The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Egor Kholmogorov: Russia and the Great War. Victory a Hundred Years Past.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Monument to the Heroes of World War I, erected in Victory Park, Moscow in 2014.

Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

After a more than a year-long hiatus, caused by certain geographic and occupational changes in his life, the author of these lines would like to resume his translations of Kholmogorov’s work. Remembrance/Veterans’ Day seems like a marvelous occasion to present his recent article on the resurgence of Russian memory of the Great War in recent years, as some old Communist myths regarding Russia’s contribution to the war that just won’t die. The translator dedicates this work to the loving memory of his great-grandfather Dmitry Ivanovich Fillipov, captain of an armored vehicle detachment in the Russian Imperial Army.

AK’s Foreword

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

***

Russia and the Great War: Victory a Hundred Years Past

Original: Почему Россия не проиграла Первую мировую войну (Tsargrad)

105 years after the onset of the Great War, it is finally clear: the Russian Empire and the Tsar did not lose it, and its losers the Bolsheviks were not Russia.

105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia. This was the start of the Great War, or “First World War”, as it is usually known in textbooks – a truly fateful even for the entire world, one that, in a certain sense, created reality as we know it. However, it is only now, a century past, when our country starts to recover the memory of its battles, exploits, and heroes, that the grand events of 1914-1918 reclaim their rightful place in Russian historical consciousness.

Why have we lost track of WWI for a hundred years? The answer is quite clear. By its end date, both the Russian Empire and Kerensky’s ephemeral “Russian Republic” ceased to exist. The Russian Army, once leading a steady fight in the front lines, was poisoned by Bolshevik propaganda, then proclaimed “disbanded” by Trotsky, and started to desert en masse.

Russian troops on Austro-Hungarian front c.August 1914.

The Bolsheviks, ruling over what was left of Russia for the next 70 years, first spent the Great War spreading overt defeatist propaganda, then usurped power – financed and supported by German intelligence – only to sign an “obscene” (in their own words) peace treaty and acquiesce to the role of German junior partners just to keep said power.

“This newly signed peace deprives us of entire swaths of land populated by Orthodox Christians and brings them under the reign of our faithless enemies, with dozens of millions of Orthodox facing a great spiritual temptation. This peace separates even the Ukraine, Orthodox since time immemorial, from the fraternal fold of Russia. The capital city of Kiev, the mother of Russian cities, the cradle of our baptism, the keeper of our holy relics, is no more a city of the Russian realm. A peace that gives our land and kinfolk away to harsh bondage is not one that would give the people their desired calm and solace. It brings nothing but the greatest damage to the Orthodox Church and untold losses to the Fatherland”. Such was the appraisal of this “treaty” by St. Patriarch Tikhon in his epistle from 18th March 1918.

Evidently, Soviet propaganda held a major interest in demeaning the importance of the Great War. Over the entirety of the Soviet period (save the four years of a new war with Germany), historians, propagandists, and writers were mostly concerned with the apologetics of the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

First, it was necessary to convince their audience that Russia’s war effort went poorly and the war had been de facto already lost by the Tsarist government when Bolshevik envoys signed an unavoidable capitulation. To achieve this end, one had to endlessly blow out of proportion every Russian military misfortune, paint the Tsar and his generals as clueless nincompoops, Russian military industry as obsolete, and, last but not least, repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.

Second, it needed to emphasize the idea that the Russian people found the war onerous beyond measure, that Russian soldiers couldn’t wait until they were permitted to desert from the front lines. Consequently, all instances of Russian military valor, self-sacrifice and gallantry had to be silenced, and Russian heroes forgotten or subjected to scornful ridicule, like the courageous Cossack Kozma Kryuchkov…

In the trenches.

Lamentably, the denigration of the Great War outlived the Bolshevik régime and integrated itself into Neo-Stalinist rhetoric: the Tsar “lost” the First World War, you see, while Comrade Stalin won the second one… What is more, given that they can no longer justify the Brest-Litovsk betrayal with “defending the conquests of the revolution” (who gives a damn about a revolution that led to the loss of Kiev?), Neo-Bolshevik apologetics have to assert that the war had already been lost by October 1917, and the Bolsheviks just accepted the facts on the ground. For this, they have to redouble their effort in belittling the military achievements of the Imperial Army and its home front.

Fortunately, the normalization of Russian national consciousness is slowly coming to pass. The centenary of the Great War was rather visibly commemorated. There are new monuments to its soldiers, new films and TV series taking place fully or partly on the front lines, excellent and informative documentaries. Archive data on WWI soldiers is published on the Internet, allowing, among others, the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.

However, the basic historical appraisal of the Great War is far from stable, as the main question still goes answered: Did Russia lose WWI?

An answer in the affirmative seems self-evident. During the war, the Russian Empire was destroyed, the Provisional Government was ousted from power, the Soviet Russia created by the Bolshevik signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and accepted herself as the losing party; therefore, our defeat is abundantly clear.

Let’s start with the latter. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was declared null and void by all signatories. The text of the Armistice signed between the Entente and Germany on November 11th 1918 included the German repudiation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the removal of German forces and military agents from the Russian soil. On November 13th, the Bolsheviks themselves publicly repudiated the treaty (however, as the future events leading up to the Rapallo treaty would show, Lenin never truly abandoned his loyalty to Germany).

The text of the Versailles Peace Treaty, signed on June 29th 1919, included Article 116, which included the following text:

Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire on 1 August 1914. … In accordance with the provisions of Article 259 of Part IX (Financial Clauses) and Article 292 of Part X (Economic Clauses) Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaties and of all other treaties, conventions, and agreements entered into by her with the Bolshevik Government in Russia. The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the rights of Russia to obtain from Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty.

Therefore, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was twice declared null and void by Germany herself, and the right to German reparations was shared by Russia (then practically non-existent as a state) among the victors of WWI.

Signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Needless to say, the Entente allies, largely complicit themselves in the betrayal of Russia and its push towards Revolution, could have done much more. For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty, much like the Allies did with a completely devastated France (signatory of a humiliating armistice with Germany) by recognizing General de Gaulle’s Free France government (a complete imposture according to the then-current French political system) and not only giving it a right to accept Germany’s surrender but also granting it an occupation zone.

It is quite clear why the Allies had no desire to do the same with the Russia. Recognizing a White Russian government implied accepting its pledge to restore a united and indivisible Russia; the Allies wanted the Empire to fragment as much as possible. That is why Russia is described as non-existent in the Versailles wording, and the Germans had to accept all new statelets in Russian territory that the Entente would care to set up (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).

All things considered, Russia is mentioned in the Versailles treaty without even existing and treated as the victor, with all agreements implying her defeat by Germany completely annulled.

Moving on to the next question: Was Russia ever defeated by Germany, and was the Brest-Litovsk treaty a Russian-German agreement? The answer is once again in the negative. As duly noted by the Versailles Treaty, Germany made peace not with Russia but with the Bolshevik government. Its signatories were Grigori Sokolnikov, Lev Karakhan, Georgy Chicherin, and Grigory Petrovsky on behalf of the “Russian Federative Soviet Republic” [sic] – that is, a previously unheard of and unrecognized legal entity that had no de jure relation to the Russian Empire that had entered the war with Germany in August 1914.

Bolshevik proclamations in late 1917–early 1918 and their much-vaunted “publication of secret agreements” (documents where Tsarist diplomacy drove a hard bargain for firm Allied guarantees of postwar Russian benefits, including Russian control of Constantinople) implied a breach of alliance and forfeiture of political succession. Germany’s negotiations and treaties with the Bolsheviks, their de facto agent, had and still have no legal implications for the Russian Empire, a truly sovereign state on Russian territory, whose functioning was interrupted in 1917.

By the way, this curse of illegitimacy and rupture of legal succession still hovers over the modern Russian Federation. As correctly claimed by Konstantin Malofeev, “We are in a period of enduring illegitimacy. We still have unresolved issues from the viewpoint of Russian Imperial law. From the viewpoint of the Russian Empire, we are still undergoing a revolution. The Russian Federation is not a legal a successor of the Russian Empire. Of the Soviet Union, yes, but the Russian Empire, no.

The hard work of restoring the legal succession between modern and historic Russia, the Russian Federation and the Russian Empire, must be done so that we assume the maximum possible amount of Imperial rights and benefits and divest from the maximum possible amount of toxic Soviet legacy. One of its most important steps is getting rid of the myth of Russia’s “defeat” in WWI, allegedly supported by a peace treaty signed by Bolshevik traitors.

Finally, the third part of the alleged “defeat” problem. Is it true that the Russian Empire was losing the war? No, it is not. At the moment of a treasonous overthrow of the Russian monarchy, the Empire, as a part of the Entente coalition, was rapidly moving towards victory in WWI and would doubtlessly have achieved it within a year.

The Great War was the war of a coalition of Great Powers against a Germany that had grown too economically powerful and decided to achieve hegemony in Europe and the wider world, gathering a bloc of so-called Central Powers (most importantly Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). To achieve its goals, Germany needed to crush her closest neighbor France, weaken Russia and possibly grab some of its territory, and force the British Empire to accept this new state of affairs. Therefore, the victory conditions for Germany implied a military destruction of France, then a painful defeat of Russia, then a peace with the UK. After achieving these results, Germany would have become the dominant power on the planet.

The reasons for Germany striking specifically in August 1914 were manifold: a hurry to start a war before Russia completed her rearmament program; checking the growing boldness of Serbia, Russia’s ally in the Balkans and a strong performer in the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913; and starting the conflict while Austrian Kaiser Franz Joseph, a fierce Russophobe, is still alive (none of his possible successors had a comparably strong enthusiasm for pro-German and anti-Russian policies).

Franz Joseph I of Austria.

Germany’s war plans involved a rapid defeat of France while an enormous and (in German opinion) awkward and cumbersome Russia is still mobilizing her armies, then crushing Russia herself. France hadn’t yet declared war on Germany when German forces had already invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, rushing towards Paris.

In these conditions, Russia’s rapid advance towards German lines became decisive for the course of the war. The 1st and 2nd Russian armies under Generals Rennenkampf and Samsonov, their mobilization still incomplete, rushed into East Prussia, forcing Germany to defend its border right at the height of their drive to the French capital. As a result, Germany’s strategic defeat was inflicted on Day 20 of the war during the Battle of Gumbinnen, where Rennenkampf’s 1st Army, mostly thanks to an excellent performance of Russian artillery, forced Gen. von Prittwitz’s 8th Army, tasked with defending East Prussia, into flight.

The victory at Gumbinnen was achieved thanks to the extraordinary qualities of first-line forces and the excellent peacetime military training led by Gen. Rennenkampf in his subordinate Vilna military district, writes military historian Gen. Nikolay Golovin (1875– 1944).

The result of the Gumbinnen debacle was von Prittwitz’s decision to evacuate East Prussia, which led the Kaiser and the German High Command to deploy two corps from the Western Front that proved to be the proverbial missing horseshoe nail during the Battle of the Marne. The victory at Gumbinnen saved Paris, and the relief of Paris doomed Germany to defeat in WWI. Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.

Unfortunately, a strategic reversal doesn’t always means that the doomed adversary immediately concedes defeat. Germany soldiered on for four years after the failure of the Paris offensive, dealing horrible strikes to her enemies and dooming millions of Russians, Frenchmen, and indeed Germans to death… However, the Germans had no wherewithal to break the deadlock and overcome the strategic supremacy of the Allies and particularly the British maritime blockade that had stifled German economy. This is once again proven by the fact the Germans, even after knocking out Russia from the war, freeing a huge mass of its forces, and harnessing the enormous resources of the occupied Ukraine, had to concede defeat in six months.

So Russia won WWI at the very start, albeit at a heavy price – the demise of Gen. Samsonov’s 2nd Army, encircled and devastated near Soldau. The defeat had the loathsome consequence of eclipsing Gumbinnen and forever slandering the name of its victor, Gen. Rennenkampf, who, alleged the all-knowing progressive anti-monarchist public opinion, “failed to help Samsonov”. In reality, Rennenkampf’s army advanced in a different direction, towards Königsberg, as per the orders of the Stavka and the front HQ, and knew nothing of Soldau before the battle had ended. The conqueror of Gumbinnen, the man who had decided the fate of the Great War, was vilified and his career buried.

Alexander Samsonov.

German propaganda fabricated a canard alleging that the two generals had a falling out during the Russo-Japanese war and as a result “Rennenkampf betrayed Samsonov”. This falsehood, with the usual addition of “well, what did you expect from an ethnic German?”, was oft-repeated by Soviet propaganda that latched onto the meme of “talentless Samsonov and Rennenkampf”. After taking Rennenkampf’s life, the Soviets also took away his honor.

In 1918, he was executed by a Bolshevik firing squad in Taganrog under Antonov-Ovseenko’s order after refusing to join the Red Army and fight the Civil War against his own Russian brothers. “I will not become a traitor and fight against my own kind to save my life. Give me a well-equipped army, and I will happily lead it against the Germans; but you do not have such an army”. Those were the last words of Pavel Karlovich Rennenkampf, the first victor of the Great War.

However, even the Soldau defeat had a silver lining for the fate of the Great War. After the triumph over Samsonov, the career of the Hindenburg – Ludendorff tandem soared. The German High Commanded started looking for ways of breaking the strategic deadlock on the Eastern Front, and by 1917 Russia was tying up 46% of German divisions. Instead of conquering France and keeping Russia at bay with defensive lines and Austro-Hungary, Germany had to fight a war on two fronts, with its forces thinly spread over Lithuanian and Belarusian swamps, Galician foothills, and, near the end, Romanian mountaintops. Russia, by paying with blood and overexertion but also immortal and majestic feats of gallantry, deprived Germany and its allies of the tiniest chance of turning the tides of war.

The military actions of the Imperial Army during WWI weren’t always up to the standard. Military historian Anton Kersnovsky (1907–1944), a staunch Monarchist, assailed the Russian strategic command in his excellent History of the Russian Army. He emphasized that Russia had good military planners, amazing individual commanders, but just one truly great military leader – Gen. Yudenich, relegated to the secondary Caucasus Front by wartime circumstance. Strategic errors often led to lost victories (such as the underused potential of the Brusilov Offensive) and excessive casualties (such as the bloodbath on the Stokhod, which undermined the gains of said offensive). All too often, Russian military planning was hamstrung by kowtowing before German doctrines and the demands of the Allies.

Nikolay Yudenich.

Some polemists make immature claims that Russia shouldn’t have exerted herself that much for her ungrateful allies. Indeed, the Entente and especially France all too often took Russia’s war effort for granted, and behaved like true traitors after Russia’s destruction in the Revolution. However, both world wars were those of coalitions: if you work for your allies, you work towards a common victory. If Russian soldiers hadn’t died in the swamps of Naroch, the French would have lost Verdun, causing an enormous crisis that would have also affected us. That is why Russia’s most bloodstained war effort would not have been in vain, had treason not deprived her of the well-earned spoils of war.

However, Russia did quite decently in achieving main strategic goals, leaving Germany with no chance of victory. The home front developed rapidly: the shortage of ordnance, artillery, and rifles came to an end; the army saw the introduction of automobiles and mass mechanization (in 1916, several automobile plants were founded, including the future ZiL), Russian artillery was seen as the best in the world both in its technical qualities and the skills of its personnel. In Russia, Igor Sikorsky created the first heavy bombers. The creation of Russian tanks was underway.

If in the early days of the war Germany and Austria needed to mobilize 5% of their total ordnance to match one Russian shell with three of their own, the second year called for 50%. During the third year, to keep the 1:3 ratio, the Central Powers would have had to turn all of their guns towards Russia. Just to maintain a simple 1:1 parity, one would have needed all Austrian and 25% of German ordnance.

In other words, victory was imminent, and Russia’s contribution was so decisive that it was recognized by the Allies, who in fall 1916 had to acquiesce to Russia’s territorial demands, including the Black Sea Straits and Constantinople. However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.

By the moment of the anti-royal coup, the Russian army had advanced into the territory of two out of three enemy Powers that shared a border with Russia. At no point did German armies advance into core Russian territories. There could be no talk of a “battle for Moscow”, “siege of Petrograd”, “surrender of Kiev”, to say nothing of a “battle for the Volga”. There were no circumstances that could lead to millions of civilian deaths caused by the occupier. Therefore, claiming that the Tsar “lost” while Stalin “won” is bald-faced cheating just going by respective casualty rates. WWI was fought in a much more “thrifty” way so far as soldiers’ lives were concerned, and mostly happened outside Russian territory. (Now compare the north of France dug over by German shells; even when Germany surrendered, there were German soldiers standing on French soil, but no French armies in German lands.) With their politicking, the Bolsheviks planted the seeds of World War II, so demographically disastrous for Russia, while Tsarist Russia was intent on terminating the war with a firm and harmonious peace that would have left Germany with neither cause nor the wherewithal for revanchism.

“If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro [Kotor] on the Adriatic”, said Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen in 1934.

For the West, WWI ended a hundred years ago. For Russia, excluded from the peace process and plunged into a bloody feud, this war still goes on and no one knows the day when it will end, if it ever will. Mostly importantly, it ceases to be a forgotten war. We rediscover its heroes, memorialize them, search for documents on our great- and great-great-grandparents. Like true heroes of the past, they appear to us in a romantic sheen, in films, monuments, and elsewhere.

And this is where we can discern a certain providential meaning of the tragic events of 1917-18, visible only from a century’s worth of historical distance. There are victories true and Pyrrhic; Pyrrhic victories break an army’s fighting spirit while true victories uplift it.

Without Russia, the Entente won a Pyrrhic victory. The Great War broke the spirit of the victors at least as strongly as that of the defeated. Postwar literature (represented by such figures as Erich Maria Remarque from the losing side and Henri Barbusse, Richard Aldington, and Ernest Hemingway from the victorious) was one long tale of pain and horror. The generation that had spent four years in the trenches lost itself in its terrible trauma, and the victorious French crumbled in a second world war. The modern memory of WWI in Europe is the memory of the fallen, devoid of any glimpse of victory.

Only the Russian memory of WWI as the last Great War of the Empire, which is slowly being reclaimed after a century, is colored in heroic and romantic hues. We see our ancestors as heroes, not victims. Nowadays, after a hundred years, the Great War is a bottomless wellspring for our national spirit in the modern unstable and perilous world. For us, the main poet of WWI is, once and forever, Nikolay Gumilev, decorated with two St. George Crosses:

Like thundering hammers
Or the waves of a raging sea,
The golden heart of Russia
Steadily beats in my chest.

Oh the joy of decking Victory,
Like a maiden, in ropes of pearl,
While following the smoking trail
Of a retreating enemy…

 
Hide 539 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you appreciate these translations, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here.

  2. I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, Kholmogorov is to be commended for alluding to the growing body of historical research showing that the Russian Empire’s economy adapted to World War I surprisingly well (by late 1916, it was producing as many artillery shells per month as the Soviet Union did in 1942, despite the latter being a much more industrialized and militarized country) while also maintaining civilian consumer power. Before the February Revolution, there was nothing remotely similar to the French mutinies after the Nivelle Offensive. I do think Kholmogorov strongly overdoes Russia’s contribution to the military effort against Germany (though not against Austria-Hungary and Turkey), starting from an exaggeration of the significance of the divisions diverted to East Prussia in 1914. That said, there was nothing wrong about that, going after easier targets while still in an under-equipped state relative to Germany. And Germany itself would have had a much worse time starting from 1917, had certain politicians postponed playing at democratic politics until the end of a total war.

    Ultimately, though, I disagree with the basic thesis. Even if we proclaim that Russia “won” World World I (powerful take), at the end of the day, it still ended up getting two wars for the price of one, the Civil War and WW2, which killed 15x as many Russians as the First. In this context, any post hoc victory proclamation will be so necessarily peppered with caveats as to make it meaningless. My powerful take: It was really Germany that won World War I. By installing the Bolsheviks, who lost Russia more than a decade’s worth of economic development and exterminated or expelled a large part of the Tsarist-era human capital stock, it massively postponed the day when Russian military-industrial power would supersede its own. This gave Germany the opportunity to make a second play for world hegemony in the 1940s, an opportunity it would not have had otherwise. Germany failed. But the attempt was respectable, and it maintained its status as a high income country, at no less than 80% of the population and GDP it would have otherwise had by 2000; whereas Russia by 2000 was a pathetic husk with just half of its potential population (and that’s just within its current borders) and no more than 20% of its potential GDP under a “normal” development scenario.

    • Replies: @Janusm
  3. There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn’t hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn’t do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

    the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson’s Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia’s record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).

    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what’s the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

  4. @German_reader

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare

    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.

    I don’t know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 – collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

  5. Yevardian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    Nationalists with pipe-dreams of raising the Imperial Flag in Prague and Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without. What even is your position anyway? Half the time you say Russia would be better off without the Caucasus, and then it’s revanchism against the Baltics.

    • Troll: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @neutral
  6. inertial says:

    A suggestion for Mr. Argenteus: translate Kholm’s reviews of Western movies. That should be a lot of fun for the readers, and there is a potential for one or two reviews to go viral, giving Kholmogorov exposure in the Anglosphere.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  7. @Anatoly Karlin

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    If we’re talking about German nationalists who dream of border revisions in Europe, I’d actually agree with that.
    But today the concerns of German nationalists are of a rather different, more existential kind. Maybe Kholmogorov needs a few central Asians in his neighbourhood, to concentrate his mind and take it off those silly dreams of empire.

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks.

    Maybe, but his arguments seem weak and ahistorical to me in any case.
    Bolshevism was of course disastrous, but its appeal didn’t come out of nowhere and was clearly linked to the failures of the old order, of which WW1 was an especially egregious example. It may be difficult to comprehend for armchair imperialists like Kholmogorov, but a lot of ordinary people (not just in Russia) in WW1 weren’t that keen on dying for nebulous visions of imperial greatness. Defense of the nation is a different matter, but as Kholmogorov himself makes clear again and again, that had become fatally blurred with more extensive goals which couldn’t command general support.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  8. @inertial

    Thank you for the suggestion, I’ll seriously considering doing an anthology of Kholmogorov’s hot takes on relevant recent (or classical) movies.

    • Replies: @inertial
  9. Denis says:
    @German_reader

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    You’re right, it was better for them to stay in Turkish hands, so that the Turks could exterminate the indigenous population. Anything to stick it in Russia’s eye!

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

    Do they regard their current status wrt the US as a nightmare?

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914

    Atrocities against civilians are unfortunate, but the Germans could have avoided these ones simply by not declaring war.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @reiner Tor
  10. inertial says:
    @Fluctuarius

    BTW, love your poetry translations and the original pieces as well.

  11. utu says:
    @German_reader

    Russian nationalists (presumably the anti-Bolshevik ones like Kolmogorov and probably Karlin) must outbid sovoks thus Russia w/o Revolution would be more bigger and more better hence they fall into the trap of imperialism. Perhaps they should be called white sovoks as opposed the proper sovoks who are red.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  12. @German_reader

    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty… and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else’s. So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

  13. @Anatoly Karlin

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That’s their right, but if you’re taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov’s screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you’ll have to live with harsh criticism. I don’t think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.

  14. Janusm says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    ive often felt the great tragedy was germany in late 19th century siding with austria-hungary instead of russia.

    a germany-russia alliance would have been nigh unbeatable, a powerful conservative bulwark to anglo-american lunatic universalism.

    some hypothetical ww1 in this scenario would have germany gobbling up the german parts of AH, and Russia dominating balkans. Germany with Russian supplies/commodities/oil/food would be industrial powerhouse, Russia without concerns over european border could dominate in middle east and far east. Together, theyd provide world a rightwing ideological counterpart to ‘muh liberal democracy’ or communism.

    oh well. instead they bled each other white for 30 years and handed the world to the anglos and the chinese.

    • Agree: Poco, bluedog
  15. @Anatoly Karlin

    Anyway, maybe you’re right and a German shouldn’t “lecture” Russians about anything given mid-20th century history. I won’t be doing it again (though I’ll also note that playing the Nazi card against me is a bit incongruous, given that much of Unz review is basically a Nazi site), so my participation in this thread ends here.

  16. AP says:
    @Denis

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

  17. utu says:
    @German_reader

    “…maybe you’re right and a German shouldn’t “lecture” Russians …” – No, he is not.

  18. @German_reader

    I don’t think he really played the “Nazi card” against you but whatever I guess

    • Replies: @iffen
  19. @German_reader

    “Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what’s the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.”

    Well as AK likes to say nationalists tend to be low in human capital. Taking stances that make you look like a freak tends to be the norm.

  20. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    You can absolutely not worry about it. Anatoly Karlin (in those cases when it does not translate Yegor Kholmogorov) a reasonable person, but among the “Russian nationalists” such man is a very very rare exception. The so-called “Russian nationalists” in Russia today are a bunch of disgusting marginal freaks whose only contribution to politics is a complete discredit of nationalism.

    who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic state

    Well, Egor Kholmogorov is a private marginal person. But the Baltic States have at the state level claims to Russian lands – lands to which these States have absolutely no rights (neither historical nor demographic).

    for example:
    Тhe head of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Estonia Mart Helme said that Tallinn has unresolved territorial claims to Russia. According to him, Moscow “holds” more than five percent of Estonian lands. Helme noted that the Russian side does not want to return these territories or pay compensation for them.”

    These lands are Ivangorod where Grand Duke Ivan III built this castle in the 15th century.

    Before Ivan these lands belonged to Novgorod. However, since Estonia (having no legal rights) occupied these lands between the world wars, according to the Estonian government these are now Estonian lands. And these territorial requirements are not yet supported by NATO tanks solely because Russia has a thermonuclear bomb. I am not a fan of Kholmogorov, but it is strange to condemn him in matters relating to the Baltic States, despite the fact that the Baltic States have such a brazen state imperialism.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  21. Denis says:
    @German_reader

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.

    I do. I may not agree with him in full, but I certainly sympathize with him.

    • Replies: @AP
  22. AP says:
    @Denis

    Because you are a Serb.

    • Replies: @Denis
  23. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty… and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else’s. So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    To be fair, though, a German could explain Germany’s WWI territorial changes in regards to Russia as simply giving freedom to various non-Russian peoples of Russia. True, it would have been a German-dominated freedom, but maybe if liberalization would have occurred in Germany, Eastern Europe would have had more leeway in determining its own policies–just as long as it would have agreed to remain allied to Germany.

    As for World War II, what the Nazis aimed to do to Russia was certainly extremely inexcusable. That said, though, if one wants to be fair, as far as I know, non-Nazi German nationalists between 1919 and 1932 didn’t actually advocate in favor of stripping Russia of any of its territories. Rather, the idea of going to war with Russia and capturing vast swaths of Russian territory for Germany was a Nazi idea–one that was not shared even by other German conservatives in the interwar era (so, in 1919 or afterwards) until after the Nazis actually came to power in Germany.

  24. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    Does he also view Tsarist Russia’s expansion into Central Asia as being a mistake given what we now know about Central Asia’s demographic trajectory?

    I mean, Yes, Russia’s position relative to Central Asia would have been much better without the demographic devastation that it endured during the 20th century. However, was it nevertheless wise to expand into territories that subsequently experienced such population growth (as a result of high fertility rates) up to the point that their total population consisted of tens of millions of people–and mostly low-IQ people at that (albeit ones that are not particularly crime-prone)?

    France’s expansion into northern Algeria might have seemed like a good move at the time–and when northern Algeria was outright annexed by France in 1848, it had something like 15+ times less people than France had (2 million for northern Algeria versus 32 million for France). However, given what we now know about Algeria’s future population growth trajectory, France’s expansion into northern Algeria and especially France’s annexation of northern Algeria was certainly a mistake–albeit one that was thankfully reversed by Charles de Gaulle in 1962.

  25. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    TBH, even if German nationalists actually had the power to forcibly revise Europe’s borders nowadays, I’m really not sure that they actually would. After all, countries such as Poland and Czechia could be useful allies to Germany in the war against Islamofascism.

    As for Russia, considering just how many nukes it has, Germany certainly isn’t going to be willing to make any moves on it regardless of whom it’s led by. TBH, I’m not even sure that Hitler would have dared to attack Russia if Russia would have actually had lots and lots of nukes and the means to deliver them.

  26. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    In regards to Russia, Russia should have obviously remained in WWI until the very end after that war would have actually begun. However, you’re correct that the spoils that Russia could have acquired from World War I even if it would have been on the winning side were rather limited: Galicia (full of Ukrainian nationalists), Subcarpathian Ruthenia (more loyal to Russia but also dirt-poor and possibly with low human capital other than its 15% Jewish minority), Ottoman Armenia and Pontus (both of which Russia could have likely obtained at a much lower cost in the mid-1890s had it decided to go to war against the Ottomans in response to the Hamidian massacres back then), the Memelland (a good port, but very small), and East Prussia (full of Germans). Theoretically Russia could have also expanded Poland more but AFAIK the Russian Provisional Government had already pledged to give Poland its independence–as IMHO Tsarist Russia should have done even before World War I just as long as Poland would have accepted a (different) Romanov King and agreed to be allies with both Russia and France. Pyotr Durnovo was correct when he wrote to Tsar Nicholas II in February 1914 that a war with Germany would not be in Russia’s best interests:

    https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/documents/Durnovo.pdf

  27. Mr. XYZ says:

    [MORE]

    Its signatories were Grigori Sokolnikov, Lev Karakhan, Georgy Chicherin, and Grigory Petrovsky on behalf of the “Russian Federative Soviet Republic” [sic] – that is, a previously unheard of and unrecognized legal entity that had no de jure relation to the Russian Empire that had entered the war with Germany in August 1918.

    That’s August 1914–not August 1918!

    AK: Thanks, fixed.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  28. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    BTW, off-topic, but what are your thoughts on the 1803 Louisiana Purchase as well as the US conquest of what is now the Southwestern US from Mexico in 1848?

  29. @AP

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could’ve easily chosen to accept Serbia’s reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn’t. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia’s response to A-H’s ultimatum removed any reason for war …

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830’s and 1840’s. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia …

    • Replies: @AP
    , @reiner Tor
    , @reiner Tor
  30. @German_reader

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia).

    A-H declared war on Serbia on 28th July. Since Russia chose to honor its alliance to Serbia, where they supposed to not mobilize for war?

    Of course, I suspect you would prefer that Russia simply ditched Serbia and let it disappear from the world map, instead of thinking about restraining the arrogance of the Habsburgs.

    As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.

    No, Austria-Hungary’s decision to declare war on Serbia despite having the reasonable option of not doing so was what ensured a general European War.

    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn’t hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn’t do Russia any good.

    Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for cucks like you to admit that trying to get rid of Serbia wasn’t a good idea?

  31. @Mr. XYZ

    [MORE]

    Good catch – and an awkward gaffe on my part…

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  32. 4891 says:

    I was reading a essay week or two ago by a scholar of Charles Maurras and his writings, stating that Maurras’ great failing was his romanticized view on the Ancien Regime, that he did not see the many fault points in the late stage French monarchy, that led to its demise. That’s the same way I feel about this article. All the military points made are valid, and valuable information. It particularly seems to disprove the assertion by Tankies that Russia “wouldn’t have been ready for war” without Stalin. But nowhere does Kholmogorov address the unpopularity and instability of the Imperial Russian State.

    The Tsar had already had a close call in 1905, so clearly the fall of the Tsardom was not a one-off tragedy of circumstances. Something about the nature of the Tsardom had set it off, and I say this as something of a Royalist myself. To not even attempt to address that, is sheer cowardice. It’s like the old boomer that says the US could have stayed in Vietnam and won the war. Ya, on paper maybe, but how are you going to convince your soldiers to keep fighting and dying, for some cause that will never affect them? Morale and faith in the government is part of war, and part of being a good sovereign. When Nicholas II let front and home conditions atrophy to the point that the military removed him from power, he lost the war.

  33. @melanf

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?

    • Replies: @melanf
  34. @German_reader

    I don’t, of course, since nationalisms tend to be particularist ideologies, not universal ones. They can have alliances of convenience (anti-Communism, today anti-immigration) but no real ones of conviction, unless the peoples in question are already very close.

    What I don’t follow is how exactly you read a call for border revision into this article. Sure, Holmes – like 90% of Russian nationalists – supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia. But this is not what this article in particular is about. Of course this doesn’t stop the demented armenoid Sovokdian (no offense to Armenians) extrapolated a defense of Russia’s WW1 war aims to having designs on Istanbul or Prague *today*.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  35. @utu

    Just a note that the Black sovok utu is on record demanding Russia conduct a nuclear strike on Israel, likely annihilating itself just to pursue his particular ideological obsession.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  36. Daniel.I says:

    Anatoly Karlin

    in my opinion the deepest and most talented Russian nationalist politologist is Egor Kholmogorov, who is based, economically literate

    Egor Kholmogorov

    Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …

    • LOL: utu
  37. @Daniel.I

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

  38. @Anatoly Karlin

    Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Serbia did not actually buy any S-400’s at all to begin with (it only bought the Pantsir-S which Americans did not object to), so Serbia did not actually cancel anything under American pressure.

    Serbia actually can’t afford to buy S-400’s up front. Buying anything by taking out loans or making several payments over many installments is a bad idea, even if it concerns high quality Russian anti-air weapons systems.

    Just so everyone gets the basic facts correct about the matter:

    https://nationandstate.com/2019/11/10/us-threatens-sanctions-on-serbia-scrambles-to-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  39. @Anatoly Karlin

    Frankly the little hit on German nationalists at the end strikes me as being rather petty.

    Virtually no European nationalists advocate border revision these days, because border revision is almost always based around the presence of a kindred group outside one’s own borders. In Germany’s case, the only example is Austria. They hardly care to retake East Prussia when no Germans live in it. Western and central Europe is settled, barring a couple of small exceptions.

    Likewise Russian nationalism does support border revision because there are tens of millions of ethnic Russians and closely related peoples outside Russia. However, border revision to include the entirety of the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is ridiculous and does indeed stretch into the territory of Imperialism, as German_Reader correctly identifies.

    I believe that this argument between you two has at least some of its roots in your distaste for Germany (for all your ‘but respectable try!’ I think you still hold a grudge) and perhaps Western European nationalism in general.

    Much like Germany and Russia, you two should kiss and make up, because Germany and Russia together (along with the rest of Europe) still has the chance to a power bloc like none seen in all history. And it is precisely little issues like this that threaten to derail nationalist cooperation.

  40. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?

    And who are these nationalists? It is enough to look at any forum of nationalists-there (round the clock!) Two Minutes Hate on such topics as “Putin is a secret Jew”, “Muslims make up the majority of the population of Moscow”, “Russians are blond nordids-Aryans, oldest people on earth”. The political influence of the nationalists is not even zero, but negative. Rallies of nationalists is a show of freaks, over which all laugh (below is real photo, not a frame from eccentric Comedy)

    Can you name me a reasonable Russian nationalist? I know two – you and Natalia Kholmogorova (not to be confused with Yegor Kholmogorov). Perhaps there are others but their number is sooooo small

    including relative to, say, Goblin

    Stalinist Goblin-Puchkov is a nationalist? Hmmm. He’s definitely a freak because it always says stuff (like his claims that Ivan the terrible increased the territory of Russia 25 times)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  41. @melanf

    I’ll answer on more detail later, but I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum. Obviously, such examples can be multiplied.

    • Replies: @melanf
  42. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum

    This is undoubtedly true, but the problem is that Russia does not have a non-marginal and non-Frick nationalism as a minimally visible political force. And those freaks who are discredit any idea associated with nationalism.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  43. Karlin, I don’t know what’s the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I’ll give a hint–it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody’s ass with “new historic research” without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don’t expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about “psychometrics” and other “intelligence’ stuff–you constantly dragging into the “discussion” losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe “thinkers” scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

  44. Daniel.I says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Romania’s rulers (with a few notable exceptions) never had a spine.
    That’s what centuries of enslavement will do to you.

    But that’s not my point.

    You obviously think I’m some sort of knee-jerk Russophobe.

    I’m not.
    I was against joining the EU (my friends thought I was insane).
    I am very much in favour of a positive identity for Eastern Europe – as opposed to just being defective Westerners.
    I very much think that Eastern Europe would do well to go its own way (my time in Belgium convinced me of that).
    And yes, that would require Russian leadership (obviously).

