate on foreign territory), will be categorically rejected by any European country. This justifies the war aganist these countries?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)
     
    The Serbs (or rather the nationalist nutcases in the Serbian intelligence service) did much more than that - they trained Princip and his fellow conspirators, provided them with weapons and bombs from Serbian army depots and helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand. The equivalent today would be German BND training ethnic Germans from Russia for an operation to kill Putin or one of his chief aides.
    As for Chechen terrorists being granted asylum in European countries, I don't agree with that, Western coddling of Islamists disgusts me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @melanf

    That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.
     
    Harbouring of terrorists is calculated as direct aid? Austria was definitely involved:

    In January 2010, Akhmed Сhatayev (terrorist wanted by Russia) detained in Ukraine....However, the extradition did not happen. The reason for this was the European court of human rights (ECHR) which urged Ukraine not to extradite Сhatayev, since Chatayev was granted political asylum in Austria ... In June 2016 Chatayev blew himself up as a "suicide bomber" at the airport in Istanbul (killing several dozen passengers )

    approximate analogue - Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)


    Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials
     
    I also think that the destruction of the fugitive Chechen terrorists (in Europe) should be entrusted to the FSB, since it was to be expected that the Europeans would try a cover-up....

    However, any such request of Russia (that FSB freely operate on foreign territory), will be categorically rejected by any European country. This justifies the war aganist these countries?

    approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)

    The Serbs (or rather the nationalist nutcases in the Serbian intelligence service) did much more than that – they trained Princip and his fellow conspirators, provided them with weapons and bombs from Serbian army depots and helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand. The equivalent today would be German BND training ethnic Germans from Russia for an operation to kill Putin or one of his chief aides.
    As for Chechen terrorists being granted asylum in European countries, I don’t agree with that, Western coddling of Islamists disgusts me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand.
     
    That a**hole had no business parading in the conquered Slavic lands. He got what he deserved. The rest - as they say - is history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Cyrano says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The sunburn that has turned into rabies is in no small part due to the war that is being instigated at Russia's direction. Had Yanukovych signed the EU Associate Agreement, as he was preparing to do, instead of doing an about face, things would be much better in Ukraine today. Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don't hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?...Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia's accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.

    Russia has never objected to the eastern European cockroaches joining EU. They have repeatedly said so. Joining NATO is a different matter. Unfortunately, almost all of EU members are NATO members as well.

    This is seen kind of as a badge of honor for the Eastern Europeans which they get for “successfully” passing the test of “democracy” and their commitment to capitalism.

    Russia offered far better deal to Ukraine than EU can ever even contemplate of doing. Ukraine thought that they can continue to milk Russia for the true benefits that they offer – transit of Russian gas, and using Russia as a market for their crappy goods and at the same time getting integrated into EU.

    Russia would have been OK with all of that, except for Ukraine joining NATO. Anybody who doesn’t see why Russia would have problems with that, doesn’t understand the basic principles of geopolitics.

    The membership in EU was offered to Ukraine simply as a bribe to get them into NATO – not because the west (US) cares for the economic well-being of Ukraine. They don’t give a rat’s a** about the Ukraine’s standard of living.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don’t hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?…Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia’s accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Cyrano says:
    @German_reader

    approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)
     
    The Serbs (or rather the nationalist nutcases in the Serbian intelligence service) did much more than that - they trained Princip and his fellow conspirators, provided them with weapons and bombs from Serbian army depots and helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand. The equivalent today would be German BND training ethnic Germans from Russia for an operation to kill Putin or one of his chief aides.
    As for Chechen terrorists being granted asylum in European countries, I don't agree with that, Western coddling of Islamists disgusts me.

    helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand.

    That a**hole had no business parading in the conquered Slavic lands. He got what he deserved. The rest – as they say – is history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Given that the war that resulted from Franz Ferdinand's assassination (and which the plotters around Apis may actually have intended to instigate) killed a very substantial part of Serbia's population, it was a spectacularly dumb move.
    Ok, the Serbs got a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia as a result. But in the long run that wasn't exactly a success story either.
    I suppose I should feel some sympathy for Serbs given their unhappy history and the suffering inflicted on them. But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip as an hero (instead of a deluded fool who helped bring about a catastrophe)...simply retarded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”. The don’t want to be “Western”, they don’t have either the geography or the religion – like Ukraine ”has” – to back up those claims of being western.

    As I said before, Serbs and the Russians are in a class of their own compared to the rest of the Slavs. The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”

    Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years. They just don’t like Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2
    hahaha! Seriously you're even trying to debate with a fierce intellectual like Cyrano? FFS
    Serbs don't have their most of their land of Serbia by virtue of it being a giveaway of their "oppressors" Stalin or Lenin....or by the Russian state genourously allowing them it despite the huge majority of Ukrainians voting to preserve union with Russia ( and being desperate to be reunited in the years during the 90's.)
    Serbs fought for and won their land and are extremely intelligent
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Cyrano

    helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand.
     
    That a**hole had no business parading in the conquered Slavic lands. He got what he deserved. The rest - as they say - is history.

    Given that the war that resulted from Franz Ferdinand’s assassination (and which the plotters around Apis may actually have intended to instigate) killed a very substantial part of Serbia’s population, it was a spectacularly dumb move.
    Ok, the Serbs got a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia as a result. But in the long run that wasn’t exactly a success story either.
    I suppose I should feel some sympathy for Serbs given their unhappy history and the suffering inflicted on them. But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip as an hero (instead of a deluded fool who helped bring about a catastrophe)…simply retarded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip
     
    I believe that pretty much all Serbs worship Gavrilo Princip as a hero - because he was. I don't think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.

    Forget about the Serbian casualties in WWI. The question is who achieved their objectives in WWI. Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands. Austro-Hungary and Germany didn't achieve diddly in WWI.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. AP says:
    @melanf

    It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.
     
    Well, of course.
    " This ultimatum demanded that the Serbian government's formal condemnation of all propaganda against Austria waged in Serbia, the condemnation of all Serbian officials and officers involved in this propaganda, the statement that it is the Serbian government, disapproves and rejects every thought of any intervention in the fate of the inhabitants of any part of Austro-Hungarian territory. All this the king is obliged to report in order for the Serbian army and printed in the official organ of the Serbian army and the Serbian government on "the first page". In addition, the Serbian government undertakes to prohibit all publications hostile to Austria-Hungary or the "General direction of which is against the territorial integrity of Austria"; immediately close the society "national defense"; to confiscate the means of propaganda and to do the same with all the other hostile to Austro-Hungarian companies; to remove immediately all those teachers who are agitating against Austria; to eradicate, in addition, in teaching all that "can serve as" propaganda against Austria; to remove from military service and from the administration all officers and officials whose names the Austro-Hungarian government will indicate to Serbian; start a judicial investigation of all circumstances relating to the participants in the conspiracy, a victim who was Franz Ferdinand, and "delegates of the Austro-Hungarian government will take part in the investigation "; the arrest of major Lapkovich and Ciganovich; to punish customs officials, who helped the murderers of the Archduke to cross the border; to provide explanations about the "unacceptable" words of the highest Serbian officials concerning the Sarajevo murders. To do all this immediately and within forty-eight hours to answer all these requirements "

    Now let's imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism). Ukraine will agree to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Ukraine whatever FSB wants. After that, Russia will move tanks to Kiev. AP what do you think which country is the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict?


    Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported). Germany agrees to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Germany whatever FSB want. After that, Russia will start air strikes on German cities.

    All the debunkers of bloody Serbia must agree that the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict is Germany


    But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.
     
    I agree that Russia was better not to participate in the conflict and did not support the Serbs. But this has no relation to the question - who started WWI?

    Now let’s imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism)

    The Austrian government didn’t act under some pretext. Serbian intelligence agency trained and helped the terrorist who murdered the heir to the Austrian throne. If the Ukrainian government, or a branch of it, were stupid enough to arm and train and send into Russia someone who killed Putin or his political heir (he has none yet) Russia would be justified in making similar demands of Ukraine.

    Also. the Austrian police weren’t going to do whatever they want, but to specifically conduct their investigation of the outrageous crime.

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

    Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years.

    So were parts of Ukraine for abut 300 years. And who liberated you from that menace? Russia of course. Go study some history, you ignoramus.

    http://www.allaboutturkey.com/img/ottoman-empire-1580.gif

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Not the settled parts of Ukraine. And while Serbs (they are nicknamed "Servs") were serving the Turks, the Ukrainians were raiding them, including burning down some outlying areas of Istanbul.

    They were also instrumental in stopping the Turks at Khotyn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)

    Read some history, ignoramus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Mr. Hack says:
    @Cyrano
    Russia has never objected to the eastern European cockroaches joining EU. They have repeatedly said so. Joining NATO is a different matter. Unfortunately, almost all of EU members are NATO members as well.

    This is seen kind of as a badge of honor for the Eastern Europeans which they get for “successfully” passing the test of “democracy” and their commitment to capitalism.

    Russia offered far better deal to Ukraine than EU can ever even contemplate of doing. Ukraine thought that they can continue to milk Russia for the true benefits that they offer – transit of Russian gas, and using Russia as a market for their crappy goods and at the same time getting integrated into EU.

    Russia would have been OK with all of that, except for Ukraine joining NATO. Anybody who doesn’t see why Russia would have problems with that, doesn’t understand the basic principles of geopolitics.

    The membership in EU was offered to Ukraine simply as a bribe to get them into NATO - not because the west (US) cares for the economic well-being of Ukraine. They don’t give a rat’s a** about the Ukraine’s standard of living.

    Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don’t hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?…Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia’s accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Cyrano says:
    @German_reader
    Given that the war that resulted from Franz Ferdinand's assassination (and which the plotters around Apis may actually have intended to instigate) killed a very substantial part of Serbia's population, it was a spectacularly dumb move.
    Ok, the Serbs got a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia as a result. But in the long run that wasn't exactly a success story either.
    I suppose I should feel some sympathy for Serbs given their unhappy history and the suffering inflicted on them. But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip as an hero (instead of a deluded fool who helped bring about a catastrophe)...simply retarded.

    But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip

    I believe that pretty much all Serbs worship Gavrilo Princip as a hero – because he was. I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.

    Forget about the Serbian casualties in WWI. The question is who achieved their objectives in WWI. Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands. Austro-Hungary and Germany didn’t achieve diddly in WWI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.
     
    Murdering a man and shooting his wife at point blank range is how Balkans define heroes.

    Slavic hero? No. Not a Slav, and not heroic by Slavic standards.

    But perhaps a hero by Arab, or Balkan, or similar standards. ISIS celebrates the guy who bombed the Ariana Grande concert full of teenage girls. Why wouldn't a Balkan declare a man who shot a woman, wife and mother in the chest to be a Great Hero?


    Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands.
     
    Serbia lost 1/3 of its population and was plunged into backwardness for 20 years (by removing the same civilization that had allowed Tesla's genius to be expressed), Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them. This was followed by Communism (Communists massacred more Serbs), followed by Rwanda-style massacres. And in this sorry process, Russia and Austria-Hungary were destroyed.


    Congratulations. Balkanism triumphant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Gerard2 says:
    @AP

    You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”
     
    Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years. They just don't like Europeans.

    hahaha! Seriously you’re even trying to debate with a fierce intellectual like Cyrano? FFS
    Serbs don’t have their most of their land of Serbia by virtue of it being a giveaway of their “oppressors” Stalin or Lenin….or by the Russian state genourously allowing them it despite the huge majority of Ukrainians voting to preserve union with Russia ( and being desperate to be reunited in the years during the 90′s.)
    Serbs fought for and won their land and are extremely intelligent

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Serbs don’t have their most of their land of Serbia by virtue of it being a giveaway of their “oppressors” Stalin or Lenin
     
    No they were servants of the Turks for about 500 years.

    huge majority of Ukrainians voting to preserve union with Russia
     
    Myth about the referendum, that only fools believe to be true.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_sovereignty_referendum,_1991

    There was no question asked about independence. The question across Ukraine was, "Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of a Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?"

    With the only question being about Ukraine being a sovereign state within the USSR with its own laws and army, (this was the in the state sovereignty declaration) 81.7% voted yes.

    Another referendum a few months asked about full independence. About 90% voted yes on that one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. AP says:
    @Cyrano

    Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years.

     

    So were parts of Ukraine for abut 300 years. And who liberated you from that menace? Russia of course. Go study some history, you ignoramus.

    http://www.allaboutturkey.com/img/ottoman-empire-1580.gif

    Not the settled parts of Ukraine. And while Serbs (they are nicknamed “Servs”) were serving the Turks, the Ukrainians were raiding them, including burning down some outlying areas of Istanbul.

    They were also instrumental in stopping the Turks at Khotyn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)

    Read some history, ignoramus.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I don’t think you ever fought against anybody. Your policy has always been:

    "To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best?" If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Cyrano says:
    @AP
    Not the settled parts of Ukraine. And while Serbs (they are nicknamed "Servs") were serving the Turks, the Ukrainians were raiding them, including burning down some outlying areas of Istanbul.

    They were also instrumental in stopping the Turks at Khotyn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)

    Read some history, ignoramus.

    I don’t think you ever fought against anybody. Your policy has always been:

    “To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best?” If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best
     
    The Balkans are all you know, so your confusion - and applying Balkan traditions to others is understandable.

    Serving the Turks for 500 years is a record. I don't think any Europeans collectively served non-Europeans that long. Parts of Spain were occupied by Moors longer, but Spaniards were taking their lands back much earlier. In contrast your ancestors just kept serving and serving those Turkish masters.

    If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.
     
    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops). Russia certainly didn't weaken the Ottoman Empire, it was already weakened. Spaniards crushed its navy at Lepanto, the Commonwealth crushed its military at Vienna, HRE at Mohacs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Seraphim says:
    @TheJester

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).
     
    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon ... but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I'm starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany "down". Germany's economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel's bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also "froze" Germany's borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually "frozen" by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I'm beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel's charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany's WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany's economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is "up" ... not "down". What next?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Seraphim says:
    @TheJester

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).
     
    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon ... but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I'm starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany "down". Germany's economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel's bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also "froze" Germany's borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually "frozen" by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I'm beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel's charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany's WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany's economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is "up" ... not "down". What next?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. polskijoe says:

    I get the feeling that Serbs may want EU but do not want NATO. (cant prove it).

    From recent polls these are the nations that prefer Russian defense (instead of US-American or Chinese).

    China, Greece, Iran, Lebanon, Mongolia, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey?, Armenia, Bulgaria

    ..China obviously prefers China..

    I obviously speak of the people, not the leaders.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  188. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    I don’t think you ever fought against anybody. Your policy has always been:

    "To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best?" If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars

    To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best

    The Balkans are all you know, so your confusion – and applying Balkan traditions to others is understandable.

    Serving the Turks for 500 years is a record. I don’t think any Europeans collectively served non-Europeans that long. Parts of Spain were occupied by Moors longer, but Spaniards were taking their lands back much earlier. In contrast your ancestors just kept serving and serving those Turkish masters.

    If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.

    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops). Russia certainly didn’t weaken the Ottoman Empire, it was already weakened. Spaniards crushed its navy at Lepanto, the Commonwealth crushed its military at Vienna, HRE at Mohacs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops).
     
    This is not so. In 1569 a huge (for the era) army of the Turks suffered a crushing defeat and was almost completely destroyed during the military campaign to Astrakhan. In 1672-1681 was a full-scale war with Turkey.

    The expansion of the Turks was stopped, of course, by the Habsburgs, Poland's role was insignificant
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. AP says:
    @Cyrano

    But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip
     
    I believe that pretty much all Serbs worship Gavrilo Princip as a hero - because he was. I don't think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.

    Forget about the Serbian casualties in WWI. The question is who achieved their objectives in WWI. Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands. Austro-Hungary and Germany didn't achieve diddly in WWI.

    I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.

    Murdering a man and shooting his wife at point blank range is how Balkans define heroes.

    Slavic hero? No. Not a Slav, and not heroic by Slavic standards.

    But perhaps a hero by Arab, or Balkan, or similar standards. ISIS celebrates the guy who bombed the Ariana Grande concert full of teenage girls. Why wouldn’t a Balkan declare a man who shot a woman, wife and mother in the chest to be a Great Hero?

    Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands.

    Serbia lost 1/3 of its population and was plunged into backwardness for 20 years (by removing the same civilization that had allowed Tesla’s genius to be expressed), Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them. This was followed by Communism (Communists massacred more Serbs), followed by Rwanda-style massacres. And in this sorry process, Russia and Austria-Hungary were destroyed.

    Congratulations. Balkanism triumphant.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Russia is still there.
    , @Cyrano
    So now you’re going to cry over the fate of Franz Ferdinand? I guess you imagine that it makes you civilized? It doesn’t make you “civilized”. It makes you stupid.

    The only reason why Gavrilo Princip did what he did, was because he wanted to teach Franz a lesson, so he’ll never do it again. Amazingly enough – it worked – he never did it again.

    I don’t care about your stupid racial purity, you and the Germans can get together and cry on each other’s shoulders about the unfair treatment that the racially pure are getting.

    As far as representing what the Slavs are all about, only the Russians and the Serbs are doing a good job, although the Belorussians are not that bad either.

    I have a feeling that this “conversation” is about to degenerate (because you are a degenerate) into another name calling session, so before I lose it again, I’ll say just one more thing.

    On your own, you - the Ukrainians are not important to anyone, not to Europe and not to US, they are only using you to hurt Russia. If you are too stupid to see that, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.
    , @Selenium

    Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them
     
    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being "pissed off". How ever will the benighted Serbs live up to that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa? At least we can be grateful that the Croats aren't like those Balkan savages! Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just "pissed off" too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Seraphim says:
    @AP

    I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.
     
    Murdering a man and shooting his wife at point blank range is how Balkans define heroes.

    Slavic hero? No. Not a Slav, and not heroic by Slavic standards.

    But perhaps a hero by Arab, or Balkan, or similar standards. ISIS celebrates the guy who bombed the Ariana Grande concert full of teenage girls. Why wouldn't a Balkan declare a man who shot a woman, wife and mother in the chest to be a Great Hero?


    Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands.
     
    Serbia lost 1/3 of its population and was plunged into backwardness for 20 years (by removing the same civilization that had allowed Tesla's genius to be expressed), Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them. This was followed by Communism (Communists massacred more Serbs), followed by Rwanda-style massacres. And in this sorry process, Russia and Austria-Hungary were destroyed.


    Congratulations. Balkanism triumphant.