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  45. neutral says:
    @Yevardian

    Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without

    Actually liberating Constantinople from the Turks is something the world could all benefit from.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  46. OT

    The British Army guy who set up the White Helmet propaganda crew has been found dead in Istanbul. Had his usefulness come to an end? Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

  47. @German_reader

    There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.

    Here is a “pearl” of “strategy” by Egorushka (diminutive of Egor, because in Russia he is viewed mostly as a village fool)

    Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.

    This doesn’t even make sense in a pure housewife’s level of thinking, in terms of having any historic, let alone military meaning–it is beyond redemption. Evidently, Karlin doesn’t care of about reputation, whatever that means in his world, bringing, granted his blog, a collection of meaningless phrases concocted by BS Artist of a first order. This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons. But facts be damned–numbers are too difficult for this fat idiot who couldn’t even complete couple years of History Faculty in university. Obviously such things as weight of salvo, the same as why Osipov published his historic “Estimation of Victims of War” in 1915 are beyond Kholmogorov’s grasp. I will omit here the fact of WHO Kholmogorov actually is in real life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Philip Owen
  48. @Andrei Martyanov

    Hello? Cringe Department?

    La creatura oscuro sovoko

  49. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    … I won’t be doing it again … so my participation in this thread ends here.

    Stop taking this attitude! Keep writing your comments.

    BTW, I’m about 20% (having to take time out for a new book on Reconstruction in the South) into Bombers and the Bombed, and to say that my eyes are being opened doesn’t even come close to being descriptive.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  50. @Daniel.I

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” developed in the deep recesses of the Western “academia”. But this is what Karlin, both out of ignorance and volition, is trying to do. Kholmogorov is a clown with zero academic background and he is mostly in promoting himself for a variety of reasons and “works” in a relatively safe (for him) field of “humanities”, that is to say people who have no clue mostly, dealing with pre-revolutionary Russia. In general, Kholmogorov, as a man without good education, loves waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes. His attempts to argue with professional historians usually end up really badly for him.

    • Agree: Daniel.I
    • Replies: @iffen
  51. iffen says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Dang, smoovie, don’t sugar coat it, tell us what you really think.

  52. @Anatoly Karlin

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    There was no “cancellation” because there was no contract to start with, Serbia is still receiving S1 Pantsyr’s for which there is a contract with Russia, the same as Russia providing 6 refurbished MiG-29s for Serbia Air Force. Main issue with S-400 is its price. For small nation such as Serbia the only way she can afford it is on loan issued by Russia. US pressure is a given no matter what Serbia does and this issue is a teeny-weeny “above” just Serbia’s desires.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  53. AP says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government.

    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia. It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It’s important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly. The Serbs lost what – 25% of their population? Despite the Serbian government eventually executing the architect of this crime. The Tsar, otherwise a rather decent man, who shamefully went to war to protect this disgusting Serbian regime was himself murdered along with his family.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  54. @YetAnotherAnon

    “The security source said Le Mesurier’s wife told police that she and her husband had taken sleeping pills around 4 a.m. and went to bed. She said she was later woken by knocking on the door and discovered that her husband was lying on the street surrounded by police, the source added.”

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-security-white-helmets/key-backer-of-syrian-white-helmets-found-dead-in-istanbul-idUKKBN1XL1B1

  55. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Kholomogorov does indeed write some nonsense. However:

    what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I’ll give a hint–it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom.

    So a graduate of a second-tier military academy that led to a brief and mediocre career as a low-level Soviet naval officer in Azerbaijan or wherever, followed by working as a tutor for American high school children (this is public info, I am not doxxing), makes fun of the history faculty at Russia’s probably top university? LOL.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  56. AP says:
    @Daniel.I

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    Would you prefer that they conceal their real attitudes, which would probably be reflected in real policies if they were to come to power, so you can “sell” something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to?

    Reality is that the smaller countries between the West and Russia have to be wary of both of those forces. Ideally they would have to ally with one another and hopefully maintain good relations from a position of relative strength, rather than be divided and treated piecemeal by the Russians and the West (Franco-Germans).

    • Replies: @Daniel.I
  57. iffen says:
    @Anarcho-Supremacist

    I don’t think he really played the “Nazi card” against you

    AK has a hard-on for Germany and Germans (let’s not mention the Latvians) and he will forever, because: Lenin.

    • Replies: @NobodyKnowsImADog
  58. Daniel.I says:
    @AP

    something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.
    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.

    • Replies: @AP
  59. @Andrei Martyanov

    You’re a second-rate failed boomer Sovok living in the United States with shellacked Brezhnev-era hair obsessed with “education” credentials.

    If you’re so highly educated why don’t you understand how to space paragraphs in your unhinged rants?

    • LOL: AP
  60. iffen says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes.

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” yada, yada, yada …

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  61. AP says:
    @Daniel.I

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    Correct. They also did not vote the Communists into power; their country was basically hijacked.

    Nevertheless, being under Moscow meant, for Ukrainians, about 3 million peasants starved to death. It was not a good deal. 1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania, either.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.

    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone’s little brother.

    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.

    Would you really classify Poland that way? It has been far more successful than neighboring Belarus.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Daniel.I
  62. iffen says:
    @AP

    They also did not vote the Communists into power

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?

    • Replies: @AP
  63. @iffen

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.

    Some, probably, do. By far not all.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  64. Daniel.I says:
    @AP

    1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania

    True, but I do believe (some) things have changed.

    Would you really classify Poland that way?

    Yes I would.
    Do you really think you can dance with the Devil and avoid going to Hell ?
    ZOG has sunk its claws into Poland.
    Let’s see how/if they can get out of this

    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone’s little brother.

    Romania has never been independent. NEVER.
    I don’t expect that to change in the future.

  65. @AP

    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    No. You are the one falsifying history with your trashy Ukrop Catholic Triunism.

    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia.

    No. A-H’s demand would have led to the end of the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state. After all, do countries not have the right to dare to fight to exist and survive as sovereign states? What’s so wrong with that?

    It’s also not entirely true that APIS (Dragutin Dimitrijevic) trained and armed the assassins since Gavrilo Princip went to London before the assassination and Young Bosnia plus Black Hand had extensive international Freemason connections.

    In the event, the Serbian government even expressed a willingness to accept this clause of A-H’s ultimatum upon further negotiation. Of course, it’s not good enough for you, since you consider it more than reasonable for Austria Hungary to start a World War in order to end the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state even though they had other realistic, viable and practical alternatives available to them in the moment.

    It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    I’m glad you made this comparison since anyone who is well informed knows that Israel did 9-11 instead of how the Americans falsely claimed Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein did 9-11. Similarly, they can also tell in this regard that just like Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein are not truly at fault for 9-11, the same applies for Serbia and Serbs.

    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It’s important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly.

    That’s nothing compared to what Austria-Hungary was encouraging against Serbs in the years before 1914 and would do later to Serbs from 1914-1918.

    Austria-Hungary actively supports majority Muslim Albanian massacres of Serb civilians on Kosovo in 1901 (mind you, this is before the 1903 coup in Serbia where the pro Austria-Hungary Obrenovic dynasty was overthrown):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    Austria-Hungary tries to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908 and fails:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1906%E2%80%9308)

    Austria-Hungary persecutes Serbs on false pretexts in order to silence their political voices and representation in the Empire from 1908 and onward:

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

    Then there’s also the anti-Serb riots and pogroms in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in modern day Bosnia, Croatia and Vojvodina) encouraged by Austria-Hungary’s authorities against Serbs on the same day of the assassination where 2 Serbs are killed and hundreds of Serb properties are burnt, destroyed and looted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Serb_riots_in_Sarajevo

    There are many more examples i can come up with which aren’t available in English language sources, but that’s just the top of the iceberg of what Austria-Hungary encouraged and actively did against Serbs and Serbia.

  66. @Andrei Martyanov

    Even though I think you are a Sovok wierdo, I still agree with your comment since it is factually correct, and you are surprisingly well informed on the matter.

  67. 3552231

    Lithuania is slightly different….but in Estonia and Latvia almost EVERYTHING there is because of either historical Germany or Russia you cretin. Every block of stone used for building, every railway…everything.

    Don’t forget Denmark and Sweden

  68. AP says:
    @iffen

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians – they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?

    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin’s crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Mr. XYZ
    , @reiner Tor
  69. iffen says:
    @AP

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it. Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.

    • Replies: @AP
  70. Dmitry says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    He does not write about crazy conspiracy theories. He can read books, and can write and speak quite well. And when he is a television host of Anatoly Vasserman’s show – where he seems an eccentric, but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  71. @AltSerrice

    I am not hostile to German nationalists per se obviously. I don’t feel like hunting down the particular thread but German_nationalist has expressed the sentiment before that it’s not a bad thing that Putin represses Russian nationalists (before 282 was decriminalized). So just returning the well wishes.

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can’t say I’ll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn’t for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Mr. XYZ
  72. AP says:
    @iffen

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it

    I’m not an expert on Russian SRs, but they not commies. They were democratic, national-populist, agrarian (peasants) and dominated by ethnic Russians. Out of a sense of patriotism most of them supported Russia during World War I. Bolsheviks were non-democratic, urban prole (they genocided Russian and Ukrainian peasants), tried to undermine Russia’s war effort during World War I, and dominated by a multinational gang of criminals.

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.

    Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.

    And Spaniards are Italians (Romans) but won’t admit it.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
  73. @melanf

    Wells, Yuneman is pretty respectable (if as yet low profile). Sergey Grigorov of the Russian Democrats. Vladimir Tor and Dmitry Bobrov, at least these days. Alexander Zhuchkovsky. Norin, the historian. A bunch of conservative intellectuals such as Mezhuev are more or less open nationalists.

  74. @Dmitry

    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    Again, Kholmogorov is not “nationalist”, he is media persona who grew out of grim times (smuta) of late 1990s–early 2000s. Russia still fights the “belch” of this “intellectual” movement. Any opinion of Kholmogorov on any military matter of the 20th century is an opinion of an amateur. He is what in Russian language defined as недалекий человек (English version–narrow-minded–does not fully explain the meaning). He is no historian, he is low level propagandist which has zero expertise in history, let alone subjects which are beyond that.

    He can read books, and can write and speak quite well

    There is reading and then there is “reading”. He is no autodidact, not even close. Him not being able to get any facts straight is a first proof of that. Yes, he can write–you know, letters, words. He even is able sometimes to string together couple of sentences.

    but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    I knew and, actually know, a rather large number of people who not only wear clean clothes, but drive really nice cars and own property, moreover, some of them have Ph.Ds, including in such subjects as Applied Physics, Computer Science etc. Yet, even among them I know at least few people who qualify as complete dumbfvcks. So it is rather an unconvincing criterion.

  75. @Andrei Martyanov

    … presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University

    With all due respect (not much), as a graduate of a second-tier naval academy, I don’t think you’re optimally placed to invoke argument from credentials.

    I don’t expect from you any substantive answers…

    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
    http://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258953

    This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons.

    Holmes goes into these statistics in this very article.

    Yes, Russia started from a low base, for which it can be criticized. But its growth rate in shell production from early 1916 to late 1916-February 1917 was explosive (by that latter point, production had converged to the level of the Big Three in 1916 – France, UK, and Germany).

    Artillery production: Comparable to that of France, Great Britain, and A-H throughout the war.

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it’s not like the USSR even “caught up” relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

  76. @Daniel.I

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    Again, and for the n’th time, I am really curious where exactly in this article Holmes says anything at all about taking Prague or Istanbul or even the Baltics.

    Do people who think that the US was wrong to rebel against the British Empire suppose the UK invading Washington D.C.?

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian’s fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  77. @Anatoly Karlin

    even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Are you sure of this? As far as I can tell, the only purchase that Syria announced was for the Pantsir, which remains on schedule for delivery over the next few months. The Serbian President did express an interest in the S-400 but was also quoted as saying “the only way would be if Russia left them with us [i.e. for free]. Otherwise we do not have the means to procure them.”

    https://thedefensepost.com/2019/11/10/us-serbia-russia-military-systems-pantsir-s-400/

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  78. iffen says:
    @AP

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.

    Close enough for government work.

  79. @YetAnotherAnon

    Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    Did Russia drive hero British aid boss to his death? Wife says former army officer who fell from Istanbul balcony was under ‘intense stress’ following year-long Moscow smear campaign branding him a spy

    The British co-founder of Syria’s White Helmets who fell to his death from his Istanbul balcony was under ‘intense stress’ and had suffered a years-long Russian smear campaign against him . . . A security source has told Reuters that his death is being treated as suspected suicide. But mystery still surrounds his death, with suspicions raised that it may have been ordered by a state actor.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7672621/British-founder-White-Helmets-Syria-dead-days-Russia-accused-spy.html

  80. @Anatoly Karlin

    Karlin,

    I just finished the book about your kind, should you have been at least basically educated you wouldn’t even post the comparative table of artillery produced, because it ends up as a sum against Russia’s main enemy in the West which was Germany. I understand you have very vague understanding of logistics, or, e.g. how reserves are deployed to a front line or how they are maintained but even in your table Germany produced almost three times more artillery than Russia. While at it, check how many machine guns Russia produced compared to Germany. You also forgot that Russia had A-H as an opponent and A-H had her own armament production. But that is the whole thing here for me–wasting time, explaining to you what German Army was or what was Elastic Defense and how it worked is basically explaining….ha, just why bother. You also will continue to ignore Russian General Staff numbers. I am not even interested in discussing this with you. My surprise is with you still not understanding that some creeps such as Kholmogorov or similar “thinkers” reflect on you in a very peculiar light, not so much on clowns you are trying present to whoever reads your blog.

    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:

    Sure. I still do. You, however, have very little knowledge of predictors and how they are calculated. For that, one has to attend even the lowest of the low second-tier military academy, such as I did, not some fraud of pseudo-education in “economics” from a shithole in Berkley. Karlin, friendly advise–find yourself a job somewhere as an accountant, at least you will earn an honest buck (pound, ruble?) stop pretending yourself any authority on anything–you are not, you don’t have any background for that. It is not too late. Of course, movie and game reviewing business may still be available for application of your talents, but writing on military history or representing amateur concoctions by Kholmogorov as anyway representing Russia’s or World’s history is not a viable POV but merely an attempt to become what you never will.

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it’s not like the USSR even “caught up” relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

    You just proved my point.

  81. @Anatoly Karlin

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again

    You’re mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn’t be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn’t want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don’t think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it’s against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there’s this crazy WW1 revisionism…Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the “correct” outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered “What if Russia wins?”), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I’ve been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    , @Mr. XYZ
  82. @for-the-record

    Are you sure of this?

    Karlin is a shill for the Russophobic “elites” in the West, hence the cover of his Russian “nationalism”–he is not Russian “nationalist”, he is a typical Western millennial liberal, formed as a person in the United States, as well as being a product of its grossly flawed “humanities” education part, probably with an agenda. In fact, he doesn’t even know what Russian nationalism is. He cannot be sure on anything geopolitically or military-related (in any aspect: tactically, operationally, strategically or technologically) because he has zero background in that, hence pseudo-“academic” platitudes and those ever-so-present “slight” misrepresentations of facts.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  83. AP says:
    @German_reader

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog.

    Too bad. Your comments are worth reading.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  84. @German_reader

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.

    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance…

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    … why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?

    They didn’t, and they helped make sure it didn’t happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn’t owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.

    Yeah, sure. /s

    • Agree: Dreadilk
  85. Hhsiii says:
    @German_reader

    I would imagine all Russia had to do was hold out another year and they’d have been on the winning side. But we’ll never know.

  86. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AltSerrice

    Likewise Russian nationalism does support border revision because there are tens of millions of ethnic Russians and closely related peoples outside Russia. However, border revision to include the entirety of the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is ridiculous and does indeed stretch into the territory of Imperialism, as German_Reader correctly identifies.

    The interesting thing, though, is that the Baltic countries (especially Latvia and Estonia) would probably be easier to Russify than, say, western Ukraine or even central Ukraine would. After all, they could be flooded by a lot of Russian settlers–similar to what occurred in the post-WWII decades, but even further. In contrast, central and western Ukraine would require much more Russian settlers than the Baltic countries would. Of course, capturing the Baltic countries would obviously not be a viable option due to them being in NATO. Still, had Russia permanently held onto them (for instance, if there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917), I would think that the odds of a successful Russification of at least Latvia and Estonia would have been higher than a successful Russification of central and western Ukraine would have been. Of course, the ethnic Latvians and ethnic Estonians would have of course never actually become Russians; rather, they could have simply been outnumbered by ethnic Russian settlers.

  87. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun? It was simply that Germany doesn’t appear to have seen any point in actually doing this. Else, theoretically speaking, Germany could have tried advancing much deeper inside of Russia in 1916. However, again, the fall of, say, Kiev or Minsk or whatever wouldn’t actually have resulted in Russia being knocked out of the war.

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    Yes, because in a coalition war, winners are entitled to make gains–sometimes large gains–even if their contribution to the overall victory wasn’t that large. As a side note, though, Romania had a claim to Transylvania on ethnic grounds. So, it would be comparable to a Russian annexation of Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland after the end of World War I.

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    I thought that your IQ was way too high for a Russian vatnik? 😉

    In any case, though, it’s worth noting that someone (a relative neo-isolationist) such as Donald Trump might be relatively ambivalent about the US having a sphere of influence in Europe. At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Would these other Romanovs have renounced their succession rights to the Russian throne similar to what King Philip V of Spain did in regards to the French throne in 1713?

    Also, as a side note, this is what Russia should have done in regards to Poland even before World War I. As in, give it its independence but under a Romanov King and with the requirement that Poland be a military ally of both Russia and France.

  88. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    TBH, I wonder if German_reader got offended way too easily here. I mean, it’s the Internet–where it’s extremely easy to get butthurt!

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  89. @Mr. XYZ

    At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    And why do you think it is the case? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I just, if you will, want to see some rational explanation to that, which is germane, in fact very important, to this whole WW I “discussion”.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  90. @Mr. XYZ

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

  91. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    Yes, I get the logic behind Verdun. I’m just saying that, as an alternative to Verdun, Germany could have tried advancing further east.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    But would a German offensive into Russia in 1916 have actually been decisive? I mean, even if Petrograd falls (which I’m highly uncertain about for logistical reasons), couldn’t Russia still decide to continue the war against Germany?

  92. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  93. iffen says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans

    What could have been worse for the Germans beyond the Treaty of Versailles?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  94. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Can Israeli nuclear missiles actually reach Russia’s major population centers?

  95. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Sure, Holmes – like 90% of Russian nationalists – supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia.

    Just how much border revision, though?

  96. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Also, as a side note, I wonder if Russia would have managed to avoid the February Revolution had it had more competent leadership in Petrograd during World War I. After all, I believe that Rodzinako warned Nicholas II about the risk of a revolution in Russia by Nicholas simply ignored him. That, combined with the Tsarina Alexandra playing musical chairs with her ministers, didn’t exactly result in an impression of governmental competence among the Russian people.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  97. Daniel.I says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    And then Russians wonder why the rest of Eastern Europe wants to stay as far away from them as possible.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @Yevardian
  98. Mr. XYZ says:
    @iffen

    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    • Replies: @iffen
  99. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians – they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    The Left Socialist Revolutionaries were utter morons in supporting the Bolsheviks.

  100. @Andrei Martyanov

    Congrats, you’ve reached peak retard take

  101. iffen says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    I don’t know about it in depth, but there was a proposal to do away with Germany as a country.

  102. @Anatoly Karlin

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917.

    Karlin, wars, especially industrialized wars are fought with a teeny-weeny bigger number of varieties of war materiel than just artillery shells (however important). I deliberately asked you about production of machine guns and, just mentioned, elastic defense by Germans, especially on the Eastern Front. I know I will not get an answer from you but how come this “explosion” of war production didn’t result in Russia closing 10-fold gap with Germany in production of the machine guns–a main cause, together with artillery, of casualties in WW I. A-H produced more machine guns than Russia. I am not talking, of course, about Russia producing 11 times fewer aircraft than Germany (fewer even than A-H) unless British and French motors were supplied. How’s that working? But that is just a small materiel part. Here is Svechin for ya, not that it will help but still.

    Несколько слов о 2-й Финляндской стрелковой дивизии. Эта прекрасная дивизия выступила на войну в составе четырех 2-батальонных полков и одного 3-батарейного дивизиона; одна бата-рея была горная. На батальон приходилось нормальное в русской армии количество орудий — 3. Но затем полки дивизии разверну-лись сначала в 3-батальонный, а затем в 4-батальонный состав, батареи же перешли к 6-орудийному составу; фактически, осенью 1915 г., в батареях имелось только по 5, даже по 4 орудия. Горная батарея бралась иногда в отдел от дивизии: например в период 925 сентября 1915 г., излагаемый во второй части настоящего труда. Таким образом в лучшем случае дивизия при мне была обеспечена полутора орудиями на батальон, а иногда всего одним орудием, что являлось совершенно недопустимым в условиях ми-ровой войны. Мы с завистью смотрели на нормальные дивизии, располагавшие 6 батареями, а о германской норме — 12 батарей — и мечтать не могли. За недостаток артиллерии приходилось рас-плачиваться дорогой ценой пехоте

    You should read, Karlin, what is Command and Control are and how they were implemented in WW I. Again, Svechin, Triandafilov and Denikin may help. I understand that ecconomics “majors” are not really keen on those C2 issues but there were few, how to put it, issues. Hint: they matter, great deal. The work of Stavka in WW I is altogether a whole other story.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  103. @Daniel.I

    What does EE have to offer Russia? Advanced technologies, capital investments? Western Europe, at least, is still pretty useful in that regard.

    • Replies: @Daniel.I
  104. @Mr. XYZ

    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.

    Not the only one, but undeniably one of the major factors, agree. I will, however, slightly “edit” your correct statement: while the US spends a lot of money and resources on their behalf. Resources matter, in a kinetic global conflict patterned after WW I (and WW II) they were deciders of the outcome. Not only resources, but how they were used. The list of predictors, including economic growth for warring sides by 1914 was not in Russia’s favor. She lagged in every single real economic category when compared to both Entente and Central Powers with the exception of Bulgaria and Turkey.

  105. Daniel.I says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Since you keep asserting Russia’s right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Anyways, you might want to consider toning down your belligerent autism – believe it or not, I’m not playing for Team ZOG.

    Is the idea that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar that far-fetched for you ?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  106. Yevardian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian’s fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).

    My fantasies? I just criticised your tacit endorsement of these stupid power fantasies, this Kholmorogov is basically Saker-tier, although that might be unfair to the Saker.

    • LOL: iffen
  107. @Andrei Martyanov

    We covered this before. Russian industry started to collapse from February 1917. At that point, it was no longer the Russian Empire fighting the war, but the Russian Republic, continuously paralyzed by labor strikes and run by cretins and incompetents. From October 1917, it was in turn replaced by a terrorist organization. Production fell to zero or as close to it as makes no difference. Meanwhile, in other countries, war production continued soaring right through to the end. Comparing “Russia” from 1914-1918 with Germany, France, A-H, etc. is an apples to oranges comparison.

    Example of airplanes in particular: Ratio of 2:1 relative to England, and 4:1 relative to Germany; almost four times as good as A-H, during the 1914-16 period for which normal comparisons can be made. Far from catastrophic, given that these were all fully industrialized countries. Huge numbers of all factories of all kinds were being built – no less than 7 factories for vehicle production by 1916 alone (one of them was later appropriated by the Soviets under the better known name “ZiL”). All of these capacities would have been coming online throughout 1917-18.

    I note that your example, tellingly, refers to 1915 – Russia’s worst year in terms of the military balance vis-a-vis the Central Powers.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    He died as a result of the Great Purge.[2] He was arrested again on 30 December 1937. His name was included in death list № 107, dated 26 July 1938 and signed by Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov. On 29 July 1938, he was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on charges of “participating in a counter-revolutionary organization” and “training terrorists”.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  108. @Anatoly Karlin

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Karlin, I understand that they don’t teach basic math in Berkley in your department but if you have heard of such thing as ratios of casualties, or, say more specific things like FER (Fractional Exchange Rates) you would immediately start trying to find actual data on those rates between German and Russian armies and those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7, NOT in favor of Russian Army. That means for a single German killed, Russian Army 7 (seven) its own KIA. This is called slaughter. You obviously need to enlighten yourself (and your cretin idol Kholmogorov) on how Brusilov’s offensive ended up in catastrophic casualties fro Russian Army which almost equaled those of routed A-Hs. All despite brilliant zamysel (concept) by Brusilov and some new techniques such as Rolling Artillery Wall which used in it.

    I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    How about you start learning actual history of “your” forefathers. Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich. Not to mention false in the extreme.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  109. Mitleser says:

    @110

    The “right to rule over” seems to apply to early 20th century EE, a time when that region was for instance a relevant source of oil.

  110. @Daniel.I

    Since you keep asserting Russia’s right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Please remind me again, where do I “assert” the right to rule anything west of Brest and Transnistria (you can have Bessarabia)? Where does even Kholmogorov assert anything to that effect in this text?

  111. @Anatoly Karlin

    Again, get you facts and numbers straight from Archives of Russian MoD as represented by Krivosheev in Russia And USSR In The Wars of the XX Century.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    A “profound” argument. I also have Mein Kampf at home, read many German and Nazi military leaders, I also have a rather good insight into the American military theorists and historians. But sure, let’s call it that–I am Stalinist. While at it, just browse some of Egorushka “pearls” throughout his “career” as a “historian”. I would rather be Stalinist than post excrement of a yurodivyi cretin and present it as a viable “work”.

    http://lurkmore.to/%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

    But if you would do your due diligence you would learn a whole lot more about your “idol”.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  112. Yevardian says:
    @Daniel.I

    Karlin and Kholmorogov are fringe figures, they don’t represent popular or political opinion in the Russian Federation anyway whatsoever. His obvious disdain for Eastern Europe reflect his real contempt for real Russian culture and achievements (as if his spitting on victory day was not enough). But it’s curious to follow such ambitious and unscrupulous characters, one day he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  113. @Andrei Martyanov

    … those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    Overall – LOL, no chance, and not even close. How are the figures even supposed to add up.

    The casualty ratio on the Eastern Front overall was 1.5:1 in favor of the Central Powers. This is comparable to the ratio during WW2, although that is based on Overmans’ and Krivosheev’s figures, who almost certainly overstate German casualties and understate Soviet casualties, respectively.

    Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich.

    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don’t have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Mr. XYZ
  114. @Yevardian

    he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.

    Not might, he will most likely. It is the issue of not “if”, but “when”. He runs a classic routine of US “Russia Studies” field who end up either in neocon think-tanks or analysts in CIA or any other org in the West and who are one of the main drivers behind Western decline since are good (not really, actually) at promoting narratives, however absurd they are–but that is where the main answer lies to West’s decline.

  115. @Anatoly Karlin

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    You wouldn’t be able to know what real victory is, because you have zero instruments for that.

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    You see, you obviously do not know the difference between battle and war, between strategy and operations.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  116. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn’t be opposed.

    Personally, I would oppose this movement but still support allowing it to do what it wants if they will gain enough support among the Belarusian people. As I previously said, I am attached to Belarus due to me having a Belarusian maternal grandmother.

  117. Denis says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I just looked into the matter regarding Serbia. Tyler Durden seems to support your interpretation:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-threatens-serbia-sanctions-scrambles-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/ri27846

    Although granted this was not out of deference to America, but due to the threat of sanctions.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  118. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don’t have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    Obviously WWII was easily avoidable (especially if Russia would have avoided the Bolshevik coup back in 1917), but considering that the immediate alternative (as in, from 1941 onward–as opposed to alternative options further back in time) to losing that many people was to have Germany take over the European part of Russia and very possibly deport tens of millions of Slavs or more to the Urals over the next several decades, well, Victory Day does seem like something worth celebrating–and I say this as someone who had some relatives (including at least one ancestor) serve in the Red Army during WWII and whose family endured Bolshevik rule for all 75 years or so.

    If, purely hypothetically, someone would have tried to take over all US territory east of the Mississippi and expel the Americans who were living there further west, and, in the process of victory, the US would have lost 20% of its male population (and 40% of its young adult male population), then this victory would have still been worth it relative to the immediate alternative–and thus worth celebrating to a certain extent. Of course, one would also naturally wonder whether there were any options further back in time that could have prevented this extremely massive bloodshed in the first place.

  119. @Andrei Martyanov

    It sure doesn’t involve having 27M of your own people die to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s… and in some particular cases, getting the hell out of at the first opportunity.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    , @Mr. XYZ
  120. @Denis

    I haven’t followed the story at all, I just saw a headline towards that effect on one of my feeds or discussion groups so deferred to your differing interpretation.

    That said, if true after all, I’d say that pulling out due to US sanctions threats definitely qualifies as deferring to America.

  121. Yevardian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn’t compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

  122. @Yevardian

    Because I am well known for caring very much about foreign opinions as demonstrated throughout this thread.

  123. @Yevardian

    It’s ironic how this guy’s arrogance is based mostly on legacy “sovok” military industrial know-how.

  124. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Yevardian

    with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence,

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  125. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s

    Are you suggesting that Russia should have permanently kept this empire?

    Also, you forgot to mention Coca-Cola here.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  126. anonlb says:

    As always in this thread we can read that WW1 was avoidable without those pesky Serbs.
    What will happen if Russia and France didn’t honored Entente agreements with Serbia?
    My 2c:
    1. Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
    2. Rest will be WW2 but 25 years earlier:
    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
    • Ottomans with German support will restore rule on middle east, Saudis and other British puppets will be impaled
    • US will stay neutral, England will be forced to sign peace with new German super state
    • Habsburgs will be forced to abdicate, Austria will be attached to Germany
    • Most of Serbs and other Balkan people will be transferred to African colonies :D, German settlers will colonize Balkan. Turkey will be forced to transfer Istanbul to Germany.
    • Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @reiner Tor
  127. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can’t say I’ll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn’t for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    TBH, I strongly suspect that this boat has already passed long ago. After World War II, Austrians created a new, Austrian (or perhaps Neo-Austrian, following the identity that they had before 1918) identity for themselves and don’t appear to be particularly fond of the idea of being viewed as Germans.

    For that matter, Hungary has already long renounced its territorial claims to its pre-Trianon territories. Hungary has, of course, been willing to give Hungarian passports to its ethnic confreres across the border, but I don’t think that any serious Hungarian–even a nationalistic one–actually wants to wage war to recover some or all of Hungary’s pre-Trianon territories.

    As for Russian nationalists, if they really want to acquire Belarus, they should offer Lukashenko the opportunity to become Russia’s leader. This might have been what Lukashenko was thinking of doing eventually when he agreed to the Union State in the late 1990s before Putin’s rise blocked Lukashenko’s potential path to power in Russia. When one has one’s own fiefdom, one might not want to be a small guppy in someone else’s pond. Anyway, though, just like the US can survive without Canada, Russia can survive without Ukraine and Belarus. In any case, eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus aren’t actually going to be worth that much by 2100–with eastern+southern Ukraine having a population of perhaps 10 million in 2100 (a roughly twofold decrease from right now) while Belarus will have a population of perhaps 7-8 million in 2100. This would be in contrast to Russia’s 125 million people or so in 2100. So, a Russian annexation of eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus won’t be worth all that much by 2100 considering that it would only increase Russia’s total population by around one-sixth.

  128. @Mr. XYZ

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?

    This is not even serious. But that brings us to the point I am trying to advance here–apart from Kholmogorov being a cretin and creep, obviously–no serious history buff, let alone serious military history or military professional will advance this “argument” because the United States does not know what continental warfare is absolutely. American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War (so civil that shitload foreign invaders took part in it), let alone of WW II. No American soldier EVER died in modern era, or, for that matter since Revolutionary War, defending United States proper from the invasion. Moreover, numbers are simply not there for the United States to have what is known as shared historic experience of the warfare. Some US military veterans here and there, but that is about it. In general, it is better to avoid avoiding actual numbers and scales which, otherwise, give a good insight into the nature of warfare, especially warfare of the XX Century. Just recall what Lloyd George told Woodrow Wilson after he proposed peace without reparations and such, reflected in Wilson’s 14 Points. yes, something-something-something about Empire’s casualties. Some of those points were appropriated by… Bolsheviks. I elaborate on real continental warfare in length in my first book. French didn’t like it–not the book, they actually were OK with it–the elaboration;) I wonder why? //s.

    • Replies: @AP
  129. AP says:
    @anonlb

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.

    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Fluctuarius
    , @anonlb
  130. AP says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War

    American Civil War had about 640,000 war dead.

    Napoleon’s invasion of Russia had about 610,000 war dead.

    Spanish Civil War had a total of 275,000 killed.

    They didn’t teach much history in Soviet second tier military schools?

    • Replies: @Denis
  131. Denis says:
    @AP

    Where did you get those numbers? I found 1 mil. dead for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. For the Spanish civil war, I found a wide variety of estimates.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @AP
  132. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    TBF, Germany was thinking of annexing Briey-Longwy from France due to its massive iron ore deposits after WWI broke out. However, Yes, AFAIK, Germany had no territorial designs on either France or Russia before the start of WWI.

    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    If France is no longer a problem, Germany can easily take Russia on for a while after 1917.

  133. AP says:
    @Denis

    I just went with wiki.

    Britannica:

    It is estimated that of the 612,000 combatants who entered Russia only 112,000 returned to the frontier. Among the casualties, 100,000 are thought to have been killed in action, 200,000 to have died from other causes, 50,000 to have been left sick in hospitals, 50,000 to have deserted, and 100,000 to have been taken as prisoners of war. The French themselves lost 70,000 in action and 120,000 wounded, as against the non-French contingents’ 30,000 and 60,000. Russian casualties have been estimated at 200,000 killed, 50,000 dispersed or deserting, and 150,000 wounded.

  134. @Anatoly Karlin

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    Allegedly.

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn’s postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    Tellingly, the Kaiser, as well as Falkenhayn’s contemporaries Groener and Schulenberg, recalled after the war that Verdun was to be the start of a multi-phase plan which would end with the destruction of the BEF.

    We’ll never know what really happened, but it seems to me like Verdun turned into more than the Germans bargained for and Falkenhayn, who always played his cards close to his chest, justified the failed strategy after the fact as having been his cunning plan all along–vindicated by the later French mutiny.

    Unfortunately the German Army’s archives were destroyed in WW2 by Allied bombing, and in general the dysfunctional German government of WW1 with its lack of clear power centers makes it very difficult to sort out what really happened and why.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Seraphim
  135. @Mr. XYZ

    Modern German nationalists tend to get extremely touchy. Their obviously cannot (aren’t allowed to) replicate the methods of Kaiser Wilhelm or, perish the thought, That Man With The Moustache to advance their goals, and usually despise the Multi-Kulti policies of the Merkelreich too much to admit they like it.

    So they have to resort to a very roundabout, contorted, and hypocritical way of cultural posturing, condemning all forms of “muh imperialism” (sour grapes!) and praising “muh Kultur” (overrated TBH) and “muh postwar economy” (which only exists because the US allowed it to).

    Also, let me remind everyone that modern Germany is not a fully sovereign state, and only regained near-full sovereignty around 1990 (again, only because the US and the USSR allowed it to while the UK and France howled bloody murder), which explains everything.

  136. @Yevardian

    The Soviet Union capitulated at the first sight of a sausage pointed at its heart.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  137. @Mr. XYZ

    Depends on which Empire.

    The USSR could have got a much better deal in 1989.

    For example, earlier in the year, the Soviets could have rounded up the opposition leaders in Warsaw Pact countries and told them: “Okay, listen up, we are not complete idiots. When we allow open and free elections, you will win them fair and square, no arguing with that, no one believes in Communism anymore. But here’s a catch, we will only allow them if you make certain pledges. When you write your new constitutions, make sure that a) non-participation in any military blocs is enshrined there; b) there are provisions for a limited contingent of Russian troops staying for 5-10-20 years to ensure a “peaceful transition to democracy”. Understood? If you don’t like this, we’ll go full North Korea on you”.

    That is just one out of an infinity of options.

  138. @AP

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories.

    You forgot colonies.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  139. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn’s postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    I’ve heard Indy Neidell express a theory that this memo never actually existed and that Falkenhayn simply made it up later.