    Russia is still there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It's back. It was gone for awhile, with tens of millions killed. The impact of the Balkans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. utu says:
    @Seraphim
    @Latin-Americans "more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes"

    That may come as a surprise only for the Anglos. Their demeanor and attitudes are the exception here.
    Both Latin-American and 'Slavic' societies were traditional societies sharing the values, the demeanor and attitudes of the 'Old World' fashioned by the Christian 'Weltanschauung' and perpetuated by the Church. They are not so obsessed with their 'whiteness' and superior IQ as the WASPs. They are less materialistic, individualistic and self-centered and appreciate more spiritual things and warm human relations than the worshippers of the Golden Calf and 'manifest destinies'.
    Latin America is more of an 'Old World' located in the 'New World' . Like it or not, Latin America is by and large a creation of the Catholic Church and of the Spanish Golden Age (one of the peak moments of European culture) in a syncretic process with the native cultures ('La Nuestra Signora de Guadalupe', whose image is the lovingly worshipped protectrice of Mexico, was the banner of the supposedly hated conquistadores!).
    Anyhow the 'New World' here has to be taken in geographical terms only. The real 'New World' in civilizational terms is just the spread over the American continent of the essentially 'non-European' (and actually 'anti-European') simple-minded mental disease of the Judeo-Anglo-Dutch-German-Protestant 'culture', in its obstinate attempt to replace the Spanish (and destroy their cultural paradigm) in their settlements in America and beyond (in the Pacific, that's it).
    Russia was an 'Old World' operating in the traditional framework of the 'Old World' (of the Silk Roads, if you want). Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the 'conquest of the Canaan' which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America. It doesn't fit the Marxo-Lenino-Trotskoid memes of 'colonialism', 'imperialism' either. Of course, Russians fought the twin scourges of Judaism and Islam, did convert many retarded tribes to Orthodoxy, integrating them into a higher form of civilization (that of the Roman-Christian Empire). Her expansion is not a 'New World frontier' type phenomenon. Hence the futile ramblings about the belonging of Russia to 'Europe' or to 'Eurasia'. This cannot be a basis for a value judgement of Russia. Russia has 'an elbow in Europe and the other in Asia' by her sheer geographical position (as the famous Westernizing 'madman' Chaadaev was forced to admit). What we are facing today is the reassertion of the traditional order of things, which cannot but raise the frantic alarm among the 'new worlders' that their time of unbridled piracy - called euphemistically 'free trade', 'free market', 'open seas', 'open societies', 'open sphincters' -, comes to an inglorious end.
    Just as an aside, since we touched the subject of Argentina, we may meditate on 'Borges becoming, in a way, an agent of distribution of Russian culture among Spanish-speaking reading public'.

    Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the ‘conquest of the Canaan’ which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America.

    Unfortunately the history of Russia’s expansion is not really well know in the West. How the native populations were treated and how it compares to what Brits did in America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. AP says:
    @Seraphim
    Russia is still there.

    It’s back. It was gone for awhile, with tens of millions killed. The impact of the Balkans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    With most of the former Balkan countries either in the EU or strongly agitating to become member states (Serbia is a prime example) what Russian presence are we talking about? Some nice dachas, where Russian oligarchs and businessmen can come and spend a few weeks out of the year basking in the warm Adriatic sun?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    It's back. It was gone for awhile, with tens of millions killed. The impact of the Balkans.

    With most of the former Balkan countries either in the EU or strongly agitating to become member states (Serbia is a prime example) what Russian presence are we talking about? Some nice dachas, where Russian oligarchs and businessmen can come and spend a few weeks out of the year basking in the warm Adriatic sun?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I should let them respond but I think AP and Seraphim are talking about Russian presence in Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mr. Hack
    With most of the former Balkan countries either in the EU or strongly agitating to become member states (Serbia is a prime example) what Russian presence are we talking about? Some nice dachas, where Russian oligarchs and businessmen can come and spend a few weeks out of the year basking in the warm Adriatic sun?

    I should let them respond but I think AP and Seraphim are talking about Russian presence in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Yes, I should have been less eliptic. So, Russia is still there, Austro-Hungary is gone (as a result of its meddling in the Balkans against Russia). And there are little chances it would be back. Fortunately the cultural icons of Austro-Hungary, the Wiener Schnitzel and the Goulash (two of my favorites) are still around and as popular as ever. Good appetite!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Seraphim says:
    @Anon
    I should let them respond but I think AP and Seraphim are talking about Russian presence in Russia.

    Yes, I should have been less eliptic. So, Russia is still there, Austro-Hungary is gone (as a result of its meddling in the Balkans against Russia). And there are little chances it would be back. Fortunately the cultural icons of Austro-Hungary, the Wiener Schnitzel and the Goulash (two of my favorites) are still around and as popular as ever. Good appetite!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I should have been more precise. Not Russia, but the Russian Empire is gone. Austria-Hungary is gone but Austria and Hungary remain.

    And the people of the Russian Empire suffered far more than did those Austria-Hungary.

    , @Seraphim
    Ah, I should have added the Czech beer (Budvar preferably, but Pilsen would do as well).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. AP says:
    @Seraphim
    Yes, I should have been less eliptic. So, Russia is still there, Austro-Hungary is gone (as a result of its meddling in the Balkans against Russia). And there are little chances it would be back. Fortunately the cultural icons of Austro-Hungary, the Wiener Schnitzel and the Goulash (two of my favorites) are still around and as popular as ever. Good appetite!

    I should have been more precise. Not Russia, but the Russian Empire is gone. Austria-Hungary is gone but Austria and Hungary remain.

    And the people of the Russian Empire suffered far more than did those Austria-Hungary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Seraphim says:
    @Seraphim
    Yes, I should have been less eliptic. So, Russia is still there, Austro-Hungary is gone (as a result of its meddling in the Balkans against Russia). And there are little chances it would be back. Fortunately the cultural icons of Austro-Hungary, the Wiener Schnitzel and the Goulash (two of my favorites) are still around and as popular as ever. Good appetite!

    Ah, I should have added the Czech beer (Budvar preferably, but Pilsen would do as well).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.
     
    Murdering a man and shooting his wife at point blank range is how Balkans define heroes.

    Slavic hero? No. Not a Slav, and not heroic by Slavic standards.

    But perhaps a hero by Arab, or Balkan, or similar standards. ISIS celebrates the guy who bombed the Ariana Grande concert full of teenage girls. Why wouldn't a Balkan declare a man who shot a woman, wife and mother in the chest to be a Great Hero?


    Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands.
     
    Serbia lost 1/3 of its population and was plunged into backwardness for 20 years (by removing the same civilization that had allowed Tesla's genius to be expressed), Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them. This was followed by Communism (Communists massacred more Serbs), followed by Rwanda-style massacres. And in this sorry process, Russia and Austria-Hungary were destroyed.


    Congratulations. Balkanism triumphant.

    So now you’re going to cry over the fate of Franz Ferdinand? I guess you imagine that it makes you civilized? It doesn’t make you “civilized”. It makes you stupid.

    The only reason why Gavrilo Princip did what he did, was because he wanted to teach Franz a lesson, so he’ll never do it again. Amazingly enough – it worked – he never did it again.

    I don’t care about your stupid racial purity, you and the Germans can get together and cry on each other’s shoulders about the unfair treatment that the racially pure are getting.

    As far as representing what the Slavs are all about, only the Russians and the Serbs are doing a good job, although the Belorussians are not that bad either.

    I have a feeling that this “conversation” is about to degenerate (because you are a degenerate) into another name calling session, so before I lose it again, I’ll say just one more thing.

    On your own, you – the Ukrainians are not important to anyone, not to Europe and not to US, they are only using you to hurt Russia. If you are too stupid to see that, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Selenium says:
    @AP

    I don’t think there are any much bigger Slavic heroes than what Gavrilo Princip is.
     
    Murdering a man and shooting his wife at point blank range is how Balkans define heroes.

    Slavic hero? No. Not a Slav, and not heroic by Slavic standards.

    But perhaps a hero by Arab, or Balkan, or similar standards. ISIS celebrates the guy who bombed the Ariana Grande concert full of teenage girls. Why wouldn't a Balkan declare a man who shot a woman, wife and mother in the chest to be a Great Hero?


    Clearly, Serbia did, they united all south Slavic lands.
     
    Serbia lost 1/3 of its population and was plunged into backwardness for 20 years (by removing the same civilization that had allowed Tesla's genius to be expressed), Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them. This was followed by Communism (Communists massacred more Serbs), followed by Rwanda-style massacres. And in this sorry process, Russia and Austria-Hungary were destroyed.


    Congratulations. Balkanism triumphant.

    Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them

    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being “pissed off”. How ever will the benighted Serbs live up to that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa? At least we can be grateful that the Croats aren’t like those Balkan savages! Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just “pissed off” too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being “pissed off”
     
    I don't justify that mass murder by Croats. I just pointed out that if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia, it would not have happened. Those deaths were an ultimate consequence of Serbia's "victory" in World War I.

    Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just “pissed off” too?
     
    Maximum estimate was 100,000 Poles killed by UPA and 30,000 Jews killed by OUN militias. Not really on the Balkan scale.

    that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa?
     
    Mitteleuropa went mad in the mid 20th century. It was exceptional behavior. Savagery in the Balkans has been an unfortunate constant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. melanf says:
    @AP

    To whom can we sell our cheap whoring a**es the best
     
    The Balkans are all you know, so your confusion - and applying Balkan traditions to others is understandable.