  140. Yevardian says:
    @Fluctuarius

    German colonies were practically all just the worthless scraps of desert and jungle no other major power particularly wanted. Bismark despised the idea of a colonial empire and only embarked on it due to popular pressure for a prestige project, the Kaiser didn’t have strong feelings either.

  141. anonlb says:
    @AP

    My whole point was that without Entente agreements Germany can easy take down rivals one-by-one.
    Germany attacked France in order to eliminate old rival and force Europe/world designs on German terms. After France defeat Germany self confidence will reach new heights, he will get even stronger each year with access to vast colonial resources and middle eastern oil(via Ottomans).
    Imperial Russia and Britain will not have a chance to do anyting to disrupt Germany development and transformation of Europe into German dominion.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  142. @anonlb

    This is assuming the German leadership in 1914 had the same ideas as Hitler. Which they had not.

  143. @anonlb

    You don’t understand German thinking in 1914, you just imagine that their thinking was the same as Hitler in 1939.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  144. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    It took almost a week for the incompetent investigation to establish incontrovertibly that the assassination was organized from Serbia by members of the Serbian military. Due to the strong opposition of the Hungarian prime minister Tisza, the Austrians couldn’t even start anything before getting proof of Serbian involvement. After that, the moment for a swift action had already passed, and Austria tried to get diplomatic support from all parts of Europe to ensure that they won’t have to face Russia alone in a war. This meant German assurances, and they also tried to get Russia and France out of this. (Impossible, since both the French and the Russians simply parroted the Serbian lies about their non-involvement without even looking much into the evidence.)

    I think it was stupid to press for war (Franz Ferdinand would’ve agreed, he thought that the internal weakness of Austria-Hungary precluded any war as much as possible), but not impossible to understand. Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people

    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war. As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  145. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family)

    That’s also wrong. You might not like your nephew that much, and have disagreements with him over politics or his choice of a spouse, but it doesn’t mean that you don’t mourn when he’s murdered. The Emperor Franz Joseph was weeping when hearing news of his death, he even bended some rules of etiquette afterwards, which deeply impressed people around him, like I think the foreign minister Berchtold.

    It’s also true that he wasn’t popular among the people, but paradoxically that changed after his death. His public persona was not very likable (he was prone to bursts of anger, for example), but after his death the press (not only the tabloids) reported his family life (how much he loved his wife and family), and a guy who marries the love of his life despite the opposition of his family and heavy social costs to be paid (his children couldn’t have inherited the throne), and then loves his children very much, became a pretty sympathetic figure for the public, right after his death. Such personal details (other than the fact of his morganatic marriage) weren’t published in the tabloid press of the time (the Habsburgs protected their privacy, and didn’t understand effective media propaganda), only after his death, so after his death he became much more popular than before. His last words (“Sophie, don’t die, you must live for the children…”), which were published immediately on the evening of his death, only confirmed this suddenly created popular image. While it was created by the press, this was still a genuine feeling. Even in Hungary his image improved after his death (though he was truly unpopular there due to his widely known negative view of Hungary and his plans to break up Hungary).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  146. Exile says:

    There were many imperial ambitions involved in starting what we call WWI. Blaming Germany allows us to overlook England, France, Austo-Hungary and Russia’s own Machiavellian motives and actions.

    Regardless of why they began, by the end, the world wars should have taught us the limits of abstract propositional nationalism colonialism and multi-ethnic hundred-million man polities in general. They should have led to near-universal respect for ethno-nationalism based on popular sovereignty.

    For sure there would have been bloodshed from this post-Westphalian adjustment. No war will ever end all war and only the grave delivers absolute peace. But these conflicts would have been regional, not worldwide and would have offered the best prospects for lasting peace through ethnic separation for the greatest possible number of people (and peoples).

    Instead, we tried the opposite approach – first the absurd fiction of world governance then the bi-polar superpower conflict.

    On the century-long timeline our biological reality is fortunately beginning to re-assert itself. Regional quasi-ethnic powers are again rising despite the dying U.S. pretender hyperpower’s best efforts.

    Full disclosure I say this as an American who believes the death of empire is necessary to save my country before it falls harder & faster than Britain has from 1945-2019.

    100 years on let’s finally learn the necessary lessons of decentralization, regionalized “world policing,” ethno-nationalism and peace through separation.

  147. anonlb says:
    @reiner Tor

    I beg to differ. Hitler didn’t come out of thin air, without support of powerful military fractions in Germany he will never become chancellor, and many of his policies are only extension of Prussian/German policies pursued for centuries.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  148. @anonlb

    You have already convinced me that you know nothing about history (other than some rough caricature), no need to press the case further.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  149. @AP

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag. Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war. They were quickly pushed aside by the Whites, because it quickly turned out that the SRs (despite their nominally strong election results) had no actual support among the peasantry (or anyone else). There are a few explanations for this. One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies. Another explanation is that they actually supported the Left SRs, who in turn supported Lenin. Or it could be both. What is sure is that during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks never found it hard to recruit or conscript peasants in the areas immediately behind the front, whereas the Whites could never replenish their losses in the areas they “liberated” from Bolshevik rule. It’s easy to understand why: the peasants feared that the Whites would give lands back to the gentry.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin. More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.

    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust, and very few people voting for the Bolsheviks expected the famine or the Great Terror. (The latter was obviously not expected by the Bolsheviks themselves, probably not even Stalin knew he would do that…)

  150. @Anatoly Karlin

    There’s a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don’t really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could’ve guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @Mr. XYZ
    , @utu
  151. anonlb says:
    @reiner Tor

    I’m not historian but learned some basic facts from various sources. And my post was about my hipotetical scenario in which Entete aliance failed on beginnig of WW1 and Germany achieved victory over France, not actual history.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  152. Epigon says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    as represented by Krivosheev

    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev’s work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses?

    It seems the man unironically proclaimed all disabled, damaged, detracked, broken Soviet AFVs (counted as losses on reports due to not being combat capable) as total losses.
    His claim of 97000 destroyed Soviet tanks and SPGs is mind-boggingly stupid.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  153. Epigon says:

    I can only laugh at people proclaiming border changes and imperialism as evil and illegitimate, denial of ethnic and historic borders, self-determination…

    In reality, here is how it goes – you conquer/draw the border, then look to exterminate, expell and/or assimilate the foreigners who ended up in those borders.

    This is the modus operandi of the Habsburgs, of the French, of Germans, Russians historically AND Titoists/Yugocommunists, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosniaks locally etc.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

  154. @reiner Tor

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    Hungarian opposition is cool and all, but it has never changed the course of history in the past 200 years and most probably never will in the future (sorry to disappoint, although it would be cool if it did). Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed and Tisza’s opposition to war with Serbia in 1914 was also quickly dismissed. It only logically follows that the opposition of Tisza and Hungarians to annexing Serbia after a theoretical victory by Austria-Hungary would also have been further ignored.

    Just as an interesting side-note, there is an uncanny similarity between Tisza and Orban imo. Orban has not been able to stop any US-EU-NATO agendas, he has only been able to delay, temper or restrain them a bit. For example, collective EU-NATO resolution on Ukraine, EU infinity migration, etc.

    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    My bad. Still doesn’t change the fact that the Austria-Hungary did not immediately act upon the assassination as it was only interested in using it as a pretext to eliminate Serbia, which it could only do in a more prolonged time period of careful planning.

    Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    Does your definition of “further provocations” including Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    Do none of those things count as provocations on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia?

    Austria-Hungary whining about the assassination as an unacceptable provocation and a legitimate reason to start a world war is just pure hypocrisy.

    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war.

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign, just to get things clear, in case you have a different conception of what it means to be sovereign.

    Your comment only further proves the fact that Austria-Hungary simply could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia free from its control. 1 million+ dead Serbs (Macva War Crimes, Austria-Hungary’s concentration camps for Serbs, Habsburg Army mass murdering of Serb civilians, etc.) is ultimate proof that Austria-Hungary could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia (or for that matter the existence of the Serbian people, period), if any was ever needed.

    By the way, Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.

    As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

    Sure, the opinion of Scandinavians in general is basically irrelevant. Still, Britain was also strongly anti-Serbian and involved in many anti-Serb schemes including 1878 and 1912-1913 by deliberately sabotaging Serb territorial gains (not to mention Britain having no diplomatic relations with Serbia from 1903-1905 and refusing to help the Serb Army retreat in 1915).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  155. @reiner Tor

    For the record, my opinion is that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a strategically bad decision (obviously).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

    Again, the Habsburgs had other viable options available to them besides declaring war on Serbia.

  156. @Epigon

    An interesting perspective and thought process that most people would truthfully not be brave enough to admit that they actually seriously think along those lines (or smart enough to not admit it), whether consciously or unconsciously.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

    I couldn’t agree more. If you have any detailed and comprehensive sources on the matter I would greatly appreciate you stating them.

    From what I last remember reading about the matter some time ago was that some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”. Of course, the language, “government”, and everything else to do with “Albania” is fake.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  157. @Epigon

    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev’s work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses

    I value Krivosheev’s work on personnel losses. It is universally praised and accepted as one of the most important contributions to the issue of human losses in WW II. Any technological (tanks, self-propelled guns, aircraft etc.) “accounting” is more difficult, but if you would see the numbers of tanks and other vehicles produced by the USSR throughout the WW II, you will see that 97 000 vehicles destroyed doesn’t seem as something out of ordinary. USSR by different estimates produced throughout WW II roughly 120, 000 tanks and armored vehicles. I don’t have Voznesensky’s memoirs at hand to give you comparative number–the monstrous scale of the war on Eastern Front should not be overlooked. In general, while it is important issue, it is somewhat off-topic here, since the thread is about Kholmogorov and his and Karlin’s “interpretation” of WW I.

  158. iffen says:

    The “flaw” in the thinking of right wing nationalists is the ever present desire to disavow the legitimacy of different groups within the polity. This applies to present day nation states and it applies to fading Empires. The Latvian Riflemen, and other groups, were good enough to fight and die for Imperial Russia, but when they asserted their political rights and input into what the future of the Empire would be they are “disenfranchised” from that discussion by people like AK. This thinking has limited appeal in the Western world.

  159. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag.

    It was nevertheless a solid victory in a multiparty election. They got 33% of the popular vote, their partners got another 8%.

    The next rival got only 20%.

    Turnout was 80.5%.

    Compare to the last German election: Merkel got 33% of the vote.

    Compare to the last Canadian election: Liberal Party won with 33%.

    Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.

    A good point. Still, Nazis won a popular election.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin.

    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.

    Correct, but majority of the population tried not to fight. Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning (later Bolsheviks were able to force people to fight for them through conscription) was miniscule. Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Russian masses can be blamed for being passive and not stopping the Bolsheviks. But they didn’t choose them, either.

    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust

    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @reiner Tor
  160. Daniel.I says:

    Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust

    I’d expect people around here to be a tad more skeptical regarding the 6 gorillion.

  161. @Epigon

    entirely foreign manufactured

    Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to say it’s

    entirely

    manufactured

  162. @reiner Tor

    Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    You seem to be going off on another tangent. Where did I say anything about conquering? (apart from during the exigencies of wartime, but propaganda all over the world portrays that as “liberation” by default).

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    The Germanophile Romanian king lobbied against joining the Entente, in opposition to his deeply Francophile elites.

    The latter turned out stronger than the former, but that wouldn’t necessarily be the case everywhere.

    Incidentally, the Germans regarded this as a betrayal on Romania’s part, which partly explains why Romanian soldiers had the highest death rates of any warring state in enemy POW camps.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @reiner Tor
  163. Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan

    Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stand_on_the_Ugra_River

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  164. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    This of course victory but “overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke” this a clear legend. Then it is necessary to celebrate the events of July 1472 (standing on the Oka). However by that time the power of the Horde over Moscow had long been pure fiction

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan

    This is funny, because Tatarstan (i.e. Kazan khanate) as well as the Crimean khanate were allies of Russia against Khan Akhmat (the opponent of Russia in standing on the Ugra)

  165. @Anatoly Karlin

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia in 1914, see the desperate attempts of Poland to escape Russia’s embrace, Romania joining the Central Powers in 1883 to protect herself from Russia after the fallout with Russia in 1878, and the tasty relations between Russia and Bulgaria after 1885.
    Only Serbia was favorable to Russia, especially after the murder of the last Obrenovic king by people who later organized the Sarajevo assassination that sparked WW1.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    , @Mikhail
  166. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    The SRs subsequently split–with the Left SRs supporting the Bolsheviks, no? So, the Bolsheviks were initially able to get a part of the SRs onto their side.

    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    Jew persecution, Yes, mostly likely. As for territorial changes, please keep in mind that, AFAIK, it wasn’t only the Nazis who were advocating this. For instance, Germany waged a years-long trade war against Poland between 1925 and 1934 (I believe that this trade war was started under the “moderate” Weimar German Chancellor Gustav Stresemann) in an unsuccessful attempt to coerce Poland to agree to revise its border with Germany and agree to a German re-acquisition of Danzig and the Polish Corridor (and *maybe* eastern Upper Silesia as well). So, the fact that most Germans voted for non-Nazi parties does not necessarily mean that they were against the idea of border revisions–including the idea of coercing neighboring countries (especially Poland) to agree to revise their border with Germany.

  167. Mr. XYZ says:
    @reiner Tor

    Technically speaking, though, in Mein Kampf, Hitler did talk about acquiring territories at Russia’s expense and resuming that Ostsiedlung. That said, though, it’s possible that some or even many Germans viewed this as being empty rhetoric and not as an actual statement of Hitler’s desired policies for Germany.

  168. Mr. XYZ says:
    @reiner Tor

    It would probably be a good idea if these Romanov Kings would have been installed with the consent of the people and elite of the relevant Eastern European countries as opposed to being installed by Russian bayonets similar to the various post-WWII Communist leaderships of Eastern Europe.

    As a side note, though, I think that the logic would be to have Russia appeal to these countries through a sense of Pan-Slavic and/or Pan-Orthodox solidarity.

  169. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia

    Hate is a strong word
    Bulgaria and Romania changed sides because their Alliance with Russia didn’t seem to benefit them economically and politically as much as one with France or Germany would
    The Soviet Union brought with it total social upheavals, destruction of local cultures and repressive dictatorships (The Tsarist regime at it’s worst wasn’t even close to the Soviet average)

    The hatred people felt for the USSR is not comparable to the miffed attitude towards the Russian Empire, one that could easily be changed (those same Romanians would later entrust their treasures to the Russians during the war)

    Had the Russian Empire stayed in the war and avoided Bolshevism the end result would’ve been an Eastern Europe being allied with a rising superpower and without a retarded economic system to hamper them
    A capitalist Russia today is starting to attract Eastern Europeans to it’s side, at least to balance out the EU

    You also avoided mentioning the massive Slavophilic movement happening in Austro-Hungarian territory, the first Slavic congress was held in Prague after all

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Fluctuarius
  170. @Yevardian

    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people

    Pretty sure they just didn’t want to live in a shithole anymore

  171. iffen says:
    @Korenchkin

    massive Slavophilic movement

    I may not know what I’m talking about, but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries (Poland and Ukraine) to Russia the most bitter opponents?

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise?

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Korenchkin
  172. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    There’s a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    Soft power is not a Russian thing. Never was. In 2018 Russian actor Alexey Serebryakov got in some trouble for pretty much stating it:

    “I think if you drive 30, 50 or 70 kilometers away from Moscow, you will see that the 90s there never ended. No matter how you look at it, today neither knowledge, enterprise, intelligence nor dignity are part of our national idea. Our national idea is brutal power, arrogance, and rudeness.

    Interesting guy who was in several very good films. Here is an interview with him:

  173. Mikhail says: • Website
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Montenegro, as well as the Czechs and Slovaks, in addition to Serbia. The Bulgarian situation had to do with its government, as opposed to how the Bulgarian population en masse viewed and still views Russia.

  174. Mikhail says: • Website
    @iffen

    Ukraine shouldn’t be confused with Poland. (Although there is an at east 15% Russophile element among Poles). Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia are more diverse and somewhat similar to how Scots have differing views among themselves on English dominated Britain.

    • Replies: @iffen
  175. @Andrei Martyanov

    In the initial engagement with a small German force with limited artillery the Russians did use artillery to advantage. However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced. The Germans used the rail network to concentrate their forces so their one well equipped, well trained Arney fought the two separate Russian armies.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  176. @Mr. XYZ

    Welcome to Ireland 1922.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  177. @Mr. XYZ

    There were long term issues with the Russian forces. The army was huge but undersupplied.. That not only means production but logistics. The guage of the sparse Russian rail network changed at the border. The border roads were deliberately bad. Limited rail meant horses and even more supplies.

  178. @Yevardian

    I am being pedantic but the British beat them in ‘1812’.They also had a civil war.

  179. @reiner Tor

    Disagree. The key to the Bolshevik takeover was their focus on building strength in the army and among most communication workers. The SRs had a lot of support but it was not armed and it was not coherent. Even so, until Lenin’s German money arrived, the Bolsheviks were a nuisance not amthreat to Kerensky. I speak of the Volga Region rather than the capitals. Until Lenin’s sisters arrived in Saratov with money, even the Kadets were more effective.

  180. @Anatoly Karlin

    I always thought it was strange that Russia never had its own equivalent to the 1389 Battle of Kosovo commemorations like Serbia does. Instead, Russians seemed to be permanently fixated upon the whole un-Russian “Victory Day” as the core of their national mythology.

    Making the main day of national celebration or commemoration something like the Great Stand on the Ugra River wipes the floor with “Victory Day”. Commemorating the Ugra River would actually be a sort of cool and exotic commemoration as the Russians actually won without even fighting a battle.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  181. Seraphim says:
    @Daniel.I

    A bit of honesty would have prevented you to suggest that it was Kholomogorov who said that ‘not just Prague…’, but the “Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen in 1934” praising the disappearance of Russia as an organized state (which was precisely one of the war aims of the Central Powers).

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  182. Seraphim says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Martianov, in all his rantings, only boasts about himself and his Soviet education which marked him so deeply. Narcissistic personality.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    , @iffen
  183. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.

    • Replies: @melanf
  184. @Korenchkin

    Also, let’s not forget that Czechs and Slovaks surrendered/defected to Russia in numbers large enough to form a Czechoslovak Corps (that would have triumphantly marched into Prague in 1918), and the first president of an independent Czechoslovakia was a staunch Russophile who admitted tens of thousands of White Russian fugitives.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  185. @Seraphim

    The Soviet education system, the best education system in the world*.

    *According to the Soviet education system.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  186. Seraphim says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Actually, Romania was inclining towards Russia. Her intervention in 1913 in support of Serbia, backed by Russia against Bulgaria backed by Germany and Austria seriously worried the Central Powers with which Romania had a treaty of alliance kept secret because the public opinion was dead set against Austro-Hungary even without the Francophile leanings of the ‘elites’, because of the problem of Romanians in Transylvania.
    The visit of the Imperial family to Romania in June 1914 with the aim to arrange the marriage of the son of Crown Prince Ferdinand, the future King Carol II, with the Grand Duchess Olga, the eldest daughter of Nicholas II, was even more alarming. The Crown Princess Maria, the future Queen, was herself the daughter of the Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of the Tsar Alexandre II. In early 1914, Marie traveled to Russia in order to visit her mother and other relatives. She formed a “triple alliance” of her own with two of her female relatives, her sister Victoria Melita (known as “Ducky” to her friends) and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (“Miechen” to her friends), wife of Grand Duke Vladimir, the third son of Alexander II, in order to improve relations between Romania and Russia.
    Russia, since the reign of Catherine the Great, supported the creation of a Kingdom of Dacia, which would include Transylvania.

  187. melanf says:
    @Fluctuarius

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.

    Right now in Russia there is an official holiday “national unity day”, which celebrates the expulsion of Polish invaders from Russia in 1612.
    Mark as official holidays the victory over the Tatars silly, because Tatars now are the second largest ethnic group in Russia.

    From the point of view of “national policy” instead of idiotic holidays, it would be better to spend some money on films / monuments/paintings dedicated to the victories that disappeared from mass memory (for example, the epoch-making victory over the Lithuanian army at Vedrosh in 1500). Although it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Seraphim
  188. @anonlb

    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it’s better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany…), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the “second sick man of Europe” after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Epigon
    , @melanf
    , @anonlb
    , @Seraphim
  189. @melanf

    it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    After Andy Vajna (the producer of Terminator 2: Judgment Day) returned to Hungary (to flee the American tax authorities I think), he was appointed by Orbán to oversee the Hungarian film industry (which barely survives by receiving moneys from the government). He did two things. First, he greatly increased the number of American films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income. And second, he managed to spend the available government funds on quality movies. Unfortunately this also meant that there was no ideological censorship or guidance, but still we had two Oscars in quick succession, both by Hungarian directors. (Yes, one of them was a holocaust movie, but still. We had many holocaust movies before, not one of them receiving an Oscar.)

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system, where either not the most talented directors get to make movies, or they have to make compromises due to stupid producers, or something similar.

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Dmitry
  190. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed

    The issue is, Hungary didn’t oppose the occupation in 1878 (which was decided by the concert of the great powers of Europe, it was not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy), actually it was brokered by the common Austrian-Hungarian foreign minister Count Andrássy, who had been the first prime minister of Hungary after the Compromise with the Habsburgs in 1867. He belonged to the first generation of Hungarian leaders, who were not very nationalistic (the nationalities law in 1868, the first of its kind in Europe, was so good that some Hungarian MPs trolled the Romanian parliament in the 1990s by proposing a Romanian translation of it to be made law in Romania), and so he didn’t care that much. However, after the 1870s the Hungarian leadership started to become increasingly apprehensive of the fact that Hungarians were in fact just a plurality in Hungary, and so opposition to foreign adventures got more prominent.

    There was already opposition to the annexation of Bosnia in 1908, but because it was basically just the legalization of an already de facto state of affairs, it was possible to push through Hungary. Annexations in Serbia would’ve been a different issue, especially because there was considerable opposition to it in Vienna as well. Many in the Austrian leadership were also strongly opposed to annexing further unruly South Slavs, and for the same reason the Hungarians opposed it: it made the empire even less stable.

    Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn’t so bad.

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?

    Serbia ended the trade agreements with Austria-Hungary and entered a customs union with Bulgaria. They also started buying French ammunitions, from the enemies of Austria-Hungary’s only ally Germany. This resulted in a trade war.

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    It was not unilateral. The Ottomans (according to international law, the rightful owners of the place) got paid a hefty sum, so they didn’t complain. Austria-Hungary also secretly notified Russia and made a secret agreement with them, which they then broke when it turned out that the Russian nationalist press was furious. Anyway, Austria-Hungary first tried to placate all the great powers, I’m not sure what’s unilateral in that.

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn’t want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    I’m not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don’t know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn’t accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power… no.)

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign

    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.

    They decided to prepare for war against the Triple Entente, for example increase the production of U-Boats. And then they did… nothing. They didn’t even increase the production of U-Boats. Why not? Well, it cost a lot of money, and apparently they weren’t seriously planning for a world war, rather just a contingency.

    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  191. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”

    Ethnic groups can exist without a flag. Hungarians didn’t have a national flag until the early 19th century (the national colors were occasionally in use already in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example during coronation ceremonies or for some official documents), and it only got its final form and became official first in 1848 (and then again in 1867).

    Albanians were Muslims (or Catholics in smaller numbers), not Orthodox like the Serbs, and spoke Albanian, not Serb, had different customs, different (though not extremely different) genetic origins, different national consciousness (they were aware that they weren’t Serbs), that’s enough to mark them as a different ethnic group. Regardless of whether they had a flag or not.

  192. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system

    Everything is exactly as it is – in Russian cinema the problem with the whole system. But it’s also a problem that people in power don’t know history (and don’t want to be consulted by normal historians), and have a monstrous taste in sculpture/painting. Another problem with historical memory – if some battles (Poltava, Borodino, battle of Kulikovo) deservedly remembered, other important battles (and entire wars) are completely forgotten. At the same time, some insignificant events (for example, the defeat of the Swedes at the mouth of the Neva in 1240) have undeservedly loud fame

    Try to imagine if in England about Azincourt and the defeat of the “Invincible Armada” would be known only to a narrow circle of specialist historians? And in Russia it is a reality.

    By the way question to citizens countries with a long military history (Hungary, Sweden, Czech Republic..)- how in your countries with historical memory?

  193. @AP

    a solid victory in a multiparty election

    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn’t desert much and didn’t resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they’d take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Well, Bolsheviks also massacred industrial workers, Jews, Latvians, or damn near anybody who resisted them. Established industrial workers with roots in the cities actually preferred the Mensheviks or other moderates, Bolshevik support was strongest among the soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant stock. That’s how the Bolsheviks controlled the Petrograd Soviet: the population of the city actually didn’t support the Bolsheviks much, but the Soldiers’ Soviets had a much higher representation, and because they had weapons, nobody dared say anything against them.

    Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many? What we know is that the SRs were pretty ineffectual in starting an uprising against the Bolsheviks, and were pushed aside by more radical anti-Bolsheviks (commonly known as the Whites), because they didn’t add anything to the equation: they couldn’t muster much support.

    Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning

    You cannot compare the effort required to cast a vote in an election compared to participate in a civil war with weapons.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Didn’t the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while? 1970s and 1980s communist textbooks in Hungary actually ascribe to them the start of the civil war and they were blamed for why the Whites nearly recaptured Russia.

    Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    Territorial changes are not evil in and of themselves. Poles wanted territorial changes before 1914, Ukrainians 1920-1991, etc. They lost a world war and wanted to reverse their fortune. Interestingly, the vast majority of Germans considered the job finished by the summer of 1938, and didn’t really want to fight a war for the Sudetenland. After 1938, the gap between Hitler’s adventurism and the people’s wish to just enjoy the peace grew enormously.

    The biggest issue was ending the humiliation: French occupation in the Ruhr was already solved by 1933, but the demilitarized zone, getting back the Saar, building a strong army like other European states, and to allow the Anschluss of German Austria. These could be achieved without a war. Perhaps the Polish corridor was considered important, but it was unclear if diplomacy or diplomacy combined with some military threats could be sufficient to achieve this. Nobody expected Hitler to risk world war for the corridor, nor did people that much care for the issue by 1939 anyway.

    Regarding Jew persecution, Gestapo and SD reports kept complaining that even committed Nazis considered the Jewish Question to have been solved as early as fall 1933.

    Of course, Russians voting for the Bolsheviks or even the SRs could expect some persecution of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, couldn’t they? After all, both parties wanted to take land away from them (though with the SRs it was unclear if they wanted to compensate them to an extent, it was pretty clear from the beginning that not much compensation would be forthcoming even under a purely SR government). Not to forget that beating up or killing officers etc. started already in the summer of 1917.

    • Replies: @AP
  194. @Anatoly Karlin

    Where did I say anything about conquering?

    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest. (Incidentally, after Romania acquiring Transylvania, its only remaining irredentist goal would be Bessarabia…)

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    These countries often had issues with each other. Hungarians and Romanians, Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, etc. Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence. Probably the negative effect of communism and accompanying impoverishment was needed even for American soft power to accomplish that. (See South Korea and Japan, both in the American camp, nearing war with each other.)

    Not to mention that Russian troops would have stood deep in Russian territory at the end of the war. Why do you think that France and Britain would’ve just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe? After all, France couldn’t achieve its maximalist goals in 1918, for example Germany wasn’t dismantled, France didn’t get to annex the Saarland (only temporarily) and other similar areas, etc. etc. If France couldn’t achieve much (other than Alsace and getting a few League of Nations mandates), why would Russia achieve so much more? Similarly, Italy couldn’t achieve much (granted, it was the weakest of the great powers). Russia was probably the weakest member of the Triple Entente (though stronger than Italy), so not very likely that its maximalist goals would’ve been honored.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  195. @Denis

    Russia threatened Bulgaria with military action in case they conquered Constantinople during the First Balkan War. (The Bulgarians attacked nevertheless, but the Turks successfully defeated them a few tens of kilometers from Constantinople.) So it’s not like they wanted Constantinople liberated at any price, they were just as keen to prevent it from falling into anybody else’s hands.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  196. iffen says:
    @Mikhail

    Thanks.

    Are you sure The Ukraine is not more like Ireland than Scotland?

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Mikhail
  197. iffen says:
    @Seraphim

    So he is not representative of Slavs?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  198. Seraphim says:
    @melanf

    The 7th of November was celebrating the victory of the Polish-Jewish cabal over Russia in 1917. Today it celebrates the liberation of Russia from the the Polish-Jewish cabal of 1612.

  199. @reiner Tor

    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    Local Muslim militias cannot properly qualify as Ottoman troops. You are referring to the Wikipedia article on everyone who resisted the Austro-Hungarian occupation. Most Serbs decided not to resist. It’s improper to use this to suggest that they weren’t militarily successful or that they didn’t actually exist on that land in a significant degree.

    Evidently you must be unaware of the 1875-1878 Herzegovina Uprising:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzegovina_uprising_(1875%E2%80%931877)#Uprising_in_Bosnia

    Note the 200,000 fugitives.

    That incident, just like all the other instances of Habsburg anti-Serb sabotage from 1848-1918 just show that regardless of how much Serbs subordinated themselves to the Habsburgs, they would never take the interests of Serbs seriously and always work to sabotage them. As for “Habsburg perfidy”, they were involved in the “Concert of Europe” and they were eagerly associated with Britain’s (note Britain was led by Benjamin Disraeli at this time, so you can guess his real ethno-religious affiliation if you are interested, btw) anti-Serb and anti-Russian agenda.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn’t so bad.

    First, proof?

    Anyway, even if you are correct, which you most probably aren’t, you may as well have said that Austria-Hungary’s GDP was larger than Serbia’s, so Habsburg rule would not have been so bad. Not everything in the world revolves around GDP, or factories and industry, for that matter.

    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn’t want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    First off, Kosovo, most of Albania, and much of Vardar Macedonia are all rightful ancient Serbian land. Serbs were the majority population on all of those lands until the Ottoman Empire came along when the “Albanians” (read: Shqiptars or Shqipere) made a majority conversion to Islam and then used their privileged status in the Ottoman Empire to dispossess Serbs of their ancient land (note 1455 Ottoman defter lists there being more Vlachs than “Albanians” on Kosovo). Hence the Great Serb migrations of the 17th and 18th centuries. Also hence why “Albanians” became a majority in Kosovo only from the 18th century. The city of Skadar (called modern day “Shkodra” in North Albania) also used to be Serb majority until the 17th century, btw.

    The fact that a bunch of fake scum breeds aggressively, and then barbarically massacres (not to mention many other unpleasant details) + forcibly expels the Serb population from their ancient land across many centuries (and still continues to do so to this very day), and then becomes the majority on that land doesn’t mean that the land belongs to them. Also, as hard as it may be for you to believe, in the early 20th century, Serbs still existed as a large minority on the territory of Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia and modern day “Albania”.

    Here’s an example of what I mean: A short history of “Albanian” attacks on Serbs in the 19th century and early 20th century:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sajkaca.com%2Fistorija%2Fkratka-istorija-albanskih-napada-na-srbe1365%2F1365%2F

    Oh and don’t you dare lecture me about the 1990’s or present day Kosovo, for that matter (spare me the NATO lies and hoaxes, please). The family of one of my parents had to flee from Kosovo in the mid 1960’s (an uncle of mine was born in Pristina in 1950’s) once Aleksander Rankovic fell from power (he was the last nominal defender of Kosovo Serbs in Tito’s anti-Serb Yugoslavia), btw. One of my ancestors was a Yugoslav Judge on Kosovo that punished Shqiptar barbarians for their endless crimes against Serbs, and some Shqiptar scum tribe declared a Besa (A blood oath) together with other Shqiptar tribes that they would massacre him (they fired some warning shots at his front door one night) and his whole extended family on Kosovo. There were at least hundreds of that scum while there were only a few dozen of my family and ancestors. Sometime around 1965, they gathered together their tractors, cars, guns and other farm equipment and left north across the hills, valleys and mountains north beyond Kosovo.

    I simply refuse to seriously entertain some clueless Habscuck worshiper peddling bullshit about how the Prizren and the surrounding countryside of South Kosovo that they had to abandon legitimately belongs to Shqiptar barbarians.

    I’m not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don’t know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn’t accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power… no.)

    Stop lying with the part in bold. Those false atrocity and massacre accusations are insulting and defamatory hoaxes. Those accusations were peddled by an international commission sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment that had half its “experts” (journalists) come from Germany and Austria-Hungary, meaning that it was totally 100% objective, reliable and unbiased …

    Leon Trotsky was also another serious and committed accuser, and pusher of false Serb atrocity stories during the Balkan Wars while writing from Sofia, btw. Not to mention The British Daily Telegraph and even the very same present-day New York Times pushing false narratives about Serbs back in 1912, same as now. You can also safely ignore the falsehoods and distortions peddled by the lying dog “Serb Socialist” Dmitrije Tucovic who sold out his own countrymen and along with his “Socialists/Communist” sabotaged the Serb war effort during the Balkan Wars.

    It is noteworthy that the Norwegian Officer Henrik August Angel, who followed the Serbian Army during the Balkan Wars, stated that the false accusations peddled by the English language and German + Austro-Hungarian were a “demonization of Serbs” and a “shameful injustice”.

    The Serbian government properly and unequivocally denied these false and insulting accusations that were made in order to justify the creation of “Albania” (necessary to deny Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea and Mediterranean), a “country” that had never even existed before in world history contrary to false propaganda that pretends “Albania” is a real country.

    Those defamatory accusations you mention are literally more fake than 1995 Srebrenica and 1999 Racak (these two events at least actually happened, but their context and facts are completely distorted, while the Serb massacres against “Albanians” outright never even happened), btw.

    As for the “Macedonians” that were apparently killed by Serbs, first, there was no such thing as Monkeydonians back then, just like they don’t really exist now and are only confused and brainwashed dimwits. Second, the ones that were killed where all Bulgarian VMRO terrorist rebels that previously massacred and persecuted Serb civilians (e.g. VMRO leader Dame Gruev’s Society Against Serbs) during the “Macedonian struggle” from 1903-1912. So it was just legitimate counter-insurgency operations against Bulgarian VMRO that allied with Shqiptar barbarians. They deliberately got together in a well planned conspiracy to take Vardar Macedonia away from Serbia when the Bulgarian Army attacked its Serbian allies in the night as it hoped to get away with slaughtering them in pitch black darkness. That’s how the 2nd Balkan War started, btw.

    As for the events of 1901 (this was before 1903 May coup in Serbia while Obrenovic dynasty was around and followed a pro Austria-Hungary course, btw):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    That is only one example of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs that Austria-Hungary supported (Habsburg agents also did anti-Serb espionage activities against Serb churches on Kosovo, btw). At the 1899 Hague Convention, Austria-Hungary blocked the issue of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs from even being considered there.

    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Doesn’t change the fact that Austria-Hungary couldn’t accept the existence of a Serbia that was not a Habsburg client state.

  200. Seraphim says:
    @iffen

    No, I don’t think so. He is representative of a hyper inflated ego. I do not contend that education in Russia is miles above that in the West.

  201. @reiner Tor

    I’m not claiming that Shqiptars don’t exist as an ethnic-religious group. What I’m claiming is that their nationality, nation, language and identity are completely fake and that they were artificially ethno-engineered by the Habsburgs and Austria-Hungary to be used against Serbs:

    Here’s the proof that the “Albanian nation” didn’t exist until the end of the 19th century. This is a brief article about a Bulgarian woman historian Teodora Toleva (yes, if a Bulgar woman can figure out that “Albanians” are a fake nation, then surely anyone can) that wrote a whole book about the artificial ethno-engineering of the “Albanian” nation by the Habsburgs (The book is based upon access to Habsburg archives in Vienna, btw):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatriot.rs%2Falbanska-nacija-nije-postojala-do-kraja-19-veka%2Famp%2F%3Flang%3Dlat

    Also a further explanation upon the previous link:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbalkanskageopolitika.com%2F2019%2F07%2F13%2Fzasto-i-kako-je-stvorena-albanija%2F

    Another interesting thing to note about this woman is that she died under “mysterious” and “strange” circumstances for daring to publicly write about the truth of the falseness of the “Albanian” nation.