    Serving the Turks for 500 years is a record. I don't think any Europeans collectively served non-Europeans that long. Parts of Spain were occupied by Moors longer, but Spaniards were taking their lands back much earlier. In contrast your ancestors just kept serving and serving those Turkish masters.

    If anybody deserves the credit for weakening and destroying the Ottoman empire – it’s the Russians again, not you maggots.
     
    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops). Russia certainly didn't weaken the Ottoman Empire, it was already weakened. Spaniards crushed its navy at Lepanto, the Commonwealth crushed its military at Vienna, HRE at Mohacs.

    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops).

    This is not so. In 1569 a huge (for the era) army of the Turks suffered a crushing defeat and was almost completely destroyed during the military campaign to Astrakhan. In 1672-1681 was a full-scale war with Turkey.

    The expansion of the Turks was stopped, of course, by the Habsburgs, Poland’s role was insignificant

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    They played an important role at the decisive battle in 1683. Though I personally find it unlikely that the Turks would've stayed long, had they won that battle. They were getting weaker, and it seemed inevitable that eventually they'll crumble.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @melanf

    Russia did not have serious conflicts with the Turks until almost 1700, long after Turkey had been softened by multiple defeats at the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (including Ukrainian troops).
     
    This is not so. In 1569 a huge (for the era) army of the Turks suffered a crushing defeat and was almost completely destroyed during the military campaign to Astrakhan. In 1672-1681 was a full-scale war with Turkey.

    The expansion of the Turks was stopped, of course, by the Habsburgs, Poland's role was insignificant

    They played an important role at the decisive battle in 1683. Though I personally find it unlikely that the Turks would’ve stayed long, had they won that battle. They were getting weaker, and it seemed inevitable that eventually they’ll crumble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anon 2 says:
    @TheJester

    @Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

    The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

    “For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).
     
    Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon ... but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

    Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I'm starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

    The intent of the EU was to keep Germany "down". Germany's economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel's bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also "froze" Germany's borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

    However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually "frozen" by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

    I'm beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel's charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany's WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany's economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Germany is "up" ... not "down". What next?

    With its extremely low fertility rate, Germany without the migrants
    would be losing 200-250,000 residents per year. Hence based on
    demography alone Germany is getting weaker. That’s probably
    one reason why Merkel wants more migrants. Another factor is the
    low rate of home ownership in Germany. As a result, millions of
    Germans’ net wealth is surprisingly close to zero, surprising at
    least by American standards. In the U.S. home ownership is the
    foundation of wealth, and the main reason why whites are so
    much richer than blacks.

    Moreover, when visiting Germany one cannot escape the impression
    of growing chaos. Of course, the migrants don’t help but the slow
    descent into chaos started decades ago. This is no longer the Germany
    of the 1890s. Whatever happened to Ordnung muß sein? Notice
    the paucity of the Nobel Prizes won by Germany since WW II
    as compared to the pre-1939 era. Germans are always complaining
    that their books and research papers are barely noticed in the U.S.

    All in all, this doesn’t look like the stereotypical Deutschland that
    cannot wait to get back to its historical modus operandi – Go mighty
    Germania! First conquer Slavia. Then turn your attention west.
    Use Paris and London for target practice! You’ve done it before.
    You can do it again. Nothing is as intoxicating as military expansionism!

    But to get serious again – I don’t see this type of scenario in Europe’s
    future anytime soon

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    Another factor is the low rate of home ownership in Germany. As a result, millions of Germans’ net wealth is surprisingly close to zero, surprising at least by American standards. In the U.S. home ownership is the foundation of wealth, and the main reason why whites are so much richer than blacks.
     
    Germany's low rate of home ownership is a huge economic advantage. Home ownership in the US is not a foundation of wealth, it is a foundation of debt, something to which Germans have an historical aversion. An economy full of renters is extremely rational, very German.

    If 80-150% of the equity value of your home is in lien to a bank, guess what? You don't own it, the bank does, you just rent it from the bank. Maybe you've been living in a cave the past ten years, I don't know, but there was a major financial crisis in the US about ten years ago, from which it still hasn't fully recovered. It was called the Sub-prime Crisis, and not without reason. Before that, there was the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s. Do you see a pattern here? So, while Germans' net wealth may be close to zero, it's strongly negative in the US.

    As for whites being richer than blacks because of muh home ownership, I can't believe I'm reading that on Unz.
    , @RadicalCenter
    The Germans have so few children that they will slip increasingly into economic and cultural insignificance. The somewhat less intelligent, more violent, poorer, lower-trust, Islamic entity known as "Germany" won't deserve the name.

    I'm saddened and still shocked to see the Germans and our other peoples committing suicide -- and being so selfrighteously strident about the rightness of doing it too. But I can't respect them anymore. And dealing with Germans and recent german immigrants to the USA all the time, we are getting sick of their bizarre selfhating propaganda, their rudeness and nervousness when challenged politely by a different viewpoint or new information, and their general lack of common sense and balls, even worse than my countrymen.

    , @RadicalCenter
    Europe's future, sadly, is a Balkanized, less free, less prosperous, less trusting, less safe, Muslim France, Muslim England, and Muslim Germany. They might fight each other or they might unite to subjugate the kafirs remaining in Europe and the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Ivan K. says:
    @German_reader

    Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?
     
    Very hard question...maybe a major war would eventually have happened anyway. On the other hand it's also possible international tensions would have declined in the years after 1914 (e.g. there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement, the issue of Germany's naval programme that had poisoned Anglo-German relations was essentially over by 1914 iirc; I also can't see any fundamental clash in interests between Russia and Germany...the whole Balkans issue was a stupid diversion imo).
    And I'm not sure Serbia would have been destroyed if it had surrendered to Austria's ultimatum (which it might well have done without Russian backing)...more likely it would have lost part of its sovereignty. But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn't really complain about that imo.

    there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement

    In 1914, King George V explicitly demanded from his foreign minister a pretext for war with Germany.

    But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.

    Princip, a poor hack, did what he did practically on his own. He was driven by passion. And that passion was shared with dozens of his classmates. Even the extremely taciturn person that was nobelist writer Ivo Andric, was a member of Princip’s organisation Young Bosnia. The usually brash Serbs regularly accuse each other of terrorism in recent times, but in a hundred years they have hardly provided much in evidence of Serbian state intelligence support for Young Bosnia. When practicing his gun days earlier, Princip couldn’t hit a rock. At least they could have taught him how to shoot.

    The prevalent view is still Fisher’s version of Germany being most culpable.

    Massie in Dreadnought shows clearly that Russia backtracked from its prior positions a number of times in the previous years, most notably in the case of A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia. No one can accuse Nikolai, a weak statesman in every which way, not backtracking enough. To reduce warring, every power has to project an image of strength. In this case, it was about an ultimatum that’s unprecedented. Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services, and were never met with nearly such a response. For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.

    The British crown demanded a war and it’s the elephant in the room.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services
     
    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn't like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn't like him either).


    For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.
     
    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution. Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons ("we cannot show weakness"), when in fact they also could (and should) have "shown weakness" without getting destroyed.

    Apparently even hindsight is not 20/20.

    , @reiner Tor

    A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia
     
    That was a stupid move on the part of Austria-Hungary, one opposed by the Hungarian elites ("Who needs an extra 2 million Slavs?"), and eventually leading to the July Crisis, WW1 and the destruction of Austria-Hungary. In retrospect it's also difficult to understand why the Hungarian elites found it so difficult to respect Croatia's autonomy (or give them more autonomy), but at least with hindsight Hungarian historians will tell you it was a mistake. Why people think it's worth defending the past mistakes of their own countries I will never understand: mistakes are there so you can learn from them. If you still defend the mistakes your country's leaders did a century ago, you'll only help repeat the same mistakes.
    , @LondonBob
    The King has no power in Britain and was a mere figurehead, if you are going to make something up then at least attribute it to the Prime Minister.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Ivan K.

    there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement
     
    In 1914, King George V explicitly demanded from his foreign minister a pretext for war with Germany.

    But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.
     
    Princip, a poor hack, did what he did practically on his own. He was driven by passion. And that passion was shared with dozens of his classmates. Even the extremely taciturn person that was nobelist writer Ivo Andric, was a member of Princip's organisation Young Bosnia. The usually brash Serbs regularly accuse each other of terrorism in recent times, but in a hundred years they have hardly provided much in evidence of Serbian state intelligence support for Young Bosnia. When practicing his gun days earlier, Princip couldn't hit a rock. At least they could have taught him how to shoot.

    The prevalent view is still Fisher's version of Germany being most culpable.

    Massie in Dreadnought shows clearly that Russia backtracked from its prior positions a number of times in the previous years, most notably in the case of A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia. No one can accuse Nikolai, a weak statesman in every which way, not backtracking enough. To reduce warring, every power has to project an image of strength. In this case, it was about an ultimatum that's unprecedented. Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services, and were never met with nearly such a response. For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.

    The British crown demanded a war and it's the elephant in the room.

    Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services

    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn’t like him either).

    For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.

    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution. Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons (“we cannot show weakness”), when in fact they also could (and should) have “shown weakness” without getting destroyed.

    Apparently even hindsight is not 20/20.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn’t like him either).
     
    Correct. This was why Serbian intelligence wanted him killed. Slavs being satisfied within A-H was bad for Serbian expansionist interests. FF, married to a Slav (whom the "heroic" Princip murdered at close range), was pro-Slav; he planned to turn it into a Austrian-Hungarian-Slav state. He had even drawn up plans for a quick crushing of Hungarian resistance, if they objected to autonomy for the Slavs under Budapest's control.

    For the same reason, Bandera's people killed some pro-Ukrainian Polish politicians in the 1930s.

    As for annexation of Bosnia - local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian. After the assassination they were rioting against the local Serbs.
    , @Seraphim
    It is clear that without the "blank check assurance" given by Germany on the 5th of July, pledging her unconditional support for whatever foolish action Austro-Hungary would take against Serbia, even at the cost of war with Russia, Austria would have think twice and the conflict would have remained localized. Another 'Pig War'.
    , @Ivan K.

    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?
     
    King Alexander, Marseilles 1934, & King Boris III, 1943. King Faisal II (Iraq), killed 1958, doubtless under approval from CIA. Ferdinand was not a monarch, he was a royal in an informal sense.

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy
     
    Just the other day I heard a historian arguing that the view of Ferdinand as a serious reformer and a slavophile - is without scholarly support. And that FF was quite militaristic anyway.

    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution.
     
    I qualified the choice as responsible within the geopolitical logic I described. When one dies in the process of following duty, it's a matter of responsibility - to whom? Were the Hungarian revolutionaries of 1848 and 1956 irresponsible?

    Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons (“we cannot show weakness”), when in fact they also could (and should) have “shown weakness” without getting destroyed.
     
    A-H had reasons in militaristic circles that desired to expand South-East, over the territory of Serbia, for many years, or decades. At the same period, the Russians desiring to crush A-H were apparently much less influential.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Ivan K.

    there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement
     
    In 1914, King George V explicitly demanded from his foreign minister a pretext for war with Germany.

    But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.
     
    Princip, a poor hack, did what he did practically on his own. He was driven by passion. And that passion was shared with dozens of his classmates. Even the extremely taciturn person that was nobelist writer Ivo Andric, was a member of Princip's organisation Young Bosnia. The usually brash Serbs regularly accuse each other of terrorism in recent times, but in a hundred years they have hardly provided much in evidence of Serbian state intelligence support for Young Bosnia. When practicing his gun days earlier, Princip couldn't hit a rock. At least they could have taught him how to shoot.

    The prevalent view is still Fisher's version of Germany being most culpable.

    Massie in Dreadnought shows clearly that Russia backtracked from its prior positions a number of times in the previous years, most notably in the case of A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia. No one can accuse Nikolai, a weak statesman in every which way, not backtracking enough. To reduce warring, every power has to project an image of strength. In this case, it was about an ultimatum that's unprecedented. Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services, and were never met with nearly such a response. For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.

    The British crown demanded a war and it's the elephant in the room.

    A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia

    That was a stupid move on the part of Austria-Hungary, one opposed by the Hungarian elites (“Who needs an extra 2 million Slavs?”), and eventually leading to the July Crisis, WW1 and the destruction of Austria-Hungary. In retrospect it’s also difficult to understand why the Hungarian elites found it so difficult to respect Croatia’s autonomy (or give them more autonomy), but at least with hindsight Hungarian historians will tell you it was a mistake. Why people think it’s worth defending the past mistakes of their own countries I will never understand: mistakes are there so you can learn from them. If you still defend the mistakes your country’s leaders did a century ago, you’ll only help repeat the same mistakes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    Why people think it’s worth defending the past mistakes of their own countries I will never understand
     
    I can think of one good reason: it helps in understanding the mindset of the past generations.

    And, it can lead to a certain analytical understanding that says:
    "What happened happened. Objective understanding has no notion of "a mistake," because if you knew all there is to know, you would have seen an inevitability in the past events. The very fact that people still speak in terms of mistakes shows they are still emotional rather than rational, and that they treat the past generations like children. Instead, let's focus of analysing as carefully as possible our own situations as a basis for our own decisions."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Seraphim
    You are talking absolute nonsense.

    You are talking absolute nonsense.

    No, technically, you are. Your post is literally a knee-jerk reaction without any sensible point or argument.

    But back to the topic: you need to differentiate the Church as the body or Christ (“one, holy, catholic and apostolic”) and the Church as a social and political organization, with the attendant rules, regulations and traditions.

    The great tragedy is that Russians are a deeply and seriously religious people who had no Church for 200 years. The situation parallels that of today’s China: there are lots of Christians in China, but no Church. There are Church-shaped simulacra, but they are wholly subjugated to a non-Christian government and denied the right to follow Christian canon law.

    This tragedy ultimately led to the Empire’s downfall.

    (Note that this is mistake the Soviets and post-Soviets will not be making: despite the wide-scale persecution, the Soviet government never dared to deny the Church the right to exist.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Now it's really laughable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. JL says:
    @Anon 2
    With its extremely low fertility rate, Germany without the migrants
    would be losing 200-250,000 residents per year. Hence based on
    demography alone Germany is getting weaker. That's probably
    one reason why Merkel wants more migrants. Another factor is the
    low rate of home ownership in Germany. As a result, millions of
    Germans' net wealth is surprisingly close to zero, surprising at
    least by American standards. In the U.S. home ownership is the
    foundation of wealth, and the main reason why whites are so
    much richer than blacks.

    Moreover, when visiting Germany one cannot escape the impression
    of growing chaos. Of course, the migrants don't help but the slow
    descent into chaos started decades ago. This is no longer the Germany
    of the 1890s. Whatever happened to Ordnung muß sein? Notice
    the paucity of the Nobel Prizes won by Germany since WW II
    as compared to the pre-1939 era. Germans are always complaining
    that their books and research papers are barely noticed in the U.S.

    All in all, this doesn't look like the stereotypical Deutschland that
    cannot wait to get back to its historical modus operandi - Go mighty
    Germania! First conquer Slavia. Then turn your attention west.
    Use Paris and London for target practice! You've done it before.
    You can do it again. Nothing is as intoxicating as military expansionism!

    But to get serious again - I don't see this type of scenario in Europe's
    future anytime soon

    Another factor is the low rate of home ownership in Germany. As a result, millions of Germans’ net wealth is surprisingly close to zero, surprising at least by American standards. In the U.S. home ownership is the foundation of wealth, and the main reason why whites are so much richer than blacks.

    Germany’s low rate of home ownership is a huge economic advantage. Home ownership in the US is not a foundation of wealth, it is a foundation of debt, something to which Germans have an historical aversion. An economy full of renters is extremely rational, very German.

    If 80-150% of the equity value of your home is in lien to a bank, guess what? You don’t own it, the bank does, you just rent it from the bank. Maybe you’ve been living in a cave the past ten years, I don’t know, but there was a major financial crisis in the US about ten years ago, from which it still hasn’t fully recovered. It was called the Sub-prime Crisis, and not without reason. Before that, there was the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s. Do you see a pattern here? So, while Germans’ net wealth may be close to zero, it’s strongly negative in the US.

    As for whites being richer than blacks because of muh home ownership, I can’t believe I’m reading that on Unz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    You are incorrect. The Americans' net wealth (which
    includes the negative contribution of mortgage debt)
    is considerable, and much higher than than that of
    the Germans. That's one reason the United States is
    a wealthy country, and Germany, although affluent,
    is just not in the same league.

    Here are the data: In the U.S. the median family net
    worth was $81,000 in 2013. The mean family net worth
    was $528,000 in the same year. As the country has largely
    recovered from the Great Recession, today's figures are bound
    to be significantly higher.

    Source: Wealth in the United States (Wikipedia)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. JL says:
    @AP

    On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).
     
    Or, Russia could have cut a deal with one of the non-Russian groups and then run roughshod over the others. There would have simply been too much of an imbalance. Moreover, each of the smaller peoples have their own interests, and rather than pursuing those they would just spend their energy containing Russia.

    Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia).
     
    True. For them it would have been a lesser evil scenario. They are all much closer to Poland in terms of population than to Russia or Germany. So while some sort of second-status would have been likely, it would have been less total. For example, the Baltics collectively have about 15% of Poland's population but only 4% of Russia's population. The Czech Republic has 1/4 of Poland's population but a fraction of Germany's. USA lightens, somewhat, discrepancies between small and large states though the electoral college, presumably Intermarium would do something similar.

    That being said, Intermarium, really depended/depends on Ukraine to provide balance. Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)

    Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state
     
    Even a satellite state (and it would never quite get that far - A-H was too big to simply become a Warsaw Pact-era Czechoslovakia to Germany's USSR) would have been far preferable to annexation and total submission. Moreover, the internal workings of Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian peoples within the A-H junior partner were beyond the scale of Berlin's relationship.

    I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy.
     
    This is true. Although Germany and Russia were fundamentally different with respect to the Ottoman lands - Russia wanted the Balkans and Constantinople, Germany was reliant on Middle Eastern oil and wanted guaranteed access to it through its own allies. This was a difficult circle to square.

    Moreover, invading and partitioning a genuine power with millions of soldiers would have been much harder than grabbing a bunch of little countries, one at a time. Just because it could have been done does not mean that it would have been done.

    Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)

    Ukraine is destined to remain poor, unstable and unworthy as long as its citizens and supporters view the nation as simply the anti-Russia, or not-Russia. The idea that Russia is building up animosity between Ukraine and Poland is ridiculous, the exact opposite is true. Russia has driven Ukraine into Poland’s loving embrace.