    Lajos Thallóczy is the Hungarian historian and public servant of the Habsburg empire that played a big role in artificially ethno-engineering and creating the fake countries of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina out of ancient Serbian land:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Thall%C3%B3czy#Bosnia

    • Troll: Yevardian
    • Replies: @iffen
  202. iffen says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Thank you for confirming my soft belief that the US made the right decisions during the break-up of Yugoslavia.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  203. @iffen

    Enjoy your demographic replacement, Amero scum.

  204. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    Thank you once again for providing a voice of reason.

  205. AP says:
    @iffen

    He doesn’t speak Russian or Ukrainian, and has never visited either country. He is not much of an expert.

    Historically, Ukraine has been somewhere between Ireland and Scotland vis a vis Russia. Not totally an exploited colony, but not a junior partner either. There were elements of both.

  206. Epigon says:
    @reiner Tor

    Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France.

    According to this logic, USSR was looking for a war with USA during Cold War and dictating the escalation and level of spending.

    Why look at military expenditures as % of national income?

    An economically weaker country has to match it’s rivals spending in absolute terms.
    Moreover, intensive German military spending and modernization took decades before Russian ones, indeed – Russia was in the middle of a thorough military reform when WW1 started. In order to start catching up with German army, Russians would have to outspend them on a per unit basis.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  207. Epigon says:
    @reiner Tor

    Bulgaria couldn’t even conquer Adrianople, so Serbia sent a sizable siege army to aid them.
    This is a rather dubious claim.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @anonlb
  208. Epigon says:
    @reiner Tor

    Albanians were originally 100% Orthodox.
    This can be seen through Uniatic Albanian Church in Italy which remains to this day. The tribal/ethnic/linguistic division between Ghegs and Tosks remains to this day – it was much more pronounced in the past. Prizren League(s) Shqiptars have practically nothing in common with Arvanites of Epirus, Greece and southern Orthodox Albanians.

    Also, the name Albanian is a very (19/20th century) exonym for people who were called Arnauts by neighbours or Shqiptars themselves.
    At the turn of the 19/20th century, 2% of them were literate.

    The region in the Balkans called Albania historically was Albania Veneta – roughly corresponding to Venetian held Zeta – Skadar naturally included, as one of Serb Medieval capitals.

    A brief look at Slavic toponyms scattered throughout modern-day Albania dispells any illusion; the same for a detailed look at Skenderbegs grandfather, father, the letters written by them, and his parents’ and siblings’ names and biography.

    There is a very interesting book I will be acquiring by a Bulgarian historian (deceased) Teodora Toleva called: “The influence of Austro-Hungarian Empire on the creation of Albanian nation 1896-1908”.
    She studied in Vienna under an Austrian mentor and was allowed access to archive documents.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  209. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    Central Powers,…had no territorial designs on any countries

    This is an incorrect statement to put it mildly. WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon. The Entente countries also waged war for the purpose of conquest – in this there was no difference between them (and Germany).

    But the question of who started the war, everything is different. Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
    Should we discuss this further? Of course, people who take this topic to heart can come up with 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war. But this will only illustrate the peculiarities of human consciousness.

    • Replies: @AP
  210. @Philip Owen

    However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced.

    Generally agree, even when less capable A-H is thrown into the mix, the ratio of losses (KIAs) between Russia and Germany-A-H is more than two fold NOT in favor of Russia. Once Germany is singled out in KIAs against Russian KIAs minus equal number of KIAs by A-H for a very rough compensation, we still get an appaling 1 to 7 ratio of KIAs in favor of Germans. Kholmogorv using a single operational episode for passing judgement on the whole war is a first sign of an illiterate ignoramus. Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically, as I stated–it is tantamount to failing to pass “academics” on beer drinking or missing a toiled completely when pissing. That is the level of “complexity” he couldn’t even handle. Yet, here we are, discussing this cretin’s scribbles.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.

    Some, certainly were, but as for actual numbers and definition of what “large numbers” actually are–it takes combat and transpiration logs to arrive to a good number. I simply do not have materials at hand to know the number. There is no denial that some Central Powers troops were transferred. In the end Germans needed to stabilize front during Brusilov Offensive which did have a serious influence on Verdun.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  211. @reiner Tor

    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest.

    Correction – quoted an Austro-Hungarian who envisioned that (probably correctly).

    In the short-term, of course, as a defeated part, the Hungarians would have no say. With time, they might well drift away. Since the Russian Empire was a “normal” country, it would have probably allowed its satellites more freedom of maneuver than did the USSR wrt Hungary in 1956. For that matter, even the USSR allowed Ceausescu’s Romania huge leeway.

    More generally, I envision post-Entente victory Europe as divided between two major blocs, the liberal Anglo-French bloc and a conservative Russian bloc, vying with each other for influence, but with less enmity and no closed borders as in the capitalist/Communist standoff. In other words, more or less what you have today, but with broadly comparable power levels, as opposed to Russia being an economic minnow.

    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    Poland had Great Power pretensions of its own, and besides, it was directly incorporated into the Russian Empire.

    I think it is extremely unlikely that any CEE or Balkan countries would have been directly integrated into the Russian Empire.

    Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence.

    Sure, but why would that be a significant factor in the big picture?

    Why do you think that France and Britain would’ve just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe?

    What would they have done to prevent it?

    Obviously, they would not have fought the Russian Empire. Perhaps, at most, there would have been an attempt at comprehensive Western sanctions against it. But that assumes a French reconciliation with Germany at a very early stage (extremely implausible) to be effective. They weren’t going to forego their reparations gibs.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  212. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income… spend the available government funds on quality

    Probably because partly it is such a small country, most every policy of the government of Hungary seem to be much more competent.

    There is also Hungary with the lowest corporation tax in Europe, which is attracting all kinds of investment now to Hungary.

    https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdf

  213. Dmitry says:

    This discussion thread needs Gerard 2 by the way…. lol I am refreshing the page constantly, expecting to read his comments here.

  214. iffen says:

    Thoughts on consensus:

    The Bolsheviks snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The exact nature of what that victory would have meant for Russia is still up for debate.

    The Bolsheviks took Russia out of the war because they knew that a civil war was coming and they wanted to make sure that they were in position to be the winner of that war. Whatever was “good for Russia” was way down the list. Like AH’s attitude toward Germany in WWII, they believed a Russia destroyed was better than a Russia without the Bolsheviks in charge.

    AK wants the liberty to disavow the Bolsheviks as “Russia,” but he refuses the same to GR’s disavowal of the Nazis.

  215. S says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    Quite true. The support given was haphazard and ultimately rather paltry. I don’t believe however (for the most part) that the Allies really truly wanted the Whites to win in Russia.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them..

    The Allies had to at least make a show (and I have to emphasize the term ‘show’ here) of ‘fighting Communism’. With the possible exception of the Japanese (who had certain ulterior motives) they didn’t seem to take the whole thing too seriously.

    ..while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    The British Empire showed far more resolve and dedication in fighting tiny Ireland (in the concurrent Irish War of Independence) sending about three times the troops (ie 20,000 in Ireland vs their 7500 in Russia) than they did in fighting the ‘Bolshevik menace’ in Russia. Still, that wasn’t nearly enough to win in Ireland.

    Not surprisingly, the Brits lost in Ireland just as they lost in Russia.

    The United States sent somewhat more troops than the Brits in the Allied intervention, about thirteen thousand or so. The bulk of them (8000) got sent to Vladivostok under strict orders to stay out of the fighting, get the Czechs out if possible, and run the local Trans-Siberian Railway.

    They appeared to do just as they’d been told regarding the fighting. Looking at some of the available pictures, such as the one below in Vladivostok, it seemed they did a lot of parading.

    And marching (ie ‘hiking’) too, in the Vladivostok region, as perhaps a ‘demonstration’ of the US presence in the area, or simple exercise.

    Fitting in with their assignment to run the local railway, below is a pic of a US hospital car of the Siberian expeditionary force.

    While no doubt they certainly did treat some real and serious injuries experienced in unavoidable fighting by US troops placed in the area, and, or treated their illnesses and sickness, considerering their standing orders to stay clear of the fighting, one wonders if the most common ‘battlefield injury’ treated for at the hospital car was for blisters on the men’s feet.

    In the Arkhangelsk region, with about 5000 US troops, there was a bit more fighting on the US part, but still considering the entire picture, relatively limited.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  216. @iffen

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise

    It wasn’t

    I may not know what I’m talking about

    Correct

    • Replies: @AP
  217. anonlb says:
    @Epigon

    I read somwere that bulgarian and serbian generals in the end of the first Balkan war developed idea to capture Constantinople, emboldened by previous victories, but faced big no-no from every side when this become known. It was way to big prize for those balkan upstarts.
    Btw, some kind of union between Serbia and Bulgaria was(and still is) the only chance for them to stop being puppets of foreign powers. Russia easily prevented this from start by favoring Bulgarian pretensions to old Serbia teritorires and AH by favoring similar Serbian pretensions.
    Russian errors in 19c, most notable supression of Декабристы and necessary reforms in 1825, supression of revolution in Hungary 1848 and later emergence of powerful slavic balkan state created conditions for its 20c disasters.

  218. anonlb says:
    @reiner Tor

    My strong impresson is that Germany was too strong for France and Russia before WW1. With all respect to host of this blog Imperial Russia was not by far match for Germany and suffered humiliating defeat by Japanesse in 1905. France was shadow of its glorious past from middle ages and time of Napoleon. Both simple lost race for progress with Germany. German progress becomes limited by Entente states encirclement policies(coup in Serbia 1903 was one more brick in that wall) and war with France becomes reasonable option for Germany. War plans was completed long before WW1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan .

  219. AP says:
    @Korenchkin

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Closer to 50%.

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Mr. XYZ
  220. AP says:
    @melanf

    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours:

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia,

    Austria gave shelter to Lenin and other criminals but Lenin wasn’t operating as an agent of the Austrian government. This is very different from Serbia’s role.

    WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon.

    Which lands did Germany want in 1914? France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @melanf
  221. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    a solid victory in a multiparty election
    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Taken together it was the largest group.

    Nazis + their allies were 41%.

    Social Democrats were 20%

    Communists were 17%.

    Catholic Party was 12%.

    So the two democrtic parties (Social Democrats plus Catholic Centre Party) were 32% total.

    Nationalists (dominated by Nazis) clearly enjoyed large plurality of support in Germany.

    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn’t desert much and didn’t resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they’d take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Conscripts by definiton are not volunteers, so some measure of force was involved, however light.

    I agree that the peasants would have preferred the Reds over the Whites (at least at the beginning – remember later on there were anti-Red peasant uprisings such as Tambov where Reds used poison gas on peasants) but that’s not the same thing as supporting the Reds, voluntering for them, voting for them, etc.

    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many?

    Sources state it was a minority of them, but how small a minority I do not know.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Didn’t the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while?

    Of course. My point was that Russia was a sea of apathy and very small forces made a huge difference, at least in the critical early stages. Bolshevik victory does not reflect Russian people’s preference, it reflects the fact that the tiny % of people willing to fight for the Red side were more disciplined, more ruthless, and better led than the tiny percentage of people on the other side. Russians neither voted for the Reds, nor brought them to power through some sort of mass uprising.

    In contrast, Hitler’s election win does mean that his party enjoyed widespread support among the German population.

  222. Seraphim says:
    @S

    The second post card (the ‘hiking’) shows Japanese troops, not American.

  223. Yevardian says:
    @Fluctuarius

    You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, I’d like to see the average Western teenager today make it through any standard textbook from that era. Meanwhile the education system in Russia went into free-fall during the 90’s and still hasn’t recovered. The same story in Romania, Central Asia and Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
  224. @German_reader

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views?

    Like Léon Bloy,
    Quant à moi, j’attends les cosaques et le Saint-Esprit ! Tout le reste n’est qu’ordure.

    I simply can’t think of a reason.

    Let me explain, GERMAN reader: the Cossacks have gotten us rid of the Napoleonic regime (itself a legacy of the Anglo black ops who overthrew the legitimate Bourbon monarchy) , and more importantly even, the predominantly RUSSIAN Red Army has played the decisive role of freeing my ancestors from yours, circa 70 years ago — and forever delivering us from the threat of GERMAN nationalism. I must say that images of the fall of Berlin in May 1945 never cease to rejoice me. See, your ancestors have left a trail
    of blood in my family. So I will take the Russian military pennant over the one from
    the German Huns — anytime.

  225. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    Typically ‘Eurocentric’ (Germanocentric, actually) autistic ‘voice of reason’.
    The Dual Monarchy was indeed the ‘second sick man of Europe’. It was not the Entente politicians who wanted to dismember it, it was the ‘Çentral Powers’ who wanted to prevent it by any means: building a German dominated ‘Mitteleuropa’ capable to resist the centrifugal tendencies of the ‘Slavs’ in the first place, blamed on the bugbear of ‘Panslavist’ ambitions of the perennially ‘aggressive’ backward Russia, suffocating Russia through the control of the Straits and capturing the oil wells of Russia (and those of Persia, controlled by the British) and the cornfields of Southern Russia, hence the unholy alliance with the ‘first sick man of Europe’, the moribund Ottoman Empire.
    National-Socialist Germany actually revived these plans.

  226. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    Most Ukrainians of that period didn’t vote. The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help. Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.

    • Replies: @AP
  227. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help.

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Mr. XYZ
  228. Mikhail says:
    @AP

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist – otherwise we’d be hearing more about them as Ukrainian nationalists. The Red Ukrainians weren’t against some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness. The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine. Just how many of these people called themselves Russian, Ukrainian or something else is another story. The Whites were positively received in Kiev by the locals there as well as the Galician Ukrainian Army.

    As for this bit from you on the Galician Ukrainian Army:

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.

    Makes for an agreeable Pilsudskiite-Petliurite revisionism. They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory. Petliura felt a need to do this because he lacked popular support on the land that he professed to represent.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Dreadilk
    , @Philip Owen
  229. Seraphim says:
    @French bystander responding to German reader

    And you should be forever grateful to the Cossacks because they gave us the ‘bistro’! Moi, j’suis amoureux de Paname… j’aime encore les pissotières (quand on les trouve).
    I am like Leon Bloy. The Cossacks might be the ones from the Ural stanitsas Parizh, Fershampenuaz, Arci, Brienne, descendants from the Cossacks who fought Napoleon in 1814.
    BTW, you probably know that ‘ Ami, entends-tu le vol noir des corbeaux sur nos plaines…’ was composed initially as a song for the Russian partisans by ‘chanteuse et guitariste française d’origine russe’ Anna Iourievna Smirnova-Marly. ‘Chantez, compagnons, dans la nuit la Liberté nous écoute…’

  230. Epigon says:
    @AP

    You missed Pilsudski and his terrorist cell.

    • Replies: @AP
  231. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    There were tens of millions of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Some individuals may have fought for the Whites. But no significant numbers did.

    No White ethnic Ukrainian military units.

    No significant well-known White ethnic Ukrainian (they would have called themselves Little Russians) commanders from Ukraine.

    So no significant White support among ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist

    Main yes, by far, no. Others had perhaps half or so of his number of troops at times. For example Danylo Zeleny:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CZ%5CE%5CZelenyDanylo.htm

    Had 30,000 troops, rebelled against Petliura, fought both Reds and Whites, died fighting against the Whites.

    Nestor Makhno was, of course, an anarchist rather than a nationalist. But he fought both the Whites and Reds while being generally neutral with the nationalists (his wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher though). He preferred Reds to Whites, however, and helped defeat Denikin.

    Overall there were a lot of armed Ukrainians under various warlords, but very very little White support among them. This tells you that there was about zero support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine.

    Yes, among ethnic Russians in places like Kiev. Bulgakov was the most famous one.

    List any White ethnic Ukrainian units from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Didn’t think so.

    They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory.

    They were also suffering from a typhus epidemic and were desperate for medicine. Did they actually fight for Denikin?

    • Agree: Mr. Hack, Mr. XYZ
    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Dreadilk
  232. AP says:
    @Epigon

    Which tsar or tsarevich did he murder? Which of Pilsudski’s terrorist activities were directly organized by high level Austrian government officials?

  233. melanf says:
    @AP

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.

    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours

    To save time I will quote your favorite Wikipedia:

    In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams), a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials.”

    • Replies: @AP
  234. anon1999 [AKA "anon21"] says:

    One of the most biased and unbalanced articles i have ever read on this site.

  235. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko.

    Your presented source gives a somewhat timid claim on the number of Z’s forces.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck. The Whites weren’t as overbearing as the Poles were towards Petliura.

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky’s government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There’re grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn’t like what’s evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren’t so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.

    • Replies: @AP
  236. @Epigon

    Germany and Austria-Hungary combined were much weaker than the Russian, French and British Empires combined. My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It’s pretty nonsensical, based on the fact that they didn’t even spend as much relative to their national income as the already stronger Triple Entente powers.

    So what is your point?

    • Replies: @melanf
  237. @Andrei Martyanov

    Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically

    Actually, he was doing more than okay academically, his reasons for leaving included, among other things, developments in his personal life and certain, ahem, changes in economic and political conditions after October 1993.

    Yet you keep clinging to deliberate untruths and pushing slanderous false narratives, as Communists are wont to do.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  238. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It’s pretty nonsensical

    This argument is devoid of any meaning. Japan’s attack on the US is pretty nonsensical too?
    There are hundreds of such examples, up to Georgia’s actions in 2008. Germany Military were confident in victory over forces Russia and France, on this they began war. About the entry into the war of Britain (and after – the United States), they could not know. However these heroes of militarism even in 1918 expressed confidence in victory

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  239. @Mikhail

    Bulgarians wanted to annex Northern Macedonia (macedonian language is basically a dialect of bulgarian) which was occupied by Serbia during the balkan wars. Serbia was Russia’s favorite, which led to Bulgaria joining WW1 on the side of the Central Powers.
    Russian divisions were sent to southern Romania on the idea that bulgarian soldiers will be unenthusiastic to fight their slavic brothers but on the contrary the bulgarians fought well and with the help of some german forces they routed both the russians and the romanians, the Central Powers eventually conquering southern Romania.

    • Replies: @anonlb
    , @Mikhail
  240. AP says:
    @melanf

    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance.

    Not analogous.

    • Replies: @melanf
  241. anonlb says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Russia supported Bulgaria pretensions for Macedoina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano, but other great powers prevented this.
    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.
    In the first Balcan war AH denied Serbia and Montenego territorial gains in Albania, and Serbia in turn deined Bulgaria eastern part of Macedonia because serbian army liberated this territory from Ottomans. All this was cause of the second Balcan war. France was Serbia main ally and supplier, not Russia, which as always favored Bulgaria.

    • Replies: @AP
  242. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko

    So all you know of Ukrainian history comes from one book by Subtelny? Good job.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck

    We are discussing the attitudes of Ukrainians from Ukraine under Moscow and you change the subject to Galicians.

    What does your Subtelny say about it?

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ktyM07I9HXwC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=subtelny+galician+army+denikin&source=bl&ots=y7VcC5WKQ9&sig=ACfU3U0QQZLye7ZdPsxEjWM4CtQjP1vXuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr9vGW2enlAhWLct8KHTJRBFQQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=subtelny%20galician%20army%20denikin&f=false

    Galicians had no quarrel with the Whites so didn’t fight them at first.

    Then massive typhoid epidemic rendered most of the UGA dead or incapacitated. Later on they placed themselves under Denikin to rest and recuperate under the condition that they would not fight other Ukrainians.

    Not the story you propose 🙂

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    Ask your Subtelny. But yes they did, they were supplied by the Entente.

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian.

    LOL. I asked for names of military units of ethnic Ukrainians from the Russian Empire who fought for the Whites. Or prominent pro-White commanders from Ukraine who were ethnic Ukrainians. There were over 20 million people living in Russian-ruled Ukraine at the time. Surely, if there were any loyalty to Russia among Ukrainians, there would be some units or famous commanders fighting for the Whites from this large populated territory.

    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.

    There were over 20 million people in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Plenty of Ukrainian nationalists units and leaders, the famous anti-White anarchist Makhno, and a few pro-Reds (who were anti-Russian). But no White units. No prominent White commanders from Ukraine, with all its people. That tells you all you need to know about the extent of pro-Russian sympathy in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mikhail
  243. AP says:
    @anonlb

    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.

    And much of Serbia including Belgrade had been part of Bulgaria.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  244. Dreadilk says:
    @Mikhail

    That is his MO. He makes statements that are in line with his narrative. Basically fantasizing. You can predict any spin he makes just by knowing his stance.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @AP
  245. Dreadilk says:
    @AP

    That just means Ukraine is Russia and you are making fake and gay fantasies.

  246. melanf says:
    @AP

    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance

    Yeah
    In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities…

    Moreover there is no evidence of the involvement of the Serbian king/government in the murder of Ferdinand. But as I wrote above:

    Of course, people who take this topic to heart invent 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war

    • Replies: @AP
  247. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Subtelny is a non-Russophile person of west Ukrainian background, who is considered among the best of diaspora Ukriian historians. He appears more well versed than that comparatively trivial link you gave on Zeleny which (once again) is timid on its stated claim on the size of his forces.

    The Galician Ukrainians met up with Denikin’s forces in Kiev and didn’t fight them – instead being rather friendly. Thereafter, they came under their command. Moreover, there was talk of how the two would be united in the event of a Bolshevik defeat. Make no mistake about it, the Galician Ukrainians very much opposed Petliura after his alliance with Pilsudski – not that they were so supportive of him beforehand.

    True, they didn’t have to fight other Ukrainians under the agreement you note. But some did. Makes sense given that Ukrainians fought each other on other sides as well. The North American aired svido leaning TV show Kontakt had a segment acknowledging these aspects.

    Contrary to what you suggest, not all Ukrainian Reds were anti-Russian, with some of them not being so svido in mindset.

    You once again duck this fact based overview:

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky’s government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There’re grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn’t like what’s evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren’t so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.

    I’ll add that to this very day, there numerous individuals like the west Ukrainian born Matviyenko and the east Ukrainian born Medinsky identifying with Russia. Matviyenko and Medinsky willingly serving in high level positions of Russian (not Ukrainian) government.

    Heck, in the fictional movie Creed II, Drago is depicted as a Ukrainian identifying with Russia. Sylvester Stallone, the writer of that movie has Odessa roots.

    I’ve previously noted the Kiev born Igor Sikorsky, who upon further review probably actually has more of a Polish and Ukrainian background than Great Russian. Yet, he was rock solid pro-Russian.

    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.

    No I came up with more than that. In a prior instance, I gave added specifics. No need for me to look back, because you show yourself to have an autistic like trait of simply rehashing the same old, same old, which conflict with reality.

    BTW, many people in Ukraine have what are generally understood to be as Russian surnames. I not too long ago posted a DNA map of Europe indicating that Ukrainians are closer to Russians than Poles – contrasting with your slant. Hence, it’s a fine line (often subjective) in determining who is ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian. Granted, that such a DNA map has question marks seeing that many in the places under review haven’t participated in such a process.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Mr. Hack
  248. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dreadilk

    A somewhat interesting blend of some non-svido observations like what he has said about Russia’s last czar and the BS about Allied intervention supporting the Whites, while nevertheless clinging to numerous svido stances.

  249. Mikhail says: • Website
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    I know an ethnic Macedonian who characterized the Macedonian language as a fairly equal mix between Serbian and Bulgarian. On the other hand, there seems to be a general overview that Macedonian is closest to Bulgarian.

    Why did Bulgaria not fight the USSR in WW II? The general answer is that Bulgarians en masse wouldn’t want to fight Russians. I’ve run into many Bulgarians over the years of different age groups. All of them are pro-Russian. the only one I know who isn’t is the establishment Sorosian Ivan Kravstev.

  250. AP says:
    @melanf

    Yeah
    “In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities…”

    Thanks for confirming what I wrote.

    High Serbian government official directly organized, armed, trained assassins who murdered the future head of state and his wife in an operation organized by this Serbian government official for the specific purpose of killing the future head of state..

    Austrians helped out a Polish organization that did its own thing, basically killing Russian government figures in Poland, without the direct guidance of Austrian officials.

    Significant difference.

    Of course, people who take this topic to heart invent 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war

    If you don’t see anything fundamentally different between these two scenarios I can’t help you.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  251. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    LOL, your failure is even more complete.

    There were over 20 million ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. If there were significant pro-Russian sentiment among them, surely there would be some units or prominent individuals among them who were fighting for the Whites. Yet you couldn’t name any. Now you come up with a fictional character from an American movie. LOL. LOL:

    “Heck, in the fictional movie Creed II, Drago is depicted as a Ukrainian identifying with Russia. Sylvester Stallone, the writer of that movie has Odessa roots.”

    No I came up with more than that. In a prior instance, I gave added specifics. No need for me to look back

    You fail again and again 🙂

    This is an easy task. It should be very easy to find some pro-White ethnic Ukrainians from Ukraine if they existed. Using google, it takes me 5 minutes for example to find a unit of Galician POWs organized by one of my great-grandmother’s cousins who fought for Kolchak in Siberia:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

    But somehow not a single reference to armed groups of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine supporting Russia or the White movement.

    And all you could come up with was some guy with a Ukrainian surname, and a fictional American movie character who wasn’t even from 1918.

    So the evidence is clear: even before Bolshevik rule, there wasn’t much sympathy for Russian nationalism in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Bolshevik horrors magnified a trend that was already present.

    • Troll: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Dreadilk
  252. anonlb says:
    @AP

    And most of Bulgaria was part of Serbia. I already stated that union between Serbia and Bulgaria was solution for this mess. But this state will be too poweful to be mere puppet of Russia or AH, and they prevented this from the start.

    • Replies: @AP
  253. AP says:
    @Dreadilk

    Says the guy who is wrong in almost everything he “thinks.”

  254. AP says:
    @anonlb

    Bulgaria +Serbia would not be powerful enough to stand up to great powers.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  255. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    Really, Mickey, so far you’ve only shown that there were probably some individuals of Ukrainian ethnic background that that fought for the Whites. So what? You’ve not been able to quantify just how many, thus being unable to show just how important this support was for the White cause. AP makes a strong case that this support was negligible (if not totally non-existant), because the lack of evidence for strong support is just not there.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  256. anonlb says:
    @AP

    Who was this “High Serbian government official”?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  257. anonlb says:
    @AP

    Serbia was already too big to be just swallowed by AH, Russia was too far. Serbia+Bulgaria in 19c will speed up demise of Ottoman empire on Balcan and include at least Bosnia and Albania.
    It is big failure of immature elites in both Serbia and Bulgaria.

  258. Mr. Hack says:

    The Galician Ukrainians met up with Denikin’s forces in Kiev and didn’t fight them – instead being rather friendly. Thereafter, they came under their command. Moreover, there was talk of how the two would be united in the event of a Bolshevik defeat. Make no mistake about it, the Galician Ukrainians very much opposed Petliura after his alliance with Pilsudski – not that they were so supportive of him beforehand.

    It’s been a long while since I got into the nitty gritty of Ukrainian WWI history, that was based mostly on John Reshetar’s book on the subject matter, but as I recall your short synopsis here is not far from the truth. I would add that AP’s emphasis, that because of the Galician army’s weakened state due to typhus, indeed added to their willingness to present a friendy face to the Whites. Of course Petliura’s “betrayal” obviously hastened their need to find new allies. I don’t think that the alliance lasted all that long, and don’t recall any major battles where the combined forces won any significant victories, but I could be wrong here?…

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  259. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    You mean into Russians, no?

    Also, if I recall correctly, Crimea and Odessa were both pro-Russian in 1917 whereas the rest of Novorossiya was about 50/50, correct? If so, I wonder if increased Russian settlement into Novorossiya–especially into its coastal areas–could have helped increase Russophile sentiments there. Interestingly enough, Novorossiya’s coastline was much less Ukrainian than the rest of Ukraine was even in 1926:

    As a side note, I think that it might have been more prudent for Tsarist Russia to restrict settlement in Novorossiya to Great Russians back in the 1700s and beyond. That way, its demographics would have been Great Russian-majority from the very beginning.

  260. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.

    That banning certainly was rather shameful and regrettable. If Russian is so attractive, why the need to ban other languages? It’s similar to (but much less brutal than) Islam, where many Muslims don’t have enough confidence in the appeal of their religion that they support the death penalty for apostasy. If Islam was genuinely the one true faith and there was a strong, convincing case in favor of this, why the need to force people to remain Muslims?

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
  261. Mikhail says:
    @AP

    You’re so convoluted to the point of not acknowledging the otherwise obvious which has been clearly stated.

    If Petliura was so popular he wouldn’t have had to go crawling to Pilsudski, inclusive of having to give up all of Galicia. Yes, many on Russian Empire territory on land that became Ukraine weren’t supportive or so supportive of breaking away from Russia – something which you’ve failed to refute.

    Shifting gears into the present:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/world/europe/ukraine-ihor-kolomoisky-russia.html

    So much for the BS regularly and uncritically spewed on CNN and MSNBC:

    Excerpt –

    But Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine’s most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia.

    Trump is right for stating the need for Russia and Ukraine to work on improving their relations. Some referenced details on what’s wrong with the George Kents, David Kramers and Bill Taylors:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/08/21/getting-real-with-the-us-foreign-policy-establishment-realists/

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/10/17/geopolitical-realism-utilized-by-obama-and-trump/

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/11/12/us-mass-media-government-ties-remain-strong-on-russia-bashing/

    —————-

    Re: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/people-died-while-trump-played-games-with-ukraines-military-aid/2019/11/12/a4cc18a6-0598-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

    David Ignatius carries on like a Deep State shill, in line with his establishment neolib/neocon leaning foreign policy biases.

    Under Trump, the US has armed the Kiev regime much unlike under Obama.

    Know my share of people of Ukrainian background in the US, who hold the Kiev regime side responsible for reckless carnage that has included the killing of many innocents, while acknowledging fault from the other side.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  262. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    He hasn’t been able to refute the otherwise obvious that such a distinction wasn’t emphasized, which doesn’t negate what actually occurred.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  263. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    Slow down Mickey, I’m finding you here hard to understand…it’s starting to sound like “Averkoisms”

    It’s not upto AP to make your case first. It’s up to you to prove that Ukrainian support for the White cause was instrumental and important. So far you’ve included a few conjectures based on “convesations” that you’ve had and few Ukrainain sounding names on cemetary tombstones…

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  264. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    AP has never been needed to make my case. Meantime, he has yet to debunk my core comments.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  265. @Mikhail

    Trump is right for stating the need for Russia and Ukraine to work on improving their relations.

    It is tantamount to saying that everything good is good, and everything bad is bad. It is a classic political platitude granted in new geopolitical circumstances. What Trump actually wants is to “sell” Ukraine to Russia which Russia, correctly, doesn’t want to buy for obvious economic reasons. This is precisely the reason Russia didn’t “invade” Ukraine in 2014, albeit destroying Ukrainian Armed Forces wouldn’t be that difficult, what would be difficult–taking large territory with a majority of hostile population on the balance. But that was the US “plan” from the git go–get Russians “regime change” in Ukraine and then observe a steady drainage of Russia’s resources on something which would be a royal pain in the ass. After yesterday’s Bundestag vote on Nord Stream 2, it is very clear where this whole Ukraine thing goes. Russia didn’t wreck Ukraine, Ukrainians and their Western handlers did. Let them deal with the issue. This is not to mention the fact that Ukraine is simply incompatible with Russian economy in any way. The fact that Benya changed the tune is a sign of a dawning realization of realities, but there is also the issue of MH-17 which is still in the background and will arrive to the forefront in a dramatic fashion when time will be right.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Mikhail
  266. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    So, just for the record and to keep things clear, what exactly is your case regarding the Whites and Ukraine, anyway?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  267. Mr. Hack says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    but there is also the issue of MH-17 which is still in the background and will arrive to the forefront in a dramatic fashion when time will be right.

    Please do tell all, don’t keep this juicy bit of fact all to yourself, now that you’ve let the cat out of the bag? 🙂

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @iffen
  268. @Mr. Hack

    Please do tell all, don’t keep this juicy bit of fact all to yourself, now that you’ve let the cat out of the bag?

    More than three years ago I noted:

    https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2015/03/strange-bedfellows.html

    Benya is a despicable SOB who, apart from being actually a shitty geopolitical analyst, may have–I am not saying he has 100%–something to do with downing of MH-17 by Ukies. It totally fits with his MO but he is too little, too late in trying to “make nice” with Russia. Not everything fits in his world view of Jewish-Ukrainian baryga and not everything is for sale. He eventually, depending on the dynamics of Ukraine’s demise, will be hunted down and brought to justice. In the end, if my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me, he threatened Putin personally and insulted him on several occasions. You just don’t do such things towards Russia’s leader and expect to be taken seriously.

  269. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Yes, don’t be coy.

    Do you know something beyond “Russians provided shoot-down missiles to Ukrainian separatists without proper training or guidance”?

    Everybody knows this and what has happened?

    Sanctions? Oh my! More sanctions?

  270. Mr. Hack says:

    Do you know something beyond “Russians provided shoot-down missiles to Ukrainian separatists without proper training or guidance”?

    I’ve read some, but they seem too ridiculous to take seriously.

  271. Mr. Hack says:

    You just don’t do such things towards Russia’s leader and expect to be taken seriously.

    That sounds like the hallmark of an authoritarian state. No wonder you’ve left that system and now live comfortably in a freer environment.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  272. @Mr. Hack

    That sounds like the hallmark of an authoritarian state.

    Try to threaten any POTUS openly on TV or in media and start stop-watch to measure how long will it take Secret Service to pay you a visit. I doubt though that you are a person of any note compared to a fairly globally-recognized swindler and criminal Benya. But still, be my guest. Try it–I am sure you gonna like it.

    No wonder you’ve left that system and now live comfortably in a freer environment.

    You obviously have zero grasp of modern Russia, or modern West for that matter.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  273. Mr. Hack says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    You obviously have zero grasp of modern Russia, or modern West for that matter.

    Perhaps I don’t. Care to enlighten me with your story as to why you choose to live in the West and not in the Glorious Motherland? Or is it Fatherland? 🙂

    Let me guess, the grandkids need somebody to change their pampers?…

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  274. @Mr. Hack

    Care to enlighten me with your story

    Only after you provide me with your name (including second one), where do you live and what is your story? But you see, apart from large parts of my “story” being made public through my blog and my short bio being on my books or other publications, I have to ask you a question–and what will be a rationale for me, who is a public persona, anyway, to provide some personal “story” to some anonymous ghost hiding behind some handle on the discussion board which attracts, with some exceptions, mostly delusional people? This is not to mention that you still can come up with any kind of unverifiable BS and call it a truth. You don’t need to answer it, because you also know the answer. If you need to see my mug, you can take a look at it here:

    https://www.claritypress.com/book-author/andrei-martyanov/

    Both me and you we know what “school of thought” you represent, so why don’t you stick to trying to write something on subject matter.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  275. Mr. Hack says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I wasn’t trying to “dox” you or anything like that. I really don’t know very much about you, and all that I know about you I’ve acquired here at the UNZ review. I know that you’re quite knowledgeable about military affairs, oh, and that you have quite the high opinion about yourself and your abilities and capabilities. Imense egotistical types have never really impressed me, I find that often enough their puffed up persona about themselves is really only masking a low self esteem somewhere within their psyche. I’ve read with interest and amusemet some fo your dialogues with Karlin here regarding who’s the real Russian nationalist and who’s not. Karlin automatically goes to the front of the line because although he obviously has the ability to travel and live wherever he chooses, he chooses to live in Russia and seems quite content in doing so. If you don’t want to talk about your own situation without getting a copy of my fingerprints, then so be it. BTW, lucky for you, that you don’t seem to attract “mostly delusional people”, none around here anyway. 🙂

  276. @Mr. Hack

    If you don’t want to talk about your own situation without getting a copy of my fingerprints, then so be it

    Yes, I am the kinda guy who, as Jack Nicholson says in Shining, likes to know who pays for my drinks, or, for that matter, know who I am talking to. So, good that you allowed me to exercise common sense.

  277. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Respect to Martyanov, considering he was actually a naval officer – which is something more interesting than most people. He also seems like a cultural person who reads a lot of literature.

    The thing I disagree with is that a permanent immigrant in America, should (morally) be more pro-American, than a native American. Otherwise, why should the Americans accept them?

    I don’t understand people who immigrated permanently to America, and are not pro-American, waving the American flag on their car, etc. If views are not consistent with your life choice, then this invalidates either view or life choices.

    For gastarbaiters, it’s a bit different. When you only have a temporary visa working in the country, then it would be a bit strange to become too pro of this country which is only accepting you for your labour. But if you are living permanently for years in a new country, then you should become a patriot, or go home.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @iffen
  278. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Karlin automatically goes to the front of the line because although he obviously has the ability to travel and live wherever he chooses, he chooses to live in Russia

    He kept his American citizenship.

    So it’s not like he’s up there on the rope without a net.

    • Replies: @Matra
  279. iffen says:
    @Dmitry

    The thing I disagree with is that a permanent immigrant in America, should (morally) be more pro-American, than a natively born American. Otherwise, why should the Americans accept them?

    Where has he violated this?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  280. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    AP stresses the Galician Ukes not fighting Petliura, while downplaying that the Galician Ukes didn’t fight the Whites, while coming under the command of the Whites.

    I’ll add that all this was done at a time when talk of a loose association with Russia was considered among Galician Ukrainian ranks upon a victorious completion of the Russian Civil War, which unfortunately (IMO) didn’t happen.

    • Replies: @AP
  281. Dreadilk says:
    @AP

    LOL, your failure is even more complete.

    Secret king status confirmed.

  282. Dmitry says:

    It’s been 4 days now of AP and Mikhail arguing – how is there no Gerard2 comments yet. Hopefully, he is still here?

    AK: Thankfully he has taken his very valuable commentary to Twitter as opposed to filling up my blog with his crap.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Dmitry
  283. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. XYZ

    The late 1870s restriction on the Ukrainian language was primarily targeted against anti-Russian Ukrainian language propaganda coming from the Habsburg Empire. In point of fact, a Russian Empire based Ukrainian noted this development with disdain to the Russian authorities.

    In any event, that banning wasn’t as harsh when compared with other linguistic bans. An early 1900s Russian Empire census readily acknowledged the degree of Ukrainian spoken in Russian Empire part of what became the Ukrainian SSR.

    The Ukrainian language is much more alive in Ukraine when compared to the Irish language in Ireland.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  284. @Mikhail

    From a relatively objective advocacy, the tabloid title of Michael Peck’s April 3 National Interest article “How Poland Saved the World from Russia“, is a hyperbolic absurdity. In essence, The National Interest has become more like The National Enquirer. Peck’s content rehashes the periodically presented image of Poland as a great savior against an evil force from the east. The title of his article highlights a faulty anti-Russian bias, as evident by it saying that Poland saved the world from “Russia”, as opposed to the Bolsheviks.

    Peck is not a historian, he is a tabloid journo who also is known for insisting on US and British Empire also winning the Battle of Kursk, or writing utter absurd on many other events of WW II. And then, of course, the guy is a complete idiot whenever writing anything on modern warfare and operational and technological issues. I note your noble attempt to frame your competent response to a guy into a sort of substantive discussion, but let’s be clear here–Peck is a sort of American version of Kholmogorov. It is useless to appeal to any solid knowledge and facts when dealing with these kinds of specimens. Those are self-obsessed (likely suffering from serious inferiority complexes) individuals who operate on pure emotions and have zero qualifications as historians (especially military historians), military or geopolitical analysts. I agree with you, this TNI tabloid is something else altogether but can serve as an Exhibit A of an American delusions about outside world.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  285. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Establishment Left View of Russia-Ukraine

    Re: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/14/examining-trump-worlds-fantastic-claims-about-ukraine/

    Hypes Paul Manafort, while downplaying the suspect manner of the Bidens. Concerning Manafort, there’s no proof of him acting on behalf of Russia. If anything, he sought to move Yanukovych in a pro-EU direction away from Russia. Manafort’s manner concerns the issue of proper financial disclosure.

    The comparison point about corruption in Russia and Ukraine omits a key element. Under Putin, the role of the oligarchs has decreased. I was one of the first, if not the first to note what Zelensky faces on this comparative issue:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/04/24/gauging-ukraine-with-russia-and-belarus/

    Towards the end, Trump is accused of a crime with no specifics given. Including FDR and JFK, US Presidents can and have used non-government people to guide a given foreign policy directive. This is quite understandable when faced with the likes of John Brennan, James Clapper, William Taylor, George Kent and the apparent so-called “whistleblower” Eric Ciarmella.

  286. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dmitry

    You want the show cancelled?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  287. Dmitry says:
    @Mikhail

    No – I demand the presence of Gerard2. He has not written a comment for almost 3 weeks.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  288. anonlb says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    I think AP had somebody else in mind.
    Apis was colonel and not member of any serbian goverment.
    It is popular conspiracy theory that Apis organized Ferdinand assasination but it is very unlikely:
    – he was notorious organizer of assasination of his own king. New serbian king Aleksandar and serbian goverment feared of him and later organized his execution after staged trail.
    – he was hardcore serbian nationalist. He had serb-only organization in Bosnia “Narodna odbrana” which was initialy held responisble for assasination. Indeed he had bunch of seasoned killers at disposal in “Narodna odbrana” but send them warning to not try anything stupid during Ferdinand visit because this can endanger Serbia. Gavrilo Princip was member of Young Bosnia organization which was pro-yugoslav organization and included muslims and croats. Apis dismised news that Young Bosnia plans ‘someting big’ during Ferdinand visit as unrealistic. There is hearsay that he even send message to his agents to prevent such action. Having seasoned killers at disposal it is unlikely that he will send bunch of untrained teenagers in Sarajevo.
    – he indeed provisioned 4 Nagan revolvers to his agents in Bosnia before assasination. Gavrilo Princip and his comarades used Browning pistols.
    – Gavrilo Princip organization Young Bosnia was older than Apis Black Hand/Unity or Death organization. If somebody thinks that Young Bosnia have nothing in common with Young Italy or Young Turkey and other “Young” organizations I have for them a few nice bridges for sale.
    – trail organized for Gavrilo Princip and other involved in assasination didn’t include any of known Apis agents in Bosnia.

    • Replies: @AP
  289. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    AP stresses the Galician Ukes not fighting Petliura, while downplaying that the Galician Ukes didn’t fight the Whites, while coming under the command of the Whites.

    I don’t deny any of that.

    Awhile ago, on the post about the idea of nations being punished for their crimes against God in the 20th century, I wrote:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/#comment-3206911

    “Note that Galicia got off the lightest of all the eastern Slavic lands. It avoided the worst of Stalinism in the 1930s, was treated relatively well by the Nazis, didn’t undergo much destruction during the war (Lviv and other cities were largely intact, and cleared of non-Ukrainians), ended up ethnically homogeneous with a fairly stable population. 🙂

    Galicia was Hapsburg-loyal and not rabidly hostile toward the Tsar (during 1917-1920, Galician troops fighting in central and eastern Ukraine sometimes cut deals with Denikin and were generally horrified by the undisciplined looting that the Otamans’ troops engaged in).”

    All of which is irrelevant to this discussion about the attitudes of Ukrainians under the Tsars, towards Russia. It was generally negative, as evidenced by preference for Ukrainian nationalist parties in the 1917 election and utter lack of support for the Russian patriotic White movement among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. It is funny that the Galicians were more friendly towards the Whites than were Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    You have failed to prove otherwise.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Mr. XYZ
  290. AP says:
    @anonlb

    I think AP had somebody else in mind.
    Apis was colonel and not member of any serbian goverment.

    Dragutin Dimitrijević (Serbian Cyrillic: Драгутин Димитријевић; 17 August 1876 – 24 June 1917), known as Apis (Апис), was a Serbian colonel. He was a leading member of a military group that organized the overthrow of the Serbian government in 1903. He personally organized and participated in the coup against King Alexander and his wife Draga Mašin that resulted in their murders.[1] He was also the leader of the Black Hand group responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914. The latter triggered the July Crisis which led to the outbreak of World War I.

    At this time, Dimitrijević was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence.

    The fact that you did not know this makes your other claims suspect, to say the least.

    • Replies: @anonlb
  291. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    All of which is irrelevant to this discussion about the attitudes of Ukrainians under the Tsars, towards Russia. It was generally negative, as evidenced by preference for Ukrainian nationalist parties in the 1917 election and utter lack of support for the Russian patriotic White movement among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. It is funny that the Galicians were more friendly towards the Whites than were Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    You have failed to prove otherwise.

    Au contra-ire as you’ve failed to disprove me wrong. Once again (omitting the previously stated supporting points):

    – number of those voting was minimal, relative to the entire population in the area at issue
    – Whites gained support in the area in question
    – said support no being hyper in stressing a separate Ukrainian identity from Russia doesn’t deny that reality.

    As for funny (if that’s the appropriate word), the Whites got along better with Galician Ukes than with the Reds. People not well versed on this history and being surprised of this aspect take off from WW II, as opposed to getting a fuller picture – inclusive of fully understanding Polish-Ukrainian relations.

    • Replies: @AP
  292. @Mikhail

    I have read that the White army found thousands of volunteers amongst the coal miners in the Donbass, especially around Gorlivka. Coal miners were mostly ethnic Russians who did not want an independent Ukraine. The townspeople, more Ukrainian supported Kiev or the Kharkiv Reds.

  293. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    – number of those voting was minimal, relative to the entire population in the area at issue

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election#Voting

    In spite of war and turmoil, some 47 million voters exercised their franchise, with a national voter turnout of around 64% (per Protasov (2004)).[12][5] According to Protasov (2004), the countryside generally had a higher voter turnout than the cities. 220 cities across the country, with a combined population of seven million, had a voter turnout of 58%. In agrarian provinces turnout generally ranged from 62 to 80%. In Tambov province urban areas had a turnout of 50.2% while rural areas had 74.5%.[13] According to Radkey (1989) national voter turnout stood at around 55%.[14]

    So turnout was fairly normal.

    In the election, Ukrainian nationalist parties won in Ukraine.

    – Whites gained support in the area in question

    Prove it.

    Some guy’s last name is not proof.

    Proof would be ethnic Ukrainians joining the White cause. They didn’t. No White units were recruited. On the contrary, Ukrainians resisted (even joining Reds).

    As for funny (if that’s the appropriate word), the Whites got along better with Galician Ukes than with the Reds

    Of course. And that was not the topic of the discussion.

    You claimed there was pro-Russian support in Russian-ruled Ukraine among Ukrainians. Election patterns, and utter lack of support for the White movement during the subsequent Civil War, prove otherwise.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  294. Seraphim says:
    @German_reader

    Kolchak, as it is known, was arrested by soldiers of the Czechoslovak Legion at the orders of the French General Maurice Janin, head of the French military mission in Russia, his supposed ‘allies’ against the Bolsheviks and handed over to the Bolsheviks. The Czechs have been rewarded with a portion of the Imperial Treasure which was in Kolchak’s custody (the rest being handed over to the Bolsheviks). The gold constituted the first reserve of the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.

  295. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Interesting. The DPRK has elections with a high voter turnout. Your referenced process surely had shortcomings.

    Skoro’s people known to have gone over in addition to others. That they weren’t called Ukrainian under the Whites doesn’t negate that happening and explains among other things, Peliura’s weak standing to the point of having to crawl to Pilsudski and the Whites warm reception upon entering Kiev.

    Somewhat related, I recall John Armstrong putting the number of Ukes in Vlasov’s army in the 30%-%40% range. That army had no Uke designation.

    Russian Civil War or WW II, we’re talking about much more than the one guy you erroneously bring up.

    • Replies: @AP
  296. @Dmitry

    No – I demand the presence of Gerard2. He has not written a comment for almost 3 weeks.

    Same. I want AK to allow him to come back and give his hardcore commentary. The only addition should just be a default ignore option for the disinterested on his comments though.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  297. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    So, as expected – no evidence that there was any popularity for the Russian cause in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Proof for pro-Russian support among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine would be voting for pro-Russian parties and/or fighting for the patriotic Russian Whites. As we have seen, Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties and they did not fight for Whites (no ethnic Ukrainian military units recruited from Russian Empire-ruled Ukraine, no prominent White leaders who ere ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians from Ukraine); indeed, there was sporadic support for the Reds, particularly when the Whites were getting strong.

    Skoro’s people known to have gone over in addition to others.

    Who? How many? Skoropadsky was overthrown and chased out when he started dealing with the Whites. More evidence of lack of popularity of such an approach.

    Peliura’s weak standing to the point of having to crawl to Pilsudski

    One can similarly say that the Whites had to “crawl” to the Entente.

    Petliura at least got about 20,000 recruits during his joint Polish incursion into Ukraine.

    How many ethnic Ukrainians from the Russian Empire joined the Whites when they came into Ukraine?

    Whites warm reception upon entering Kiev.

    Kiev was a small city where most of the population was ethnic Russians.

    We are discussing the attitude of ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians.

    I recall John Armstrong putting the number of Ukes in Vlasov’s army in the 30%-%40% range. That army had no Uke designation.

    LOL, you are forced to change the subject again, away from 1917.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
  298. Seraphim says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    It was alleged that the entry of Romania in WW1 combined with the Brusilov offensive had an impact on the end of the Verdun operation.
    Interesting is the declaration of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg at the moment of Romania’s entry in the war:
    “The Rumanian policy was now guided by Premier Bratianu, who attempted to gain riches, without making great sacrifices, at the expense of the party suffering defeat in the war…
    Since the beginning of the world war Rumania has followed a policy of piracy, depending upon the general war situation. Rumania’s military capitulation will prove as mistaken as her political capitulation to her Entente friends, which already has been proved to have been wrong.
    They must have hoped earnestly that Rumania’s participation in the war would cause the defection of Bulgaria and Turkey, but Turkey and Bulgaria are not the same as Rumania and Italy. Firm and inviolable stands their faithfulness as allies, and they have won glorious victories in the Dobrudja”.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  299. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    was treated relatively well by the Nazis,

    Yes, but why?

    (Lviv and other cities were largely intact, and cleared of non-Ukrainians), ended up ethnically homogeneous with a fairly stable population. 🙂

    Are you sure that this part was actually a positive thing?

  300. Mr. Hack says:
    @iffen

    I didn’t know this. Karlin’s verisimilitude is therefore suspect as a true blue Russian nationalist. I assumed that he had Russian citizenship because I once half jokenly remarked that he’d return back to the States within five years, to which he retorted that he planned to stay within Russia indefinitely. I’ve always felt that he went way too far in portraying himself as a hardcore Russian nationalist anyway. Anybody who’s been around the globe as much as he has should see the writing on the wall, that globalism will eventually win out and nationalism will be seen someday as a primitive way for humans to organize themselves. Futurism and nationalism are contradictory and Karlin should realize that the future of the human race is brown.

    • Troll: iffen, Dreadilk
  301. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    You keep striking out, while thinking that a home run was hit. Akin to the MSNBC/CNN spin on the Schiff led hearing against Trump – believing that Trump is looking really bad.

    The Armstrong example serves as an excellent underscore on how the Whites didn’t really distinguish Russians from Ukrainians in modern day terms.

    As for your other points, the Whites were also well received in Kharkov and Crimea, among some other places. Skoro was thrown out for a number of reasons. His conservative land owning background wasn’t especially popular at the time. The Central Powers support of him included a provision that didn’t allow him to have much of an army. Once WW I ended, he was doomed. At the time of his demise, the Whites were primarily situated elsewhere.

    The Whites supported the continuity of Russia’s WW I alliance with the Entente. Petliura on the other hand betrayed the cause of Ukrainians in Galicia in order to protect his weak standing in the Russian Empire part of what became the Ukrainian SSR. Petliura never defeated the Whites in battles.

    Besides the chap in he CRA, I noted Igor Sikorsky as well as White grave sits and Ukrainian spoken among White ranks.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @AP
  302. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mikhail

    Should read as:

    Besides the chap in the CRA, I noted Igor Sikorsky as well as White grave sites and Ukrainian spoken among White ranks.

  303. Anon 2 says:

    Re: Poland’s Independence Day celebration on Nov. 11

    The Western media are surprised that Poland is celebrating its own
    Fourth of July. Apparently they are not aware that Poland ceased to exist
    for almost 180 years (1795-1918, 1939-1989) as an independent country,
    after 900 years of existence.

    The best coverage, as usual, was on Twitter by BasedPoland. The Independence
    March this year attracted about 150,00 patriots and conservatives, incl. women,
    children, and even “far-right” babies if you believe the Western media. But in
    the last few years the March in Warsaw has become such an iconic event that
    it’s now attracting dissidents from all over Europe, e.g., see the interview
    with Paul Joseph Watson in Warsaw. He looks amazed that something like
    this is possible in Europe. The red flares typically get a lot of coverage but
    all they are doing is imitating the colors of the Polish flag.

    For the Russian speakers, a young Russian woman who vlogs from Warsaw
    has a nice video. You can find it under Liolya Liolya “Den’ Nezavisimosti
    Polshi.” I mentioned her before – her Russian is extremely clear so even I
    can mostly understand it. One of the comments under her video mentioned
    that a group of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians marched alongside
    the Polonians. She answers Polish comments also in Polish, and
    her written Polish is excellent with very few mistakes. How did she learn
    Polish so well? Perhaps she has heavy Polish ancestry, and moved to
    Poland using Karta Polaka (A Polonian’s Card) to explore her roots.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Korenchkin
  304. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    The Armstrong example serves as an excellent underscore on how the Whites didn’t really distinguish Russians from Ukrainians in modern day terms.

    Armstrong was writing about 1940s. Discussion is about 1917.

    You are wrong about the topic at hand, so you change the subject.

    As for your other points, the Whites were also well received in Kharkov and Crimea,

    Places not populated by ethnic Ukrainians.

    You are wrong about the topic at hand, so you change the subject.

    Igor Sikorsky

    One guy, whose ancestors had become Russians.

    So, as expected – no evidence that there was any popularity for the Russian cause among Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Proof for pro-Russian support among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine would be voting for pro-Russian parties and/or fighting for the patriotic Russian Whites. As we have seen, Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties and they did not fight for Whites (no ethnic Ukrainian military units recruited from Russian Empire-ruled Ukraine, no prominent White leaders who ere ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians from Ukraine).

    :::::

    Anyways this is obliquely related to the topic at hand, and you’ve failed to support your claims, so I’ll leave it at that.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  305. anonlb says:
    @AP

    Seebia was not military dictatorship and Apis was not member of goverment but mere officer trained in Germany btw. Wikipedia article you cited is gross oversimplicatiion and based on AH false initial claims that “Narodna Odbrana” and not Young Bosnia is behind assasination, which was stated even in famous ultimatum and which is later debunked during trail of Gabrilo Princip and other Young Bosnia members. There is no single evidence of Apis involvement in asaasination or that he controlled Young Bosnia. After his execution serbian goverment itself spread more false claims about him because he was popular in serbian milirary.

  306. @Mr. Hack

    Not sure how iffen would be privy to such details, since I have never commented on my citizenship(s) or lack thereof.

    One may even “interpret” my ~yearly trips to London as a Russian visa renewal process.

    That said, I am not sure how holding multiple citizenships says much about nationalism or the lack thereof. Sure, it would be logically consistent for civnats who rail about muh constitution, LEGAL immigration, and other pieces of paper. It would appear to be much less important for those who truly do view those things as nothing more than useful pieces of paper.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Mr. Hack
  307. iffen says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    those who truly do view those things as nothing more than useful pieces of paper

    Looks like your time in Russia has infected you with Bolshevik thinking. Must be something in the water.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  308. @melanf

    I don’t have much time to comment, but I hope to answer all the other commenters over the weekend or next week.

    Japan’s attack on the US is pretty nonsensical too?
    There are hundreds of such examples, up to Georgia’s actions in 2008.

    You misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing that they weren’t intent on starting a war because the Central Powers were much weaker than the Triple Entente. My point was that an aggressive state, especially an aggressive state intent on attacking stronger opponents, will usually spend as much as possible (certainly more than non-aggressive states) on its military. I’m not going to look up the size of the Japanese military budget relative to its national income, but would you like to bet that they spent a lot on the military? I’m pretty sure it was something like 10% of their national income.

    Georgia in 2008 is a case in point. Here’s the Georgian military budget relative to its GDP over the years:

    http://militarybudget.org/georgia/

    You can see that they spent an astonishing 9.2% of their GDP on the military in 2007, and 8.5% in 20o8, the year they started the war.

    Looking at the numbers (in 1912, France and Russia something like 4.3-4.5% of their national incomes, Germany 3.8%, Austria-Hungary 2.6%) it’s pretty obvious that Germany was not planning to start a war, Austria-Hungary even less so. Austria-Hungary actually couldn’t attack Serbia immediately after June 28, because most soldiers were on harvest leave until July 25, so its army was incapable of offensive operations even against a non-mobilized Serbian army.

    Now, I’m pretty sure that France and Russia didn’t want war either. However, they had clear annexationist objectives well before the war (Alsace and Constantinople), both of which would’ve been greatly helped by a war. They were also clearly stronger, at least when their alliance with Britain (on which both of them were banking) is taken into account. So, their stance was more aggressive than that of the Central Powers. But even they didn’t actively want war (although some of their leaders behaved as if they did), just were willing to take higher risks. And of course even the German and Austrian-Hungarian leadership accepted the risk of a continental war.

    Oh, and Germany was not any more militaristic than, say, today’s Russia. Or the Russian Empire of 1914, for that matter. Calling pre-1914 Germany “militaristic” is highly misleading. Its military was under strict civilian control (contrary to what many textbooks still say), and it wasn’t significantly larger than that of other countries, like France or Russia, or the navy and army combined in Britain.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @iffen
    , @melanf
  309. Epigon says:
    @Anon 2

    But in the last few years the March in Warsaw has become such an iconic event that it’s now attracting dissidents from all over Europe, e.g., see the interview with Paul Joseph Watson in Warsaw.

    Dude….

    Also, Polish nationalism is kosher, and in line with Atlanticist long-term interests.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
  310. Epigon says:
    @reiner Tor

    I’m not going to look up the size of the Japanese military budget relative to its national income, but would you like to bet that they spent a lot on the military? I’m pretty sure it was something like 10% of their national income.

    This is a very good point, and a very good choice of a country.

    Japan was spending more than 30% of its national budget on Navy alone in 1917.
    However, this was due to the fact that Japan was severely understrength compared to Great Britain and USA, and actually worse than France before Nagatos were completed, and not due to Japanese expansion/aggressiveness at the time.

    They were trying to correct the qualitative and quantitative difference in a short time, while having a significantly weaker economy.
    To this end, they authorized 2 Nagato-class, 2 Tosa-class and 4 Amagi-class capital ships, with 4 Kii-class to follow, and further 4 heavy 18 inch battleships afterwards. This was immediately after they built 4 Kongo and 4 Fuso/Ise battleships in 1911-1917, preceeded by 2 Satsuma and 2 Kawachi dreadnoughts in 1905-1911.
    Ruinous spending combined with Washington naval treaty put an end to this.

    The Japanese government which authorized the largest % share of military expenditures in the national budget was not militaristic and not of the same ideology as expansionist post-1930 ones.
    Something to bear in mind.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  311. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    Its military was under strict civilian control (contrary to what many textbooks still say)

    Could you please back this up? I know that you are talking about WWI, but one of Overy’s points about WWII that I have picked up is the difference between military control of the air power in Germany as opposed to civilian control in Britain and France.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  312. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    You erroneously keep projecting your faultline onto me.

    Once again, the Armstrong example serves as an excellent underscore on how a Russian named entity didn’t distinguish a Ukrainian identity in its ranks, even though many Ukrainians were involved with it.

    The aforementioned Sikorsky is one of numerous examples – some of which I mentioned at this thread.

    As previously noted, elections aren’t always a good gauge of what the people actually prefer. We see how Petliura flopped, with the Whites excelling over him.

    As for the leadership of the Whites, it was actually multiethnic, as evidenced by the backgrounds of Denikin, Kolchak and Wrangel. On a related point you brought up, many armies the world over have been evident with a sizeable ethnic group/groups not which aren’t (comparatively speaking) as well represented in the higher ranks.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  313. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    You know Mickey, as other readers here have noted, it’s been several days now that you’ve been trying to make a case that a sizeable number(?) of Ukrainians fought for and believed in the White cause, but you’ve not once provided any figures to substantiate your claim? Please don’t drag this one out for another 4-5 day without citing any numbers. Wishful thinking, surmising and conjecture based on unnamed sources, headstones at a cemetary etc; is not any substitute for hard cold numbers.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Dreadilk
  314. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It would appear to be much less important for those who truly do view those things as nothing more than useful pieces of paper.

    Well, it’s these little pieces of paper that determine much about human rights, ability to live and prosper in various countries, working and tax issues, rights to vote etc; I’m sure that I’ve missed a few important attributes of citizenship, but I think that you get the point. Somebody with multiple citizenships can rightfully be perceived as somebody not willing to stand his ground in a country if things get out of hand and uncomfortable. Say, that somebody like you for instance, who publicly broadcasts his political points of view falls under the discerning eye of a new government that holds opposite views, things might turn out to be uncomfortable for such an individual. Journalists in Russia (more so in the past thankfully) have been known to be harrased for expressing the “wrong” points of view. If somebody like this has multiple pasports, such a person could be viewed as having a “safety net” beneath themselves. Personally (I’m no strong nationalist of any stripe) I have nothing againsst safety nets. 🙂

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  315. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    “Figures” can and have been be fudged. I deal with the realities as detailed – matter that some like yourself choose to duck.

  316. Mr. Hack says:

    I’m not “ducking” anything, I’m just trying to get to the truth of the matter. Figures are ususally based on something and are a good starting point that can be scrutinized, more so than plain hearsay. Certainly, if there was a “large” presence of Ukrainians within the Whites army, some historian, somewhere would have written about this? I tell you what, I do own a copy of Armstrong’s book within my library, and I’ll try to see if he wrote anything about this, this weekend. I’m getting ready to go to work right now,and don’t have the time to do any research right now. Okay?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  317. @Mr. Hack

    This is why everyone hates Ukranians

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @AP
  318. @Anon 2

    I was about to Agree till I read:
    >Paul Joseph Watson
    >Dissident
    >Nationalist

    PJW should’ve been deported and barred from going past Sczeczin-Trieste line

    • Replies: @Anon 2
  319. @Fluctuarius

    I don’t think that Andrei is a communist, though.

  320. Mr. Hack says:
    @Korenchkin

    Not following? I’m an American, not a Ukrainian. Do you hate Ukrainians because they stand up for their own country, language & culture and after centuries of opression are opposed to Russian imperialism that has unsuccessfully tried to stamp them out as a separate nationality?

    • Troll: Mikhail
    • Replies: @iffen
  321. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Do you hate Ukrainians because they stand up for their own country, language & culture and after centuries of opression are opposed to Russian imperialism that has unsuccessfully tried to stamp them out as a separate nationality?

    Maybe if the Ukrainians would stop jumping into the sheets with every anti-Russian pimp that comes along they could get along better with the Russkies.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Matra
    , @Mikhail
  322. Dreadilk says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Ukraine does not exist. Whites and reds had “Ukranians” in their ranks. But in reality everyone involved was Russian because Ukraine is fake and gay.

    • Troll: Mr. Hack
  323. @Mikhail

    But Ukrainian is MUCH closer to the Russian language, in vocabulary and structure, than Gaelic is to English.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Philip Owen
  324. Mr. Hack says:
    @iffen

    Oh, I get it, if they do everything their Big Brother from the north demands of them, including trading in their own language and culture for their’s, everything will turn out Kha-ra-sho? LOL with that BS!

    • Replies: @iffen
  325. @Mr. Hack

    It can also be a prudent, responsible move to ensure that one’s children have the ready option to flee to safety in another country if the home country collapses or becomes systematically unsafe for their particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. Second passport affords that fallback option / escape route.

    AK is entitled to think about the options that his children will have someday.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
  326. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Oh, I get it, if they do everything their Big Brother from the north demands of them

    No, just use a little common sense. If you are adjacent to a superpower, you need to figure out how to survive without constantly ticking them off. In addition to the geographic reality, there are many Russians in parts of Ukraine and that makes it even more important for Ukraine to stop trying to poke the Bear in the eye.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @AP
  327. Mr. Hack says:
    @iffen

    When Russia starts to act as a superpower, perhaps it will be treated as one, A country with a GDP comparable to Italy or Portugal is far from being a “superpower”.

    • Replies: @iffen
  328. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    I see.

    If you are representative of Ukrainian thinking, I think that I understand part of the problem.

  329. Matra says:
    @iffen

    Being up on a rope without a net is kind of foolish don’t you think? Given what little power individuals have to change things or prevent the deterioration of their country’s situation it is wise to have as many citizenships as possible.

    BTW I think AK said he kept his British citizenship.

  330. Matra says:
    @iffen

    Ukraine’s role in the Trump impeachment hearings may be applauded by Democrats and neocon scum like David Frum but they are well on their way to making support for Ukraine a partisan issue. I think this will come back to bite them. Ukrainians just don’t have the smarts of the Israel Firsters.

    • Replies: @AP
  331. AP says:
    @Matra

    Ukraine’s role in the Trump impeachment hearings may be applauded by Democrats and neocon scum like David Frum but they are well on their way to making support for Ukraine a partisan issue.

    I don’t think Ukraine chose to be placed in the middle of this mess.

  332. AP says:
    @iffen

    If you are adjacent to a superpower, you need to figure out how to survive without constantly ticking them off.

    The problem for Ukraine is that it has no choice – its very existence “ticks them off.” As can be seen by comments of Russian nationalists on this blog.

    Bear isn’t being poked in the eye. It is going after prey.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
  333. AP says:
    @Korenchkin

    As a Serb you are the last person to speak about someone being hated.

  334. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Lol thanks Anatoly, I am honoured that this is Gerard’s actual Twitter you edited into my comment.

    We at least need a webhook on the side of the page, which updates automatically with any comments Gerard posts on other platforms.

    Btw I don’t think Gerard dislikes you. He is probably just because angry if you have banned him.

    • Replies: @iffen
  335. Dmitry says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Gerard is the most sane person here. Also he is an expert in a lot of areas, if you ever have asked him about them, from football, Jazz music, and ballet – I honestly would not be surprised if he knows 5 languages and is studying Ancient Indian history.

    That said, he can surely return here if he wants by changing the server on his VPN, like any normal person.

  336. Dmitry says:
    @AP

    A few people on a political blog, is not representative.

    Most people will support Ukraine, to the extent they can re-attain a more sane and normal political culture. If Ukraine can develop economically in the next years, experience some stability and peace, it will also start to become more moderate politically.

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
  337. iffen says:
    @Dmitry

    The problem for Ukraine is that it has no choice

    Sure it did. Even from here with limited knowledge, I can see that it was stupid to try to get into NATO. Since The Ukraine doesn’t seem to have a George Washington at hand, I can only conclude that their politicians were like policticians everywhere and only saw the possibilities of immense corruption.

  338. Dmitry says:
    @iffen

    What is the relation of American passports, and “Bolshevik thinking”.

    I do not need to remind you, of the “such open attitudes” of Bolsheviks, after they attained power, to citizens travelling for tourism to America, let alone to working there in a normal job.

    • Replies: @iffen
  339. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Offhand, I believe that Armstrong wrote more than just one book. The one in question deals with Vlasov. Come to think of it, Armstrong might’ve written more than one book mentioning him.

    No one here has successfully refuted that numbers can be fudged. In addition, a categorical breakdown of a given stat just might not be available. That latter point doesn’t refute what I’ve communicated. Rather, it supports it. On the particular specific I mention, there’re numerous variables which (in conjunction with basic common sense) support my fact based comments on the matters at issue.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  340. Mikhail says: • Website
    @iffen

    Maybe if the Ukrainians would stop jumping into the sheets with every anti-Russian pimp that comes along they could get along better with the Russkies.

    Some Ukrainians as opposed to all. The politically incorrect Ukes get muted.

  341. Mikhail says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter

    That truth doesn’t negate my point on comparing English dominated Britain’s linguistic encroachment on Ireland when compared to the matter of language in Ukraine relative to Russia.

    Same goes for Poland as well.

  342. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    The problem for Ukraine is that it has no choice – its very existence “ticks them off.” As can be seen by comments of Russian nationalists on this blog.

    The very existence of pro-Russian sentiment in the former Ukrainian SSR ticks off svidos, other Russia haters, as well as Western situated neocons and neolibs.

    • Agree: Dreadilk
  343. @RadicalCenter

    Gaelic and English are compltely different Indo-European language groups. Ukrainian and Russian are both East Slavic, to state tehobvious.

  344. Anon 2 says:
    @Epigon

    Re: Polish nationalism is kosher

    That would be news to the apparatchiks in Brussels.
    Poland and Hungary have been on the receiving end of a barrage
    of criticism for many years now.

  345. Anon 2 says:
    @Korenchkin

    Obviously, big events like the Independence March in Warsaw attract all sorts
    of people, some of whom might not pass the exacting standards of the readers
    of this blog

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  346. @Mr. XYZ

    Good points.

    Still wouldn’t take much to tip Latvia and Estonia to a Russian majority and culture given those countries’ tiny populations, high and rising average and median ages, and failure to reproduce at anywhere near replacement level.

    Latvia’s population has declined every year for thirty consecutive years, with no end in sight.
    2.66 million, 1990
    2.52 million, 1995
    2.38 million, 2000
    2.25 million, 2005
    2.12 million, 2010
    1.997 million, 2015
    1.906 million, 2019

    Latvia’s average age is 43, their total fertility rate is only 1.5, and they are losing a net 22,000 to 25,000 every year. Just fifteen years from now, Latvia could be down to 1.5 or even 1.4 million with an average age of at least 45. And the rate of decrease is likely to accelerate soon because the number of Latvian women of childbearing age is declining.

    Latvia’s territory will belong to someone, but seemingly it won’t be Latvians after a few more generations. Personally I’d rather it be colonized by Russia instead of by the hordes that will otherwise spill over from the emerging Islamic/African Europe (largely Muslim Arabs, Turks, Africans, etc.), China, or some such alternative.

    Russia may not have enough population to hold its own current vast territory in time. But if the place is emptying out as the people die off, it would take only half a million Russians to start build a Russified province out of the former Latvia. Perhaps just a few hundred thousand Russians, especially if they can be families incentivized to have multiple children and restore vitality and hope to the place.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    , @Dmitry
    , @mikemikev
  347. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    You misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing that they weren’t intent on starting a war because the Central Powers were much weaker than the Triple Entente. My point was that an aggressive state, especially an aggressive state intent on attacking stronger opponents, will usually spend as much as possible (certainly more than non-aggressive states) on its military. …Looking at the numbers (in 1912, France and Russia something like 4.3-4.5% of their national incomes, Germany 3.8%, Austria-Hungary 2.6%) it’s pretty obvious that Germany was not planning to start a war,

    This argument is irrelevant in this case. There are many examples when a state that has a smaller share of GDP on the army, attacked another state (which has a more militarized GDP). For example, America attacked Iraq, France attacked Libya, etc.

    4.3-4.5% of Russia-France against Germany 3.8% (despite the fact that Germany had a much more powerful army/Navy, and a much more powerful economy) is too small a difference to draw conclusions.

    Of course Germany in 1912 had no plans to start a war in 1914. Similarly, Russia and France in 1912 had no plans to start a war in 1914. But when the assassination of Ferdinand took place, the German military saw an excellent opportunity to start (and win) the war under favorable conditions. The rest is known.

    • Agree: anonlb
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @reiner Tor
  348. @Anon 2

    The standards aren’t that exacting. I mean, you and I are here.