    The whole cult of Bandera thing that is pissing off the Poles is a Ukrainian phenomenon, Russia isn’t emphasizing anything. I understand that blaming Russia for everything is all the rage in modern day Ukraine, but the country needs to own its own fails, and correct them itself. Otherwise, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the Russians are probably right that the nation is simply not viable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Ukraine is destined to remain poor, unstable and unworthy as long as its citizens and supporters view the nation as simply the anti-Russia, or not-Russia.
     
    This is a myopic view of the situation. It may be how Russians view it, but it is not how Ukrainians view themselves.

    If some sort of Swedish nationalist felt that the Norwegians were really Swedes and all Norwegian expressions that were different from Sweden were attempts to be "Anti-Sweden", would this really explain Norway? Whenever Canada (much more similar to the USA than Norway to Sweden, or Ukraine to Russia) pursues interests or policies different from those of the USA can this be simply interpreted as an attempt to be "non-America?"

    The idea that Russia is building up animosity between Ukraine and Poland is ridiculous
     
    Russian nationalists are trying to cooperate with Polish ones, they are emphasizing the Volyn massacres, hinting at returning Lviv etc. Per Poles, Russian internet trolls are often bringing this stuff up in Poland (kind of like Russian trolls behind behind some Black Lives Matter agitation on the USA):

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

    Most Poles aren't taking the bait.

    Russia has driven Ukraine into Poland’s loving embrace.
     
    Correct. Russia is trying to both make Ukraine weaker and less stable, and to keep it apart from Poland. For Ukrainians, the first part makes the latter impossible. Russia can't do much to make Ukrainians hate Poles, but it is working on fostering anti-Ukrainian attitudes in Poland.

    Here is an example of Russian cooperation with anti-Ukrainian nationalist fringe in Poland:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2016/05/pro-russian-activism-of-mateusz.html

    The whole cult of Bandera thing that is pissing off the Poles is a Ukrainian phenomenon, Russia isn’t emphasizing anything
     
    Russia is, for Poles. But I agree it's stupid of Ukrainians to mythologize Bandera as they do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward

    You are talking absolute nonsense.
     
    No, technically, you are. Your post is literally a knee-jerk reaction without any sensible point or argument.

    But back to the topic: you need to differentiate the Church as the body or Christ ("one, holy, catholic and apostolic") and the Church as a social and political organization, with the attendant rules, regulations and traditions.

    The great tragedy is that Russians are a deeply and seriously religious people who had no Church for 200 years. The situation parallels that of today's China: there are lots of Christians in China, but no Church. There are Church-shaped simulacra, but they are wholly subjugated to a non-Christian government and denied the right to follow Christian canon law.

    This tragedy ultimately led to the Empire's downfall.

    (Note that this is mistake the Soviets and post-Soviets will not be making: despite the wide-scale persecution, the Soviet government never dared to deny the Church the right to exist.)

    Now it’s really laughable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. AP says:
    @Selenium

    Serbs managed to piss off the Croats so much that Croats killed another 400,000 of them
     
    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being "pissed off". How ever will the benighted Serbs live up to that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa? At least we can be grateful that the Croats aren't like those Balkan savages! Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just "pissed off" too?

    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being “pissed off”

    I don’t justify that mass murder by Croats. I just pointed out that if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia, it would not have happened. Those deaths were an ultimate consequence of Serbia’s “victory” in World War I.

    Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just “pissed off” too?

    Maximum estimate was 100,000 Poles killed by UPA and 30,000 Jews killed by OUN militias. Not really on the Balkan scale.

    that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa?

    Mitteleuropa went mad in the mid 20th century. It was exceptional behavior. Savagery in the Balkans has been an unfortunate constant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia

    You would be let to believe that Serbia 'conquered' Croatia and incorporated it in Yugoslavia against her will! Things, of course, were a little bit different:

    "During the early period of World War I, a number of prominent political figures, including Ante Trumbić, Ivan Meštrović, Nikola Stojadinović and others from South Slavic lands under the Habsburg Empire fled to London, where they began work on forming a committee to represent the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary, choosing London as their headquarters.
    The Yugoslav Committee was formed on 30 April 1915 in London, and began to raise funds, especially among South Slavs living in the Americas. These Yugoslavs were Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who identified themselves with the movement toward a single Yugoslav or South Slavic state...
    During June and July 1917, the Yugoslav Committee met with the Serbian government in Corfu and, on 20 July, a declaration that laid the foundation for the post-war state was issued. The preamble stated that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were "the same by blood, by language, by the feelings of their unity, by the continuity and integrity of the territory which they inhabit undividedly, and by the common vital interests of their national survival and manifold development of their moral and material life." The future state was to be called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and was to be a constitutional monarchy under the Karađorđević dynasty...
    As the Habsburg Empire dissolved, a pro-Entente National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs took power in Zagreb on 6 October 1918. On 29 October, a Yugoslavist Croatian Sabor (parliament) declared independence and vested its sovereignty in the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, and two days later it declared its wish to enter state of union with Serbia and Montenegro. Soon afterward on 5 November the National Council in Zagreb asked the Serbian military for help in controlling anarchy in Croatia. Because help did not arrive before the end of November, the National Council again asked the Serbian army for help because: "The population is in revolt. We have total anarchy and only the Serbian army can restore order"...
    With the acquiescence of the National Council achieved, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was declared on 1 December 1918 in Belgrade".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. AP says:
    @JL

    Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)
     
    Ukraine is destined to remain poor, unstable and unworthy as long as its citizens and supporters view the nation as simply the anti-Russia, or not-Russia. The idea that Russia is building up animosity between Ukraine and Poland is ridiculous, the exact opposite is true. Russia has driven Ukraine into Poland's loving embrace.

    The whole cult of Bandera thing that is pissing off the Poles is a Ukrainian phenomenon, Russia isn't emphasizing anything. I understand that blaming Russia for everything is all the rage in modern day Ukraine, but the country needs to own its own fails, and correct them itself. Otherwise, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the Russians are probably right that the nation is simply not viable.

    Ukraine is destined to remain poor, unstable and unworthy as long as its citizens and supporters view the nation as simply the anti-Russia, or not-Russia.

    This is a myopic view of the situation. It may be how Russians view it, but it is not how Ukrainians view themselves.

    If some sort of Swedish nationalist felt that the Norwegians were really Swedes and all Norwegian expressions that were different from Sweden were attempts to be “Anti-Sweden”, would this really explain Norway? Whenever Canada (much more similar to the USA than Norway to Sweden, or Ukraine to Russia) pursues interests or policies different from those of the USA can this be simply interpreted as an attempt to be “non-America?”

    The idea that Russia is building up animosity between Ukraine and Poland is ridiculous

    Russian nationalists are trying to cooperate with Polish ones, they are emphasizing the Volyn massacres, hinting at returning Lviv etc. Per Poles, Russian internet trolls are often bringing this stuff up in Poland (kind of like Russian trolls behind behind some Black Lives Matter agitation on the USA):

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

    Most Poles aren’t taking the bait.

    Russia has driven Ukraine into Poland’s loving embrace.

    Correct. Russia is trying to both make Ukraine weaker and less stable, and to keep it apart from Poland. For Ukrainians, the first part makes the latter impossible. Russia can’t do much to make Ukrainians hate Poles, but it is working on fostering anti-Ukrainian attitudes in Poland.

    Here is an example of Russian cooperation with anti-Ukrainian nationalist fringe in Poland:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2016/05/pro-russian-activism-of-mateusz.html

    The whole cult of Bandera thing that is pissing off the Poles is a Ukrainian phenomenon, Russia isn’t emphasizing anything

    Russia is, for Poles. But I agree it’s stupid of Ukrainians to mythologize Bandera as they do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services
     
    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn't like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn't like him either).


    For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.
     
    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution. Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons ("we cannot show weakness"), when in fact they also could (and should) have "shown weakness" without getting destroyed.

    Apparently even hindsight is not 20/20.

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn’t like him either).

    Correct. This was why Serbian intelligence wanted him killed. Slavs being satisfied within A-H was bad for Serbian expansionist interests. FF, married to a Slav (whom the “heroic” Princip murdered at close range), was pro-Slav; he planned to turn it into a Austrian-Hungarian-Slav state. He had even drawn up plans for a quick crushing of Hungarian resistance, if they objected to autonomy for the Slavs under Budapest’s control.

    For the same reason, Bandera’s people killed some pro-Ukrainian Polish politicians in the 1930s.

    As for annexation of Bosnia – local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian. After the assassination they were rioting against the local Serbs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian
     
    I think at the time Serbs were in the majority, or at least they were a plurality, though. Bosniaks in general were loyal, so much so that Bosniak troops were considered among the most reliable and tough units of the imperial and royal (k.u.k.) army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Seraphim says:
    @AP

    Hundreds of thousands of ordinary men, women and children killed in the most brutal ways. Beaten to death with hammers, thrown to die into crevasses, throats cut, burned alive, starved to death. Savage? No, a civilised Central European reaction to being “pissed off”
     
    I don't justify that mass murder by Croats. I just pointed out that if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia, it would not have happened. Those deaths were an ultimate consequence of Serbia's "victory" in World War I.

    Same goes for the Western Ukrainians and their massacres of Poles and Jews. I guess they were just “pissed off” too?
     
    Maximum estimate was 100,000 Poles killed by UPA and 30,000 Jews killed by OUN militias. Not really on the Balkan scale.

    that enlightened beacon of civilisation, Mitteleuropa?
     
    Mitteleuropa went mad in the mid 20th century. It was exceptional behavior. Savagery in the Balkans has been an unfortunate constant.

    @if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia

    You would be let to believe that Serbia ‘conquered’ Croatia and incorporated it in Yugoslavia against her will! Things, of course, were a little bit different:

    “During the early period of World War I, a number of prominent political figures, including Ante Trumbić, Ivan Meštrović, Nikola Stojadinović and others from South Slavic lands under the Habsburg Empire fled to London, where they began work on forming a committee to represent the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary, choosing London as their headquarters.
    The Yugoslav Committee was formed on 30 April 1915 in London, and began to raise funds, especially among South Slavs living in the Americas. These Yugoslavs were Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who identified themselves with the movement toward a single Yugoslav or South Slavic state…
    During June and July 1917, the Yugoslav Committee met with the Serbian government in Corfu and, on 20 July, a declaration that laid the foundation for the post-war state was issued. The preamble stated that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were “the same by blood, by language, by the feelings of their unity, by the continuity and integrity of the territory which they inhabit undividedly, and by the common vital interests of their national survival and manifold development of their moral and material life.” The future state was to be called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and was to be a constitutional monarchy under the Karađorđević dynasty…
    As the Habsburg Empire dissolved, a pro-Entente National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs took power in Zagreb on 6 October 1918. On 29 October, a Yugoslavist Croatian Sabor (parliament) declared independence and vested its sovereignty in the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, and two days later it declared its wish to enter state of union with Serbia and Montenegro. Soon afterward on 5 November the National Council in Zagreb asked the Serbian military for help in controlling anarchy in Croatia. Because help did not arrive before the end of November, the National Council again asked the Serbian army for help because: “The population is in revolt. We have total anarchy and only the Serbian army can restore order”…
    With the acquiescence of the National Council achieved, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was declared on 1 December 1918 in Belgrade”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    So the Western powers, their collaborators from Croatia in the West, and some locals placed Croatia within Yugoslavia. Moreover, the Croats seemed to have expected full autonomy, and were forced into a unitary state against their will:

    "On 29 October 1918 the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) declared independence and decided to join the newly formed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs,[30] which in turn entered into union with the Kingdom of Serbia on 4 December 1918 to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.[45] The Croatian Parliament never ratified a decision to unite with Serbia and Montenegro.[30] The 1921 constitution defining the country as a unitary state and abolition of Croatian Parliament and historical administrative divisions effectively ended Croatian autonomy.

    The new constitution was opposed by the most widely supported national political party—the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) led by Stjepan Radić.

    The political situation deteriorated further as Radić was assassinated in the National Assembly in 1928, leading to the dictatorship of King Alexander in January 1929.[47] The dictatorship formally ended in 1931 when the king imposed a more unitarian constitution, and changed the name of the country to Yugoslavia.[48]"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. AP says:
    @Seraphim
    @if Serbia had not subjugated Croatia

    You would be let to believe that Serbia 'conquered' Croatia and incorporated it in Yugoslavia against her will! Things, of course, were a little bit different:

    "During the early period of World War I, a number of prominent political figures, including Ante Trumbić, Ivan Meštrović, Nikola Stojadinović and others from South Slavic lands under the Habsburg Empire fled to London, where they began work on forming a committee to represent the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary, choosing London as their headquarters.
    The Yugoslav Committee was formed on 30 April 1915 in London, and began to raise funds, especially among South Slavs living in the Americas. These Yugoslavs were Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who identified themselves with the movement toward a single Yugoslav or South Slavic state...
    During June and July 1917, the Yugoslav Committee met with the Serbian government in Corfu and, on 20 July, a declaration that laid the foundation for the post-war state was issued. The preamble stated that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were "the same by blood, by language, by the feelings of their unity, by the continuity and integrity of the territory which they inhabit undividedly, and by the common vital interests of their national survival and manifold development of their moral and material life." The future state was to be called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and was to be a constitutional monarchy under the Karađorđević dynasty...
    As the Habsburg Empire dissolved, a pro-Entente National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs took power in Zagreb on 6 October 1918. On 29 October, a Yugoslavist Croatian Sabor (parliament) declared independence and vested its sovereignty in the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, and two days later it declared its wish to enter state of union with Serbia and Montenegro. Soon afterward on 5 November the National Council in Zagreb asked the Serbian military for help in controlling anarchy in Croatia. Because help did not arrive before the end of November, the National Council again asked the Serbian army for help because: "The population is in revolt. We have total anarchy and only the Serbian army can restore order"...
    With the acquiescence of the National Council achieved, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was declared on 1 December 1918 in Belgrade".

    So the Western powers, their collaborators from Croatia in the West, and some locals placed Croatia within Yugoslavia. Moreover, the Croats seemed to have expected full autonomy, and were forced into a unitary state against their will:

    “On 29 October 1918 the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) declared independence and decided to join the newly formed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs,[30] which in turn entered into union with the Kingdom of Serbia on 4 December 1918 to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.[45] The Croatian Parliament never ratified a decision to unite with Serbia and Montenegro.[30] The 1921 constitution defining the country as a unitary state and abolition of Croatian Parliament and historical administrative divisions effectively ended Croatian autonomy.

    The new constitution was opposed by the most widely supported national political party—the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) led by Stjepan Radić.

    The political situation deteriorated further as Radić was assassinated in the National Assembly in 1928, leading to the dictatorship of King Alexander in January 1929.[47] The dictatorship formally ended in 1931 when the king imposed a more unitarian constitution, and changed the name of the country to Yugoslavia.[48]“

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Would not that led some credence to the theories, quite widespread, that the Croats are not Slavs originally (although they invented the "Panslavism" - as a tool of Catholic propaganda), but some Turko-Bulgaro-Avaro-Sarmatian tribes (maybe Khazars?), never fully assimilated in the Slavic surroundings? Who quickly offered their support to "the implementations of the (Catholic) Church reforms in Croatia" (code name for catholic proselytism)?
    Which is nowadays coquetting with the new fads of 'white identity', closer to Northern Germanics than to Serbs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services
     
    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn't like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn't like him either).


    For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.
     
    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution. Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons ("we cannot show weakness"), when in fact they also could (and should) have "shown weakness" without getting destroyed.

    Apparently even hindsight is not 20/20.

    It is clear that without the “blank check assurance” given by Germany on the 5th of July, pledging her unconditional support for whatever foolish action Austro-Hungary would take against Serbia, even at the cost of war with Russia, Austria would have think twice and the conflict would have remained localized. Another ‘Pig War’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes. But it is also clear that without a similar assurance given by the Emperor Nicholas II to the Serbian king and government, Serbia would've accepted the ultimatum. It is also clear that in spite of the assurance, the Austro-Hungarian leadership could've decided for some milder demands, which the Serbs might have accepted, and even if they refused, they could've just decided not to start a war. (That latter point was not true after the issuance of the ultimatum - they would've looked clownish if they didn't act upon their threats.)

    In other words, probably all three powers could easily have avoided war. Why are you only willing to talk about one or perhaps two of them?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @AP

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn’t like him either).
     
    Correct. This was why Serbian intelligence wanted him killed. Slavs being satisfied within A-H was bad for Serbian expansionist interests. FF, married to a Slav (whom the "heroic" Princip murdered at close range), was pro-Slav; he planned to turn it into a Austrian-Hungarian-Slav state. He had even drawn up plans for a quick crushing of Hungarian resistance, if they objected to autonomy for the Slavs under Budapest's control.

    For the same reason, Bandera's people killed some pro-Ukrainian Polish politicians in the 1930s.

    As for annexation of Bosnia - local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian. After the assassination they were rioting against the local Serbs.

    local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian

    I think at the time Serbs were in the majority, or at least they were a plurality, though. Bosniaks in general were loyal, so much so that Bosniak troops were considered among the most reliable and tough units of the imperial and royal (k.u.k.) army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    In 1910 Bosnia was 44% Orthodox (presumably, Serb), 32% Muslim and 23% Catholic.

    The anti-Austrian Serbs were a minority of the province's total population, though they were the largest single group. It is certainly possible that as many people were pro-Austrian as were anti-Austrian in Bosnia. It wasn't simply occupied territory.

    FF was pursuing pro-Slav policies with the goal of transforming A-H into an Austrian-Hungarian-Slav federated state:

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

    This was, of course, terrible for Serbian expansionist nationalists, who wanted Slavs to be be treated poorly so they would hate the government and seek union with the Serbian state instead. So the pro-Slav Franz Ferdinand and his Slavic wife were targeted for murder.

    FF was also opposed to harsh relationships with the Serbian state and was opposed to conflict with Russia believing that such conflict would ruin both Empires. Ironically FFs enemies, empowered by his death, issued the harsh (even if justified) ultimatum to Serbia and used his murder to pursue policies that he personally would have abhorred..

    So the Serb terrorist killed the pro-Slav, pro-Russian heir to Austria's throne, because Serbian extremists wanted conflict.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Seraphim
    It is clear that without the "blank check assurance" given by Germany on the 5th of July, pledging her unconditional support for whatever foolish action Austro-Hungary would take against Serbia, even at the cost of war with Russia, Austria would have think twice and the conflict would have remained localized. Another 'Pig War'.

    Yes. But it is also clear that without a similar assurance given by the Emperor Nicholas II to the Serbian king and government, Serbia would’ve accepted the ultimatum. It is also clear that in spite of the assurance, the Austro-Hungarian leadership could’ve decided for some milder demands, which the Serbs might have accepted, and even if they refused, they could’ve just decided not to start a war. (That latter point was not true after the issuance of the ultimatum – they would’ve looked clownish if they didn’t act upon their threats.)

    In other words, probably all three powers could easily have avoided war. Why are you only willing to talk about one or perhaps two of them?

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Anon
    With a hindsight of 100 years, what can we see about the fruits of the Great War, by-passing the usual international relations framework of analysis? (That is to say, 'great powers pursue their ntal interest through diplomacy and war', useful as it is.)

    Two questions: what were the main political fruits of WWI? Who benefits today, if anyone?

    I'd say the answer to the first is, no surprises, the overthrow of Europe's monarchical order. (Perfidious Albion was spared, as it had been spared the XIX century terroristic "propaganda by the fact" so prevalent in the rest of Europe and mostly unmentioned in 'great power' discussions). It seems two institutions in particular were targeted: the Hapsburgs (many 'anarchists' murders, unrest and the death of the heir and the Empress) and the Romanovs (through the Russo-japanese War and the uprisings of 1905, plus their own eventual murder). Both monarchies completely destroyed, and equally importantly, discredited as warmongers, inept, etc. Was that perhaps a principal goal? We have to look at what was demanded at Versailles.

    Of course you cannot undo a centuries old system of government, closely tied to its culture and identity, redraw borders, impose economic relations and expect to have an easy time of it. But let's skip the distracting WWII, even the Cold War. Which type of political actor benefit today from the fruits of WWI, if any? Can they be traced back to those operating in the early 20th century? What specific agendas (laws, institutional building, doctrines, budget allocations) are they pursuing? (And the jewish argument can only be stretched so far.) Can the "personnel is policy" angle help in the unhelpful 'which power is more to blame' discussion?
    , @Seraphim
    Well, Serbia actually accepted the ultimatum presented on 23 July, long after Germany offered its 'blank check' to Austro-Hungary, conceding all demands except one, expressing its readiness that if Austria is not satisfied with the reply "to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague (which was a creation of the hated Tsar Nicholas, if you didn't know) or to the Great Powers...".
    The delay clearly points to premeditation, as well as the nature of the demands (the German ambassador to Vienna reported to his government on July 14, that the to Serbia was being composed so that the possibility of its being accepted was practically excluded), which alarmed not only the Russians, but the European Powers as well, which deemed "absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor". On July 26, 1914 - Britain attempts to organize a political conference among the major European powers to resolve the dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. France and Italy agree to participate. Russia then agrees, but Germany refuses.

    Blaming it on the 'Russian mobilization' is to put the cart before the horses, but it is the new 'political correctness' (with more than the echoes of the revolutionary propaganda of the time - see Kossovo).
    At the council of ministers of July 24 the Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov voiced his belief that Germany was using the crisis over the archduke’s death as a pretext for starting a preventive war to defend its interests in the region.
    The mobilization was a preventative act and it actually came only AFTER Austria started the war.
    28, 1914 - The Austro-Hungarian Empire declares war on Serbia.
    July 29, 1914 - Britain calls for international mediation to resolve the worsening crisis. Russia urges German restraint, but the Russians begin partial troop mobilization as a precaution. The Germans then warn Russia on its mobilization and begin to mobilize themselves.
    July 30, 1914 - Austrian warships bombard Belgrade, capital of Serbia.
    July 31, 1914 - Reacting to the Austrian attack on Serbia, Russia begins full mobilization of its troops. Germany demands that it stop.

    Yes," probably all three powers could easily have avoided war". Why am I only willing to talk about one or perhaps two of them? It is because really only the 'two' of them who refused a peaceful settlement are to be blamed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    local Serbs opposed it, but Bosniaks and Croats were not so anti-Austrian
     
    I think at the time Serbs were in the majority, or at least they were a plurality, though. Bosniaks in general were loyal, so much so that Bosniak troops were considered among the most reliable and tough units of the imperial and royal (k.u.k.) army.

    In 1910 Bosnia was 44% Orthodox (presumably, Serb), 32% Muslim and 23% Catholic.

    The anti-Austrian Serbs were a minority of the province’s total population, though they were the largest single group. It is certainly possible that as many people were pro-Austrian as were anti-Austrian in Bosnia. It wasn’t simply occupied territory.

    FF was pursuing pro-Slav policies with the goal of transforming A-H into an Austrian-Hungarian-Slav federated state:

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

    This was, of course, terrible for Serbian expansionist nationalists, who wanted Slavs to be be treated poorly so they would hate the government and seek union with the Serbian state instead. So the pro-Slav Franz Ferdinand and his Slavic wife were targeted for murder.

    FF was also opposed to harsh relationships with the Serbian state and was opposed to conflict with Russia believing that such conflict would ruin both Empires. Ironically FFs enemies, empowered by his death, issued the harsh (even if justified) ultimatum to Serbia and used his murder to pursue policies that he personally would have abhorred..

    So the Serb terrorist killed the pro-Slav, pro-Russian heir to Austria’s throne, because Serbian extremists wanted conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @German_reader

    So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.
     
    Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we're still suffering under the consequences; it's sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

    So true

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @German_reader

    So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.
     
    Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we're still suffering under the consequences; it's sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

    So true

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Ivan K. says:
    @reiner Tor

    Murders of royals and statesmen happen and have happened before and after, often organised by foreign state intelligence services
     
    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn't like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy (which is why Hungarians didn't like him either).


    For Russia to have shown weakness at that time would have been irresponsible.
     
    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution. Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons ("we cannot show weakness"), when in fact they also could (and should) have "shown weakness" without getting destroyed.

    Apparently even hindsight is not 20/20.

    Can you give a few examples of murders of royals organized by foreign state intelligence services?

    King Alexander, Marseilles 1934, & King Boris III, 1943. King Faisal II (Iraq), killed 1958, doubtless under approval from CIA. Ferdinand was not a monarch, he was a royal in an informal sense.

    By the way Franz Ferdinand didn’t like the Hungarians and liked the Slavs, and was intent on creating some kind of federation instead of the dual monarchy

    Just the other day I heard a historian arguing that the view of Ferdinand as a serious reformer and a slavophile – is without scholarly support. And that FF was quite militaristic anyway.

    Methinks it was way more irresponsible to start a war and then go down in defeat and revolution.

    I qualified the choice as responsible within the geopolitical logic I described. When one dies in the process of following duty, it’s a matter of responsibility – to whom? Were the Hungarian revolutionaries of 1848 and 1956 irresponsible?

    Basically Austria-Hungary had similar reasons (“we cannot show weakness”), when in fact they also could (and should) have “shown weakness” without getting destroyed.

    A-H had reasons in militaristic circles that desired to expand South-East, over the territory of Serbia, for many years, or decades. At the same period, the Russians desiring to crush A-H were apparently much less influential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    King Faisal II (Iraq), killed 1958, doubtless under approval from CIA.

    If fiction helps you get through the day, I suppose it's harmless.

    Britain and later the United States had cordial dealings with the Hashemite monarchy for more than 25 years. No clue why you fancy either would benefit by replacing the Hashemites and Gen. Said with a rampaging praetorian nationalist like Abdul Kareem Kassem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. polskijoe says:

    Its the stupid government which is completely siding with Ukraine only
    and completely against Russia.

    Poles are split on Russia, Ukraine, Germany, etc.

    If you look at the government who is at the top? Poles who are married/connection to Jewish, Ukrainian, or American people. This includes both the current and previous president, prime minister, and foreign minister).

    Poland should be trying to resolve tension with both Russia and Ukraine,
    instead of siding with one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  223. polskijoe says:

    As for the Ottomans…

    Fact is many groups in Europe played a role in defeating Ottomans.

    Polish-Lith Commonwealth, Holy Romans, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungary, Romania, Serbs, Spanish, Italians, etc, etc.

    Any country will killed the invaders played a role.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  224. Ivan K. says:
    @reiner Tor

    A-H unilateral annexation of Bosnia
     
    That was a stupid move on the part of Austria-Hungary, one opposed by the Hungarian elites ("Who needs an extra 2 million Slavs?"), and eventually leading to the July Crisis, WW1 and the destruction of Austria-Hungary. In retrospect it's also difficult to understand why the Hungarian elites found it so difficult to respect Croatia's autonomy (or give them more autonomy), but at least with hindsight Hungarian historians will tell you it was a mistake. Why people think it's worth defending the past mistakes of their own countries I will never understand: mistakes are there so you can learn from them. If you still defend the mistakes your country's leaders did a century ago, you'll only help repeat the same mistakes.

    Why people think it’s worth defending the past mistakes of their own countries I will never understand

    I can think of one good reason: it helps in understanding the mindset of the past generations.

    And, it can lead to a certain analytical understanding that says:
    What happened happened. Objective understanding has no notion of “a mistake,” because if you knew all there is to know, you would have seen an inevitability in the past events. The very fact that people still speak in terms of mistakes shows they are still emotional rather than rational, and that they treat the past generations like children. Instead, let’s focus of analysing as carefully as possible our own situations as a basis for our own decisions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Another reason: history is written (and periodically re-written) by the winner, often as propaganda, and the loser does not think it is a fair, accurate or complete writing. Seeking a truer understanding or a more complete one, is a worthy endeavor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More...