  349. @RadicalCenter

    Russia may not have enough population to hold its own current vast territory in time

    Russia could hold basically the same territory during Peter the Great, when the fastest method of communication was a horse and with half the current population

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @RadicalCenter
  350. melanf says:
    @Korenchkin

    Russia could hold basically the same territory during Peter the Great, when the fastest method of communication was a horse and with half the current population

    The total population of the Russian Kingdom / Empire under Peter the great was 10 times less than the population of Russia today. At the beginning of the reign of Peter the population of Russia was about 11 million people, at the end of the reign of about 15 million people. Officially, the population of Russia today is 146.7 million people, including unaccounted migrants (permanently living in Russia) about 150 million.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  351. @Epigon

    I don’t really know data about Japan, but I found data showing that in 1936, some 48% of their budget went to military expenditure. This is of course a meaningless number, because its size relative to GDP will depend on the size of the budget. Japan in 1917 had barely begun to industrialize, I once read the factoid that in 1913 or 1914 Hungary’s manufacturing output was roughly the same size as that of Japan. Industrial economies are capable of sustaining much higher levels of government spending (on defense or anything else), in fact, it seems to be the pattern that the more industrialized, more developed countries will have a larger budget relative to GDP.

    Here you can find a chart, which will show that Japan’s military spending was around 4% of GDP, i.e. in line with that of the other great powers, but in the mid-1930s it jumped to around 5.5-6%, and then after 1937 it grew well over 10% (hovering around 25-30% 1939-41, and jumping still higher later), though of course after 1937 Japan already started waging a war, so the numbers are not really comparable. Still, it’s an interesting coincidence that while its military spending was not very remarkable, it jumped to nearly 6% of GDP in 1903, the year before attacking Russia.

    https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending

    But you still seem to be missing my point. While it’s probably true that a country may have very high levels of military spending despite not harboring aggressive intentions, the opposite doesn’t seem to be true: a country which is planning to wage aggressive wars against strong opponents will usually have a high level of military spending. I’m still waiting for a counterexample. Written history is very long, and there are many countries, so maybe there are counterexamples, but the ones you guys gave me (Japan 1941 and Georgia 2008) both had exceptionally high levels of military spending.

    So, while a high military spending might not prove aggressive intentions, low military spending seems to be a relatively strong indication of a lack of such intentions.

    By the way, obviously Germany had a lot to fear from the Franco-Russian alliance, which had a larger economy than even the combined economies of Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the fact that the British Empire (considered to be basically a superpower at the time, not without a justification) had a loose alliance of sorts with Russia and a closer cooperation with France certainly gave pause to German strategists. The Germans understood that any war would be a gamble for them, because if they don’t win quickly, they would probably not win at all.

    So while you keep claiming that Russian spending was essentially defensive in nature, the same could be said of the Germans with even more justification.

    Anyway, I’m not really claiming that Russia was super-aggressive (their military spending was not outlandishly high), what I’m claiming is that it’s nonsense to say that Germany was planning a war of aggression against the combined might of France and Russia.

  352. Seraphim says:
    @melanf

    What were really the ‘favorable conditions’ to start (and win) a war, if not the perception that the adversary is weaker than you?
    ‘Of course’ Germany planed to attack Russia before she could complete her “Great Programme for Strengthening the Army” (“Bol’shaia programma po usileniiu armii”) proposed in November 1912 but approved only in October 1913 and planed to be achieved in four years. The ‘informal’ decision was made at the Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912, alarmed by the successes of Serbia in the First Balcanic War. The Kaiser suggested that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia immediately, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too”. It was only the position of Admiral Tirpitz who asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years” because the Navy was not ready for a general war that would include Britain as an opponent.
    What derailed the success of the plan was the very declaration of war by Germany which provoked the defection of Italy and Rumania who invoked the fact that the Triple Alliance was a defensive pact and the illusions of the Kaiser that Britain would stay out of the war. Had Italy and Rumania entered the war in August 1914, the war would have been over in weeks.

  353. @iffen

    Soldiers played a very small role during the July Crisis, for example Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke was on vacation until late July.

    On August 1, hoping for British neutrality, the Kaiser ordered Moltke to immediately stop the advance to Belgium and France. Moltke hysterically explained to him that it was impossible (it was true; the German plans were about a move against France, it would’ve caused chaos to try to suddenly move all the troops to the east; meanwhile, France started mobilization, which meant that a French attack would’ve been imminent in such a scenario), but the Kaiser told him that he, as commander-in-chief, had the authority to order it, and if he orders it, then it will be possible. Moltke burst into tears (it’s possible that he had a stroke), but they had to stop the troops for a day. On the next day, it turned out that either the British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey withdrew what he said the previous day, or that he was misunderstood by the German ambassador; in any event, the Germans resumed the movement of troops the following day, but of course they lost a day in the meantime.

    The soldiers had no power to override the Kaiser, and it was the civilians who decided policy until the declaration of war, and even beyond.

  354. @melanf

    There are many examples when a state that has a smaller share of GDP on the army, attacked another state (which has a more militarized GDP). For example, America attacked Iraq, France attacked Libya, etc.

    The US also attacked Grenada, and maybe Grenada’s defense budget was 10% of its GDP. (I don’t know, we need to investigate, to get another counterexample…)

    Look, these were not nearly peer opponents. These were small countries, like the Khanate of Kokand, not peer or near peer opponents.

    the fact that Germany had a much more powerful army/Navy, and a much more powerful economy

    Its army was smaller than the Russian army (not to mention the addition of France), their only hope was that Russian mobilization would be slow. Which is why they became so frightened when Russia declared (clandestinely, as it was) full mobilization on July 30. They couldn’t wait, because waiting would’ve ensured their loss, their only hope was to defeat France before the Russian troops arrived on their border.

    You are also overestimating the German economy. The Triple Entente ruled literally half the surface of the Earth, their economies combined were correspondingly much larger. Even excluding the British Empire, the French and Russian Empires combined exceeded that of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/the-economic-factors-that-shaped-the-first-world-war/

    German military saw an excellent opportunity to start (and win) the war under favorable conditions

    They thought that conditions for war would only deteriorate over the next years, but they also were cognizant of the fact that the conditions kept deteriorating. If Germany wanted to just destroy France (or Russia), they could’ve attacked 1905-7, when Russia was in turmoil. By 1914, conditions had deteriorated considerably, and they would deteriorate further.

    On July 28, Moltke composed a memorandum entitled “Assessment of the Political Situation” for the Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. In it, he wrote that the war “will annihilate for decades the civilization of almost all Europe.” He also wrote about “the mutual butchery of the civilized nations of Europe.” Does it sound like someone clamoring for a major war?

    Truth is, both the Entente and the Central Powers expected the other side to back down. In late July Bethmann-Hollweg tried to stop the Austrians, when it became clear to him that the Russians won’t back down. But it was too late. So neither side really wanted a large continental war between the two blocs. But, and it’s a crucial difference, both Russia and France had territorial designs on the Central Powers (Galicia and Alsace, at a minimum; Russia also wanted to give territories to its client states Serbia and Romania), so they certainly had more motivation for a continental war. (Otherwise how could they hope to get those areas? Russian political leadership also increasingly came around to the view that Constantinople could only be captured in the aftermath of a larger conflagration, because otherwise even their Entente allies would oppose it.)

    It was certainly a horrible mistake for Austria-Hungary to start a war against Serbia. (I’m pretty sure the Monarchy could’ve and would’ve survived without a war for far longer.) It was also a horrible mistake for Germany to give the Austrians free hand (in the expectation that the Russians would leave Serbia in the lurch anyway).

    But it was also a horrible mistake for Russia to support Serbia. (The Serb leadership was close to accepting the Austrian ultimatum unconditionally, but then they heard of the Russian measures to prepare for mobilization, and that gave them the strength to reject it, in a masterfully written reply. If the Serb commenters here want to be proud of something, they could certainly be proud of the diplomatic skills of their 1914 leadership.)

    There is also one crucial difference. While the Central Powers accepted the risk of a general war (thinking that if the French and Russians were both willing to go to war for the regicidal regime of Serbia, then they were just looking for a pretext), they accepted it because they feared that at a later date they’d be destroyed. They feared for their very existence. To be sure, they also had some plans to increase their influence (Serbia was to become some sort of Habsburg vassal, while Romania would be turned back on the Central Powers’ side, so a kind of total Habsburg/German Balkan zone of influence), and of course, as the war progressed, war aims became ever more expansive for both sides. (For example in 1914 there were no concrete plans to install vassals in Prague and Budapest, but later on such things were thought about extensively – “once the war is won.”) On the other hand, the French and the Russians accepted the risk of war merely because they thought it was a favorable opportunity to increase the size and power of their countries. So that was more aggressive. Unlike German military documents, which deal extensively with the existential risks faced by Germany, there was never a question of Russia just being annihilated. It was always understood that it was too big for that. France also always understood that Germany never wanted to attack it unprovoked.

    • Replies: @melanf
    , @Seraphim
  355. iffen says:
    @Dmitry

    What is the relation of American passports, and “Bolshevik thinking”.

    AK states, “those who truly do view those things as nothing more than useful pieces of paper.”
    That is the view of the Bolsheviks. They viewed constitutions, parliaments, declarations of the rights of men, etc. as instruments to be used by Bolsheviks to obtain power, not as validations. Bolshevikism justified itself; it needed no external ratifications, no legalities.

    Now, AK dismissively states that only us pitiful civic nationists need such trappings for legitimacy. His nationalism is of and within itself and needs no citizenship papers.

    • Agree: utu
  356. @Anatoly Karlin

    Russia couldn’t afford to station a million troops in Eastern Europe, so I don’t think it was possible to keep the whole area as an exclusive zone of Russian influence. To give you an example, let’s consider three Balkan states, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Serbia was for a long time a client state of Austria, but then nationalist aspirations brought it in Russia’s orbit. Bulgaria had long been a Russian client state, but it was too independent minded (I think the episode when they tried to take Constantinople played some role here, even though the Bulgarians failed miserably), so Russia eventually chose to support Serbia. It had the additional benefit of wooing Romania into Russia’s orbit (Sazonov explicitly told the Romanians that Russia wouldn’t care if they attacked Bulgaria), but at the price of losing Bulgaria. So now Bulgaria became a German/Habsburg ally, while Serbia and Romania were Russian allies. (Coincidentally, this is the constellation which scared Austrian planners shitless. Russia had organized the First Balkan War and initiated the alliance of two of its client states, Serbia and Bulgaria, and then these small countries managed to destroy Ottoman rule in the Balkan. Austrian planners envisaged a situation where the Romanians and Serbs attacked it, while Russia kept much of the Austrian army in the north by mobilization – something which had happened during the Balkan Wars. So they wanted to get out of this situation where both of their neighbors were Russian clients.)

    Another example is Hungary. Romanian troops entered Budapest in August 1919, but after they left, the very small National Army of Admiral Horthy took the country for itself. (Horthy entered Budapest exactly one hundred years ago, on November 16, 1919.) After that, the Hungarian elite was united in the goal of trying to somehow create a political situation (or grab the opportunity if it arrived) where they could overturn the Treaty of Trianon. Hungary was pretty independent, and willing to accept the friendship of anyone who was willing to promise a change of borders. So, Mussolini, and later Hitler. I don’t think the situation would’ve been different among the loser countries. Each country which was a loser would’ve looked for the enemies of Russia.

    I’m pretty sure that such dynamics would’ve prevented Russia from keeping the whole area permanently under its thumb. Maybe many of those countries, but certainly not the whole area.

  357. @iffen

    They viewed constitutions, parliaments, declarations of the rights of men, etc. as instruments to be used by Bolsheviks to obtain power, not as validations. Bolshevikism justified itself; it needed no external ratifications, no legalities.

    Do you seriously believe that the Bolsheviks are the only group ever in world history that had such an attitude towards those things?

    Honestly, you sound like you are some American Boomer cuckservative. You may as well have replaced “Bolsheviks” with the “reds” or some other Murican boomerism …

    Now, AK dismissively states that only us pitiful civic nationists need such trappings for legitimacy. His nationalism is of and within itself and needs no citizenship papers.

    The part in bold explains everything that is wrong with you lol.

    How can you not understand the fact that nationalism isn’t an abstract concept? Karlin’s nationalism is “of and within itself” because it is based upon ethnicity, race and other concrete facts and literal markers of identity (ie, Karlin is an ethnic Russian first and foremost, regardless of the legal papers given to him by different governments). It most certainly “needs no citizenship papers” because whether some government grants you citizenship papers does not truly determine what your ethnicity, race and etc. really are.

    Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    That said, I am not sure how holding multiple citizenships says much about nationalism or the lack thereof. Sure, it would be logically consistent for civnats who rail about muh constitution, LEGAL immigration, and other pieces of paper.

    I’ll re-quote Karlin here since it seems you fall for this cucked mentality …

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @AP
  358. Dreadilk says:
    @Dmitry

    Edit: this was meant as a reply to AP. Something glitched.

    You mean we reject your fake and gay narrative. Ukraine as you envision it is an abomination. Good luck with trying to make it a reality. You were not able to achieve that over the entire history of that region. I am sure the future will break the trend.

    Here is a hint your view is not dominant in Ukraine it self. If you cut away a Donbas sized chunk you might be able to do it. I will welcome that btw.

    • Replies: @AP
  359. iffen says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    As it happens, I am an American Boomer, but I am not a cuckservative. I am neither a cuck nor a conservative. Think what you will.

    You don’t seem all that bright as you mostly quote what I have written back to me without effect.

    See if you can grasp this: I reject this blood and soil, ethnicity, race or religion nationalism for myself and my country. You, AK and others are free to choose what you want and I am free to reject it.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  360. AP says:
    @Dreadilk

    Ukraine as you envision it is an abomination.

    According to a loser who lives in New York and hates it so.

    Good luck with trying to make it a reality. You were not able to achieve that over the entire history of that region.

    Ukraine is in the unfortunate situation of being next to a huge, hostile power. The alternative – capitulation, and annexation, is not good. It cost 3 million starved peasants last time. So Ukraine will keep trying to break free. This is probably the best chance.

    Poland was in a similar situation for 150+ years but has now broken out, more or less.

    If you cut away a Donbas sized chunk you might be able to do it.

    Nah, removing Donbas itself was enough. Ukraine is finally moving forward. This is why Putin, a clever statesman, is so desperate to shove Donbas back into Ukraine on his terms.

  361. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    Germany army was smaller than the Russian army

    The German army was stronger than the combined forces of Russia and France, and you know it well. The number of soldiers here does not play a special role – in the army of Nicholas II soldiers and officers (in the bulk) were good for nothing. The French army was also inferior in quality to the German.

    You are also overestimating the German economy. The Triple Entente ruled literally half the surface of the Earth, their economies combined were correspondingly much larger. Even excluding the British Empire, the French and Russian Empires combined exceeded that of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

    That’s not so

    Iron smelting 1913 millions of tons
    Russia 4,635
    Austria-Hungary 3,076
    Germany 16,632
    France 5,207
    United Kingdom 10,425

    Steelmaking 1913 million tons
    Russia 4,869
    Austria-Hungary 3,912
    Germany 17,601
    France 4,687
    United Kingdom 7,787

    The Serb leadership was close to accepting the Austrian ultimatum unconditionally, but then they heard of the Russian measures to prepare for mobilization, and that gave them the strength to reject it

    The Serbs accepted Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner), rejecting only one point in order to “save face”. Austria could be satisfied with this, and win a diplomatic victory, deeply humiliating Serbia. Instead of this, using the rejected clause as a pretext, Germany / Austria started the war because they wanted to start the war (because they thought it was a very good chance, and this chance should not be missed).

    they (Germany/Austria) accepted (war) it because they feared that at a later date they’d be destroyed

    on this Germany/Austria began war, assuming win such a victory over Russia and France to forever provide its (German world) superiority.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @reiner Tor
    , @reiner Tor
  362. AP says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    How can you not understand the fact that nationalism isn’t an abstract concept? Karlin’s nationalism is “of and within itself” because it is based upon ethnicity, race and other concrete facts and literal markers of identity

    Iffen is an American. New World countries such as America, Canada, Brazil, Aergentna, Australia, etc. while based on certain ethnic “building blocks” (in the case of the USA, mostly Anglo and to a lesser extent Scotch-Irish Protestant culture) are largely idea-based. So in the USA Italians, Irish, Slavs were all assimilated into the Anglo Protestant culture.

    Nationalism itself is also abstract, as was implied even by you in your comment about “fake” Albania. It was largely a product of Romanticism, a new idea opposed to traditional conservatism (we see this in central Europe in the conflict between German and Slavic nationalisms vs. Hapsburg – but it also existed in Russia in tghe early 19th century, before the tsars decided to try to coopt russian nationalism that they had previously opposed).

    • LOL: Dreadilk
  363. iffen says:
    @AP

    before the tsars decided to try to coopt russian nationalism that they had previously opposed).

    Nationalism is just one more way that elites can manipulate the proles. With the rise of literacy, many politicos saw that they could also use nationalism as a political weapon. These current nationalists are just trying to cash in on that emotion. I don’t object to “normal” nationalism but it has frequently gotten out of hand, so it is understandable why it makes many people uneasy. Nationalisms are at root incommensurable with each other. It gets out of hand very quickly, just look at the below the belt punch that AK delivered to GR over their respective nationalisms.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @AP
  364. AP says:
    @melanf

    The German army was stronger than the combined forces of Russia and France, and you know it well. The number of soldiers here does not play a special role – in the army of Nicholas II soldiers and officers (in the bulk) were good for nothing.

    They were good enough to defeat the Ottomans and grab a lot fo territory from them (something the British failed to do at Gallipoli) and Austria-Hungary.

    The Serbs accepted Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner), rejecting only one point

    Which means that they did not accept the ultimatum.

  365. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    Here, as promised, John A Armstrong, “Ukrainian Nationalism” Third Edition, pg. 7:

    “To be sure, many persons in the Ukraine who desired the establihment of a firm authority supported the conservative military commands of Deniken and Wrangel, the White generals. Before the latter became prominent, however, the equally conservative authority of the Hetman attracted the support of a considerable section of the upper classes of the tsarist society, including a number of military officers. Once they had accepted the idea of an independent Ukraine, several of the officers, like General Vsevolod Petriv and Michael Omelianovych-Pavlenko, remained adherents of the nationalist Ukrainian regime which succeeded Skoropadskyj, and were of valuable assisance becuase of their professsional skill.”

    So the takeaway from this that I get is that there were indeed “many persons in Ukraine” who supported the Whites, but we still don’t know just how many (even in round numbers or percentages), from what regions, and it appears that these same folks were crossing over to the more Ukrainian based Skoropadsky regime, and later to the uber nationalist (“svido leaning”) Petliura one. My 87 year old roomate’s parents partook in this history, his father being an ardent supporter of Skoropadsky whereas his mother was the personal secretary of Evhen Konovalets when he was occupying Bila Tserkva, and later a supporter of Petliura. Very confusing times, to be sure.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  366. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    BTW, I’m about 20% (having to take time out for a new book on Reconstruction in the South) into Bombers and the Bombed, and to say that my eyes are being opened doesn’t even come close to being descriptive.

    Is that the American or the British edition? Apparently the American edition only contains half of the original book.

    Either way it’s definitely going on my shopping list.

  367. utu says:
    @iffen

    “It gets out of hand very quickly, just look at the below the belt punch that AK delivered to GR over their respective nationalisms.” – Good point but in this case it is not the fault of nationalism. It is not because AK is nationalist but because AK is AK as a persona or a character from the pseudo-reality game he invented for himself.

    • Troll: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  368. Mr. Hack says:
    @utu

    I’ve echoed similar sentiments about Karlin’s self identification of being a Russian nationalist too earlier within this thread:

    I’ve always felt that he went way too far in portraying himself as a hardcore Russian nationalist anyway

    Pointing out that it’s difficult for me to fathom somebody who has such strong interests in transhumanism/futurism to also be an adherent of nationalism that for the most part seems to be giving way to a more international form of globalism. I realize that the vast majority of UNZ readers are of some stripe of “alt-right” persuasion and are loathe to hear such opinions, but it does seem to me to be a strong current of future human development. How many young people in the world today travel to other countries to study, and then possibly intermarry with a “foreigner”, and stay put in their new country, comfortably assimilating within? Giant international business conglomerates are also working towards eradicating ethnic and national borders too. You can argue whether this is good or bad, but you can’t argue that these sorts of trends are accelerating.

  369. AP says:
    @iffen

    Nationalism is just one more way that elites can manipulate the proles. With the rise of literacy, many politicos saw that they could also use nationalism as a political weapon.

    Agreed. This reminds me of a very funny passage by Celine that I’ve reposted before:

    It’s the philosophers . . . another point to look out for while we’re at it … who first started giving the people ideas . . , when all they’d known up until then was the catechism! They began, so they proclaimed, to educate the people . . . Ah! What truths they had to reveal! Beautiful! brilliant! unprecedented truths! And the people were dazzled! That’s it! they said. That’s the stuff! Let’s go and die for it! The people are always dying to die! That’s the way they are! ‘Long live Diderot!’ they yelled. And ‘Long live Voltaire!’ ….And long live everybody! Those guys at least don’t let the beloved people molder in ignorance and fetishism! They show the people the roads of Freedom! Emancipation! Things went fast after that! First teach everybody to read the papers! That’s the way to salvation! Hurry hurry! No more illiterates! We don’t need them anymore! Nothing but citizen-soldiers! Who vote! Who read! And who fight! And who march! And send kisses from the front! In no time the people were good and ripe! The enthusiasm of the liberated has to be good for something, doesn’t it? Danton wasn’t eloquent for the hell of it. With a few phrases, so rousing that we can still hear them today, he had the people mobilized before you could say fiddlesticks! That was when the first battalions of emancipated maniacs marched off! … the first voting, flagmatic suckers that Dumouriez led away to get themselves drilled full of holes in Flanders!… The free-gratis soldier . . . was something really new … So new that when Goethe arrived in Valmy… he was flabbergasted. At the sight of those ragged, impassioned cohorts, who had come of their own free will to get themselves disemboweled by the King of Prussia in defense of a patriotic fiction no one had ever heard of, Goethe realized that he still had much to learn. This day,’ he declaimed grandiloquently as befitted the habits of his genius, ‘marks the beginning of a new era!’ He could say that again! The system proved successful . . . pretty soon they were mass-producing heroes, and in the end, the system was so well perfected that they cost practically nothing. Everyone was delighted. Bismarck, the two Napoleons, Barrès, Elsa the Horsewoman. The religion of the flag promptly replaced the cult of heaven, an old cloud which had already been deflated by the Reformation and reduced to a network of episcopal money boxes. In olden times the fanatical fashion was: ‘Long live Jesus! Burn the heretics!’ . . . But heretics, after all, were few and voluntary . . . Whereas today vast hordes of men are fired with aim and purpose by cries of: ‘Hang the limp turnips! The juiceless lemons! The innocent readers! By the millions, eyes right!’ … Let whole legions of them perish, turn into smidgens, bleed, smolder in acid—and all that to make the Patrie more beloved, more fair, and more joyful! ”

  370. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    but you can’t argue that these sorts of trends are accelerating.

    The trend line is clear, but there are many jagged points. We could easily regress for two or three hundred years, and if history is a guide, it is very likely.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  371. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Philip Owen

    A violent Baltic insurgency is, of course, very possible. That said, though, the Russian population advantage over Latvia and Estonia is several times greater than Britain’s population advantage over Ireland. That, and the fact that it might be harder to clearly and neatly divide Latvia and Estonia than it was to divide Ireland–and even Ireland’s division resulted in decades of terrorism and bloodletting in real life.

  372. Mr. Hack says:
    @iffen

    So, is this “regression” good or back in your opinion? Or, would you like to see it continue at today’s pace, or even accelerate?…

    • Replies: @iffen
  373. @iffen

    I would say this is the opposite of Bolshevism, which in its mature form glorified and sacralized the Bureaucracy.

    Paper-worship would have you thinking a dog born in a stable is a horse, to take an example relevant to modern Western issues that are often discussed on this website.

    In the Russian context, paper-worship means privileging Tajiks over Russians in the Ukraine because the former are in an economic association with Russia while the latter have no relevant papers. That is how the bureaucracy is supposed to work, but it is obviously anathema to any non-cucked nationalism.

    Solzhenitsyn was stripped of his Soviet passport, yet he remained far more Russian than any of the geriatric cretins running the USSR.

    Practically, the only advantage to a Russian nationalist of getting rid of foreign citizenships is as a (costly) signal of commitment, and not even to the Russian as such, but to the bureaucracy that runs the Russian Federation. So, pretty stupid.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @iffen
  374. @iffen

    In the UK, the Welsh Nationalist Party has just provoked controversy with a party political broadcast featuring an Arab woman (also a well known genetic scientist) in a Niqab extolling the virtues of Welsh civic society and the opportunities for an independent Wales to rejoin the EU scientific community, leaving the English to their Brexit.

    • Replies: @iffen
  375. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    If Romania was a ‘client state’ before 1914, it was of KuK and Germany. Not only that she had a Hohenzollern for a King , embarrassingly pro-German and rabidly anti-Russian PMs, but she was bound to the Central Powers by the secret treaty of 1883 (year when the League of the Three Emperors started to collapse) which was squarely aimed at Russia. If any territories were ‘promised’ to Romania by a ‘patron’ state, it certainly was Basarabia and Bulgaria (Carol I was offered the crown of Bulgaria after the dethronement of Alexander of Battenberg, idea opposed by the Russians). It was not therefore a question of ‘turning back’ Romania to the Central Powers in 1914, but preventing it to turn to the Russians.
    In actual fact Carol I was installed on the throne of (not yet) Romania, after the coup-d’etat which dethroned Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza (the first ‘democratically’ elected Romanian Prince of the United Molova and Valahia), in order to prevent the installation of a Russian candidate in the person of Sergei Maximilianovich von Leuchtenberg-Beauharnais (Romanovski), the grand son of Tsar Nicholas I and nephew of Napoleon III.
    It is true that the anti-Austrian, anti-Hungarian and anti-German public sentiment in Romania was stronger than the anti-Russian, desiring the unification of all Romanians (idea supported by Russia since Catherine the Great). I know how hard is for Hungarians to admit that the Ardeal’s Union with the Regat was a aspiration of the Romanian population and not a ‘gift’ of the Ruffians to the stinky Olahs.
    BTW the idea that Russia risked the war because she was salivating for Galicia is laughable.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  376. @AP

    It wasn’t ticking off many Russian nationalists (let alone Russian normies) in 2010-13, or even before 2014.

    Proof: My own commentary up to that point.

    • Replies: @AP
  377. @Mr. Hack

    There are liberal nationalists, national democrats, conservative nationalists (most common in most countries), Orthodox/Catholic nationalists, and even “National Bolsheviks.”

    Why would national futurism or national cosmism be uniquely weird?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  378. @utu

    No, the problem is that you are some weird Visegrad cuck with a particular hard-on for German nationalism.

    They failed, which you are very sorry about (as is evident from your commentary on Nazi Germany) and take out of your frustrations on Russia.

  379. Dmitry says:
    @iffen

    That was perhaps their (conveniently) rhetoric before they attained power, to an extent they wanted to make revolutions.

    Immediately, however, after attaining power, they immobilized everyone with paperwork and closed borders.

    Spirit of modern capitalism and economics, can feel more like the opposite of this. Labour mobility is valued, and now venerate things like “ease of doing business index” (i.e. reducing paperwork and bureaucracy, and increasing movement of people at least within, if not also across countries*).

    * Although this should not be incompatible with supporting a selective immigration system.

  380. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You weren’t ticked off that Ukraine was independent? And if not you, many Russian nationalists were, even back then.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  381. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I never stated that national futurism or national cosmism (transhumanism?) were “uniquely weird” What I was implying was that these movements (futurism,transhumanism) seem incongurous with nationalism. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m glad that I managed to draw you out on this and hope to find out more that might contradict my feelings. I’m aware that in the early period of futurism there were Italian, Russian and perhaps other forms of national futursim, bur for some reason these national schools fizzled out?…
    Transhumanism* also seems to have evolved beyond a national orientation too?

    * the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.

    Do any major figures in this movement believe in nationalism or a devisive form of racism? Or is it more of an inclusive philosophy of humanism where the human race is looked at more as one whole?

  382. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Umberto Boccioni, Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (1913)… was an influential Italian painter and sculptor. He helped shape the revolutionary aesthetic of the Futurism movement as one of its principal figures… Futurism was an artistic and social movement that originated in Italy in the early 20th century. It emphasised speed, technology, youth, violence, and objects such as the car, the airplane, and the industrial city. Its key figures were the Italians Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Umberto Boccioni, Carlo Carrà, Gino Severini, Giacomo Balla, and Luigi Russolo. It glorified modernity and aimed to liberate Italy from the weight of its past. Cubism contributed to the formation of Italian Futurism’s artistic style. Important Futurist works included Marinetti’s Manifesto of Futurism, Boccioni’s sculpture Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, Balla’s painting Abstract Speed + Sound, and Russolo’s The Art of Noises.

    One of my favorite works of art from the early 20th century!

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  383. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Futurism movement was associated with fascist politics in Italy.

    It is another example of how particular aesthetics often do not have the necessary ideological content they claim to, but rather it is just a contingent association determined by the unrelated political views of that movement’s artists or their patrons.

    Constructivist architecture in Sverdlovsk, was constructed for housing NKVD members and providing their amenities. But almost the same architecture style in America is the Art Deco of Miami Beach – an area later selected for Republican National Conventions 1968 and 1972

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  384. @AP

    Modestly so, but we were prepared to tolerate a neutral Ukraine, while working to (peacefully) align it.

    Obviously no Russian nationalist or even normie with some basic conception of the national interest will ever be prepared to tolerate a hostile Ukraine on their borders or one that’s a puppet for hostile foreign Powers (ultimately, there is not much of a difference between the two). Even at a purely political level, an American naval base in Crimea is not something that Putin may have survived.

    • Agree: iffen
  385. iffen says:
    @Mr. Hack

    So, is this “regression” good or back [bad] in your opinion?

    If we follow people like S. Pinker and the effective/rational altruists, and if one believes human consciousnesses are fungible then our accomplishments up until now can be considered very good.

    If universalism and democracy have allowed the flourishing of the individual and we accept that that flourishing has produced the current “good,” then regression will be a bad thing.

    I’m pretty much convinced that individualism vs. community is a zero sum affair and we have pushed the community too close to zero.

    The individual has to have a community, but if we revert to hard nationalism we are going to recycle all the known problems that come with hard nationalism.

    Even so, it is quite clear that “democracy” has some problems that even Houston can’t repair. We may have to retreat, regroup and find that next ism that will propel us past the nation state.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  386. iffen says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I’m not understanding you and Dmitry on this bureaucracy tangent so I’m going to stick with the nationalism topic.

    Also, I would like to point out that I reserved my opinion as to the interplay between “paper” citizenship and nationalism. I merely pointed out that I remembered that when you went to Russia you said you kept your citizenship, and I don’t remember if you were referencing American or British citizenship. In any case, it is up to other Russian nationalists to decide what it means, if anything, not outsiders like me and Hack. FWIW, I have commented before that it might be a good idea if, like the Jews, everyone had a back-up country.

    What Russian nationalism is or means is up to people like you, smoothie and all the others claiming to be Russian nationalists. Like many others here, I am an outsider to that discussion and it is an order of magnitude difference. When we get to “white” nationalism or American nationalism, I’m an insider and defer to no man. The distinction is quite clear in my mind, maybe others don’t value the distinction.

  387. @AP

    Iffen is an American. New World countries such as America, Canada, Brazil, Aergentna, Australia, etc. while based on certain ethnic “building blocks” (in the case of the USA, mostly Anglo and to a lesser extent Scotch-Irish Protestant culture) are largely idea-based. So in the USA Italians, Irish, Slavs were all assimilated into the Anglo Protestant culture.

    They’re not as idea based as you claim. In the New World countries there is still very much a clear difference between people who are “white” compared to colored people that aren’t white/European. Sure, ethnic differences between Europeans are certainly much weaker in New World countries, but there are still obvious racial differences between them as part of a combined group compared to all the other colored groups.

    Nationalism itself is also abstract, as was implied even by you in your comment about “fake” Albania. It was largely a product of Romanticism, a new idea opposed to traditional conservatism (we see this in central Europe in the conflict between German and Slavic nationalisms vs. Hapsburg – but it also existed in Russia in tghe early 19th century, before the tsars decided to try to coopt russian nationalism that they had previously opposed).

    Nationalism is not an abstract concept. You read too much worthless trash such as Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC, AP news and other low value garbage …

    The word nationalism has the “nat” root in that also applies to the word “natality” and nation. Nationalism clearly share a common root with the latin word for a biological and blood-based birth or origin.

    Mainstream early 21st century Western historiography would have you un-ironically believe that nationalism came out of nowhere in the 18th and 19th centuries because a bunch of German, French and other West-European intellectuals thought it up as a creative idea which was supposedly a minor part of liberal and post-religious thinking. Ethnic and racial groups have clearly existed way before the 18th and 19th centuries, regardless of what certain fools or malicious agents try to claim otherwise. The amount of examples that can obviously debunk those who claim that nationalism, ethnicity and race did not exist before the 19th century are so large that it shouldn’t even be necessary to degrade oneself to list some of them …

    I just noticed your bit on using my comment about the artificial nature of “Albania”. Has it never dawned on you that it is possible to artificially ethno-engineer or create countries just as much as it is possible to create new ethno-religious groupings?

    They can in some cases come about organically or be spurred on and even actively pushed by certain powerful forces in this world. Of course, thinking about any of what I’ve written most probably makes you extremely uncomfortable since it may lead you to the disturbing conclusion that your Ukranianism never even existed before the 19th century and was simply engineered by the Vatican and Habsburgs as an anti-Russian foil.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @silviosilver
  388. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry

    Futurism movement was associated with fascist politics in Italy.

    Initially yes, but at some point it lost this association. It became probably more “international” in its outlook.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  389. AP says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    They’re not as idea based as you claim.

    Of course they are. The idea is grounded among a particular people form a particular time but the nations are not ethnic in nature.

    there is still very much a clear difference between people who are “white” compared to colored people that aren’t white/European.

    You are confounding the fact that large numbers of people coming all at once are difficult to assimilate, with the idea that they cannot be assimilated into a non-ethnic entity like the USA. A black like Thomas Sowell or a Korean like our commenter Twinkie are far more American than a white Sovok like Martyanov and far more American than many of these native-born extreme leftists who reject the American idea.

    Nationalism is not an abstract concept. You read too much worthless trash such as Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC, AP news

    I base this on the observations of traditional conservatives. Nationalism is the empowerment of the masses who in a traditional society ought to be under the direction of their secular (noble) and religious authorities.

    The word nationalism has the “nat” root in that also applies to the word “natality” and nation.

    Sure, and the word communism has its root in the Latin word communis. I guess you also think that this idea is not a modern invention?

    Ethnic and racial groups have clearly existed way before the 18th and 19th centuries

    So have communes, among some savages. So? Nationalism, a modern thing, isn’t tribalism.

    Has it never dawned on you that it is possible to artificially ethno-engineer or create countries just as much as it is possible to create new ethno-religious groupings

    They are all ethno-engineered. Serbs, for example, are mostly Balkanoids who were given a name and language by Slavic colonists who moved to the Balkans.

    your Ukranianism never even existed before the 19th century and was simply engineered by the Vatican and Habsburgs as an anti-Russian foil

    Ukrainianism was simply renamed Little Russianism, which was engineered as an anti-Polish project and pro-Russian project but that turned against Russia when the Great Russians decided they wanted to completely assimilate the Little Russians into the Great Russians.

    In the mid 19th century, conservative Russian authorities sided with the Catholic Polish landlords against the Orthodox pro-Russian peasant-nationalists-populists.

  390. @Korenchkin

    That seems unduly optimistic.

    The population and technological / military capabilities of CHINA have grown drastically since then, in absolute terms of course but also relative to Russia.

    The population of Russia is also a LOT older than it was then. I don’t think that the population of China was eight times that of Russia then, as it is now.

    China and Russia can both have a declining, aging population, but China will be able to muster a massive number of young men to fight and occupy territory, while Russia will not be able to do so, at all.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  391. @RadicalCenter

    However, Russia is still able to muster a large number of tactical and strategic nuclear weaponry.

  392. @Anatoly Karlin

    the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    What’s your source? Are you sure it wasn’t Austro-Hungarian captivity (a military trying to compensate for its abysmal incompetence with horrible brutality, especially against civilians), or maybe Bulgarian captivity (they didn’t like Romanians much, and probably didn’t have much resources to feed them either)?

    On Wikipedia it’s stated that the Germans took 147,986 Romanian POWs, and 12,512 of those died in captivity. Doesn’t look like some exceptional mortality, at least not in the context of WW1. I didn’t check all the numbers here, but it might be high mortality relative to other groups in German captivity, like some 70,000 Russians died out of 1.4 million, or 17,069 Frenchmen out of 535,411.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_prisoners_of_war_in_Germany?wprov=sfti1

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @Seraphim
  393. @reiner Tor

    National Museum of Romanian History

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/romania/

    There were ~145,000 Romanian POWs in Germany (of whom ~45,000 died), ~61,000 in Austria-Hungary (of whom 22,000 died), ~25,000 in Bulgaria (of whom 5,00o died), and ~10,000 in Turkey (of whom ~1,800 died). Romanian prisoners had the highest mortality rate (29%) of all the prisoners in German camps during World War I. (I wonder to what extent this ill treatment was a result of the Germans feeling Romania had “betrayed” them by joining the Entente after having signed a secret alliance with the Triple Alliance in 1883).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  394. @Anatoly Karlin

    To be honest, I’m not sure that the museum’s number is more reliable than the number found by Wilhelm Doegen (cited in Wikipedia). Though it’s possible that Doegen had a motive to understate the numbers. (He wrote his work right after the war.)

    Anyway, they don’t say that it was the highest percentage of POWs anywhere, rather that the highest among POWs in German captivity. Just looking at your numbers, the Romanians in Austro-Hungarian captivity had a still higher mortality rate. Hungarian guards and camp administrators might have disliked them the most.

  395. I’ll try to answer the other comments later.

  396. iffen says:
    @Philip Owen

    Welsh Nationalist Party has just provoked controversy with a party political broadcast featuring an Arab woman

    I’m ignorant of Wales, but it would seem to me that there is room for another Welsh Nationalist Party to the right.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    , @Philip Owen
  397. iffen says:
    @AP

    WWI is a good anchor point. Many of the socialists/commies freaked out over the nationalism of the proles. We can back it up from there.

  398. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    It is, of course, notoriously difficult to establish precise figures, the more that the prisoners were kept in camps in various countries and conditions in camps were different from case to case and taking into consideration that prisoners were shifted from camp to camp.
    The figure of 146,000 prisoners was given in a report of General Berthelot in December 1916 and were corrected later to 111, 000. Reports of the Central Powers vary in between 78,000 and 60, 000 captured in the campaign of 1916-17, by the Austro-Germans.
    A conservative figure is: 53.000 in Germany, 52.000 in Austro-Hungary, 28.000 in Bulgaria and 32.000 in occupied Romania.
    Taking into consideration that Romania was only two years in the war and repatriation of prisoners started in May 1918 and that the total number of prisoners was lower than the figure of General Berthelot, the casualties figures remain much higher comparatively to other categories of prisoners.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  399. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Marinetti’s veneration of violence and war, was perhaps no so unusual before First World War. But the fact he continues this after the war, means he would only be politically compatible with fascism.

    The international futurism is only accepting Marinetti’s early texts, and do not have the same attitude about war after the First World War.

  400. Yevardian says:
    @iffen

    I worked with a first-language Welsh speaker for a while, he was a Welsh nationalist whilst otherwise holding all the correct normie opinions. One day I asked him what the honest likelyhood was of any Pole or African immigrant to Wales of learning Welsh, if even the English didn’t, and he practically had an brain aneurysm.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Philip Owen
  401. @AP

    I base this on the observations of traditional conservatives.

    There’s your biggest problem. A “traditional conservative” is a cuck like iffen that doesn’t believe a person’s ethnicity, race, genetics or even religion have any bearing whatsoever on their nationality, but instead what matters are certain “pieces of paper” which can apparently prove their nationality or citizenship.

    Nationalism is the empowerment of the masses who in a traditional society ought to be under the direction of their secular (noble) and religious authorities.

    Lol. No. On what basis are you implying that nationalism is incompatible with feudalism and monarchism? The Russian Tsardom and Empire under the Russian Tsars suggests otherwise, as you yourself have admitted that they adopted Russian nationalism as one of their tenets earlier in the thread.

    Sure, and the word communism has its root in the Latin word communis. I guess you also think that this idea is not a modern invention?

    Why do you have to be so underhanded and make such pathetic and petty distortions?

    The point isn’t that the word nation or nationalism has a latin root, but that its root is connected to the concept of birth and blood. Therefore, nationalism and nationhood are based upon real and material things, not upon some vague abstract concepts as some would have you believe.

    So have communes, among some savages. So? Nationalism, a modern thing, isn’t tribalism.

    Okay. It seems like a few examples are simply necessary for some people. The Hundred Year’s War between France and England is a good example. Why do you think that the French soldiers followed Joan of Arc? They were clearly fighting for France. Not simply because of their feudal obligations to their lords and nobility …

    • Replies: @AP
  402. @Seraphim

    Thanks. Yes, one would certainly expect lower mortality rates based on the fact that Romanian prisoners spent on average a significantly shorter period in captivity than those from other combatant countries.

  403. @Seraphim

    If Romania was a ‘client state’ before 1914, it was of KuK and Germany.

    Romania started to drift into Russia’s orbit years earlier. Most crucially, in 1913, right before the Second Balkan War, the Russian foreign minister Sazonov explicitly told the Romanians that they could help themselves to South Dobruja at the expense of Bulgaria. It was highly unusual in diplomacy to so explicitly encourage another government to attack a third party, especially since Bulgaria had been considered a Russian client just a few months earlier. But you are correct in that nominally Romania was still a (secret) fourth member of the Triple Alliance. However, before attacking Serbia, the Viennese Crown Council had already considered the risk of a Romanian attack. (Just as Italy’s “alliance” was already obviously nominal only.) It had waged a war at Russia’s encouragement. It became increasingly clear that because Transylvania was an economically way more developed and more populous province, Romania was more interested in it than in Bessarabia.

    I know how hard is for Hungarians to admit that the Ardeal’s Union with the Regat was a aspiration of the Romanian population and not a ‘gift’ of the Ruffians to the stinky Olahs.

    That’s not very hard, I think almost all Hungarians understand that most Romanians wanted to live in a Romanian state. It’s also taught in Hungarian schools that Hungary’s government oppressed ethnic minorities by restricting education in their native languages. This alienated even the initially more or less loyalist segments of the population. (Because Hungary was much more developed than Romania, e.g. literacy rates among Romanians in Transylvania were higher than in the Regat, some Romanians in Transylvania were a bit lukewarm about Greater Romania.)

    But the point is not whether the majority of Romanians or Serbs in the Dual Monarchy wanted to live in Greater Romania or Greater Serbia. (Obviously, they did.) My point is that by supporting those claims (as well as its own semi-official claims to Galicia), Russia was supporting the dismemberment of the Dual Monarchy, to which the Dual Monarchy was bound to respond. This animal is very wicked, when attacked it defends itself.

    A similar example would be the Sudetenland in 1938. It’s not a question that the majority of people living there wanted to join Germany, as they were majority Germans. However, it was still Hitler who was aggressive there, and it would not have been aggressive of Czechoslovakia to defend itself.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  404. @melanf

    The German army was stronger than the combined forces of Russia and France, and you know it well.

    I don’t know it well, and neither did the German planners, who assumed that they would have to defeat France in six weeks (!) before the presumedly slow Russian mobilization was completed, to prevent Russia from overruning Germany. Also, German military planners since 1908 assumed that Britain would always join such a conflict.

    I’ll reply to the rest later.

  405. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    AP said that Kiev and Kharkov were majority ethnic Russian at the time. The issue is that the categorization of what’s Russian or Ukrainian isn’t always so scientific.

    Kiev born Sikorsky considered himself Russian, while (if I’m not mistaken) acknowledging that he’d otherwise qualify as being Ukrainian. He’s by no means an isolated case. Another thing to consider is that a considerable number at the time saw being Ukrainian as a Russian regional variant. Hence, Skoro’s edict calling for an “All-Russian Federation” between Russia and Ukraine.

    Thru cyber, I became acquainted with someone of Ukrainian background, who is a distant relation to a PM under Skoro. Said acquaintance was born in the US, with his family maintaining ties with the White Russian community.

  406. @iffen

    I largely agree with you here. Despite the numerous problems associated with them, there is much good that can be said about universalism, individualism, democracy, and even (heh) anti-racism. Ultimately, I would probably opt for them over ethnonationalism. If nothing else, they are the devil I know. Whereas with ethnonationalism, there simply doesn’t seem to be any non-assholic version of it, which massively disappoints me and worries me.

    • Replies: @iffen
  407. @melanf

    Iron smelting

    Steelmaking

    Very obviously, the economy consisted of many more things than just iron and steel. For example Britain produced twice as much black coal as Germany (though Germany and A-H produced a lot of brown coal), and it had access to way more oil. Which meant that under wartime conditions, Germans were freezing in winter, while Britons were not. It also obviously meant that, all else being equal, industry could produce many more things. They could export other things and import steel (or directly weapons, as it happened) from elsewhere (mostly, the US). There was manufacturing (Britain just slightly lagged behind Germany, and by some metrics was still ahead of it.) There was agriculture. Access to world markets. Etc.

    Do you know why German plans gambled on a quick victory in France? Because they knew that their army was way smaller than that of France and Russia combined. And they also knew that they cannot fight a war of attrition against these countries. (On that, we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were wrong. They could actually win a war of attrition against these two countries only.)

    Also, after 1908 German planners assumed (correctly) that Britain would join the Russo-French effort against Germany. Now winning a war of attrition against these three powers was out of the question, at least to German planners before 1914.

    When attacking in the West, they were actually facing slightly stronger forces (French+Belgian armies + BEF), but they recognized that they had a qualitative advantage. This is why they thought that a quick victory was even possible.

    It must be noted that Moltke himself was actually highly pessimistic about the chances of a quick victory, he wrote that the next war would be “a long arduous struggle,” and that no state would capitulate “until its entire national strength is broken,” and even the victor would be “utterly exhausted,” too. This would be a “people’s war.” Moltke basically foresaw total war.

    The Serbs accepted Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner), rejecting only one point in order to “save face”.

    Their reply betrayed very good diplomatic skills on the Serb government’s part. Even the Austrians immediately recognized it. The Serbs didn’t just say “we accept everything except point 6.” They wrote very long replies to each point, and while each point was nominally accepted, they gave conditions to each point.

    For example, to Point 7, which requested the immediate arrest of Tankosic and Ciganovic (two persons already implicated weeks earlier in the Austrian inquiry), the reply said that they had already arrested Tankosic right at the time the Austrians demanded it, and that it was impossible to arrest Ciganovic. (This was a lie: when Austria had requested the arrest the week after the assassination, they replied after a few days that no person by the name of Milan Ciganovic existed or had ever existed in Belgrade. Meanwhile, they took Ciganovic out of the city and hid him in the countryside.) They also requested that Austria provide the “presumptive evidence of guilt, as well as the proofs of guilt, if there are any.” This was, again, the reply of a government which didn’t intend to cooperate at all. So you can say that they rejected point 7.

    Point 4 requested that they remove all persons implicated in the assassination from the military. The Serb reply said that they’d do that, provided Austria gives them “the names and acts of these officers and functionaries.” Given how they responded to the case of Ciganovic, it was obvious that what would have happened would’ve been an endless haggling what the term “implicated” meant or what they wanted to do. It was a highly disingenuous answer, clearly they planned to not do anything, until the Austrians themselves found the names, and probably even then they’d have tried to sabotage the whole thing.

    To Point 5 (which called for the creation of a mixed Austrian-Serb commission to investigate the crimes, and without which the Austrians obviously couldn’t have found the names they needed – all they knew that the investigation led to Serbia, but was stonewalled by the Serbs), they replied that they “didn’t clearly grasp the meaning or the scope for this demand,” but that they would agree to it, provided that it could be shown to agree with “the principle of international law, with criminal procedure and with good neighborly relations.” This was, again, a highly disingenuous answer: international law didn’t regulate this kind of thing (it was anyway unusual for a country’s intelligence services to organize the murder of its neighbor’s crown prince), there were no international bodies capable of arbitrating, etc. Basically, this was not a “yes” answer to this point either.

    Christopher Clark in his The Sleepwalkers goes through the points, well over half of the points were accepted only under so heavy conditions so as to render it meaningless. It’s possible that they would’ve cooperated afterwards, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it, and I’d say it’d be foolish of you to do so either.

    Besides, the outright rejected Point 6 (together with the also controversial and basically not accepted Point 5) was a requirement if the Austrians wanted any kind of compliance from the Serbs. Because it was at that point obvious that the Serbian government didn’t intend to cooperate with the investigation or anything else, really.

    Again, if our Serb commenters want to be truly proud of things in their history, this masterful reply (which made it look like an acceptance to anyone who wanted to see an acceptance, but without truly accepting anything substantial) should be on their list. It was such a good reply that even most historians accepted it uncritically that they “only rejected point 6.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner)

    Cristopher Clark compares it to the example of the NATO ultimatum at Rambouillet: he wrote that he thinks the NATO ultimatum was way more offensive and way more difficult to accept for any government with even a modicum of self-respect.

    Germany/Austria began war, assuming win such a victory over Russia and France to forever provide its (German world) superiority.

    They were already militarily weaker, economically weaker, and already in 1905-06 (at the inception of the Schlieffen Plan) they already understood that they’d need to win quickly, if they were to win at all.

    With benefit of hindsight, we can say that they overestimated their chances of a quick victory (but they understood that it was a gamble with a high probability of failure) and underestimated their chances of winning a war of attrition (which, after all, they nearly won, had they not foolishly provoked the US into entering the war), but hindsight is always 20/20. Also, it’s entirely possible that they were lucky in East Prussia in August 1914. Had they not won there, Russians would’ve captured Berlin 31 years earlier than they really did, and then it’d have been a quick game over for Germany.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @melanf
    , @melanf
  408. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    There is nothing “fake” about Albania, you hate-ridden retard.

  409. @AP

    A black like Thomas Sowell or a Korean like our commenter Twinkie are far more American than a white Sovok like Martyanov and far more American than many of these native-born extreme leftists who reject the American idea.

    That’s a useful talking point for shutting up the most extreme nationalists/racialists, but frankly it has fuck all importance for how I going about selecting my friends or forming associations with people. Being versed in American/Canadian/Australia culture makes them easier to tolerate, but it doesn’t really make me want to spend any time with them. I have no doubt at all I would prefer to befriend some quasi-nationalist (anything short of retard-level nationalism) Albanian, who’s not even a tenth part as assimilated, over some asiatic Twinkie character. The Albo may secretly fantasize about killing me, but I still feel I have something meaningful in common with him. With the asian or the negroid, the racial gap is too just too wide for any cultural similarities to bridge.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  410. @Yevardian

    Because obtuse and nigh-incomprehensible language, walls of text, and pervasive ideological bias is what makes education great, amirite?

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  411. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    My friend, I am sure that you know that “Romania” started to drift into Russia’s orbit long before it become Romania, at least since Peter the Great. That’s a fact that affected heavily the history of the ‘Carpathian Basin’, for good and worse. A fact that is little known outside the circle of historians is that the creation of a ‘Kingdom of Dacia’ to gather all Romanians was a common project of the ‘enlightened despots’ Catherine the Great and Joseph II, part of the ‘Greek Project’.
    That’s probably why a French historian, Lucien Romier, called Romania ‘Le Carrefour des Empires Morts: du Danube au Dniester’ after the Great War!

  412. iffen says:
    @Yevardian

    Understanding assimilation is a tough nut to crack, even without throwing the question of forced assimilation into the mix.

  413. iffen says:
    @silviosilver

    Whereas with ethnonationalism, there simply doesn’t seem to be any non-assholic version of it,

    I think that we have lost the ability for self-control or the mechanisms for limitation and moderation, and I think that it is across the board without regard to the politics or ideology.

    The nationalists go straight to racial, ethnic or religious cleansing. The main stream, led by the woke SJWs, go from toleration and non-persecution of homosexuals to making sex perverts and people that have a mental illness manifested in sexual peculiarities into shamans and oracles.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  414. AP says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A “traditional conservative” is a cuck like iffen that doesn’t believe a person’s ethnicity, race, genetics or even religion have any bearing whatsoever on their nationality, but instead what matters are certain “pieces of paper” which can apparently prove their nationality or citizenship.

    Nonsense. In the American sense, he would have to adhere to the American ideology, not just hve a citizenship paper.

    Lol. No. On what basis are you implying that nationalism is incompatible with feudalism and monarchism?

    The traditionalist Tsars and Hapsburgs were enemies of nationalism.

    you yourself have admitted that they adopted Russian nationalism as one of their tenets earlier in the thread.

    And nationalists adopted socialism. You also think that socialism is ancient and traditional?

    The point isn’t that the word nation or nationalism has a latin root, but that its root is connected to the concept of birth and blood.

    And communism’s root is connected to sharing spoils. It must also be an ancient idea.

    The Hundred Year’s War between France and England is a good example. Why do you think that the French soldiers followed Joan of Arc?

    Her enemies would mostly nowadays be considered French. She was adopted and retrofitted by later French nationalists. You love myths. Did you know that for centuries , English kings were French-speaking? Not something a nationalistic ruler would do.

    More examples: Prussian Frederick the Great was later adopted by German nationalists. But he spoke French, and thought the German language was worthy of speaking to dogs. He encouraged Jews to engage in business and banking in his country and encouraged immigration.. His ancestor Frederick Williams invited large numbers of Protestant refugees from France to his country. Nationalists? For a long time Russian Tsars favored Catholic Polish nobles over Orthodox, Rus-speaking peasants. They even helped the nobles crush Orthodox peasant revolts. Is this something a nationalist would do? In old, traditional Poland, nobles claimed descent from Sarmatians, and viewed their peasants as Slavs, and therefore good only for servitude. Was this nationalism? Later on, Polish nobles adopted nationalism from the West and tried a revolt. The peasants had not yet been taught nationalism, so they turned on the nobles and slaughtered them:

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

    A good illustration that this was not a natural idea but needed to be taught.

    • Disagree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @iffen
  415. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I think that we have lost the ability for self-control or the mechanisms for limitation and moderation, and I think that it is across the board without regard to the politics or ideology.

    The nationalists go straight to racial, ethnic or religious cleansing.

    Yes. As a result the nationalists become more and more marginalised. And as they become more marginalised they become more extreme.

    They also become more and more detached from reality.

    I favour the idea of nationalism but I’d like it to be healthy sane nationalism. That seems increasingly unlikely.

    • Replies: @iffen
  416. iffen says:
    @AP

    I need a good book on nationalism in my reading queue. It is in the back of my mind that Napoleon deserves a lot of credit (blame) for giving a major kickstart, but I don’t know where I got that idea.

  417. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    They also become more and more detached from reality.

    I know that there is a lot of stuff above my pay grade, although I do not always recognize it, but it is clear to me that some here can’t mentally grasp the idea that their opinion is not reality.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  418. Dmitry says:
    @silviosilver

    racial gap is too just too wide for any cultural similarities

    Sense of this gap is real and deep, enough to surpass language differences even – but discounting personality types. this gap seems much more civilizational, rather than some simple result of racial distance.

    I’ve been a gastarbaiter (in a quite multinational world), for a few years now and previously I often studied at summer schools with many different nationalities.

    Nationalities that are usually easiest for my experience as a gastarbaiter, include Poles, Spanish, Japanese, Italians, Irish, etc (at least the young generation of these nationalities).

    On the hand, some nationalities where there is sometimes immediately some kind of “gap” – French, Germans (although I met some funny and friendly Germans as well), Americans (although I don’t know well any Americans), English, Indians, etc.

    I’m very sceptical there is any “racial explanation” for why Poles are usually raconteurs, or why French people usually are quite difficult.

    It’s maybe plausible Japanese have been “racially selected” to be polite and civilized but I don’t see how this can explain a difference in charm between many French and Italians.

    Another issue reading this kind of comment, is that people here often present a racial aspect as a “deep level”, while a civilizational aspect as a “shallow level”.

    But in real life, a civilizational aspect usually overwhelms your impression above everything else.

    For example – we were invited last month for meal in the apartment of a Japanese engineer and his wife, and they charmed everyone by teaching us origami for an hour. (Like a cartoon stereotype of being invited to Japanese family’s apartment).

    I feel often surprised by e.g. “how strongly matching every French stereotype”, French people seem. Or how funny raconteurs, seem to be almost all Polish people.

    Maybe there is some genetic aspect of this within nationalities – but more in the distribution of personality types selected in a nationality. For example, perhaps people with “high agreeableness” were selected for in Japan (where samurais decapitate rude people that were not polite to them), or people with narcissism selected more in France, and people needed charm to survive in medieval Italian city-states.

    But this just results a population to be more “suitable for running French, Japanese or Italian software”. It does not determines its actual content (e.g. most Italian people you meet obsessed with clothes or food).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  419. Dmitry says:
    @iffen

    Nationalism required preconditions like some degree of literacy and education.

    In the First World War, when tens of thousands of Austrian soldiers were captured, and transported across Russia by train (to prison in Siberia) – local peasants massed to welcome them in their stops, viewing them as interesting guests, bringing them food and gifts.

    Without sufficient literacy and education, many of the peasants did not understand about the war, or what was the correct relation to the Austrians who had been captured, and they viewed them with welcoming customs if they were any other (during peacetime) guests.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    , @iffen
  420. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Although in England, effects of lack of education, could possibly be extreme in the opposite direction (if this story is actually true).

    A French ship was spotted floundering and sinking off the Hartlepool coast. Suspicious of enemy ships and nervous of possible invasion, the good folk of Hartlepool rushed down to the beach, where amongst the wreckage of the ship they found the only survivor, the ship’s monkey which was apparently dressed in a miniature military-style uniform.

    Hartlepool is a long way from France and most of the populace had never met, or even seen, a Frenchman. Some satirical cartoons of the time pictured the French as monkey-like creatures with tails and claws, so perhaps the locals could be forgiven for deciding that the monkey, in its uniform, must be a Frenchman, and a French spy at that. There was a trial to ascertain whether the monkey was guilty of spying or not; however, not unsurprisingly, the monkey was unable to answer any of the court’s questions and was found guilty. The townsfolk then dragged him into the town square and hanged him.

    So is the legend true? Did the good folk of Hartlepool REALLY hang a poor defenceless monkey?

    There could perhaps be a darker side to the tale – maybe they didn’t actually hang a ‘monkey’ but a small boy or ‘powder-monkey’. Small boys were employed on warships of this time to prime the canons with gunpowder and were known as ‘powder-monkeys’.

    https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Hanging-of-the-Hartlepool-Monkey/

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  421. Dmitry says:
    @RadicalCenter

    I don’t think total population size is the most important fact for determining if a nationality can continue control of an area of land (although in democracy, the size of the different groups already living within a land will almost inevitably determine who controls it).

    In terms of total population, Latvia is far from the most unpopulated country relative to its land area.

    It has almost twice the population density of Finland, 3,334 times higher population density than Russia, more than 4 times higher population density than Kazakhstan, 7 times higher population density than Canada, and 10 times higher population density than Australia.

  422. @iffen

    Such a paarty has been set up. This is is first election.

  423. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I need a good book on nationalism in my reading queue. It is in the back of my mind that Napoleon deserves a lot of credit (blame) for giving a major kickstart, but I don’t know where I got that idea.

    Napoleon is a good example of nationalism seamlessly transforming itself into imperialism.

  424. @Yevardian

    This particular woman is Arab but there are a number of black people who have learnt Welsh. The present Minister of Health is of Ghanian descent and speaks very good Welsh. Long establishd black famililes in Cardiff (tehbiggest city and once a major seaport) are more likely to speak Welsh than most native Cardiffians. (Oercompensation seems to drive it). In Bridgend where I live we recently had a(n Enlgish speaking) Libyan mayor, a Welsh nationalist in politics. Not so many in North Wales where your Welsh speaker probably comes from.

    • Replies: @iffen
  425. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I know that there is a lot of stuff above my pay grade, although I do not always recognize it, but it is clear to me that some here can’t mentally grasp the idea that their opinion is not reality.

    Yep. And there are also some here who think that because a few hundred people on the internet share their extreme views those views must therefore enjoy mass popular support.

  426. iffen says:
    @Philip Owen

    Wow!

    Maybe Wales should secede from the UK and stay in the EU. With all the power and strength from that bountiful diversity they should be able to easily displace Germany as head honcho and start calling the shots.

  427. AP says:
    @iffen

    A great, but imperfect, book that is about nationalism and America, by a Hungarian reactionary:

  428. Seraphim says:
    @Dmitry

    I go for the ‘darker side’. The ‘good people of Hartlepool’ couldn’t have been that stupid. But ‘good English people’ often displayed in times of wars bouts of jingoistic lynch-mob hysteria. Think of the treatment of Germans (even ‘assimilated’) in England, Australia, America during WW1&2. True, propaganda depicted them as gorillas, which shows that there was some residue of respect (they were ‘Saxons’ after all), but the French… monkeys, frogs.

  429. @Dmitry

    Another issue reading this kind of comment, is that people here often present a racial aspect as a “deep level”, while a civilizational aspect as a “shallow level”.

    But in real life, a civilizational aspect usually overwhelms your impression above everything else.

    I was only stating my personal preferences/reactions rather than trying to advance some racial theory. Then again, I’m sure I’m not the only person who feels this way.

    For me to feel true closeness to someone, I’ll always require some kind of racial connection, even if only a tenuous one. But no “pure” asian or african is ever going to meet that requirement. So even if they’re truly wonderful people, I’m going to pass because there’s simply no chance they can give me what I most need.

    Of course, someone who fits the racial bill may, upon attempting to get close, prove to be a complete fucking idiot, but until that attempt is made, he will still have potential. Someone who doesn’t fit the racial bill never had that potential to begin with.

    As for intra-European differences, I would submit to you that they are only interesting to you because the people in question are racially close enough to start with. I mean, compare how often you feel inclined to ask a European where he’s from to how often you feel inclined to ask as an asian where he’s from?

    If I meet an asian, I’m just not interested enough in him to bother asking where he’s from. (Unless the conversation is dying and I feel it would be polite to keep it going, then I’ll use origins to try to inject some new life into it.) If he’s a work colleague, then his background is something I’d probably want to know, but I can usually just tell from his name. If it’s some European or Latino or even an Arab, I’m generally genuinely curious where he’s from.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  430. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    Their reply betrayed very good diplomatic skills on the Serb government’s part. Even the Austrians…

    Here is the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/austrianultimatum.htm

    The Royal Serbian Government shall further undertake:

    (1) To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the general tendency of which is directed against its territorial integrity;

    (2) To dissolve immediately the society styled “Narodna Odbrana,” to confiscate all its means of propaganda, and to proceed in the same manner against other societies and their branches in Serbia which engage in propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Royal Government shall take the necessary measures to prevent the societies dissolved from continuing their activity under another name and form;

    (3) To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and also as regards the methods of instruction, everything that serves, or might serve, to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary;

    (4) To remove from the military service, and from the administration in general, all officers and functionaries guilty of propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy whose names and deeds the Austro-Hungarian Government reserve to themselves the right of communicating to the Royal Government;

    (5) To accept the collaboration in Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy;

    (6) To take judicial proceedings against accessories to the plot of the 28th of June who are on Serbian territory; delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government will take part in the investigation relating thereto;

    (7) To proceed without delay to the arrest of Major Voija Tankositch and of the individual named Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian State employee, who have been compromised by the results of the magisterial inquiry at Serajevo;

    (8) To prevent by effective measures the cooperation of the Serbian authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier, to dismiss and punish severely the officials of the frontier service at Shabatz Loznica guilty of having assisted the perpetrators of the Serajevo crime by facilitating their passage across the frontier;

    (9) To furnish the Imperial and Royal Government with explanations regarding the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian officials, both in Serbia and abroad, who, notwithstanding their official position, have not hesitated since the crime of the 28th of June to express themselves in interviews in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government; and, finally,

    (10) To notify the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised under the preceding heads.

    Here is Serbia’s answer
    http://www.gwpda.org/1914/serbresponse.html

    The Austrian ultimatum was characterized by monstrous insolence and was originally designed to provoke war. The Serbs accepted this ultimatum with reservations. If Austria agreed to these conditions-it would be a monstrous humiliation of Serbia.
    But as Chief of the German General Staff, Moltke said then “a moment so favorable from the military point of view might never occur again”, so Austria began the war to the delight of Moltke & Co.

  431. iffen says:
    @Dmitry

    Without sufficient literacy and education, many of the peasants did not understand about the war, or what was the correct relation to the Austrians who had been captured, and they viewed them with welcoming customs if they were any other (during peacetime) guests.

    Maybe, maybe not, perhaps they knew intuitively that anyone being sent to Siberia was on “their side.”

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  432. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor

    Their reply betrayed very good diplomatic skills on the Serb government’s part. Even the Austrians…

    Here is the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/austrianultimatum.htm

    Here is Serbia’s answer
    http://www.gwpda.org/1914/serbresponse.html

    The Austrian ultimatum was characterized by monstrous insolence and was originally designed to provoke war. The Serbs accepted this ultimatum with reservations. If Austria agreed to these conditions-it would be a monstrous humiliation of Serbia.
    But as Chief of the German General Staff, Moltke said then “a moment so favorable from the military point of view might never occur again”, so Austria began the war to the delight of Moltke & Co.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  433. @iffen

    Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson

    • Replies: @iffen
  434. iffen says:
    @Rattus Norwegius

    @AP, @Rattus Norwegius

    Thanks!

    Both have been 1-clicked.

  435. Dmitry says:
    @iffen

    No they don’t understand they are going to Siberia. They simply don’t understand who these people are, are not understanding the First World War – i.e. if you don’t understand not only that Austria is an enemy, but also that the people are Austrians, or even where Austria is.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  436. Dmitry says:
    @silviosilver

    European where he’s from to how often you feel inclined to ask as an asian where he’s from

    Where I live, I’m usually more excited to meet a Japanese person, than e.g. another Pole. Even though, I cannot say I met a Pole that I do not like.

    On the other hand, I am not interested to meet other Asian nationalities, because I do not know about their countries, have not visited those countries, have not consumed any of their cultural products, and have somewhat negative and perhaps unfair views about their development (correctly or not), do not have good experience from others I have met, etc.

    In principle, it just tracks personal interests and experience.

    Perhaps if I was interested in Thai boxing, Thai Buddism, and spicy food – I would probably be excited to meet e.g. Thai people.

    European or Latino or even an Arab, I’m generally genuinely curious

    In my case, I’m very curious to talk to Latinos – because Latin America is one of my interests in recent years.

    So this question (for me, but clearly not everyone e.g. perhaps for you) matches to personal interests.

  437. @melanf

    Their “acceptance” was totally meaningless, as I have explained to you already. They wrote that it was impossible to locate Milan Ciganovic (a lie, they hid him), who was a minor official. Knowing that they shielded such a minor official (nominally an employee of the state railroad company), the Austrians knew the Serbs had zero intention of conducting an investigation. The only thing which could have made them conduct a thorough investigation and prosecution would have been the Austrian participation in them. The Serbs flat out rejected their participation in the prosecution (without which investigation was difficult) and didn’t accept their participation in the investigation either.

    So what the hell did they accept? What would have been a “great diplomatic victory” for Austria? I tell you: nothing. It would have been a big humiliation when it would turn out that the Serbs didn’t arrest anyone after a year, and even if they arrested some minor official, they’d let him off with a slap on the wrist. The Austrians knew damn well this would happen, and you know it, too.

    But as Chief of the German General Staff, Moltke said then “a moment so favorable from the military point of view might never occur again”, so Austria began the war to the delight of Moltke & Co.

    You know that Moltke meant “a moment less unfavorable.” By the way here’s Moltke’s memorandum to Bethmann-Hollweg on July 29, 1914:

    http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=802

    http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?docpage_id=1415

    That day Russia started a partial mobilization (and had been preparing for war for a week already), while Germany didn’t order full mobilization until August 1, 1 1/2 hours after France and two days after Russia, despite speed being essential to German war plans, because they didn’t expect to be able to simultaneously defeat the French and the Russian armies in a two front war.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  438. @Dmitry

    Being friendly to POWs is possible even if you knew that there was a war and they were captured enemy soldiers. The good treatment of POWs was one of the Tsar’s pet projects, he was the initiator of the Hague Convention.

    By the way are we even sure that the stories are mostly about ethnically German or Hungarian soldiers? Slavs received a friendly reception from Russian officials and nationalists due to Pan-Slavism. Not to mention that they spoke a language similar to Russian.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Seraphim
    , @Dmitry
  439. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    Gillum said a former POW told him that his positive introduction to America persuaded him to make the U.S. his permanent home. Although authorities had asked Aliceville citizens to stay home, most everyone in town turned out at the train depot to greet the newcomers.

    https://www.alabamanewscenter.com/2019/08/01/camp-aliceville-housed-thousands-of-german-pows-in-alabama-during-wwii/

  440. Seraphim says:
    @reiner Tor

    I know the story of a Romanian (from Austro-Hungarian Army) prisoner in Russia. He seemed to have not been treated too badly since a Russian woman fell in love with him. He was returned to Transylvania after Brest-Litovsk, to the great grief of the girl, but after the turmoil of the civil war ended he went to Russia and brought her, who was waiting for him all this time, to Romania, got married and lived happily ever after, had children who loved to tell the story. It’s not hearsay, you may guess.

  441. iffen says:
    @Seraphim

    Goddamn! I do love a happy ending.

    • Agree: Old and grumpy
  442. @Seraphim

    A Hungarian POW married a Russian woman in Siberia. Later, in the early 1930s, he came back to what was by then Czechoslovakia, with his Russian wife and his four children. Again, this story is not some distant anecdote.

  443. anaccount says:

    If it makes Russian Nationalists feel any better, I would give you a Russian win over Germany in WW1 in exchange for a German victory over Global Judea in WWII. Consequently this trade also includes a German victory over my own country (Jew controlled of course).

    Worth it.

  444. Oh hell!
    First world war was concocted in London. Austro- Hungarian Empire growth and prosperity was thorn in the eyes of English. English had a mortal fear of German and Slavic friendship. They convinced coward French to get on board. In Austria Ferdinand was marrying Czech princess. The Czech influence in Austro-Hungary was growing. Czar Nicholas had no interest to interfere. Russia after loosing eastern fleet and Kuril islands to Japanese become timid. French ambassador to Russia was visiting Czar daily
    to try to convince him to enter the war. His wife Alexandra Fiodorovna Could not talk about anything else than her Grandma Victoria while pissing her panties.
    Rasputin had a good brain and was trying to convince Czar to stay put. Kaiser was sending several letter to Czar confessing his friendship and asking to cooperate.
    It was Czars wife Alexandra with strong English persuasion that eventually forced her husband to enter the war on the side of England. Russia was not prepared war and war and was loosing badly.
    Over four million Russian man have fallen to German machine gun fire.

    • Replies: @Patriot right
    , @Seraphim
  445. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    You talk as if most English people would know what a Germanic or Slav even is. English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.

    You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds with deeply ingrained ethnic rivalries, most English people wouldn’t understand any of that.

  446. Most British people have had enough of hearing about the World Wars, constantly going on about “the war” is a sure way to irritate most British people.

    Most people here find the WW1 and WW2 cult highly tedious, I think some of it is because the British contribution has been almost continually minimalised and berated by other countries so British people have just lost interest in the whole thing.

  447. @Patriot right

    English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.

    There must be more to life…..

    • Replies: @iffen
  448. @Patriot right

    Forget about those wars, what about all these Hindus, Muslims,blacks, Arabs,….

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/25/uk/bjp-kashmir-tory-uk-election-ge19-intl-gbr/index.html

    Hardline Hindus are pushing the Indian government’s agenda on British voters

    Typical English people, I guess ….

  449. @Mikhail

    Relative to Scotland’s population, there is a far higher proportion of Scottish politicians in the UK overall than English politicians. Many politicians in English constituencies are Scottish.

    Likewise some of the biggest banks and financial institutions in the UK are Scottish and based in Scotland. One could easily make a credible case that the English are dominated by the Scots in reality. Was Ukraine’s position within Russia (or the USSR more accurately) really comparable to that?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  450. iffen says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    There must be more to life…..

    I just pushed the guide button on my remote to check, and no, there’s not.

  451. I just pushed the guide button on my remote to check, and no, there’s not.

  452. @neutral

    Sounds like a plan.

    On might ask the inhabitants before?

  453. @Patriot right

    because the British contribution has been almost continually minimalised

     

    That is regrettable indeed.

    The British contribution to these wars cannot be overestimated.

    • Replies: @Fox
  454. Seraphim says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    You love the romantic side of history. What a romantic story, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir of the throne, marrying a Czech Princess and then united in death. The truth is that she was not a Princess at all, but a mere countess, Sophie Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin. As such their liaison provoked a scandal at the court and the old Franz Josef, informed FF that he could not marry Sophie, who could not become an empress consort. To be an eligible consort for any member of the Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine, one needed to belong to one of the reigning or formerly reigning dynasties of Europe. Eventually love triumphed, but the marriage had to be declared morganatic, she being deprived of the titles of empress, queen or archduchess, and acknowledging that their descendants would neither inherit nor be granted dynastic rights or privileges in any of the Habsburg realms. She was given the titles of Princess and Duchess only after the marriage, but the couple was not treated well at court (the only court that received them warmly was the British one). His relations with the Emperor remained tense at all times, and he was intensely disliked by the Magyars (dislike that he reciprocated) and favored the Slavs and Rumanians with whom he projected the transformation of the Dual Monarchy into a Federation (the United States of Greater Austria). He was even more sympathetic to the Serbs and wanted to avoid a war with! That was not displeasing the Russians and one can hardly see why they masterminded the assassination, as the rumor persist.

  455. @Patriot right

    I don’t think Ilyana was implying the common English people but their rulers.

  456. An excellent article, with allowances for the author’s justified Russian patriotism. My study of the Great War has revealed to me that much of what has been written about Russian participation in WW I is leftist propaganda, merely one part of the poison falsehoods that have flooded the world since 1917. The Communists and their friends and dupes have done their work well.

    The Russian Army did suffer severe losses and defeats but by the end of 1916 it was becoming a formidable force that posed a mortal threat to German plans (to say nothing of the hapless Hapsburg forces or the Turks).

    Leftist subversion, by the Bolsheviks and the other Marxist parties, played the major role in the catastrophe that engulfed Russia. The Tsarist government has been accused of being oppressive. In fact, it was weakness, not tyranny, that did in the Tsar. In most other countries of the war beseiged by Communist terrorists and traitors, those miscreants would have been slapped up against a wall and shot. In most cases the Tsarist authorities treated them with ridiculous indulgence. Stalin, for example, was even retrieved from internal exile, where he passed the time placidly fishing for sport, and was called up for the army (he was rejected for physical reasons)!

    The author’s effort to claim that Russia “won” the war are, perhaps, not on the mark. The horrible fact is that the war, for whatever reason, destroyed the Russian Empire and plunged its remnants into 70 years of Communist hell, while at the same time spreading the Marxist virus around the world.

    That said, the Russian soldier of World War One deserved to be remembered for his undoubted heroism and devotion to duty. Had more of those patriotic men stayed alive, I doubt that there would have been a Communist revolution in Russia.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  457. Alfred says:

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia

    And Russia started mobilizing some weeks earlier. In those days, like with MAD today, mobilizations cannot be wound back. That means, that Russia had gone to “war” before the Germans declared war on Russia.

    • Replies: @Fox
  458. And the winners were; the zionists aka bolsheviks aka communists and their satanic wars in a sacrifice to their god satan, which are still going on in the mideast!

  459. @Seraphim

    Just recently purchased The Genesis of The World War, and only have begun reading it. Harry Elmer Barnes seems to squarely place the blame on Russia and France for the events leading up to WWI. No clue, just enjoy read alternative views.

  460. Durruti says:
    @German_reader

    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist

    I thank German_reader for his critique of Kholmogorov. It exposes the hypocrisy and flaws of Kholmogorov’s ‘analysis.’

    No! Russia did not win WW I. They DID SAVE FRANCE. But that was in 1914. The Russian Army suffered huge military casualties thereafter. General Samsonov’s Army was surrounded and captured (Samsonov committing suicide). By 1917, the Russian Army and Government were tottering. Kholmogorov might as well claim that Russia also defeated Japan in 1905, or that Foreman defeated Ali. (Japan sank most of the Russian fleet in the battle of Tsushima), or in Kholmogorov’s new history, did the Russians sink the Japanese Navy?).

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-tsushima-strait

    The Russian defeat by Japan, in 1905, set up shock waves throughout the Russian Empire. World War I, increased the shock waves to the level of an earthquake against Russia’s Gvernment and society.

    The Secret Treaties Lenin wrote about – existed. Millions of Russians were fighting expand into others’ countries, or to save the French & British Empires (both controlled by the Rothschilds). In Particular, Russia and Italy received promises of other peoples’ territory, if they joined the Allies. [Italy’s desire for the Trentino (in Northern Italy), was justified, but its acquisition of portions of the Yugoslavian coastline, were not.]

    I might remind Kholmogorov, & some of our commenters, that both Trotsky & Stalin OPPOSED the Treaty of Brest Litovsk (they took the position of defending Russia, and its territories). Lenin forced through the Bolshevik Central Committee an acceptance of the ruinous Treaty.

    Lenin did predict that after the war, Russia would recover almost all of the lands ceded to Germany by the treaty, and he was correct.

    The Communists, including the Russian Communists were not as neatly portrayed by the old Political Right, the old Political left, or the Zionist mainstream media, in the last 100 years. The resistance of most of the Communist Party to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was documented by Isaac Deutscher, Solzhenitsyn’s history of Samaonov, also reveals the unprepared nature of the Russian military. Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution, contains more useful analysis, and dozens of other sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1914_%28novel%29

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

    I am not recruiting for Trotsky’s 4th International, just looking for some accuracy in the ‘alternate media.’ Accuracy is so completely lacking in the Mainstream media, that we may learn more from carefully reading it than, at times, from reading supposed ‘alternate’ sources.

    One again, I am not permitted to post Articles on this forum, but am allowed to comment. I do my best, or as some of you might say, my worst.

    The Good News:

    Russia has revived, and is in recovery mode.

    I believe that we Americans will in the not too distant future join our Russian brothers in that same recovery, as soon as we Restore Our Republic!

    God Bless!

    Durruti alias-Dr. Peter J. Antonsen

    • Replies: @Durruti
  461. @Seraphim

    Your comment is valuable detail. but does not touch the validity of concept of my comment.
    Your last sentence is is not valid if not an outright lie. Russians had no finger in assassination of archduke Ferdinand, It was English that orchestrated assassination of of Rasputin and Ferdinand.
    These two assassinations were principal events that were the sparks that ignited the brush-fire of WW1
    Gavrilo Princip and his three conspirator helpers were students in London university on vacation in Bosnia. All four of them were Serbs. Why they did not go on vacation to Serbia, to see their families? Hah?
    Pattern of this English action was exactly repeated by England assassinating Heidrich.
    Habsburgs were very benevolent rulers, It shows that after conquest of Hercegovina (Bosnia) did not try to convert the population to Christianity.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  462. Durruti says:
    @Durruti

    Apologies.

    Of course, Anatoly Karlin is the author that I am critiquing, and Kholmogorov, the translator.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  463. Fox says:
    @byrresheim

    Indeed, without England’s (i.e., the English leadership caste) absolute will to choose war, both in 1914 and in 1939, we wouldn’t have the existential crisis of the occidental world today.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    , @Jake
  464. Durruti says:
    @Durruti

    Of course, Kholmogorov is the author I am critiquing, & Karlin, the translator.

    No more coffee for me!

  465. Fox says:
    @Alfred

    And the Kaiser begged the Czar even on July 31st to cancel general mobilization. It was generally acknowledged then that general mobilization meant war.
    This, together with the refusal of Grey to state that England would stay out of a war, and France’s ambiguous answer to Germany’s inquiry about France’s intent in case of a war between Germany and Russia made it entirely clear that there was an agreement behind the scenes between Russia, France and England for this situation, as subsequent revelations have shown to be the case indeed.

    • Agree: Alfred, L.K
  466. Agent76 says:

    “THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.” GEORGE SANTAYANA

    APRIL 12, 2017 World War I and the Bill of Rights

    Historians talked about American motivations for entering World War I, how the country mobilized for war, and government restrictions on free speech and the press in response to protests.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?426840-1

    “Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.” Vladimir Lenin

    Nov 13, 2011 Who Controls the Money Controls the World

    All facts in this movie have been independently confirmed. History will repeat itself as long as these bankers and their corrupt politicians are in charge.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  467. Hello there friend!!!!!!!!
    Relax! Take it easy. The end of the world is not sight yet. You are in midst of very sensitive people.
    Be gentle and do not criticize anybody. Only safe approach is to blame Jews for everything.
    (But than most of critique of Jews is based on facts.)
    So stop being enthusiastic. It does not help.
    These days even young people are lethargic.
    (Hello has root in Hungarian word hallom ((Bell assistant was was Hungarian and he kept saying into receiving end of Bells apparel hallom hallom enthusiastically which meant I can hear you.)

  468. @German_reader

    In those days mobilization was the equivalent of actually WAGING war.

  469. Marcali says:

    The war between Russia and Germany in 1914 did not start with Germany declaring war. It started with Russia mobilising her vast army. Russia had already started mobilising on the 24 July, and called it partial mobilisation, although everybody knew that such animal did not exist only full mobilisation.

  470. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    The reaction of peasants, being so friendly, happy, celebrating with gifts the Austrian soldiers, has shocked contemporary observers and is not any reflection of official policy.

    Peasants were not stupid, but their mental world – at least in some parts of Russia through which soldiers have passed – before literacy and access to communications, was just alien to concepts used in the modern nation state.

  471. Alfred says:
    @German_reader

    I am really glad that Putin and the vast majority of Russians are not as deluded as the author of this piece. His writing reminds me of the nonsense of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis. A total rehash of history with no foundation in reality.

  472. Alfred says:
    @Patriot right

    You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds

    You my dear sir are so very naive. I suggest you read this book to help you understand how Machiavellian the rulers of England at that time could be. The English switched alliances and became friendly with their traditional enemy, France, 9 years before 1914. That was no accident.

    Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  473. mikemikev says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Populations everywhere shot up last century due to infant mortality amelioration and are now stabilising.

  474. Romanian says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    “The Rumanian policy was now guided by Premier Bratianu, who attempted to gain riches, without making great sacrifices, at the expense of the party suffering defeat in the war…
    Since the beginning of the world war Rumania has followed a policy of piracy, depending upon the general war situation.”

    We shall never see his like again!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  475. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Patriot right

    Plenty pf people of Ukrainian origin are in high places within Russia – sports, politics, government, arts, et al.

  476. @reiner Tor

    They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered.

    The Bolsheviks promised peace and land, but they delivered civil war and collectivization, and there was good reason to suspect that this would be the case.

    Perhaps the SR voters had more wisdom than you give them credit for.

  477. I think Professor Peter Frankopan has given the best explanation for the chain of events leading to WWI. The real trigger was British fear of Russian expansion in the far East and Persia. The British aided Japan in putting an end to Russian expansion in the far East. Later, a defeated Russia was inveigled to make an agreement with Britain concerning matters in Persia. The British further tempted the Russians by hinting that they would not object to Russian expansion towards Constantinople. Thus, the British were making it known the Ottoman Empire was up for grabs. This led to a series of wars and aggressions on the Ottoman Empire. All parties wanted a slice of the Ottoman cake. And it was the passions unleashed by the rush to take Ottoman territory and riches which caused the assassination in Sarajevo.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  478. Seraphim says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    But I did not say that the Russians did mastermind the assassination. On the contrary, the sense of my last sentence was that they had no interest, therefore they didn’t do it, contrary to all ‘historians’ who put the blame for starting WW1 on Serbia remotely controlled by Russia, who continue to take for granted (Russia did it, they interfere in ‘our elections’ etc.- nothing changed since 1914).
    Neither did the Britisher envy the ‘growth and prosperity’ of AH. On the contrary, Austria was the ‘oldest traditional ally’ of England, whose friendship was ‘of supreme importance’ for England, to such an extent that Austria was considered ‘England’s dagger on the Continent of Europe’. If anything, they viewed favorably the projects of FF (like the Russians did also) and with alarm (like France and Russia), the growing ‘assertiveness’ expressed with the Teutonic grace of a bull in a china shop, of the upstart on the Continent – the German Reich, which obviously was threatening the traditional British policy of ‘Balance of Powers’ on the Continent of Europe and on the other continents. The removal of Bismarck, the man who worked hard for the preservation of this ‘Balance’, was an omen of the disasters to come. The Britisher were of course concerned by the growing influence of Germany on Austria-Hungary’s external policies.
    You seem to believe that the assassination of Rasputin was concurrent with the assassination of FF and was a ‘spark’ that ignited the war. Rasputin was assassinated in December 1916 and his assassination (by British agents, it’s true) was the spark of the ‘revolution’.

  479. @French bystander responding to German reader

    If the German nationalists had had their way, Parisians would all be speaking French by now!

  480. Bookish1 says:
    @AltSerrice

    I am glad you said border change is almost always based on kindred group. The fact is that Danzig and Prussia were German for over 8 centuries. There is a justification for it being German once again. Imagine if someone took North Dakota from the uS and drove out the americans populating with people from a different country. We would be screaming forever.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  481. @Fox

    The war Britain was expecting in 1914 was Ireland. In 1939, Britain was in the very earliest sags of rearmanent. An expeditionary war was impossible as was demonstrated at Dunkirk.

    Put aside your conspiracy theories.

    • Replies: @iffen
  482. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    The books of Peter Frankopan: “The Silk Roads” and “The New Silk Roads” are indeed eye openers and should be mandatory readings for anyone who wants to understand what was/is/will be going on in the world without Eurocentric and Marxist blinkers. Although he apparently cannot get rid of an anti-Russian and ‘Orientalist’ bias. The ‘Oriental Problem’ was not about ‘grabbing slices of the Ottoman cake’ by imperialist powers (as it is suggested). Britain put and end to its ‘Great Game’ against Russia when it realized that Japan did not really won the war, instead becoming a threat for the British possessions in Asia, that it won’t be capable to dislodge the Russians from the Far-East or from Persia. Also that Germany was stirring the Muslim populaces under the British rule (and Russian) to revolt and seeking an alliance with the Ottomans. It was not that Britain ‘inveigled’ Russia to resume her ‘expansion’ towards Constantinople, but seeking a settlement of their contentious problems in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet which led eventually to the ‘Anglo-Russian Entente’ of 1907 (Russian penetration in Persia and Central Asia predates the Russo-Japanese war and was not affected by it in the slightest), helped of course by the Anglo-Russian dynastic alliance. There was of course the run for oil.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  483. Pretty much utter total bilge. It was the incompetence of the Tsarist generals that had so lost the war that by the time of the Kerensky Offensive of 1917 Russian troops were going into combat with bayonets tied to poles because there weren’t rifles. It was because of the ruinous Tsarist military strategy of appeasing the Western “allies” by any means possible that Rishab Poland was lost and the Germans were advancing towards St Petersburg. The mass rioting and strikes that finally brought down the Tsarists in 1917 had everything to do with the venality and incompetence of the Tsarist regime. It is ridiculous to say that if it had not been for the Bolsheviks Russia would somehow have come out of WWI “victorious”. The Western “allies”, for one, very much did not want a Russian victory any more than they wanted a Soviet WWII victory.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  484. @iffen

    It’s fine if he wants to hate Germany for that, but if he’s going to be consistent shouldn’t he also hate England, the USA, and Sweden just as much?

    For me, I prefer to give credit to those who tried to fight off the conspiracy of international finance. Notably, Jackson, Napoleon, and you-know-who.

    • Replies: @iffen
  485. Seraphim says:
    @Romanian

    Poor Bratianu, he probably wriggles in his tomb, seeing Romania run by a German President and a Hungarian Prime-Minister! But as a good friend of mine (Greek!) says: ‘Prost nu e ăla de mănîncă cinci pite, prost e ăla care i le dă’.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  486. Romanian says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    I do not really see him as that kind of person. He had, after all, a German king. And I am not well versed in Romanian political history (to know the parliamentarians and so on), but Romania was full of Greek noblemen, Armenian traders, Jewish and German bankers etc and industrialists of all stripes. I doubt he minded the diversity overmuch (could not have been so functional politically without a stomach for it), so long as it was clear who the majority was.

    What may get him spinning so fast you could wrap him in copper wire and use him as a generator is the lack of concerns for anything approaching the national interest and the Geschichtslosigkeit (historylesness) of our political class, consumed with the minutiae of day to day living and political struggle, obsessed with short-termism, with no sense for continuity or tradition and with mental and cultural horizons so diminished that one day is like all the others in endless succession.

    As for the obvious diversity of our political class, I think it’s the most obvious retort against the disingenuous harangues about minority rights we keep getting from the Hungarians who want us to change the character of the unitary state to put them on the road to an ethno-state in the heart of the country.

    • Replies: @iffen
  487. Romanian says: • Website
    @Bookish1

    Imagine if someone took North Dakota from the uS and drove out the americans populating with people from a different country

    Ummm, isn’t that what is happening?

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/21/u-s-counties-majority-nonwhite/

    The places haven’t changed hands, but that is a feature, not a bug, since parasitism of the productive classes is what drives the transformation. There will be time later to shear off the South West, for instance.

  488. iffen says:
    @Philip Owen

    Put aside your conspiracy theories.

    The collapse of France and the run-up to Dunkirk was entirely a scam to get America into the War.

  489. iffen says:
    @Romanian

    of our political class, consumed with the minutiae of day to day living and political struggle, obsessed with short-termism, with no sense for continuity or tradition and with mental and cultural horizons so diminished that one day is like all the others in endless succession.

    This seems to be a worldwide condition these days.

    Must be something in the jet streams or ocean wide gyres.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  490. iffen says:
    @NobodyKnowsImADog

    also hate England, the USA, and Sweden just as much?

    What essential part did these three countries play in placing Lenin in power?

  491. Romanian says: • Website
    @iffen

    When coming down with a disease, people with prior excellent health and good stores of fat stand a better chance to survive. It’s the same with nations.

    • Replies: @iffen
  492. Jake says:
    @Fox

    That is true, but it did not start in 1914. What England was and did in 1914 was the logical and almost necessary result of what England had become through its actions dating back to at least the reign of Elizabeth 1, and absolutely requiring the rise of Judaizing Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

  493. Jake says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    This last sentence of yours – “The Western “allies”, for one, very much did not want a Russian victory any more than they wanted a Soviet WWII victory” – belies the rest of your post.

    Russia indeed was done in not by battlefield losses that meant certain national doom (losses to Napoleon were worse), not merely by successful German spying to promote Bolsheviks and other violent radicals, but also by Russia’s allies (most industriously and successfully the English) likewise using spies to promote revolution in Russia.

    England even more than Republican France knew it required Russia to defeat Germany but also acted to see that Russia would be gravely wounded in a winning effort.

    Trusting England is like trusting England’s Jewish bankers.

  494. iffen says:
    @Romanian

    Excellent point, and I think it explains quite a bit, but it doesn’t cover those cases where too much fat is the greatest contributing factor to the disease.

  495. @Seraphim

    “It was not that Britain ‘inveigled’ Russia to resume her ‘expansion’ towards Constantinople,”

    I believe the British did inveigle the Russians. I have read that Sir Edward Grey made it known tto the Russians in about 1906 or 1907 that Britain would not object to the Russian possession of the straits of Constantinople. This was too much of temptation to the Russians and they began plotting to gain the straits. The implication of Grey’s statement was that Britain would no longer protect the Turks. Other powers such as Italy, Austria and Serbia also began to plot to get their share of the spoils. The British decision to turn Russia against the Turks was the fuse for WW I.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  496. Hrw-500 says:
    @German_reader

    I don’t know why but it reminds me of this meme then someone posted on a thread about what if the October Revolution never happened?
    https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-the-october-revolution-never-happened-in-russia.470714/#post-19262908

  497. Sometimes I truly regret the lack of time machine to take Kholmogorov with Karlin and stick these “heroes” straight into dugouts of the WWI front. Let them fight to victorious end and see how fast they would call for end of hostilities that’s if they survived.
    The war obviously was not in russia interests especially in interests of poor workers and peasants who were dying and getting mutilated in millions fighting what for they had no idea while top 1% was getting fabulously wealthy and leading charming life when everyone else was starving.
    Any capitalistic state war is anti people and is led in the interests of the moneyed minority at the expense of general population.

    • Replies: @Epigon
  498. Hank Yobo says:
    @Alfred

    Go back at least another half century. The UK and France were allies against Russia during the Crimean War.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  499. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    “Gavrilo Princip and his three conspirator helpers were students in London university”

    Really? Any sources? Not saying I don’t believe you….;-)

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  500. @Hank Yobo

    England had been the protector of Turkey-both in the Crimean War and in the war of 1877/78.

    It was the English decision to end protection of Turkey which caused the chain of events leading to WW I.

  501. @YetAnotherAnon

    I have heard that on radio traveling in car. It was a British broadcasting.
    According to Wikipedia only one of them was student but it is not mentioned where.
    He had a arsenic poison pill the question would be where he would get it.
    The rest of course you could find in Wikipedia.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  502. Epigon says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    How many poor Russians died in WW1 from 1914 to 1917, and how many poor Russians died due to Revolution, Bolshevik Civil War, Red Terror and famines from 1917 to 1922?

    How many poor Russians would die as a consequence of Bolshevik revolution, Brest-Litovsk betrayal and Bolshevik disastrous rules culminating in the disaster of WW2?

    Are you trolling or are you genuinely this retarded?

  503. @Epigon

    Where have you been all this time genius.
    Considering you are regular at Karlin blog and takes this article seriously you must be ignorant of the subject you started arguement with me about. I mean causes of Russian revolutions and Russian history that led to those events.
    You are oblivious to the fact that by 1914 russian situation at home after first Russian revolution was tense and government took the country that had deep economic, structural and systemic problems into this grinder known as ww1 totally unprepared and contrary to the interests of russian population.
    Now you as a genius you obviously know all about thing called catalist. Or playing with fire in gunpowder warehouse.
    That what ww1 was for Russia. The country statyed falling apart even before Bolsheviks and Tsar was removed by his closest people along with people going to streets after 3 years of disastrous and unnecessary for Russia war. Now, you obviously have no clue about situation in the villages with rissian population being 85% agricultural and about same level of being illiterate. You have no damn clue that peasants and workers lived in abject poverty and hatred accumulated towards ruling classes over the past 200 years who completely sucked population dry.
    Then bolsheviks took power that was basically lying on the streets but ruling classes refused to accept this fact and with assistance of intervened western powers started civil war which turned bloody but from what I was reading death from various contagious deceased took more lives than actual fighting. By 1917 february thanks to degenerate elites Russia basically was finished. It is great blessing that there was such man as,Lenin that basically saved Russia from being torn apart by partners and who set it on the road of modernization and greatness and finally resolved problem of backwardness that had been afflicting Russia.
    It is obviously useless to argue with genius like you but considering you touched the topic of which you have no clue it makes you retarded for those who know the subject.
    p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers while Karlin is trying to promote him to ignorant western public.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    , @Epigon
  504. @Sergey Krieger

    but ruling classes refused to accept this fact

    The peasants who you pretend to care about also refused to accept it
    Millions of them would fight against the Bolsheviks and tens of millions of them would perish in the following decades after the war

    The Tsarist Government was unprepared because every other European power was unprepared for the war, but Russia had a massive advantage in the form of it’s allies Britain and France who could more then carry their weight in the war, unlike Germany’s allies who dragged it down
    With odds rigged in it’s favour anyone would’ve made the same decision in 1914 to start the war, especially since it seemed like France would only become weaker relative to Germany as time went on, in their mind if they delayed the inevitable any more then it’s likely even more lives would’ve been lost
    Had the Bolsheviks not been such sabotaging pieces of shit and let the Kerensky Government carry the war to it’s conclusion (which would’ve come much sooner with Russia still in the fight) Russia and Russians would’ve been better for it
    In fact every ethnic group in the Russian Empire would’ve been better for it
    The poverty and literacy rate would’ve naturally been eliminated just like in every other country in the world, no mass genocide necessary

    p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers

    We do not come to Unz to read popular opinions

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    , @dfordoom
  505. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Can’t find anything in Wiki about where they studied but I doubt there were many Serb students in London in 1913. I think it’s very unlikely.

    “He had a arsenic poison pill the question would be where he would get it.”

    Arsenic (and IIRC the more quick-acting strychnine*) were available over the counter in the UK at chemists and hardware stores for killing rats. Remember in re-WWI England there were very very few state restrictions on anything, including chemicals and firearms.

    But I’d imagine that would also be the case in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Europeans had a LOT of freedoms then which are now gone.

    * “Historic records indicate that preparations containing strychnine (presumably) had been used to kill dogs, cats, and birds in Europe as far back as 1640.” (Wiki)

  506. @Korenchkin

    Если бы да кабы, да во рту выросли грибы.
    Czarist russia had 200 years to solve all those problems that eventually led to 1905-1917 series of russian revolutions culminating with Great October Socialist Revolution.
    So that you know that revolution is a sign of elites ultimate failure to solve problems which accumulate and cause outburst and change of paradigm called revolution. Bolsheviks did not cause the revolution but only used it. Revolution happen not because someone wants it.
    You definitelly do not know that.
    Now I wonder why local bleeding hearts do not concern themselves with 25% drop of population under Peter the great after he implemented his reforms or demographic catastroph that happened in the former soviet union after 1992 contra revolution and ongoing demographic catastroph with lost of vitality in every non Muslim former Soviet republic including russia. Are you aware that the loss of life in Russia alone since 1992 is between 12 to 20 million and the worst is the whole long term trend changed with women having so little kids that long term survival as russia is under threat.

    In this case popular opinion is right and your fringe opinion is wrong.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
  507. Epigon says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    I asked short, precise questions demanding exact numbers, death toll.

    You responded with another long, retarded rant devoid of any facts and substance.

    Well done, Sovok dogmatic.
    I am not a fan of the narrative presented by the article’s author; I deal in numbers, facts, primary sources and causality.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  508. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Korenchkin

    p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers

    We do not come to Unz to read popular opinions

    We come to Unz for the delightfully crazy opinions. We stay for the insane conspiracy theories.

  509. Epigon says:

    Everything you think you know about 1903 coup, 1904-1914 AH hostility towards Serbia, Sarajevo assassination, Young Bosnia and Black Hand is – wrong.

    If you want to understand it, think of 1903-1914 Serbia as a combination of US Deep State AND German Military out of government control.
    It was that bad, compounded by ridiculous levels of foreign meddling.

    Christopher Clark is the exact type of propagandistic bullshit peddler I loathe – virtually everything he wrote on the subject is wrong, but his books are sold out.

  510. @Epigon

    Answer just few questions yourself without usual at this blog bs. Why did revolution happen?
    Regarding numbers I am sure you can read. There is sources where you can learn it all. Answer another question, if fantastic numbers of those losses according to some BStters are correct how come Soviet russia population grew to more than 190 million before ww2 and then despite losing 27 million population again grew to almost 300 million by 1990. Now , the system created by bolsheviks is no more and obviously population according to genius like yourself should be skyrocketing, how come population is actually in downfall.
    Again, if you are so concerned about poor Russian, why you don’t concern yourself with losses under Peter the great that were massive and recent after 1992 demographic collapse?
    You cannot give truthful answers because your head is full of shit from reading Karlin and similar sources.

    • Agree: Simpleguest
  511. @Sergey Krieger

    Just to clarify, pressed “Agree” to consent with population numbers and related questions. I would ask the same questions. Sorry about that.

  512. @melanf

    The Austrian ultimatum was characterized by monstrous insolence …

    while murdering the successor to the head of state would be characterized by what exactly?

  513. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Apparently you cannot get rid of the Eurocentric, Marxist cum Orientalist bias in assessing the profound causes of WW1. The language of ‘Russia’s expansionism’, ‘Russia’s “ambitions”, Russia ‘plotting’, Serbia ‘plotting’, every one plotting against the meek and peaceful Muslims perfidiously abandoned by the chief plotter Britain, is profoundly misleading, it is the language of war propaganda. As if there was never an Armenian question, Greek question, Bulgarian question, the general Christian question in the Ottoman Empire, of all these people ‘plotting’ the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, now taken under the protection of the Second German Reich (which made itself the champion of all Muslims oppressed by the Britisher and Russians – the [in]famous ‘Damascus Speech’ of Kaiser Wilhelm II) against the wise policy of Bismarck, dead set against such a blatant provocation to Russia (and Britain). One has to take into consideration the shift in the British public opinion, horrified (like all European public opinion) by the Hamidian massacres (about which the Kaiser remained silent – silence condemned, ironically, by the Jön Türkler).
    There are many things you have to ‘unlearn’, before learning more. Like the appearance of the new kid on the block: America.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  514. @Sergey Krieger

    Czarist russia had 200 years to solve all those problems

    The problems were already being solved, Russia was one of the fastest growing economies in the world in 1914

    So that you know that revolution is a sign of elites ultimate failure to solve problems

    Revolutions also happened in places with far less problems, only there they didn’t hesitate to crush it

    Bolsheviks did not cause the revolution but only used it

    They spent decades helping terrorist organizations murder Government officials and spreading demoralizing anti-Russian and anti-Slavic propaganda
    Imagine if men like Stolypin survived to finish their work

    under Peter the great

    Yes, and he was praised by the Bolsheviks for it, because like them he wanted to fix the “backwards Russia” and didn’t mind the death toll

    loss of life in Russia alone since 1992

    The conclusion of the Communist experiment, Marx would’ve probably been overjoyed that Russia was about to vanish

  515. @Seraphim

    In 1908 Russia attempted to cut a deal with Austria allowing the latter to annex Bosnia in return for allowing Russia to sail its Black Sea fleet through the straits of Constantinople. The agreement fell apart in acrimony. But it demonstrates how Russia had begun to turn towards Constantinople after being blocked by the British and Japenese elsewhere.

    It suited the interests of Britain to have Russia focused on Constantinople.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  516. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    … Russian troops were going into combat with bayonets tied to poles because there weren’t rifles

    Rifle production (Russia is green)

    But do tell us more.

  517. @Epigon

    Are you trolling or are you genuinely this retarded?

    Sovoks are that retarded.

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/#comment-2012785

    In any case Russia ended up getting two wars for the price of one, the Civil War and WW2, which ended up killing 15x as many of them as the First.

  518. @Sergey Krieger

    There is sources where you can learn it all. Answer another question, if fantastic numbers of those losses according to some BStters are correct how come Soviet russia population grew to more than 190 million before ww2 and then despite losing 27 million population again grew to almost 300 million by 1990.

    Because it’s not hard to have population growth when you have the fertility rates of Sub Saharan Africa.

    That said the sovoks did manage to almost annul it between 1917 and 1947.

  519. From “The Silk Roads” by Peter Frankopan.

    “In 1907 Sir Edward Grey told the Russian Ambassador to London that Britain might consider being more flexible on the issue of the Bosphorus if the Russians agreed to establish ‘permanent good relations.’

    This one statement by Sir Edward Grey arguably lit the fuse for WW I. Russia took the bait.

  520. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Russia always ‘turned towards Constantinople’ and the Straits. It was her constant policy because it was her sphere of most direct interest (geo-political as well as cultural – free navigation through the Straits was vital for Russia) and she didn’t have to seek the ‘permission’ either of Austria or Britain or whoever to follow it. It was rather the perception of Russia’s weakness that emboldened Austria-Hungary and Germany to increase their pretensions in the Balkans.
    The ‘deal’ in the question of Bosnia’s annexation (on the background of the Young Turks Revolution) was about changes to the whole Treaty of Berlin of 1878, including opening the Straits, Bulgarian independence, territorial concessions to Serbia, abolition of restrictions on Montenegrin sovereignty, which would have been settled by an international agreement of all the signatories of the Treaty. Germany was strongly opposed and made strenuous efforts to sabotage any renegotiation, threatening to go to war, the Kaiser declaring that he stood beside his ally, Austria-Hungary, “in shining armor”, while Prince von Bülow declared that the “German sword had been thrown into the scale of European decision”. Not to say anything of the gloating at the ‘humiliation’ of Russia and Serbia. Anyhow, the ‘deal’ was not the initiative of Izvolsky, but of the Austrians.
    The change of heart of Britain in the problem of the Straits was a result of the Entente of 1907 and abandonment of her policy of ‘containment’ of Russia, shifting to the ‘containment’ of Germany. Still in 1908 Britain opposed the modifications of the Treaty of Berlin. But the annexation of Bosnia contributed to further weaken that opposition. At the beginning of the war the Britisher told earnestly the Turks that if “should Turkey be so unwise as to provoke the Powers of the Triple Entente, it would mean the end of the Ottoman Empire”. The mobilization of the Ottoman Army in the direction of the oil fields of Abadan and Baku could not but steel the resolve of the Entante. Only three weeks before the Ottoman Empire proclaim the jihad against Russia and Britain, Asquith declared to King George V: “Henceforward, Great Britain must finally abandon the formula of “Ottoman integrity,” whether in Europe or Asia”. All the troubles we witness in the ME have their remote origin in that ‘unwise’ decision of the Ottomans.

  521. “The change of heart of Britain in the problem of the Straits was a result of the Entente of 1907 and abandonment of her policy of ‘containment’ of Russia,”

    Peter Frankopan shows that Britain was still seeking to “contain” Russia right up until 1914. The British were still consumed with anxiety over Russian designs on Persia.

    But probably the greatest fear of the British was that Russia would make a rapprochement with Germany. The Kaiser was known to favor a rapprochement with Russia and he almost succeeded in making an agreement in 1905.

    The only difference in the situation post-1907 was that the British decided to kill the Russians with “kindness” and pledges of allegiance rather than using a proxy to defeat the Russians as happened in 1904/5.

  522. Seraphim says:

    That Britain had a duplicitous policy towards Russia is undeniable. My objections were that Russia’s policies were not driven by anyone but Russia’s interests, that Russia was not anyone’s ‘dupe’. Russia’s interest in the status of the Straits was never abandoned, supposedly seeking ‘compensations’ in expansionist ‘adventures’ in the East where she was ‘encroaching’ on the British interests.
    But Britain did not ‘conspire’ with Russia to ‘encircle’ Germany and to deny ‘her place under the sun’ (as the German and Nazi propaganda, relayed by the ‘white nationalists’, clamored). It was the complete reversal of Bismarck ‘Realpolitik’ and its replacement by the ‘Weltpolitik’ of the Kaiser which first perplexed and then seriously alarmed Britain and France and pushing them to seek the Russian alliance. The so called ‘Treaty of Björkö’ of 1905 was a desperate attempt by the Kaiser to repair the damages he provoked by abandoning Bismarck’s policy, but Russia did not take the bait.
    The problem of the Straits was central even for Russia’s eastern expansion. As Churchill said in his often misquoted sentence supposed to describe the whimsical nature of Russia’s policies, precisely in reference to the Straits question:
    “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. It cannot be in accordance with the interest of the safety of Russia that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should overrun the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of south eastern Europe, That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia.
    Thus, my friends, at some risk of being proved wrong by events, I will proclaim tonight my conviction that the second great fact of the first month of the war is that Hitler, and all that Hitler stands for, have been and are being warned off the east and the southeast of Europe.
    Here I am in the same post as I was 25 years ago. Rough times lie ahead; but how different is the scene from that of October, 1914! Then Russia had been laid low at Tannenberg; then the whole might of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was in the battle against us; then the brave, warlike Turks were about to join our enemies. Then we had to be ready night and day to fight a decisive sea battle with a formidable German fleet almost, in many respects, the equal of our own. We faced those adverse conditions then; we have nothing worse to face tonight. We may be sure that the world will roll forward into broader destinies”.
    We should not overlook the fact that Britain overcame her ‘distrust’ of Russia, sticking to the alliance and fighting with determination in two wars allied with Russia.

  523. AirFreeze says: • Website

    What’s up to all, it’s really a nice for me to go to see
    this site, it consists of precious Information.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Anon comments are not allowed. If you are new to my work, *start here*. If you liked this post, and want me to produce more such content, consider *donating*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS