The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Three Myths About Nazism in Russia
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Russia has half the world’s Neo-Nazis

This claim appears to date to a 2007 ABC News report about far right violence in Russia:

In a country that lost more people defeating the Nazis than any other country, there are now an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 neo-Nazis, half of the world’s total. They even have supporters in parliament.

We know that because we have Neo-Nazi censuses.

Oh wait, we don’t.

No original sources are cited, there are no hints as to who qualifies to be a Neo-Nazi, and ABC News had a pronounced anti-Russian agenda even by Western media standards (they were banned from continuing to work in Russia after having an interview with the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev in 2005).

Russia does of course have quite a few Neo-Nazis, but they only constitute a small percentage of nationalists in general. This might be a hard concept for two-bit journalists who are convinced that all the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” protesters, or even Donald Trump voters, are Nazis, but in the real world definitions are important and Russian Neo-Nazism always has been, and remains, a numerically marginal movement.

Russians/(Poles, Slavs, etc.) have to be are stupid/insane/historically illiterate to be Nazis, don’t they realize the Nazis killed 27 million of them?

I never really understood how this is even an argument.

Presumably, to the extent they harbor any genocidal fantasies, Russian (Polish, etc.) Neo-Nazis would much sooner want to kill 27 million foreigners, not 27 million of their own. (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

The Holocaust regardless, the Jews constructed the most unapologetically ethnonationalist state in the First World; that very event is not infrequently cited as one of the reasons that the Jews need a Jewish state.

So clearly the mere fact of having suffered from German Nazis constitutes no logical impediment to adopting elements of Nazi policy for what they consider to be in service of their own people. Nazism is national socialism, after all; it’s not the NSDAP (which specifies German workers) that they subscribe to.

On this note, here is one additional argument that I encountered on the (now defunct) blog of a Russian Neo-Nazi. I don’t endorse it, but it’s interesting and relevant.

To loosely paraphrase yarowrath: Both Western leaders and the highly Jewish Kiev regime today are perfectly fine using openly Neo-Nazi batallions to prevent Russians from seceding from the Ukraine (a state that only exists thanks to the Bolsheviks). However, they label you a Russian troll just for noticing the symbology on Azov’s flag.

Now considering that Russians:

  • Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism, having done more than anyone to end it (to the extent that the Kalashnikov graces the flags of Mozambique and Hezbollah);
  • Suffered more than anyone except the Jews from Hitler;
  • Did not themselves participate in the Holocaust, but did more than anyone else to stop it;
  • The Jews themselves haven’t shown much hesitancy about borrowing from Nazism in service of their interests;

One can argue that Russians have more of a moral right to dispassionately assess Hitler, without shame or condemnation, and adopt those of his ideas that are good and useful than well nigh any other people.

Russian Neo-Nazis all (1) support Ukraine against Kremlin mongolo-katsaps OR (2) hate Ukraine and fight for Putler.

This is a rather strange myth since it takes the form of a binary. But both versions are equally wrong.

In reality, the War in the Donbass has split the Neo-Nazis.

The more explicitly Nordicist elements of the Russian Neo-Nazis supported Ukraine, and a number of them went off to fight with Azov.

The rest of the Neo-Nazis supported the insurrection in the Donbass, and even formed their own batallion, Rusich.

By far the most famous Nazi figure in Russia is Tesak (Maxim Martsinkevich), a skinhead of Polish-Russian ancestry who is perhaps most notable for having invented the concept of Nazi ironic trolling a decade ahead of /pol/ and The Daily Stormer. His fans, the most numerous of any Russian Neo-Nazi, specialized in street actions that ranged from funny slapstick affairs to highly violent, illegal, and disgusting. Following the crackdown on his group in July 2014 (which saw Tesak jailed for 10 years this year), this cluster has turned strongly anti-Kremlin and many of their members have jaunted off to the Ukraine.

However, if support for the Ukraine vs. Novorossiya was perhaps 70-30% amongst Russian Neo-Nazis in 2014, by now those ratios have reversed.

Reading their forums as early as 2015, the general sentiment amongst them was that they had been betrayed and used by ZOG.

Poroshenko and his clique obviously and understandably cared much more for the opinions of besuited businessmen and bureacrats than tatted up stormers, and many of the Russian Neo-Nazis who had gone into exile in Ukraine for the cause of the white race were even failing to get residency permits, let alone Ukrainian citizenship, putting them at risk of deportation back to a Russian jail.

That said, regardless of their current opinions on Novorossiya and Ukraine, which are indeed mixed, Russian Neo-Nazis do more or less uniformly detest Putin, as they always have.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Nazism, Russia 
Hide 107 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Randal says:

    •Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism

    There isn’t any, of course.

    Not that I think you meant to endorse the idea, anyway, but more generally there’s no way the US and Russia should be let off as somehow “better” than Britain and the western European nations that exploited European technological and cultural advantages so effectively for centuries, merely because they were conquerors and settlers murdering their way across a relatively backward continent rather than constructing overseas colonial empires.

    All of our ancestors did that very competently and it’s as much something to be proud of as ashamed of, even if it’s not an appropriate model for today’s changed global circumstances.

    Back to the main topic of your piece: thanks that’s quite an interesting snippet of info.

    This might be a hard concept for two-bit journalists who are convinced that all the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” protesters, or even Donald Trump voters, are Nazis,

    The idea that any of the mainstream US sphere media bed-wetters are qualified to count “Nazis” even in their own country let alone abroad is laughable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The idea that any of the mainstream US sphere media bed-wetters are qualified to count “Nazis” even in their own country let alone abroad is laughable.

    Different groups, for different reasons, try to obscure the distinctions between Nazis and not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/russia-nazi-myths/#comment-1973850
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. iffen says:

    (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?
     
    Nazism (and fascist movements in general) were more about external aggression, there's nothing comparable to the famines and terror against one's own population like in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China or Cambodia under the Khmer rouge.
    The extreme view that Nazism was totally based on consensus is also wrong though, there was an element of internal repression to Nazi rule, and it got progressively stronger during the war (e.g. there really were cases of Germans being executed for telling jokes about Hitler or for "defeatism").
    , @Anon
    They didn't kill enough.

    Germans were the privileged group of the Greater German Empire.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?
     
    Sure, they were many of them - internally, Nazi Germany was far, far more violent than Fascist Italy (about 100,000 in Aktion T4, 100,000 German Jews - the other 400,000 managed to emigrate, perhaps 100,000 other categories - politicals, homosexuals, etc) - but still fell significantly short of the USSR in just 1937-38.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. iffen says:
    @Randal

    •Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism
     
    There isn't any, of course.

    Not that I think you meant to endorse the idea, anyway, but more generally there's no way the US and Russia should be let off as somehow "better" than Britain and the western European nations that exploited European technological and cultural advantages so effectively for centuries, merely because they were conquerors and settlers murdering their way across a relatively backward continent rather than constructing overseas colonial empires.

    All of our ancestors did that very competently and it's as much something to be proud of as ashamed of, even if it's not an appropriate model for today's changed global circumstances.

    Back to the main topic of your piece: thanks that's quite an interesting snippet of info.

    This might be a hard concept for two-bit journalists who are convinced that all the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” protesters, or even Donald Trump voters, are Nazis,
     
    The idea that any of the mainstream US sphere media bed-wetters are qualified to count "Nazis" even in their own country let alone abroad is laughable.

    The idea that any of the mainstream US sphere media bed-wetters are qualified to count “Nazis” even in their own country let alone abroad is laughable.

    Different groups, for different reasons, try to obscure the distinctions between Nazis and not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. The Jews themselves haven’t shown much hesitancy about borrowing from Nazism in service of their interests

    That sounds like an exaggeration to me. Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception (with some pretty creepy religious elements among the more religious groups – Palestinians as Amalekites etc.), but I don’t think there’s much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.
    And personally as a German I do think there’s a problem with Russian Nazis, it’s a really bad case of cultural appropriation. I feel offended by it.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf

    And personally as a German I do think there’s a problem with Russian Nazis, it’s a really bad case of cultural appropriation.
     
    And what's the problem? This is a very small group, despised by all
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception ... but I don’t think there’s much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.
     
    Who needs Mein Kampf when you've got the Talmud! We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @iffen
    (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

    Can't we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    Nazism (and fascist movements in general) were more about external aggression, there’s nothing comparable to the famines and terror against one’s own population like in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China or Cambodia under the Khmer rouge.
    The extreme view that Nazism was totally based on consensus is also wrong though, there was an element of internal repression to Nazi rule, and it got progressively stronger during the war (e.g. there really were cases of Germans being executed for telling jokes about Hitler or for “defeatism”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    According to Richard J. Evans, hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that's a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months, many of them were periodically rearrested before popular votes and similar events, when they were could have caused trouble. Popular votes were rigged, there's some evidence the counting wasn't done fairly, but even the votes couldn't be cast in secret, because often there was pressure not to go to the other side of room to the voting booth (often placed intentionally in a far away corner of the room), instead to just give the ballot directly to the members of the committee.

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death, of whom perhaps 20,000 were shot (the rest were probably sent to penal battalions), which he compared to the number condemned to death and shot in the First World War (12, not 12,000, only 12), to show how much coercion was used in making German soldiers fight to the bitter end. There was also the threat of repression used against family members.

    According to Evans, it's clear that the majority of Germans weren't quite on board with extreme nationalism. Social Democrats, who had perhaps 25-30% of the vote, had the same proportion of the vote right after the Third Reich's collapse. Similarly, Communists, Centrists (Catholic party) etc. had similar percentages to what they had before 1933. In other words, twelve years of Nazism did very little to alienate non-nationalists (basically half of the population) from their old non-nationalistic political views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. iffen says:

    Excellent comment. I just can’t get into the idea that we should just count the bodies to see who wins the derby.

    The extreme view that Nazism was totally based on consensus is also wrong though,

    Aren’t you trying to have it both ways a little bit? Don’t you think that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis had “some” positive correlation with the number of Germans who opposed them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Don’t you think that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis had “some” positive correlation with the number of Germans who opposed them?
     
    I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at...I'm not trying to exonerate 1930s/1940s Germans from their responsibility for supporting the regime (which a majority of them certainly did at some point, at least passively, with 1940 after the victory over France maybe being the high point of enthusiasm). But people who confidently claim they would have been resistance fighters at the time are naive. There were the pressures of the war, against a Soviet enemy that was widely seen as menacing, and at least some awareness of the massive crimes committed by Germans in the east, which lead to fears about revenge and punishment if Germany was to lose the war. And as I wrote the regime did get more repressive during the later war years and executed people for sometimes quite trivial offenses, to keep up morale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

    Can't we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    They didn’t kill enough.

    Germans were the privileged group of the Greater German Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. About the whole “white guilt” I wouldn’t be so sure. I have seen virulently anti-Russian propaganda concerning just about the 1990s Chechen wars.

    And if you take all the centuries of war-and-conquest interactions Russia has had with the Turkic/Islamic world I think TPTB could easily create a Russian white guilt.

    I don’t think the Soviet legacy will protect Russians. If they are able to distort WWII, why should the rest of the Soviet period fare better?

    In any case why would you willing choose to carry the baggage of Nazism? It seems to me that it would be easier to just copy generic fascist/reactionary ideas instead of having to relitigate WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @iffen
    Excellent comment. I just can't get into the idea that we should just count the bodies to see who wins the derby.

    The extreme view that Nazism was totally based on consensus is also wrong though,

    Aren't you trying to have it both ways a little bit? Don't you think that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis had "some" positive correlation with the number of Germans who opposed them?

    Don’t you think that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis had “some” positive correlation with the number of Germans who opposed them?

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at…I’m not trying to exonerate 1930s/1940s Germans from their responsibility for supporting the regime (which a majority of them certainly did at some point, at least passively, with 1940 after the victory over France maybe being the high point of enthusiasm). But people who confidently claim they would have been resistance fighters at the time are naive. There were the pressures of the war, against a Soviet enemy that was widely seen as menacing, and at least some awareness of the massive crimes committed by Germans in the east, which lead to fears about revenge and punishment if Germany was to lose the war. And as I wrote the regime did get more repressive during the later war years and executed people for sometimes quite trivial offenses, to keep up morale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I might be getting a little too counterfactual with some of this.

    Germans were killed by Nazis during their ascent to power.

    If the resistance had been more widespread, is there any doubt that the Nazis would have killed as many as necessary to gain complete control? Bolsheviks seem to get penalized in the body count derby because opposition to them was stronger and more widespread.

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).

    At what point does the body count start and which bodies count?

    If terror against [Ukrainian] kulaks count, why doesn't terror against [German] Jews count?

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

    The Jews themselves haven’t shown much hesitancy about borrowing from Nazism in service of their interests
     
    That sounds like an exaggeration to me. Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception (with some pretty creepy religious elements among the more religious groups - Palestinians as Amalekites etc.), but I don't think there's much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.
    And personally as a German I do think there's a problem with Russian Nazis, it's a really bad case of cultural appropriation. I feel offended by it.

    And personally as a German I do think there’s a problem with Russian Nazis, it’s a really bad case of cultural appropriation.

    And what’s the problem? This is a very small group, despised by all

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    It was a joke :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    Don’t you think that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis had “some” positive correlation with the number of Germans who opposed them?
     
    I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at...I'm not trying to exonerate 1930s/1940s Germans from their responsibility for supporting the regime (which a majority of them certainly did at some point, at least passively, with 1940 after the victory over France maybe being the high point of enthusiasm). But people who confidently claim they would have been resistance fighters at the time are naive. There were the pressures of the war, against a Soviet enemy that was widely seen as menacing, and at least some awareness of the massive crimes committed by Germans in the east, which lead to fears about revenge and punishment if Germany was to lose the war. And as I wrote the regime did get more repressive during the later war years and executed people for sometimes quite trivial offenses, to keep up morale.

    I might be getting a little too counterfactual with some of this.

    Germans were killed by Nazis during their ascent to power.

    If the resistance had been more widespread, is there any doubt that the Nazis would have killed as many as necessary to gain complete control? Bolsheviks seem to get penalized in the body count derby because opposition to them was stronger and more widespread.

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).

    At what point does the body count start and which bodies count?

    If terror against [Ukrainian] kulaks count, why doesn’t terror against [German] Jews count?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).
     
    I don't see why that should be unreasonable...as I understand it, there probably wouldn't have been a Russian civil war if the Bolsheviks hadn't staged a violent coup to seize total power. So the Bolsheviks are largely responsible (even if the whites committed numerous atrocities as well).
    And pre-war terror against German Jews is generally counted amongst the crimes of the Nazis, so I don't really understand your argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @German_reader

    The Jews themselves haven’t shown much hesitancy about borrowing from Nazism in service of their interests
     
    That sounds like an exaggeration to me. Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception (with some pretty creepy religious elements among the more religious groups - Palestinians as Amalekites etc.), but I don't think there's much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.
    And personally as a German I do think there's a problem with Russian Nazis, it's a really bad case of cultural appropriation. I feel offended by it.

    Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception … but I don’t think there’s much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.

    Who needs Mein Kampf when you’ve got the Talmud! We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.
     
    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    You could fill an encyclopedia with negative actual facts about Jews, no need to make stuff up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @melanf

    And personally as a German I do think there’s a problem with Russian Nazis, it’s a really bad case of cultural appropriation.
     
    And what's the problem? This is a very small group, despised by all

    It was a joke :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Nazism is national socialism, after all; its not the NSDAP (which specifies German workers) that they subscribe to.

    Perhaps so, but in the Third Reich, the term ‘Nazi’ was just the short name for an NSDAP member (although it may have derogatory at some point).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @iffen
    I might be getting a little too counterfactual with some of this.

    Germans were killed by Nazis during their ascent to power.

    If the resistance had been more widespread, is there any doubt that the Nazis would have killed as many as necessary to gain complete control? Bolsheviks seem to get penalized in the body count derby because opposition to them was stronger and more widespread.

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).

    At what point does the body count start and which bodies count?

    If terror against [Ukrainian] kulaks count, why doesn't terror against [German] Jews count?

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).

    I don’t see why that should be unreasonable…as I understand it, there probably wouldn’t have been a Russian civil war if the Bolsheviks hadn’t staged a violent coup to seize total power. So the Bolsheviks are largely responsible (even if the whites committed numerous atrocities as well).
    And pre-war terror against German Jews is generally counted amongst the crimes of the Nazis, so I don’t really understand your argument.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @iffen
    there was an element of internal repression to Nazi rule

    This just seems like an inadequate description to me.

    Pay no more attention to it; you seem to have a better grasp of the realities of the 3rd Reich than me anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @German_reader

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?
     
    Nazism (and fascist movements in general) were more about external aggression, there's nothing comparable to the famines and terror against one's own population like in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China or Cambodia under the Khmer rouge.
    The extreme view that Nazism was totally based on consensus is also wrong though, there was an element of internal repression to Nazi rule, and it got progressively stronger during the war (e.g. there really were cases of Germans being executed for telling jokes about Hitler or for "defeatism").

    According to Richard J. Evans, hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that’s a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months, many of them were periodically rearrested before popular votes and similar events, when they were could have caused trouble. Popular votes were rigged, there’s some evidence the counting wasn’t done fairly, but even the votes couldn’t be cast in secret, because often there was pressure not to go to the other side of room to the voting booth (often placed intentionally in a far away corner of the room), instead to just give the ballot directly to the members of the committee.

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death, of whom perhaps 20,000 were shot (the rest were probably sent to penal battalions), which he compared to the number condemned to death and shot in the First World War (12, not 12,000, only 12), to show how much coercion was used in making German soldiers fight to the bitter end. There was also the threat of repression used against family members.

    According to Evans, it’s clear that the majority of Germans weren’t quite on board with extreme nationalism. Social Democrats, who had perhaps 25-30% of the vote, had the same proportion of the vote right after the Third Reich’s collapse. Similarly, Communists, Centrists (Catholic party) etc. had similar percentages to what they had before 1933. In other words, twelve years of Nazism did very little to alienate non-nationalists (basically half of the population) from their old non-nationalistic political views.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death
     
    I know, my grandfather saw the Waffen-SS in East Prussia in 1944 just hang people without papers whom they suspected of being deserters.
    , @utu
    hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that’s a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months

    Germany in 1939 had lower imprisonment rate than the US in 2017.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Randal says:

    OT, but I see Bannon has gone despite his fulsome reaffirmation of the distinction between his “economic nationalism” group loyalty and the evil racist nationalist group loyalty of the white racists. Though apparently it was that very interview that might have been the final trigger for his removal, according to the BBC:

    Mr Bannon’s interview this week with the American Prospect magazine reportedly infuriated the president.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40980994

    But what’s this?

    Mr Bannon told associates he thought it was an off-the-record chat and didn’t realise he would be quoted.

    Just like Scaramucci? What is it about Trump aides and gross naivety about the media? Though as the Prospect journalist himself wrote, Bannon surely is the last person in the US to be naïve about the media. Reportedly “the question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up”.

    If Bannon knew he was on the way out and did that interview in defiance knowing it would light the fuse for his firing, why make himself look like a bungling naive idiot? Why not just say nothing about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Maybe he wanted to show he was being let go despite having sensible views (have to admit the things he said in that "interview", both about North Korea and the domestic situation in the US, seemed comparatively rational to me).
    Btw, have you seen this?
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/buchanan-shameful-defense-of-white-supremacy/
    Really beyond contempt, just despicable. US "conservatives" actually would deserve being humiliated and crushed by a victorious left if they behave like this.
    , @utu
    I heard of rumors been fired this Friday before is interview. In my opinion he should have quit already on April 4th. Lending his mind to Trump was like casting pearls before swine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @reiner Tor
    According to Richard J. Evans, hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that's a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months, many of them were periodically rearrested before popular votes and similar events, when they were could have caused trouble. Popular votes were rigged, there's some evidence the counting wasn't done fairly, but even the votes couldn't be cast in secret, because often there was pressure not to go to the other side of room to the voting booth (often placed intentionally in a far away corner of the room), instead to just give the ballot directly to the members of the committee.

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death, of whom perhaps 20,000 were shot (the rest were probably sent to penal battalions), which he compared to the number condemned to death and shot in the First World War (12, not 12,000, only 12), to show how much coercion was used in making German soldiers fight to the bitter end. There was also the threat of repression used against family members.

    According to Evans, it's clear that the majority of Germans weren't quite on board with extreme nationalism. Social Democrats, who had perhaps 25-30% of the vote, had the same proportion of the vote right after the Third Reich's collapse. Similarly, Communists, Centrists (Catholic party) etc. had similar percentages to what they had before 1933. In other words, twelve years of Nazism did very little to alienate non-nationalists (basically half of the population) from their old non-nationalistic political views.

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death

    I know, my grandfather saw the Waffen-SS in East Prussia in 1944 just hang people without papers whom they suspected of being deserters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    my grandfather saw the Waffen-SS in East Prussia in 1944 just hang people without papers
     
    They are probably not even included in the 30,000+ number, unless there was a court-martial involved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @German_reader

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death
     
    I know, my grandfather saw the Waffen-SS in East Prussia in 1944 just hang people without papers whom they suspected of being deserters.

    my grandfather saw the Waffen-SS in East Prussia in 1944 just hang people without papers

    They are probably not even included in the 30,000+ number, unless there was a court-martial involved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Randal
    OT, but I see Bannon has gone despite his fulsome reaffirmation of the distinction between his "economic nationalism" group loyalty and the evil racist nationalist group loyalty of the white racists. Though apparently it was that very interview that might have been the final trigger for his removal, according to the BBC:

    Mr Bannon's interview this week with the American Prospect magazine reportedly infuriated the president.
     
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40980994

    But what's this?

    Mr Bannon told associates he thought it was an off-the-record chat and didn't realise he would be quoted.
     
    Just like Scaramucci? What is it about Trump aides and gross naivety about the media? Though as the Prospect journalist himself wrote, Bannon surely is the last person in the US to be naïve about the media. Reportedly "the question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up".

    If Bannon knew he was on the way out and did that interview in defiance knowing it would light the fuse for his firing, why make himself look like a bungling naive idiot? Why not just say nothing about it?

    Maybe he wanted to show he was being let go despite having sensible views (have to admit the things he said in that “interview”, both about North Korea and the domestic situation in the US, seemed comparatively rational to me).
    Btw, have you seen this?

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/buchanan-shameful-defense-of-white-supremacy/

    Really beyond contempt, just despicable. US “conservatives” actually would deserve being humiliated and crushed by a victorious left if they behave like this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Btw, have you seen this?
     
    I have now. On one level it is just more of Dreher's usual twisting of Christianity to serve his own desperate need to be on the goodwhite side and to make "racism" into a metaphysically evil thing rather than what it is - a collection of political opinions, some more sensible than others. And his dishonest exaggeration and distortion of what Buchanan wrote and his hysterical screeching ("descend to the gutter ... shameful ... intolerable ... crossed a bright red line. No, no, no! Conservatives, this is not us. It cannot be us. We cannot put up with this.") nicely confirms the emotional and irrational basis of his opinion.

    On that level it's certainly pathetic. Especially as Buchanan's piece that seems to have pushed him over the edge is so harmlessly anodyne.

    It's another reminder, if needed, of how far the dogma will be pushed by the leftists and their servile apologists like Dreher, and how little it will take to be condemned, in the antiracist future they are building for us all. Fortunately I won't be around to see the worst of it, most likely, though it seems to be coming on rather quicker than once expected. My offspring will have to fight their own fights.

    But in some sense, where it becomes really distasteful for me, frankly, is in the way he dishonestly and shamelessly traduces the words of a colleague for whom he ought to be showing some respect and loyalty.

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

    Many anti-commies want to count the people killed in the Bolshevik seizure of power (the Whites, for example).
     
    I don't see why that should be unreasonable...as I understand it, there probably wouldn't have been a Russian civil war if the Bolsheviks hadn't staged a violent coup to seize total power. So the Bolsheviks are largely responsible (even if the whites committed numerous atrocities as well).
    And pre-war terror against German Jews is generally counted amongst the crimes of the Nazis, so I don't really understand your argument.

    there was an element of internal repression to Nazi rule

    This just seems like an inadequate description to me.

    Pay no more attention to it; you seem to have a better grasp of the realities of the 3rd Reich than me anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Seamus Padraig

    Israel is certainly a very nationalist country by self-conception ... but I don’t think there’s much evidence for any conscious borrowings from Nazism.
     
    Who needs Mein Kampf when you've got the Talmud! We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.

    We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.

    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    You could fill an encyclopedia with negative actual facts about Jews, no need to make stuff up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    So you are not counting the commenters here at Unz.

    R. Unz really should give us a way to vote on straightforward questions like this.
    , @DFH
    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

    “In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

    “This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

    “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”

    -Rabbi Oveida Youssef, CHIEF Sephardic rabbi of Israel

    Quote sourced from well-known anti-semitic propaganda organ, the Times of Israel
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. German Reader: wasn’t the Waffen SS for foreign volunteers? Was your grandfather non German?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    My grandfather wasn't in the Waffen-SS, he was with some ground unit of the Luftwaffe (dealing with things like radio equipment etc.; I don't know all the details and can't ask since he and most of my other close German relatives are dead).
    He did say though that he and his comrades during the retreat after the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte did appreciate it when they saw Waffen-SS units because those had the best weapons, tanks etc. and could hold up the Soviet advance (apparently he told about one incident in which a Tiger shot up a column of T-34s on a forest clearing, and he and his comrades cheered about it).
    And no, the Waffen-SS wasn't just for foreign volunteers, there were lots of Germans (both from the Reich and from ethnic Germans in eastern Europe) in it, in all-German units like Das Reich or Hitlerjugend. There were however some units consisting of foreign volunteers (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).
    , @Randal
    No, it was just the military wing of the SS organisation. There were foreign recruited units, but originally it was a German organisation and fielded some very significant German divisions.

    (And GR didn't say his grandfather was in the Waffen-SS, just that he saw them at work.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. iffen says:
    @Greasy William

    We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.
     
    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    You could fill an encyclopedia with negative actual facts about Jews, no need to make stuff up.

    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    So you are not counting the commenters here at Unz.

    R. Unz really should give us a way to vote on straightforward questions like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Randal says:
    @German_reader
    Maybe he wanted to show he was being let go despite having sensible views (have to admit the things he said in that "interview", both about North Korea and the domestic situation in the US, seemed comparatively rational to me).
    Btw, have you seen this?
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/buchanan-shameful-defense-of-white-supremacy/
    Really beyond contempt, just despicable. US "conservatives" actually would deserve being humiliated and crushed by a victorious left if they behave like this.

    Btw, have you seen this?

    I have now. On one level it is just more of Dreher’s usual twisting of Christianity to serve his own desperate need to be on the goodwhite side and to make “racism” into a metaphysically evil thing rather than what it is – a collection of political opinions, some more sensible than others. And his dishonest exaggeration and distortion of what Buchanan wrote and his hysterical screeching (“descend to the gutter … shameful … intolerable … crossed a bright red line. No, no, no! Conservatives, this is not us. It cannot be us. We cannot put up with this.”) nicely confirms the emotional and irrational basis of his opinion.

    On that level it’s certainly pathetic. Especially as Buchanan’s piece that seems to have pushed him over the edge is so harmlessly anodyne.

    It’s another reminder, if needed, of how far the dogma will be pushed by the leftists and their servile apologists like Dreher, and how little it will take to be condemned, in the antiracist future they are building for us all. Fortunately I won’t be around to see the worst of it, most likely, though it seems to be coming on rather quicker than once expected. My offspring will have to fight their own fights.

    But in some sense, where it becomes really distasteful for me, frankly, is in the way he dishonestly and shamelessly traduces the words of a colleague for whom he ought to be showing some respect and loyalty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I really find it disgusting, a honorable man wouldn't act like that. And the comments section is full of hysterical liberals/"conservatives", demanding that TAC should drop Buchanan (from the magazine which he founded!)...one even declaring that they should have William Buckley's purge of the right as an example. Basically TAC is supposed to become what it initially set out to oppose. Very sad. Looks like the US is beyond hope, it confirms me in my view that right-wingers in Europe will have to go their own way.
    , @Verymuchalive
    This is very sad, but has been predictable for some time. Like Brimelow and Derbyshire, Buchanan was purged from the National Review for his adherence to the truth. He founds a new magazine to present his views, but his fellow founder, Taki, has long left, as have others associated with the early period, like Steve Sailer and Ron Unz. It's the reason why we're commenting on this website, not the American Consevative's.
    The present American Conservative is CINO, and Mr Buchanan is faced with leaving now or being purged sometime in the future. He doesn't have the option of removing the maggots like Dreher who infest the magazine, as he probably doesn't have the leverage to do so.
    In a sane America, someone like Buchanan would have held high office and be highly regarded for his policy of putting America First. In insane America, despicable maggots like Dreher seem intent on firing him from the magazine he founded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Greasy William
    German Reader: wasn't the Waffen SS for foreign volunteers? Was your grandfather non German?

    My grandfather wasn’t in the Waffen-SS, he was with some ground unit of the Luftwaffe (dealing with things like radio equipment etc.; I don’t know all the details and can’t ask since he and most of my other close German relatives are dead).
    He did say though that he and his comrades during the retreat after the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte did appreciate it when they saw Waffen-SS units because those had the best weapons, tanks etc. and could hold up the Soviet advance (apparently he told about one incident in which a Tiger shot up a column of T-34s on a forest clearing, and he and his comrades cheered about it).
    And no, the Waffen-SS wasn’t just for foreign volunteers, there were lots of Germans (both from the Reich and from ethnic Germans in eastern Europe) in it, in all-German units like Das Reich or Hitlerjugend. There were however some units consisting of foreign volunteers (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).

    Strange, no Robert E. Lee brigade, I mean considering events and associations today you would have thought for sure that ....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Randal says:
    @Greasy William
    German Reader: wasn't the Waffen SS for foreign volunteers? Was your grandfather non German?

    No, it was just the military wing of the SS organisation. There were foreign recruited units, but originally it was a German organisation and fielded some very significant German divisions.

    (And GR didn’t say his grandfather was in the Waffen-SS, just that he saw them at work.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    My grandfather wasn't in the Waffen-SS, he was with some ground unit of the Luftwaffe (dealing with things like radio equipment etc.; I don't know all the details and can't ask since he and most of my other close German relatives are dead).
    He did say though that he and his comrades during the retreat after the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte did appreciate it when they saw Waffen-SS units because those had the best weapons, tanks etc. and could hold up the Soviet advance (apparently he told about one incident in which a Tiger shot up a column of T-34s on a forest clearing, and he and his comrades cheered about it).
    And no, the Waffen-SS wasn't just for foreign volunteers, there were lots of Germans (both from the Reich and from ethnic Germans in eastern Europe) in it, in all-German units like Das Reich or Hitlerjugend. There were however some units consisting of foreign volunteers (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).

    (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).

    Strange, no Robert E. Lee brigade, I mean considering events and associations today you would have thought for sure that ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany. Sure, the confederacy shouldn't be romanticized and some of its proponents had rather extreme ideas (like conquering a slave empire in the Caribbean and Latin America), but to some extent slavery there was tempered by Christian influences. iirc Jeff Davies even taught black children in Sunday school and only had slaves punished when a court of senior slaves judged it justified. That's quite different from Nazi exterminationism.
    And unless I'm mistaken, a high percentage of the Americans fighting against Germany in WW2 consisted of (presumbaly quite racist) white Southerners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Randal

    Btw, have you seen this?
     
    I have now. On one level it is just more of Dreher's usual twisting of Christianity to serve his own desperate need to be on the goodwhite side and to make "racism" into a metaphysically evil thing rather than what it is - a collection of political opinions, some more sensible than others. And his dishonest exaggeration and distortion of what Buchanan wrote and his hysterical screeching ("descend to the gutter ... shameful ... intolerable ... crossed a bright red line. No, no, no! Conservatives, this is not us. It cannot be us. We cannot put up with this.") nicely confirms the emotional and irrational basis of his opinion.

    On that level it's certainly pathetic. Especially as Buchanan's piece that seems to have pushed him over the edge is so harmlessly anodyne.

    It's another reminder, if needed, of how far the dogma will be pushed by the leftists and their servile apologists like Dreher, and how little it will take to be condemned, in the antiracist future they are building for us all. Fortunately I won't be around to see the worst of it, most likely, though it seems to be coming on rather quicker than once expected. My offspring will have to fight their own fights.

    But in some sense, where it becomes really distasteful for me, frankly, is in the way he dishonestly and shamelessly traduces the words of a colleague for whom he ought to be showing some respect and loyalty.

    I really find it disgusting, a honorable man wouldn’t act like that. And the comments section is full of hysterical liberals/”conservatives”, demanding that TAC should drop Buchanan (from the magazine which he founded!)…one even declaring that they should have William Buckley’s purge of the right as an example. Basically TAC is supposed to become what it initially set out to oppose. Very sad. Looks like the US is beyond hope, it confirms me in my view that right-wingers in Europe will have to go their own way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @iffen
    (like Charlemagne for Frenchmen, Nordland for Scandinavians, or Handschar and Skanderbeg for Bosnian and Albanian Muslims).

    Strange, no Robert E. Lee brigade, I mean considering events and associations today you would have thought for sure that ....

    I don’t think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany. Sure, the confederacy shouldn’t be romanticized and some of its proponents had rather extreme ideas (like conquering a slave empire in the Caribbean and Latin America), but to some extent slavery there was tempered by Christian influences. iirc Jeff Davies even taught black children in Sunday school and only had slaves punished when a court of senior slaves judged it justified. That’s quite different from Nazi exterminationism.
    And unless I’m mistaken, a high percentage of the Americans fighting against Germany in WW2 consisted of (presumbaly quite racist) white Southerners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany.

    Aren't there only two sides now: good or bad?
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even the half of it. :)

    https://twitter.com/pnin1957/status/897852588825219072

    The American GI's of WW2 are basically Alt Right by today's standards. Maybe even more hardcore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Randal says:

    an honorable man wouldn’t act like that

    Interesting you should write that (I agree), in that it ties in with Art Deco’s comment about Dreher the other day:

    [Dreher] is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor.

    And the comments section is full of hysterical liberals/”conservatives”, demanding that TAC should drop Buchanan (from the magazine which he founded!)…one even declaring that they should have William Buckley’s purge of the right as an example.

    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:

    this is the beginning of the end of white Christian conservatism, don’t you? Trump is stage IV cancer, and when the left dusts itself off, whatever remains of the right’s bloated carcass is going to be incinerated in a thermonuclear fireball. There’s a burning hatred that honestly wasn’t there prior to Trump; I think it’s widely shared, and I don’t see it going away until the cancer of white supremacy is exterminated. Seeing as how the white working-class and evangelical Christianity are epicenters of this plague, they’ll be prime targets. I’m sorry, but your peers won’t be forgiven for the situation we find ourselves in.

    Haters? I think we’ve found them.

    Basically TAC is supposed to become what it initially set out to oppose.

    Seems to be out to complete the transition, for sure.

    Looks like the US is beyond hope, it confirms me in my view that right-wingers in Europe will have to go their own way.

    Can’t say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.

    This is where I should write something about the night being darkest just before the dawn, I think…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:
     
    The joker who wrote that had another comment along the same lines in an earlier thread there:
    "Rod, when the pendulum swings back, perhaps for good — the white vote continues to shrink — tell me again why liberals should be merciful to people like Michael? Honestly, Rod, I think I speak for a lot of folks on the center-left when I say that any hope y’all had for leniency died in 2016-17. And white evangelicals have no one but themselves to blame: if Kasich or Rubio had prevailed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For many years, Democrats have suspected Republicans of harboring and inciting racial animosity. Well, congrats, Trump has removed all doubt. Now prepare to live with the consequences of your disgraceful decision."

    Really scary how unhinged US liberals have become, these aren't rational people. But if they do get back into power in 2020 I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious "religious liberty" mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.


    Can’t say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.
     
    It feels horrible in Germany as well, a lot of people are comparing it to how it was in East Germany. Personally I'm starting to hope that it will at least end with a bang rather than with a whimper (yes I know, that's pretty nihilistic), at least a cataclysmic collapse would be interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Mr. XYZ says:

    Interesting article, Anatoly! However, I want to make a couple of points:

    -If you think that only the Bolsheviks could have created an independent Ukraine, you’re wrong. Indeed, had Germany won World War I, we would have also been an independent Ukraine be created (in fact, it was briefly created before it was conquered by the Bolsheviks). Likewise, had more moderate socialists come to power in Russia in 1917-1918, you could have seen the creation of an autonomous Ukraine within Russia (as well as an end to Russification within Ukraine). Indeed, Ukrainians are right to hate the Bolsheviks given the massive and unnecessary death that they caused in Ukraine as well as the economic stagnation (especially in comparison to the West) that their rule resulted in; plus, as I have just pointed out, you didn’t need Bolshevik rule in order to create either a Ukrainian state or a Ukrainian nation.

    -I am unsure as to how Jewish the Ukrainian government actually is. I mean, Yes, Kolomoisky and Hroisman are Jewish; however, are there any other prominent Jewish politicians in the Ukrainian government right now?

    -It isn’t quite accurate to say that Russia wasn’t a colonial power at all; after all, Russia’s actions in the Caucasus and in Central Asia could certainly be viewed as colonial. For instance, take a look at this:

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

    True, there might not be any “white guilt” in Russia, but my point is that saying that Russia doesn’t have a history of brutal and nasty colonialism is wrong and inaccurate.

    -While Israel is an ethno-state, you could arguably say the same thing about countries such as Japan, Poland, and Hungary. Indeed, Israel is actually much more diverse than the three countries mentioned above due to its 20% Arab population (a population that apparently prefers to remain under Israeli rule than to be transferred to a future Palestinian state via land swaps).

    -Percentage-wise, the Roma appear to have suffered more under the Nazis than the Russians did:

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

    For that matter, the Belarusians suffered more under the Nazis than the Russians did as well (Yes, Yes, you consider the Belarusians and Ukrainians to be a part of the Russian nation):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Erlikman

    -This should be so obvious that I might as well not bother writing it, but even though Russia stopped the Holocaust, its own history with anti-Semitism isn’t exactly pleasant. Indeed, even if you could justify the university quotas as being a form of affirmative action for Russia’s non-Jewish population, this still wouldn’t justify either the existence of the Pale of Settlement or the anti-Jewish pogroms which occurred in the Russian Empire. Indeed, Tsarist Russia’s record in regards to the Jews was so unpleasant that a whopping two million Jews emigrated from Tsarist Russia after 1880!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    We need the Bolsheviks to return to power, then AK and Ukrainians can unite against them (enemy of my enemy). Actually I think he just wants your women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Agreed about Israel. Sure, it’s an ethno-state, but it’s not a very hardcore one. Indeed, this is evidenced by the 20% Arab population in Israel and by Israel’s lack of interest and desire in converting these Arabs to Judaism.

    In contrast, Nazi Germany’s solution to ethnic minorities was generally either forced Germanization, expulsion, or murder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Randal

    an honorable man wouldn’t act like that
     
    Interesting you should write that (I agree), in that it ties in with Art Deco's comment about Dreher the other day:

    "[Dreher] is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor. "

    And the comments section is full of hysterical liberals/”conservatives”, demanding that TAC should drop Buchanan (from the magazine which he founded!)…one even declaring that they should have William Buckley’s purge of the right as an example.
     
    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:

    "this is the beginning of the end of white Christian conservatism, don’t you? Trump is stage IV cancer, and when the left dusts itself off, whatever remains of the right’s bloated carcass is going to be incinerated in a thermonuclear fireball. There’s a burning hatred that honestly wasn’t there prior to Trump; I think it’s widely shared, and I don’t see it going away until the cancer of white supremacy is exterminated. Seeing as how the white working-class and evangelical Christianity are epicenters of this plague, they’ll be prime targets. I’m sorry, but your peers won’t be forgiven for the situation we find ourselves in."

    Haters? I think we've found them.

    Basically TAC is supposed to become what it initially set out to oppose.
     
    Seems to be out to complete the transition, for sure.

    Looks like the US is beyond hope, it confirms me in my view that right-wingers in Europe will have to go their own way.
     
    Can't say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.

    This is where I should write something about the night being darkest just before the dawn, I think.....

    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:

    The joker who wrote that had another comment along the same lines in an earlier thread there:
    “Rod, when the pendulum swings back, perhaps for good — the white vote continues to shrink — tell me again why liberals should be merciful to people like Michael? Honestly, Rod, I think I speak for a lot of folks on the center-left when I say that any hope y’all had for leniency died in 2016-17. And white evangelicals have no one but themselves to blame: if Kasich or Rubio had prevailed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For many years, Democrats have suspected Republicans of harboring and inciting racial animosity. Well, congrats, Trump has removed all doubt. Now prepare to live with the consequences of your disgraceful decision.”

    Really scary how unhinged US liberals have become, these aren’t rational people. But if they do get back into power in 2020 I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious “religious liberty” mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.

    Can’t say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.

    It feels horrible in Germany as well, a lot of people are comparing it to how it was in East Germany. Personally I’m starting to hope that it will at least end with a bang rather than with a whimper (yes I know, that’s pretty nihilistic), at least a cataclysmic collapse would be interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    How exactly do you see it playing out? You think things will just go on like this forever?

    What can't go on, won't go on. Now admittedly, it can last a lot longer than you might think, but the track the West is currently on is unsustainable.

    One good thing is that the US is growing ever closer to civil war. I think we have now gotten to the point where most Americans believe that civil war is inevitable which was far from the case even 2 years ago. And once there is a civil war in the US, the entire Globalist system detonates.
    , @Randal
    Like I said, it's obvious where the real "haters" are today.

    I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious “religious liberty” mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.
     
    That would indeed be a fitting reward for his dishonesty about "racists" and collaboration with the forces of the left. Can't say I want it to happen, considering all the innocents who will also suffer, but then again what I say won't change anything anyway, and it is very much looking as though that's the way it will go.

    Dreher will most likely find himself harassed and perhaps imprisoned by the very same forces, precedents, institutions and people he has helped to turn loose on "racists".

    Did you pick up also on the nice irony of his using decades past supposed outrages by doubtless decades dead supposed "white supremacists" to justify his condemnation of "white supremacists" today? What that reminds me of most clearly is a lot of conversations with militant atheists explaining how Christianity and today's Christians can't be forgiven for or separated from the past sins of Christians and Christianity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @German_reader

    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:
     
    The joker who wrote that had another comment along the same lines in an earlier thread there:
    "Rod, when the pendulum swings back, perhaps for good — the white vote continues to shrink — tell me again why liberals should be merciful to people like Michael? Honestly, Rod, I think I speak for a lot of folks on the center-left when I say that any hope y’all had for leniency died in 2016-17. And white evangelicals have no one but themselves to blame: if Kasich or Rubio had prevailed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For many years, Democrats have suspected Republicans of harboring and inciting racial animosity. Well, congrats, Trump has removed all doubt. Now prepare to live with the consequences of your disgraceful decision."

    Really scary how unhinged US liberals have become, these aren't rational people. But if they do get back into power in 2020 I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious "religious liberty" mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.


    Can’t say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.
     
    It feels horrible in Germany as well, a lot of people are comparing it to how it was in East Germany. Personally I'm starting to hope that it will at least end with a bang rather than with a whimper (yes I know, that's pretty nihilistic), at least a cataclysmic collapse would be interesting.

    How exactly do you see it playing out? You think things will just go on like this forever?

    What can’t go on, won’t go on. Now admittedly, it can last a lot longer than you might think, but the track the West is currently on is unsustainable.

    One good thing is that the US is growing ever closer to civil war. I think we have now gotten to the point where most Americans believe that civil war is inevitable which was far from the case even 2 years ago. And once there is a civil war in the US, the entire Globalist system detonates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    One good thing is that the US is growing ever closer to civil war.
     
    That actually seems doubtful to me, there's a lot of hysteria in the US, but how would civil war come about? Maybe there will be major unrest if (or when) Trump will be removed from office or assassinated. But as long as the US military stays loyal to the establishment, any uprising would be mercilessly crushed.
    Regarding Germany and the rest of Western Europe, I don't know what's going to happen or when, but something will eventually happen. The political and media establishment in Germany seems determined to go on with its insane immigration policy. This will eventually cripple Germany financially and might even lead to some form of Islamic insurgency in ten or 20 years (just a little anecdote from an acquaintance of my father who works as an elementary school teacher: One of her pupils is now a 14-year old Syrian. His name is Jihad. He says he killed someone on his way to Europe. He also says he hates Germans and won't accept being ordered around by a woman. And he's got five siblings. That's the kind of youngster who will supposedly integrate just fine and stabilize the pensions system). The future wasn't looking great a few years ago, but now I think anything might be possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Greasy William
    How exactly do you see it playing out? You think things will just go on like this forever?

    What can't go on, won't go on. Now admittedly, it can last a lot longer than you might think, but the track the West is currently on is unsustainable.

    One good thing is that the US is growing ever closer to civil war. I think we have now gotten to the point where most Americans believe that civil war is inevitable which was far from the case even 2 years ago. And once there is a civil war in the US, the entire Globalist system detonates.

    One good thing is that the US is growing ever closer to civil war.

    That actually seems doubtful to me, there’s a lot of hysteria in the US, but how would civil war come about? Maybe there will be major unrest if (or when) Trump will be removed from office or assassinated. But as long as the US military stays loyal to the establishment, any uprising would be mercilessly crushed.
    Regarding Germany and the rest of Western Europe, I don’t know what’s going to happen or when, but something will eventually happen. The political and media establishment in Germany seems determined to go on with its insane immigration policy. This will eventually cripple Germany financially and might even lead to some form of Islamic insurgency in ten or 20 years (just a little anecdote from an acquaintance of my father who works as an elementary school teacher: One of her pupils is now a 14-year old Syrian. His name is Jihad. He says he killed someone on his way to Europe. He also says he hates Germans and won’t accept being ordered around by a woman. And he’s got five siblings. That’s the kind of youngster who will supposedly integrate just fine and stabilize the pensions system). The future wasn’t looking great a few years ago, but now I think anything might be possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    I liked the fire and brimstone one saying:
     
    The joker who wrote that had another comment along the same lines in an earlier thread there:
    "Rod, when the pendulum swings back, perhaps for good — the white vote continues to shrink — tell me again why liberals should be merciful to people like Michael? Honestly, Rod, I think I speak for a lot of folks on the center-left when I say that any hope y’all had for leniency died in 2016-17. And white evangelicals have no one but themselves to blame: if Kasich or Rubio had prevailed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For many years, Democrats have suspected Republicans of harboring and inciting racial animosity. Well, congrats, Trump has removed all doubt. Now prepare to live with the consequences of your disgraceful decision."

    Really scary how unhinged US liberals have become, these aren't rational people. But if they do get back into power in 2020 I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious "religious liberty" mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.


    Can’t say it feels as though we are any better off in the UK, at least.
     
    It feels horrible in Germany as well, a lot of people are comparing it to how it was in East Germany. Personally I'm starting to hope that it will at least end with a bang rather than with a whimper (yes I know, that's pretty nihilistic), at least a cataclysmic collapse would be interesting.

    Like I said, it’s obvious where the real “haters” are today.

    I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious “religious liberty” mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.

    That would indeed be a fitting reward for his dishonesty about “racists” and collaboration with the forces of the left. Can’t say I want it to happen, considering all the innocents who will also suffer, but then again what I say won’t change anything anyway, and it is very much looking as though that’s the way it will go.

    Dreher will most likely find himself harassed and perhaps imprisoned by the very same forces, precedents, institutions and people he has helped to turn loose on “racists”.

    Did you pick up also on the nice irony of his using decades past supposed outrages by doubtless decades dead supposed “white supremacists” to justify his condemnation of “white supremacists” today? What that reminds me of most clearly is a lot of conversations with militant atheists explaining how Christianity and today’s Christians can’t be forgiven for or separated from the past sins of Christians and Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    What that reminds me of most clearly is a lot of conversations with militant atheists explaining how Christianity and today’s Christians can’t be forgiven for or separated from the past sins of Christians and Christianity.
     
    Well, I have a somewhat more negative view of Christianity than you, and tbh I sometimes wonder if Dreher's hysteria isn't linked in some way to how he views everything through a religious lens. This "cosmic struggle against the forces of darkness" view of events where there's an almost Manichaean division of good/evil, antiracism/racism, Christian universalism/nationalist idolatry certainly feels very religious to me...it's not a world view open to discussion or where you can disagree on some points or work out a compromise. Regarding your point about people with "evil" opinions being held responsible for the sins of their supposed forebears: well in a way that's how medieval Christians often held contemporary Jews to be responsible for Christ's execution. Since Dreher believes things went bad sometime in the 12th century (because of Nominalism!), a pre-modern mindset is probably to be expected with him. It's just that nowadays nationalists/racists are the satanic force in the redemption story of Christians like him (note, I'm not saying that all Christians think like this, I know there are quite a few who have a more nuanced view, but imo it's a clearly discernible trend in contemporary Christianity).
    But anyway, this piece really shocked me somewhat. I think Buchanan should demand an apology and if isn't forthcoming, disavow TAC before they do the same to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Randal
    Like I said, it's obvious where the real "haters" are today.

    I hope Dreher will live to see all his precious “religious liberty” mercilessly destroyed, and be forced to write articles extolling transgenderism and repenting for his homophobia for the rest of his life.
     
    That would indeed be a fitting reward for his dishonesty about "racists" and collaboration with the forces of the left. Can't say I want it to happen, considering all the innocents who will also suffer, but then again what I say won't change anything anyway, and it is very much looking as though that's the way it will go.

    Dreher will most likely find himself harassed and perhaps imprisoned by the very same forces, precedents, institutions and people he has helped to turn loose on "racists".

    Did you pick up also on the nice irony of his using decades past supposed outrages by doubtless decades dead supposed "white supremacists" to justify his condemnation of "white supremacists" today? What that reminds me of most clearly is a lot of conversations with militant atheists explaining how Christianity and today's Christians can't be forgiven for or separated from the past sins of Christians and Christianity.

    What that reminds me of most clearly is a lot of conversations with militant atheists explaining how Christianity and today’s Christians can’t be forgiven for or separated from the past sins of Christians and Christianity.

    Well, I have a somewhat more negative view of Christianity than you, and tbh I sometimes wonder if Dreher’s hysteria isn’t linked in some way to how he views everything through a religious lens. This “cosmic struggle against the forces of darkness” view of events where there’s an almost Manichaean division of good/evil, antiracism/racism, Christian universalism/nationalist idolatry certainly feels very religious to me…it’s not a world view open to discussion or where you can disagree on some points or work out a compromise. Regarding your point about people with “evil” opinions being held responsible for the sins of their supposed forebears: well in a way that’s how medieval Christians often held contemporary Jews to be responsible for Christ’s execution. Since Dreher believes things went bad sometime in the 12th century (because of Nominalism!), a pre-modern mindset is probably to be expected with him. It’s just that nowadays nationalists/racists are the satanic force in the redemption story of Christians like him (note, I’m not saying that all Christians think like this, I know there are quite a few who have a more nuanced view, but imo it’s a clearly discernible trend in contemporary Christianity).
    But anyway, this piece really shocked me somewhat. I think Buchanan should demand an apology and if isn’t forthcoming, disavow TAC before they do the same to him.

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

    But anyway, this piece really shocked me somewhat. I think Buchanan should demand an apology and if isn’t forthcoming, disavow TAC before they do the same to him.

    Buchanan should deliver a challenge to a choice of weapons. Taki would second him, doubtless, if only for old time’s sake and for the hell of it.

    At 78 if he’s as physically spry as he is mentally he should be perfectly up for it, and if not well it’s probably as good a way to go as any.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Great idea, but for something like this one would need a sense of honor and shame which Dreher is obviously lacking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Randal

    But anyway, this piece really shocked me somewhat. I think Buchanan should demand an apology and if isn’t forthcoming, disavow TAC before they do the same to him.
     
    Buchanan should deliver a challenge to a choice of weapons. Taki would second him, doubtless, if only for old time's sake and for the hell of it.

    At 78 if he's as physically spry as he is mentally he should be perfectly up for it, and if not well it's probably as good a way to go as any.

    Great idea, but for something like this one would need a sense of honor and shame which Dreher is obviously lacking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    I don't think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany. Sure, the confederacy shouldn't be romanticized and some of its proponents had rather extreme ideas (like conquering a slave empire in the Caribbean and Latin America), but to some extent slavery there was tempered by Christian influences. iirc Jeff Davies even taught black children in Sunday school and only had slaves punished when a court of senior slaves judged it justified. That's quite different from Nazi exterminationism.
    And unless I'm mistaken, a high percentage of the Americans fighting against Germany in WW2 consisted of (presumbaly quite racist) white Southerners.

    I don’t think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany.

    Aren’t there only two sides now: good or bad?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. iffen says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    Interesting article, Anatoly! However, I want to make a couple of points:

    -If you think that only the Bolsheviks could have created an independent Ukraine, you're wrong. Indeed, had Germany won World War I, we would have also been an independent Ukraine be created (in fact, it was briefly created before it was conquered by the Bolsheviks). Likewise, had more moderate socialists come to power in Russia in 1917-1918, you could have seen the creation of an autonomous Ukraine within Russia (as well as an end to Russification within Ukraine). Indeed, Ukrainians are right to hate the Bolsheviks given the massive and unnecessary death that they caused in Ukraine as well as the economic stagnation (especially in comparison to the West) that their rule resulted in; plus, as I have just pointed out, you didn't need Bolshevik rule in order to create either a Ukrainian state or a Ukrainian nation.

    -I am unsure as to how Jewish the Ukrainian government actually is. I mean, Yes, Kolomoisky and Hroisman are Jewish; however, are there any other prominent Jewish politicians in the Ukrainian government right now?

    -It isn't quite accurate to say that Russia wasn't a colonial power at all; after all, Russia's actions in the Caucasus and in Central Asia could certainly be viewed as colonial. For instance, take a look at this:

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

    True, there might not be any "white guilt" in Russia, but my point is that saying that Russia doesn't have a history of brutal and nasty colonialism is wrong and inaccurate.

    -While Israel is an ethno-state, you could arguably say the same thing about countries such as Japan, Poland, and Hungary. Indeed, Israel is actually much more diverse than the three countries mentioned above due to its 20% Arab population (a population that apparently prefers to remain under Israeli rule than to be transferred to a future Palestinian state via land swaps).

    -Percentage-wise, the Roma appear to have suffered more under the Nazis than the Russians did:

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

    For that matter, the Belarusians suffered more under the Nazis than the Russians did as well (Yes, Yes, you consider the Belarusians and Ukrainians to be a part of the Russian nation):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Erlikman

    -This should be so obvious that I might as well not bother writing it, but even though Russia stopped the Holocaust, its own history with anti-Semitism isn't exactly pleasant. Indeed, even if you could justify the university quotas as being a form of affirmative action for Russia's non-Jewish population, this still wouldn't justify either the existence of the Pale of Settlement or the anti-Jewish pogroms which occurred in the Russian Empire. Indeed, Tsarist Russia's record in regards to the Jews was so unpleasant that a whopping two million Jews emigrated from Tsarist Russia after 1880!

    We need the Bolsheviks to return to power, then AK and Ukrainians can unite against them (enemy of my enemy). Actually I think he just wants your women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Anatoly already said that he's only into black girls
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Mr. XYZ says:

    : I’m not Ukrainian.

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

    : Also, I figure that I might as well say this–having Nazis fight pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine actually makes some sense. After all, I’d rather have these Nazis be killed in this war than to have normal, decent people be killed in this war.

    Oh, and before you criticize me, I would like to point out that I actually support allowing the Donbass (and Crimea) to hold a free and fair referendum to determine their future. Indeed, *if* the Donbass genuinely wants to join Russia, it should be allowed to do so. Meanwhile, my point here is that if Ukraine insists on waging a war against the Donbass rebels, it might as well use Nazis–rather than decent people–as cannon fodder for this war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo
    A thoroughly moronic comment - the Ukrainian Nazi battalions never bore the brunt of the fighting (Azov in particular waged its war chiefly on the internet), and the regular army troops who did were not normal or decent.

    Nobody on the Ukrainian side is normal or decent, but since you aren't either I suppose that fact would be lost on you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Pavlo says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: Also, I figure that I might as well say this--having Nazis fight pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine actually makes some sense. After all, I'd rather have these Nazis be killed in this war than to have normal, decent people be killed in this war.

    Oh, and before you criticize me, I would like to point out that I actually support allowing the Donbass (and Crimea) to hold a free and fair referendum to determine their future. Indeed, *if* the Donbass genuinely wants to join Russia, it should be allowed to do so. Meanwhile, my point here is that if Ukraine insists on waging a war against the Donbass rebels, it might as well use Nazis--rather than decent people--as cannon fodder for this war.

    A thoroughly moronic comment – the Ukrainian Nazi battalions never bore the brunt of the fighting (Azov in particular waged its war chiefly on the internet), and the regular army troops who did were not normal or decent.

    Nobody on the Ukrainian side is normal or decent, but since you aren’t either I suppose that fact would be lost on you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @German_reader
    I don't think you can really compare the confederacy to Nazi Germany. Sure, the confederacy shouldn't be romanticized and some of its proponents had rather extreme ideas (like conquering a slave empire in the Caribbean and Latin America), but to some extent slavery there was tempered by Christian influences. iirc Jeff Davies even taught black children in Sunday school and only had slaves punished when a court of senior slaves judged it justified. That's quite different from Nazi exterminationism.
    And unless I'm mistaken, a high percentage of the Americans fighting against Germany in WW2 consisted of (presumbaly quite racist) white Southerners.

    Not even the half of it. :)

    The American GI’s of WW2 are basically Alt Right by today’s standards. Maybe even more hardcore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    When my English grandfather was in North Africa during WW2, he was in charge of captured German weapons; and one day he had some American GIs come to him who asked for Lugers, because they wanted "to shoot some n****rs" (he refused, he didn't like Americans anyway). No idea what exactly the background for this was, but violence between whites and blacks in the US military wasn't unheard of during WW2. Has of course been retconned out of existence like so much else in the US perception of WW2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @iffen
    (They aren’t Communists, after all, whose democidal ambitions are primarily aimed at their own people).

    Can't we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    Can’t we get an honorable mention for the Germans killed by the Nazis?

    Sure, they were many of them – internally, Nazi Germany was far, far more violent than Fascist Italy (about 100,000 in Aktion T4, 100,000 German Jews – the other 400,000 managed to emigrate, perhaps 100,000 other categories – politicals, homosexuals, etc) – but still fell significantly short of the USSR in just 1937-38.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even the half of it. :)

    https://twitter.com/pnin1957/status/897852588825219072

    The American GI's of WW2 are basically Alt Right by today's standards. Maybe even more hardcore.

    When my English grandfather was in North Africa during WW2, he was in charge of captured German weapons; and one day he had some American GIs come to him who asked for Lugers, because they wanted “to shoot some n****rs” (he refused, he didn’t like Americans anyway). No idea what exactly the background for this was, but violence between whites and blacks in the US military wasn’t unheard of during WW2. Has of course been retconned out of existence like so much else in the US perception of WW2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Has of course been retconned out of existence

    You don't have to go back to WWII to find a lacuna in the history of racial violence in the US military. You only need to go back to the Viet Nam era to find plenty of assaults, riots, mutinies and unsolved murders. It's the main reason the man decided to shut down the war and the draft and very likely the reason MLK was killed. He was poised to come out against the War big-time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    According to Richard J. Evans, hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that's a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months, many of them were periodically rearrested before popular votes and similar events, when they were could have caused trouble. Popular votes were rigged, there's some evidence the counting wasn't done fairly, but even the votes couldn't be cast in secret, because often there was pressure not to go to the other side of room to the voting booth (often placed intentionally in a far away corner of the room), instead to just give the ballot directly to the members of the committee.

    He also wrote that during the war some 30,000+ German soldiers were court-martialed to death, of whom perhaps 20,000 were shot (the rest were probably sent to penal battalions), which he compared to the number condemned to death and shot in the First World War (12, not 12,000, only 12), to show how much coercion was used in making German soldiers fight to the bitter end. There was also the threat of repression used against family members.

    According to Evans, it's clear that the majority of Germans weren't quite on board with extreme nationalism. Social Democrats, who had perhaps 25-30% of the vote, had the same proportion of the vote right after the Third Reich's collapse. Similarly, Communists, Centrists (Catholic party) etc. had similar percentages to what they had before 1933. In other words, twelve years of Nazism did very little to alienate non-nationalists (basically half of the population) from their old non-nationalistic political views.

    hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that’s a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months

    Germany in 1939 had lower imprisonment rate than the US in 2017.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler's willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn't raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. utu says:
    @Randal
    OT, but I see Bannon has gone despite his fulsome reaffirmation of the distinction between his "economic nationalism" group loyalty and the evil racist nationalist group loyalty of the white racists. Though apparently it was that very interview that might have been the final trigger for his removal, according to the BBC:

    Mr Bannon's interview this week with the American Prospect magazine reportedly infuriated the president.
     
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40980994

    But what's this?

    Mr Bannon told associates he thought it was an off-the-record chat and didn't realise he would be quoted.
     
    Just like Scaramucci? What is it about Trump aides and gross naivety about the media? Though as the Prospect journalist himself wrote, Bannon surely is the last person in the US to be naïve about the media. Reportedly "the question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up".

    If Bannon knew he was on the way out and did that interview in defiance knowing it would light the fuse for his firing, why make himself look like a bungling naive idiot? Why not just say nothing about it?

    I heard of rumors been fired this Friday before is interview. In my opinion he should have quit already on April 4th. Lending his mind to Trump was like casting pearls before swine.

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

    : Thanks for this information! Indeed, it’s a shame that many Ukrainian Neo-Nazis aren’t fighting and dying on the front lines in the Donbass. :(

    Also, for the record, it doesn’t look like Ukraine has a monopoly on war crimes in this conflict:

    http://www.dw.com/en/un-notes-possible-war-crimes-by-both-sides-in-ukraine/a-19400492

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Randal

    Btw, have you seen this?
     
    I have now. On one level it is just more of Dreher's usual twisting of Christianity to serve his own desperate need to be on the goodwhite side and to make "racism" into a metaphysically evil thing rather than what it is - a collection of political opinions, some more sensible than others. And his dishonest exaggeration and distortion of what Buchanan wrote and his hysterical screeching ("descend to the gutter ... shameful ... intolerable ... crossed a bright red line. No, no, no! Conservatives, this is not us. It cannot be us. We cannot put up with this.") nicely confirms the emotional and irrational basis of his opinion.

    On that level it's certainly pathetic. Especially as Buchanan's piece that seems to have pushed him over the edge is so harmlessly anodyne.

    It's another reminder, if needed, of how far the dogma will be pushed by the leftists and their servile apologists like Dreher, and how little it will take to be condemned, in the antiracist future they are building for us all. Fortunately I won't be around to see the worst of it, most likely, though it seems to be coming on rather quicker than once expected. My offspring will have to fight their own fights.

    But in some sense, where it becomes really distasteful for me, frankly, is in the way he dishonestly and shamelessly traduces the words of a colleague for whom he ought to be showing some respect and loyalty.

    This is very sad, but has been predictable for some time. Like Brimelow and Derbyshire, Buchanan was purged from the National Review for his adherence to the truth. He founds a new magazine to present his views, but his fellow founder, Taki, has long left, as have others associated with the early period, like Steve Sailer and Ron Unz. It’s the reason why we’re commenting on this website, not the American Consevative’s.
    The present American Conservative is CINO, and Mr Buchanan is faced with leaving now or being purged sometime in the future. He doesn’t have the option of removing the maggots like Dreher who infest the magazine, as he probably doesn’t have the leverage to do so.
    In a sane America, someone like Buchanan would have held high office and be highly regarded for his policy of putting America First. In insane America, despicable maggots like Dreher seem intent on firing him from the magazine he founded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. DFH says:
    @Greasy William

    We only exist to serve the Chosen Ones, you know.
     
    You do realize that pretty much nobody believes that, right?

    You could fill an encyclopedia with negative actual facts about Jews, no need to make stuff up.

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

    “In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

    “This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

    “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”

    -Rabbi Oveida Youssef, CHIEF Sephardic rabbi of Israel

    Quote sourced from well-known anti-semitic propaganda organ, the Times of Israel

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Great, so what percentage of Jews do you think agree with what Ovadia said?

    Most people would agree that I am pretty extreme and I don't think that. I know many other extreme Jews, some even further to the right than me, and they don't think that either.

    Ovadia was a senile, left wing idiot whose reputation as a scholar was entirely due to his phenomenal memory. He once said that Holocaust victims deserved it because they were just reincarnated sinners and that walking between 2 women was like walking between 2 donkeys (he might have had a point there, but most Jews would disagree with him on that one as well).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @utu
    hundreds of thousands of Germans were arrested (including family members, that’s a lot of people) in 1933, and though the vast majority were released within a few months

    Germany in 1939 had lower imprisonment rate than the US in 2017.

    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn’t raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Of course, many Germans really were Hitler's willing executioners (a significant portion of the actual murderers), but it didn't include the majority of the population. Even the majority of the actual executioners were quite a bit reluctant, even if they weren't outright coerced into participating, at least there was significant pressure for the majority of them.
    , @German_reader

    Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners
     
    That's true and it gets markedly more extreme the longer the distance to the 3rd Reich. Now that most of those who lived during the Nazi era are dead it has become much easier to view all Germans of that time as monsters...you've now got members of the youth wing of the Christian Democrats (the "conservatives", haha) opining on Twitter that 95% of all Wehrmacht soldiers were active perpetrators of Nazi crimes.
    , @utu
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    Look at the numbers. Even w/o African-Americans incarceration in the US is higher than in Germany 1939.

    Germany 1939: 100, 000 Prisons, 25,000 KL

    USA 2017: 1,330,000 State Prisons, 630,000 Local Jails, 197,000 Fed Prisons, 34,000 Youth Facilities

    Population of Germany 1939: 66 millions
    Population USA 2017: 325 milions

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany's incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions.

    Correct. There are 11,000,000 arrests every year in the US. This is not reflected in the incarceration rates because of the definition and methodology how the incarceration rates are calculated. Out of these 11 millions arrests only 6% shows up as incarceration rate in jails.

    How else can you and this Evans of yours scare me about Germany? I want the same Kool-Aid you guys are drinking because I do not want to think of what is going around me right now because it is just too scary. Keep scaring with Nazis, please.
    , @Art Deco
    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners,

    Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a Jewish particularist of the Wistrich-Wieseltier-Maccoby variety. His more polemical work has been taken apart by Ronald Rychlak. Goldhagen I think was denied tenure at Harvard (normal for assistant professors there) and not hired anywhere else (not so normal). I think all of his published work has been elaborations on his dissertation. El hacko.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @reiner Tor
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler's willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn't raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.

    Of course, many Germans really were Hitler’s willing executioners (a significant portion of the actual murderers), but it didn’t include the majority of the population. Even the majority of the actual executioners were quite a bit reluctant, even if they weren’t outright coerced into participating, at least there was significant pressure for the majority of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    but it didn’t include the majority of the population.

    I have always resisted accepting the idea that there was “something wrong” with the German people that facilitated the rise of Hitler. I have viewed it along the lines, “There, but for the Grace of God…” But I wonder if there wasn’t some sort of insecurity in the national psyche arising from geographical location and the fact that they were later to the game in the nation-state formation business vis-à-vis rivals like France?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    When my English grandfather was in North Africa during WW2, he was in charge of captured German weapons; and one day he had some American GIs come to him who asked for Lugers, because they wanted "to shoot some n****rs" (he refused, he didn't like Americans anyway). No idea what exactly the background for this was, but violence between whites and blacks in the US military wasn't unheard of during WW2. Has of course been retconned out of existence like so much else in the US perception of WW2.

    Has of course been retconned out of existence

    You don’t have to go back to WWII to find a lacuna in the history of racial violence in the US military. You only need to go back to the Viet Nam era to find plenty of assaults, riots, mutinies and unsolved murders. It’s the main reason the man decided to shut down the war and the draft and very likely the reason MLK was killed. He was poised to come out against the War big-time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @iffen
    We need the Bolsheviks to return to power, then AK and Ukrainians can unite against them (enemy of my enemy). Actually I think he just wants your women.

    Anatoly already said that he’s only into black girls

    Read More
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @iffen
    No problem. This is the age of TRANS: trans-gender, trans-racial, trans-human, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @DFH
    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

    “In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

    “This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

    “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”

    -Rabbi Oveida Youssef, CHIEF Sephardic rabbi of Israel

    Quote sourced from well-known anti-semitic propaganda organ, the Times of Israel
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

    Great, so what percentage of Jews do you think agree with what Ovadia said?

    Most people would agree that I am pretty extreme and I don’t think that. I know many other extreme Jews, some even further to the right than me, and they don’t think that either.

    Ovadia was a senile, left wing idiot whose reputation as a scholar was entirely due to his phenomenal memory. He once said that Holocaust victims deserved it because they were just reincarnated sinners and that walking between 2 women was like walking between 2 donkeys (he might have had a point there, but most Jews would disagree with him on that one as well).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Of course, many Germans really were Hitler's willing executioners (a significant portion of the actual murderers), but it didn't include the majority of the population. Even the majority of the actual executioners were quite a bit reluctant, even if they weren't outright coerced into participating, at least there was significant pressure for the majority of them.

    but it didn’t include the majority of the population.

    I have always resisted accepting the idea that there was “something wrong” with the German people that facilitated the rise of Hitler. I have viewed it along the lines, “There, but for the Grace of God…” But I wonder if there wasn’t some sort of insecurity in the national psyche arising from geographical location and the fact that they were later to the game in the nation-state formation business vis-à-vis rivals like France?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. iffen says:
    @Greasy William
    Anatoly already said that he's only into black girls

    No problem. This is the age of TRANS: trans-gender, trans-racial, trans-human, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @reiner Tor
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler's willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn't raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.

    Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners

    That’s true and it gets markedly more extreme the longer the distance to the 3rd Reich. Now that most of those who lived during the Nazi era are dead it has become much easier to view all Germans of that time as monsters…you’ve now got members of the youth wing of the Christian Democrats (the “conservatives”, haha) opining on Twitter that 95% of all Wehrmacht soldiers were active perpetrators of Nazi crimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Do you remember when the exhibition on crimes of Wehrmacht had to be called off because Polish and Hungarian researchers identified photographs showing German soldiers standing over mass graves as pictures taken from exhumations (not executions!) conducted by Germans in Poland that was "liberated" in 1941 by Germany from Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Soviet occupation. The exhumed mass graves were the product of Soviet occupation Sept 17, 1939 - June 22, 1941. Attributing Soviet crimes to make Germans take a rap for them was not a new thing (Katyn 1943). After June 22, 1941 NKVD was killing all detainees in their jails and prisons before their own hasty evacuation. These people were not buried by the time of arrival of German army however NKVD had 21 months of free reign in Eastern Poland (what is now Ukraine and Belorussia) to create and leave many (some still undiscovered) mass graves. Many of these crimes in official statistics and historiography of Poland and USSR/Russia are attribute to Germans. Perhaps in Germany they know the truth but they stay quiet about it. (I can't find now the text with the allegations and criticisms made by Prof. Bogdan Musial. I think he also was alleging intentional forgeries but the commission cleared themselves form this allegations.)

    Probably not many people have heard about it. The official sponsors of the exhibition wiggled out, admitted some unfortunate mistakes, made some changes and resumed the traveling of the exhibition. The exhibition was stimulated by Goldhagen book published 3-4 years earlier. Interesting though that despite of having powerful and rich sponsors who wanted to fund a special chair exclusively for him at Harvard he did not get tenure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung
    After criticisms about incorrect attribution and captioning of some of the images in the exhibition, e.g. by Polish-born historian Bogdan Musial and Hungarian historian Krisztián Ungváry, the head and founder of the Hamburg Institute for Social Research, Jan Philipp Reemtsma suspended the display, pending review of its content by a committee of historians.
     
    Norman Finkelstein was very critical of Goldhagen's work and intentions and by writing Holocaust Industry Finkelstein was trying to respond to Goldhagen and repair the damage done to Germans inspite of Germans' own wishes.

    One should look at which point in the Godhagen affair Germany started gifting Israel with submarines and then selling them at 1/2 price. One should not be naive as Finkelstein reminds us that this is all about extraction of money and Goldhagen was just a hatched man for a much bigger operation than he himself imagined.

    Unfortunately Germany's elites, media and secret services are inept and/or unwilling in preventing the soft power attacks on their country and society that besides of causing psychological and cultural damage results in a large chunk of money being extracted from Germany. In light of this one should however consider a possibility that the opening to refugees by the establishment of Germany is a part of soft power warfare conducted with the Zio-Anglo-American empire. It might be a neutralizing move to be immune from actions and operations like the one by Goldhagen and many other affairs in the past when Germany was totally exposed and helpless. In any battle you want to occupy the high ground. Merkel actions have the high moral ground in sight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler's willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn't raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.

    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    Look at the numbers. Even w/o African-Americans incarceration in the US is higher than in Germany 1939.

    Germany 1939: 100, 000 Prisons, 25,000 KL

    USA 2017: 1,330,000 State Prisons, 630,000 Local Jails, 197,000 Fed Prisons, 34,000 Youth Facilities

    Population of Germany 1939: 66 millions
    Population USA 2017: 325 milions

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany’s incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions.

    Correct. There are 11,000,000 arrests every year in the US. This is not reflected in the incarceration rates because of the definition and methodology how the incarceration rates are calculated. Out of these 11 millions arrests only 6% shows up as incarceration rate in jails.

    How else can you and this Evans of yours scare me about Germany? I want the same Kool-Aid you guys are drinking because I do not want to think of what is going around me right now because it is just too scary. Keep scaring with Nazis, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany’s incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.
     
    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons. Good to hear.

    It's also likely that Germans on average are more law-abiding than white Americans. So less people imprisoned for ordinary crimes.

    But please keep repeating leftist talking points about how Germans were Hitler's willing executioners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @utu
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    Look at the numbers. Even w/o African-Americans incarceration in the US is higher than in Germany 1939.

    Germany 1939: 100, 000 Prisons, 25,000 KL

    USA 2017: 1,330,000 State Prisons, 630,000 Local Jails, 197,000 Fed Prisons, 34,000 Youth Facilities

    Population of Germany 1939: 66 millions
    Population USA 2017: 325 milions

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany's incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions.

    Correct. There are 11,000,000 arrests every year in the US. This is not reflected in the incarceration rates because of the definition and methodology how the incarceration rates are calculated. Out of these 11 millions arrests only 6% shows up as incarceration rate in jails.

    How else can you and this Evans of yours scare me about Germany? I want the same Kool-Aid you guys are drinking because I do not want to think of what is going around me right now because it is just too scary. Keep scaring with Nazis, please.

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany’s incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.

    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons. Good to hear.

    It’s also likely that Germans on average are more law-abiding than white Americans. So less people imprisoned for ordinary crimes.

    But please keep repeating leftist talking points about how Germans were Hitler’s willing executioners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons.

    No, there are Mexicans. Whites and Blacks contribute about the the same number of inmates. Actually it is: 39% Whites, 40% Blacks and 19% Hispanic. That's why I said 40% in my comment.

    Are you not too strong with numbers or you get overcome with some weakness when you do not like particular numbers?

    Willing executioners? I did not even mention it. It is you, Goldhagen and your Evans who are yapping about it. What are you trying to say? What leftist points?
    , @iffen
    Germans were Hitler’s willing executioners

    If they weren't, who was?

    The argument seems tedious.

    Comparing incarceration rates doesn't tell you much of anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany’s incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.
     
    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons. Good to hear.

    It's also likely that Germans on average are more law-abiding than white Americans. So less people imprisoned for ordinary crimes.

    But please keep repeating leftist talking points about how Germans were Hitler's willing executioners.

    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons.

    No, there are Mexicans. Whites and Blacks contribute about the the same number of inmates. Actually it is: 39% Whites, 40% Blacks and 19% Hispanic. That’s why I said 40% in my comment.

    Are you not too strong with numbers or you get overcome with some weakness when you do not like particular numbers?

    Willing executioners? I did not even mention it. It is you, Goldhagen and your Evans who are yapping about it. What are you trying to say? What leftist points?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Art Deco says:
    @reiner Tor
    Easy when you have no black bodies committing crimes at African rates.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler's willing executioners, and part of that propaganda is trying to convince people how there was really no internal oppression in Germany and how Germans basically supported the regime out of their own volition without any coercion.

    As Richard J. Evans points out, if there is some coercion, you cannot really speak of consent, and Germans had a reasonable fear that if they spoke out against the system (or, worse, tried some more potent form of active resistance), they would be killed. The knowledge that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who were murdering Jews by their millions (and also millions of Slavs and others) as well as tens of thousands (probably over a hundred thousand until 1945) of mentally ill Germans didn't raise their confidence in what would happen to them if the Nazis captured them for anti-Nazi activities.

    By the way the periodic rearrests were not included in any imprisonment statistics, since they were just temporary detentions. Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners,

    Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a Jewish particularist of the Wistrich-Wieseltier-Maccoby variety. His more polemical work has been taken apart by Ronald Rychlak. Goldhagen I think was denied tenure at Harvard (normal for assistant professors there) and not hired anywhere else (not so normal). I think all of his published work has been elaborations on his dissertation. El hacko.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    African Americans constitute about 40% of prison populations.

    So when you take these numbers you will find out that Germany’s incarceration arte in 1939 was about 2 times lower than the US incarceration in 2017 even when African Americans are excluded.
     
    So this means that there are no Mexicans (with Mexican rates of murder) in US prisons. Good to hear.

    It's also likely that Germans on average are more law-abiding than white Americans. So less people imprisoned for ordinary crimes.

    But please keep repeating leftist talking points about how Germans were Hitler's willing executioners.

    Germans were Hitler’s willing executioners

    If they weren’t, who was?

    The argument seems tedious.

    Comparing incarceration rates doesn’t tell you much of anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    If they weren’t, who was?
     
    Are you just pretending you don't understand reiner tor's point or do you really don't get it?
    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners (a few hundred thousand were probably involved in some way in the Holocaust alone, plus of course many more in various war-related atrocities). The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society. Goldhagen claimed eliminationist antisemitism had been the norm in Germany for centuries and that there was an enthusiastic consensus among Germans for the most extreme antisemitism (that is not just being prejudiced against Jews, favouring some discrimination or looking the other way when Jews were harmed, no, a genuine belief that all Jews, everywhere, had to be killed). That thesis is controversial, to say the least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @iffen
    Germans were Hitler’s willing executioners

    If they weren't, who was?

    The argument seems tedious.

    Comparing incarceration rates doesn't tell you much of anything.

    If they weren’t, who was?

    Are you just pretending you don’t understand reiner tor’s point or do you really don’t get it?
    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners (a few hundred thousand were probably involved in some way in the Holocaust alone, plus of course many more in various war-related atrocities). The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society. Goldhagen claimed eliminationist antisemitism had been the norm in Germany for centuries and that there was an enthusiastic consensus among Germans for the most extreme antisemitism (that is not just being prejudiced against Jews, favouring some discrimination or looking the other way when Jews were harmed, no, a genuine belief that all Jews, everywhere, had to be killed). That thesis is controversial, to say the least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners


    Jesu Cristo! Do not use language that was invented in order to make you weak and destroy you! People were following orders. That's it. We will never know how willing or unwilling or enthusiastic they were. And we do not need to know. It was a war. And you lost it. That's why you are being asked the question about willing and unwilling BS.

    How unwilling were RAF and USAF when they were burning and killing women, children and old men in cities of Germany day and night every day or in Japan?

    How willing were American GI's in Pacific when they were killing Japanese prisoners left and right and had unprecedented 100:1 killed-to-prisoner ratio that toward the end of the war they had to be induced with a promises of ice cream for desserts to bring live POW's? Yes, this ice cream saved some lives. Some Japanese owe their lives to the ice cream that somehow had ability to moderate willingness-to-unwillingness coefficient. Still Americans managed to take only circa 50,000 Japanese POW's in the whole war while unquestionably brutal Soviets somehow managed to take 800,000 Japanese POW's. All you will hear that the Japanese did not want to surrender. You want to talk about willing and enthusiastic executioners scratch the skin of Americans WWII vets from Pacific campaign.
    , @iffen
    The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society

    I don't know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.

    Was German anti-Semitism a different brand from the rest of the world? I doubt it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. utu says:
    @German_reader

    Of course, there is a leftist (German) propaganda that is aimed at convincing Germans how they were Hitler’s willing executioners
     
    That's true and it gets markedly more extreme the longer the distance to the 3rd Reich. Now that most of those who lived during the Nazi era are dead it has become much easier to view all Germans of that time as monsters...you've now got members of the youth wing of the Christian Democrats (the "conservatives", haha) opining on Twitter that 95% of all Wehrmacht soldiers were active perpetrators of Nazi crimes.

    Do you remember when the exhibition on crimes of Wehrmacht had to be called off because Polish and Hungarian researchers identified photographs showing German soldiers standing over mass graves as pictures taken from exhumations (not executions!) conducted by Germans in Poland that was “liberated” in 1941 by Germany from Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Soviet occupation. The exhumed mass graves were the product of Soviet occupation Sept 17, 1939 – June 22, 1941. Attributing Soviet crimes to make Germans take a rap for them was not a new thing (Katyn 1943). After June 22, 1941 NKVD was killing all detainees in their jails and prisons before their own hasty evacuation. These people were not buried by the time of arrival of German army however NKVD had 21 months of free reign in Eastern Poland (what is now Ukraine and Belorussia) to create and leave many (some still undiscovered) mass graves. Many of these crimes in official statistics and historiography of Poland and USSR/Russia are attribute to Germans. Perhaps in Germany they know the truth but they stay quiet about it. (I can’t find now the text with the allegations and criticisms made by Prof. Bogdan Musial. I think he also was alleging intentional forgeries but the commission cleared themselves form this allegations.)

    Probably not many people have heard about it. The official sponsors of the exhibition wiggled out, admitted some unfortunate mistakes, made some changes and resumed the traveling of the exhibition. The exhibition was stimulated by Goldhagen book published 3-4 years earlier. Interesting though that despite of having powerful and rich sponsors who wanted to fund a special chair exclusively for him at Harvard he did not get tenure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung
    After criticisms about incorrect attribution and captioning of some of the images in the exhibition, e.g. by Polish-born historian Bogdan Musial and Hungarian historian Krisztián Ungváry, the head and founder of the Hamburg Institute for Social Research, Jan Philipp Reemtsma suspended the display, pending review of its content by a committee of historians.

    Norman Finkelstein was very critical of Goldhagen’s work and intentions and by writing Holocaust Industry Finkelstein was trying to respond to Goldhagen and repair the damage done to Germans inspite of Germans’ own wishes.

    One should look at which point in the Godhagen affair Germany started gifting Israel with submarines and then selling them at 1/2 price. One should not be naive as Finkelstein reminds us that this is all about extraction of money and Goldhagen was just a hatched man for a much bigger operation than he himself imagined.

    Unfortunately Germany’s elites, media and secret services are inept and/or unwilling in preventing the soft power attacks on their country and society that besides of causing psychological and cultural damage results in a large chunk of money being extracted from Germany. In light of this one should however consider a possibility that the opening to refugees by the establishment of Germany is a part of soft power warfare conducted with the Zio-Anglo-American empire. It might be a neutralizing move to be immune from actions and operations like the one by Goldhagen and many other affairs in the past when Germany was totally exposed and helpless. In any battle you want to occupy the high ground. Merkel actions have the high moral ground in sight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Do you remember when the exhibition on crimes of Wehrmacht had to be called off because Polish and Hungarian researchers identified photographs showing German soldiers standing over mass graves as pictures taken from exhumations
     
    Yes, I remember, they did sloppy research there (and the rich guy behind that exhibition, Jan Philip Reemtsma, from a family that got rich with selling cigarettes, is a total asshole; he probably tried to assuage his own feelings of shame with that exhibition since his relatives were personal friends of Himmler and had thousands of forced labourers work for them during the war). But it's proven beyond doubt that the Wehrmacht participated in many Nazi crimes, notably the starving to death of millions of Soviet pows, atrocities during anti-partisan warfare, and also in a secondary role in the Holocaust. That can't be denied, so the basic message of that exhibition was unfortunately correct (even if I reject the idea that this means every Wehrmacht conscript has to be regarded as a vile murderer).
    The NKVD massacres in 1941 are interesting also because the Germans seem to have used them for propaganda about Jewish commissars etc., in order to incite anti-Jewisn pogroms, and more generally as justification for their attack on the Soviet Union.

    One should look at which point in the Godhagen affair Germany started gifting Israel with submarines and then selling them at 1/2 price.
     
    iirc the "donation" of submarines to Israel happened years before the Goldhagen controversy, in the wake of the 1991 gulf war; there was no connection with Goldhagen's book. The Israelis did some guilt-tripping because Germany had sold chemicals and military technology to Saddam Hussein's regime, which looked somewhat bad after Saddam had fired Scuds on Israel. I can't say though that I'm getting agitated about this, compared to other issues like Germany's insane immigration policy (which can hardly be blamed on Israel) it's a minor irritant at most.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. utu says:
    @German_reader

    If they weren’t, who was?
     
    Are you just pretending you don't understand reiner tor's point or do you really don't get it?
    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners (a few hundred thousand were probably involved in some way in the Holocaust alone, plus of course many more in various war-related atrocities). The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society. Goldhagen claimed eliminationist antisemitism had been the norm in Germany for centuries and that there was an enthusiastic consensus among Germans for the most extreme antisemitism (that is not just being prejudiced against Jews, favouring some discrimination or looking the other way when Jews were harmed, no, a genuine belief that all Jews, everywhere, had to be killed). That thesis is controversial, to say the least.

    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners

    Jesu Cristo! Do not use language that was invented in order to make you weak and destroy you! People were following orders. That’s it. We will never know how willing or unwilling or enthusiastic they were. And we do not need to know. It was a war. And you lost it. That’s why you are being asked the question about willing and unwilling BS.

    How unwilling were RAF and USAF when they were burning and killing women, children and old men in cities of Germany day and night every day or in Japan?

    How willing were American GI’s in Pacific when they were killing Japanese prisoners left and right and had unprecedented 100:1 killed-to-prisoner ratio that toward the end of the war they had to be induced with a promises of ice cream for desserts to bring live POW’s? Yes, this ice cream saved some lives. Some Japanese owe their lives to the ice cream that somehow had ability to moderate willingness-to-unwillingness coefficient. Still Americans managed to take only circa 50,000 Japanese POW’s in the whole war while unquestionably brutal Soviets somehow managed to take 800,000 Japanese POW’s. All you will hear that the Japanese did not want to surrender. You want to talk about willing and enthusiastic executioners scratch the skin of Americans WWII vets from Pacific campaign.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    If they weren’t, who was?
     
    Are you just pretending you don't understand reiner tor's point or do you really don't get it?
    Of course there were a lot of Germans who were willing executioners (a few hundred thousand were probably involved in some way in the Holocaust alone, plus of course many more in various war-related atrocities). The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society. Goldhagen claimed eliminationist antisemitism had been the norm in Germany for centuries and that there was an enthusiastic consensus among Germans for the most extreme antisemitism (that is not just being prejudiced against Jews, favouring some discrimination or looking the other way when Jews were harmed, no, a genuine belief that all Jews, everywhere, had to be killed). That thesis is controversial, to say the least.

    The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society

    I don’t know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.

    Was German anti-Semitism a different brand from the rest of the world? I doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I don’t know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.
     
    I don't know either, I wasn't around back then, and it's very hard to judge in retrospect. My personal opinion is that most likely there was a lot of low-level prejudice against Jews in Germany, like pretty much everywhere else; eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events. In any case of course very many Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes in some way.
    French resistance largely were commies tbh, most average Frenchmen kept a low profile during most of the war (not that they should be blamed for that).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @utu
    Do you remember when the exhibition on crimes of Wehrmacht had to be called off because Polish and Hungarian researchers identified photographs showing German soldiers standing over mass graves as pictures taken from exhumations (not executions!) conducted by Germans in Poland that was "liberated" in 1941 by Germany from Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Soviet occupation. The exhumed mass graves were the product of Soviet occupation Sept 17, 1939 - June 22, 1941. Attributing Soviet crimes to make Germans take a rap for them was not a new thing (Katyn 1943). After June 22, 1941 NKVD was killing all detainees in their jails and prisons before their own hasty evacuation. These people were not buried by the time of arrival of German army however NKVD had 21 months of free reign in Eastern Poland (what is now Ukraine and Belorussia) to create and leave many (some still undiscovered) mass graves. Many of these crimes in official statistics and historiography of Poland and USSR/Russia are attribute to Germans. Perhaps in Germany they know the truth but they stay quiet about it. (I can't find now the text with the allegations and criticisms made by Prof. Bogdan Musial. I think he also was alleging intentional forgeries but the commission cleared themselves form this allegations.)

    Probably not many people have heard about it. The official sponsors of the exhibition wiggled out, admitted some unfortunate mistakes, made some changes and resumed the traveling of the exhibition. The exhibition was stimulated by Goldhagen book published 3-4 years earlier. Interesting though that despite of having powerful and rich sponsors who wanted to fund a special chair exclusively for him at Harvard he did not get tenure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung
    After criticisms about incorrect attribution and captioning of some of the images in the exhibition, e.g. by Polish-born historian Bogdan Musial and Hungarian historian Krisztián Ungváry, the head and founder of the Hamburg Institute for Social Research, Jan Philipp Reemtsma suspended the display, pending review of its content by a committee of historians.
     
    Norman Finkelstein was very critical of Goldhagen's work and intentions and by writing Holocaust Industry Finkelstein was trying to respond to Goldhagen and repair the damage done to Germans inspite of Germans' own wishes.

    One should look at which point in the Godhagen affair Germany started gifting Israel with submarines and then selling them at 1/2 price. One should not be naive as Finkelstein reminds us that this is all about extraction of money and Goldhagen was just a hatched man for a much bigger operation than he himself imagined.

    Unfortunately Germany's elites, media and secret services are inept and/or unwilling in preventing the soft power attacks on their country and society that besides of causing psychological and cultural damage results in a large chunk of money being extracted from Germany. In light of this one should however consider a possibility that the opening to refugees by the establishment of Germany is a part of soft power warfare conducted with the Zio-Anglo-American empire. It might be a neutralizing move to be immune from actions and operations like the one by Goldhagen and many other affairs in the past when Germany was totally exposed and helpless. In any battle you want to occupy the high ground. Merkel actions have the high moral ground in sight.

    Do you remember when the exhibition on crimes of Wehrmacht had to be called off because Polish and Hungarian researchers identified photographs showing German soldiers standing over mass graves as pictures taken from exhumations

    Yes, I remember, they did sloppy research there (and the rich guy behind that exhibition, Jan Philip Reemtsma, from a family that got rich with selling cigarettes, is a total asshole; he probably tried to assuage his own feelings of shame with that exhibition since his relatives were personal friends of Himmler and had thousands of forced labourers work for them during the war). But it’s proven beyond doubt that the Wehrmacht participated in many Nazi crimes, notably the starving to death of millions of Soviet pows, atrocities during anti-partisan warfare, and also in a secondary role in the Holocaust. That can’t be denied, so the basic message of that exhibition was unfortunately correct (even if I reject the idea that this means every Wehrmacht conscript has to be regarded as a vile murderer).
    The NKVD massacres in 1941 are interesting also because the Germans seem to have used them for propaganda about Jewish commissars etc., in order to incite anti-Jewisn pogroms, and more generally as justification for their attack on the Soviet Union.

    One should look at which point in the Godhagen affair Germany started gifting Israel with submarines and then selling them at 1/2 price.

    iirc the “donation” of submarines to Israel happened years before the Goldhagen controversy, in the wake of the 1991 gulf war; there was no connection with Goldhagen’s book. The Israelis did some guilt-tripping because Germany had sold chemicals and military technology to Saddam Hussein’s regime, which looked somewhat bad after Saddam had fired Scuds on Israel. I can’t say though that I’m getting agitated about this, compared to other issues like Germany’s insane immigration policy (which can hardly be blamed on Israel) it’s a minor irritant at most.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @iffen
    The question is how widespread genuine support for the full Nazi programme was in German society

    I don't know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.

    Was German anti-Semitism a different brand from the rest of the world? I doubt it.

    I don’t know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.

    I don’t know either, I wasn’t around back then, and it’s very hard to judge in retrospect. My personal opinion is that most likely there was a lot of low-level prejudice against Jews in Germany, like pretty much everywhere else; eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events. In any case of course very many Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes in some way.
    French resistance largely were commies tbh, most average Frenchmen kept a low profile during most of the war (not that they should be blamed for that).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    French resistance largely were commies

    That's why they and their Jewish members did not exist or were strictly forbidden to engage Germans prior to June 22, 1941 by Comrade Stalin. I would not be surprised if they were liquidating resistance members loyal to London during that time who actually were doing something detrimental to Germany.

    In the US Jewish communists were supporting America First Committee at that time. Many o them later were retconning their activities like Pete Seeger buying out his record with anti-war songs after Stalin ordered that war was good.
    , @iffen
    eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1

    I think that strictly speaking you are correct. Likely very few people thought through the implications of, " I wish we were rid of the Jews." If we want to keep on topic it is comparable to the current musings on how it would be great for the US if we were rid of black Americans. Few think that idea all the way through and in a practical manner. Further, I suspect many people think along the same lines as I do. That being, if it can happen to the Germans, an otherwise normal people, it could happen to us. And, I think that is where the impetus comes from for being overzealous in policing anti-Semitic (and other prejudicial) ideas; nobody really knows how or when it can transition to something much worse.

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

    I don’t know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.
     
    I don't know either, I wasn't around back then, and it's very hard to judge in retrospect. My personal opinion is that most likely there was a lot of low-level prejudice against Jews in Germany, like pretty much everywhere else; eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events. In any case of course very many Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes in some way.
    French resistance largely were commies tbh, most average Frenchmen kept a low profile during most of the war (not that they should be blamed for that).

    French resistance largely were commies

    That’s why they and their Jewish members did not exist or were strictly forbidden to engage Germans prior to June 22, 1941 by Comrade Stalin. I would not be surprised if they were liquidating resistance members loyal to London during that time who actually were doing something detrimental to Germany.

    In the US Jewish communists were supporting America First Committee at that time. Many o them later were retconning their activities like Pete Seeger buying out his record with anti-war songs after Stalin ordered that war was good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, I know that the commies tried to sabotage Britain's and France's war effort in 1940 with strikes, industrial sabotage and other subversive activities. I suppose though that's another "detail" that's nowadays forgotten (just like views of the Spanish civil war among many Westerners are pretty one-sided).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @utu
    French resistance largely were commies

    That's why they and their Jewish members did not exist or were strictly forbidden to engage Germans prior to June 22, 1941 by Comrade Stalin. I would not be surprised if they were liquidating resistance members loyal to London during that time who actually were doing something detrimental to Germany.

    In the US Jewish communists were supporting America First Committee at that time. Many o them later were retconning their activities like Pete Seeger buying out his record with anti-war songs after Stalin ordered that war was good.

    Yes, I know that the commies tried to sabotage Britain’s and France’s war effort in 1940 with strikes, industrial sabotage and other subversive activities. I suppose though that’s another “detail” that’s nowadays forgotten (just like views of the Spanish civil war among many Westerners are pretty one-sided).

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

    German reader: ” eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events.”

    Well, You know, German reader, political and economic events usually are contingent, so speaking of “contingent events” in history is something of a pleonasm. You would understand it, if You had spent more time studying Latin than crying online about the sad fate of your strange country.

    That said, I believe that German antisemitism was in no way contingent, but corresponded to a well developed German popular and intellectual tradition. Thus, it was no “event” in German history, but a solid and multi-secular trend. But one has to ask then: why was there such a permanent trend in German society and culture? Were Germans mentally impaired to despise for so long the good people of Judea? Is antisemitism a mental disease?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    You would understand it, if You had spent more time studying Latin than crying online about the sad fate of your strange country.
     
    I actually studied Latin at university, you stupid asshole. And the meaning of my statement is perfectly clear to anybody who isn't into nitpicking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Horpor
    German reader: " eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events."

    Well, You know, German reader, political and economic events usually are contingent, so speaking of "contingent events" in history is something of a pleonasm. You would understand it, if You had spent more time studying Latin than crying online about the sad fate of your strange country.

    That said, I believe that German antisemitism was in no way contingent, but corresponded to a well developed German popular and intellectual tradition. Thus, it was no "event" in German history, but a solid and multi-secular trend. But one has to ask then: why was there such a permanent trend in German society and culture? Were Germans mentally impaired to despise for so long the good people of Judea? Is antisemitism a mental disease?

    You would understand it, if You had spent more time studying Latin than crying online about the sad fate of your strange country.

    I actually studied Latin at university, you stupid asshole. And the meaning of my statement is perfectly clear to anybody who isn’t into nitpicking.

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

    German boy, You see, if one wants to discuss and understand, one has to be precise in the use of language, especially on the internet, where misunderstandings are frequent. As a reader of Karlin’s blog, I have sometimes to read your diffuse musings, and, sadly, they frequently are rather imprecise. So I just wanted to ask You to be more careful and sophisticated in your linguistic practice. I believe that we all here would profit even more from your Teutonic deepness, if You put more clarity in your expression.

    As for your affirmation that “I actually studied Latin at university, you stupid asshole.”, it only shows the complete degradation, cultural and social, that Germany has undergone in recent years. I pass on your crudity – it is the emasculate German male that screams there – and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school, even in elementary school, while today it is just taught for a few courses at university. Results of which are easily seen in German reader’s imprecise language and ignorance of etymology.

    Finally, I have to admit that when I read German reader’s far too numerous musings on Unz’s site, I frequently say to myself that if the German male population is in general similar to him, then one can understand the destructive state of Germany and its reckless government. German reader, You are, alas, a good ambassador for your people.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @German_reader

    and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school,
     
    You dumb piece of shit, I started learning Latin when I was 10 and have been working with the language for the majority of my life, and have actually contributed to serious academic work. I also did Greek at school.
    But since you're obviously a low-quality person and a troll, you're coming on Ignore.
    , @Parbes
    Afraid of the Anglo-Zionist neocon narrative being challenged and debunked by an intelligent German who makes good salient points instead of groveling to USrael and chanting "USA, USA", eh, hasbara Jewboy?

    You and your ilk's time will come, make no mistake.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Horpor
    German boy, You see, if one wants to discuss and understand, one has to be precise in the use of language, especially on the internet, where misunderstandings are frequent. As a reader of Karlin's blog, I have sometimes to read your diffuse musings, and, sadly, they frequently are rather imprecise. So I just wanted to ask You to be more careful and sophisticated in your linguistic practice. I believe that we all here would profit even more from your Teutonic deepness, if You put more clarity in your expression.

    As for your affirmation that "I actually studied Latin at university, you stupid asshole.", it only shows the complete degradation, cultural and social, that Germany has undergone in recent years. I pass on your crudity - it is the emasculate German male that screams there - and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school, even in elementary school, while today it is just taught for a few courses at university. Results of which are easily seen in German reader's imprecise language and ignorance of etymology.

    Finally, I have to admit that when I read German reader's far too numerous musings on Unz's site, I frequently say to myself that if the German male population is in general similar to him, then one can understand the destructive state of Germany and its reckless government. German reader, You are, alas, a good ambassador for your people.

    and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school,

    You dumb piece of shit, I started learning Latin when I was 10 and have been working with the language for the majority of my life, and have actually contributed to serious academic work. I also did Greek at school.
    But since you’re obviously a low-quality person and a troll, you’re coming on Ignore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    This board has an ignore feature?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Horpor says:

    Oh, now German boy is telling that he has been studying Latin since the elementary… and he is also a serious classicist. Impressive, though your classical skills do not seem to appear in your written expression. All You know is to cry about your sad, little country and the contemporary doom and gloom.

    And how do You know that I am “a low-quality person and a troll”? And then, what does “a low-quality person” mean? Someone who does not care for your Teutonic heaviness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. @German_reader

    and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school,
     
    You dumb piece of shit, I started learning Latin when I was 10 and have been working with the language for the majority of my life, and have actually contributed to serious academic work. I also did Greek at school.
    But since you're obviously a low-quality person and a troll, you're coming on Ignore.

    This board has an ignore feature?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    This board has an ignore feature?

    It does, but once 50% or more of the commenters place a handle on the ignore list, it is unavailable for use by that handle.
    , @German_reader
    Yes, you have to click on Agree/Disagree, then "Ignore commenter".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. iffen says:
    @Greasy William
    This board has an ignore feature?

    This board has an ignore feature?

    It does, but once 50% or more of the commenters place a handle on the ignore list, it is unavailable for use by that handle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    I don’t know the answer to this question.

    I note that the French of all peoples had a Resistance, of course that was distorted by nationalism.
     
    I don't know either, I wasn't around back then, and it's very hard to judge in retrospect. My personal opinion is that most likely there was a lot of low-level prejudice against Jews in Germany, like pretty much everywhere else; eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1 and only got into power in 1933 through a series of contingent events. In any case of course very many Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes in some way.
    French resistance largely were commies tbh, most average Frenchmen kept a low profile during most of the war (not that they should be blamed for that).

    eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1

    I think that strictly speaking you are correct. Likely very few people thought through the implications of, ” I wish we were rid of the Jews.” If we want to keep on topic it is comparable to the current musings on how it would be great for the US if we were rid of black Americans. Few think that idea all the way through and in a practical manner. Further, I suspect many people think along the same lines as I do. That being, if it can happen to the Germans, an otherwise normal people, it could happen to us. And, I think that is where the impetus comes from for being overzealous in policing anti-Semitic (and other prejudicial) ideas; nobody really knows how or when it can transition to something much worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    And, I think that is where the impetus comes from for being overzealous in policing anti-Semitic (and other prejudicial) ideas; nobody really knows how or when it can transition to something much worse.
     
    There's certainly something to this; and verbal extremism can certainly lead to dangerous tensions in multiethnic societies. It's just that in the modern west there seems to be such a ridiculous double standard, with some groups being expected to continually police their thoughts and pretend they don't have any collective interests at all, whereas others can get away with open chauvinism. That's not a healthy state of affairs either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Greasy William
    This board has an ignore feature?

    Yes, you have to click on Agree/Disagree, then “Ignore commenter”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @iffen
    eliminationist antisemites did exist, but they were a fringe phenomenon before WW1

    I think that strictly speaking you are correct. Likely very few people thought through the implications of, " I wish we were rid of the Jews." If we want to keep on topic it is comparable to the current musings on how it would be great for the US if we were rid of black Americans. Few think that idea all the way through and in a practical manner. Further, I suspect many people think along the same lines as I do. That being, if it can happen to the Germans, an otherwise normal people, it could happen to us. And, I think that is where the impetus comes from for being overzealous in policing anti-Semitic (and other prejudicial) ideas; nobody really knows how or when it can transition to something much worse.

    And, I think that is where the impetus comes from for being overzealous in policing anti-Semitic (and other prejudicial) ideas; nobody really knows how or when it can transition to something much worse.

    There’s certainly something to this; and verbal extremism can certainly lead to dangerous tensions in multiethnic societies. It’s just that in the modern west there seems to be such a ridiculous double standard, with some groups being expected to continually police their thoughts and pretend they don’t have any collective interests at all, whereas others can get away with open chauvinism. That’s not a healthy state of affairs either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Parbes says:
    @Horpor
    German boy, You see, if one wants to discuss and understand, one has to be precise in the use of language, especially on the internet, where misunderstandings are frequent. As a reader of Karlin's blog, I have sometimes to read your diffuse musings, and, sadly, they frequently are rather imprecise. So I just wanted to ask You to be more careful and sophisticated in your linguistic practice. I believe that we all here would profit even more from your Teutonic deepness, if You put more clarity in your expression.

    As for your affirmation that "I actually studied Latin at university, you stupid asshole.", it only shows the complete degradation, cultural and social, that Germany has undergone in recent years. I pass on your crudity - it is the emasculate German male that screams there - and recall to everyone that once upon a time Latin was studied in Germany already in junior high school, even in elementary school, while today it is just taught for a few courses at university. Results of which are easily seen in German reader's imprecise language and ignorance of etymology.

    Finally, I have to admit that when I read German reader's far too numerous musings on Unz's site, I frequently say to myself that if the German male population is in general similar to him, then one can understand the destructive state of Germany and its reckless government. German reader, You are, alas, a good ambassador for your people.

    Afraid of the Anglo-Zionist neocon narrative being challenged and debunked by an intelligent German who makes good salient points instead of groveling to USrael and chanting “USA, USA”, eh, hasbara Jewboy?

    You and your ilk’s time will come, make no mistake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. To paraphrase my late grandfater (him being a half Latvian German Communist who fought for the Wehrmacht under a false identity, yeah it got complex), fear of reprisals was big.

    Majority of the Wehrmacht had a pretty solid idea of what was done on the Eastern Front. While not every Wehrmacht soldier commited war crimes, pretty much everyone knew one who did so.

    As the Soviets were not exactly regarded as the most mercifull and forgiving people, Red army purges were fairly common knowledge (A prep talk went like: “this is what Stalin does to people for no reason, what do you think he will do to those he has about 10-30 million reasons to kill?”), they had every reason to be very very concerned about vengeance.

    A sense of “if we lose we will get totally wrecked and with good reason” was very much a thing.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @utu
    Your grandpa if he really existed was a liar.

    he has about 10-30 million reasons to kill

    Nobody could talk like this before the end of WWII.

    While not every Wehrmacht soldier commited war crimes, pretty much everyone knew one who did so.

    You are making this one up as well. Yes "not every Wehrmacht soldier" because there was one who did not namely my grandpa who was communist and not really a German.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. utu says:
    @Mightypeon
    To paraphrase my late grandfater (him being a half Latvian German Communist who fought for the Wehrmacht under a false identity, yeah it got complex), fear of reprisals was big.

    Majority of the Wehrmacht had a pretty solid idea of what was done on the Eastern Front. While not every Wehrmacht soldier commited war crimes, pretty much everyone knew one who did so.

    As the Soviets were not exactly regarded as the most mercifull and forgiving people, Red army purges were fairly common knowledge (A prep talk went like: "this is what Stalin does to people for no reason, what do you think he will do to those he has about 10-30 million reasons to kill?"), they had every reason to be very very concerned about vengeance.

    A sense of "if we lose we will get totally wrecked and with good reason" was very much a thing.

    Your grandpa if he really existed was a liar.

    he has about 10-30 million reasons to kill

    Nobody could talk like this before the end of WWII.

    While not every Wehrmacht soldier commited war crimes, pretty much everyone knew one who did so.

    You are making this one up as well. Yes “not every Wehrmacht soldier” because there was one who did not namely my grandpa who was communist and not really a German.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Now considering that Russians:

    Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism

    Really? Just considering events from the Colonial time period here and not even considering modern era Soviet oppressions of its non-Russian minorites.

    1. Colonization of Siberia
    2. Colonization of Kazakhstan
    3. Colonization of Crimea

    [MORE]

    —————————————————————–
    1. Colonization of Siberia:

    Russian conquest of Siberia
    … In order to subjugate the natives and collect yasak (fur tribute), a series of winter outposts (zimovie) and forts (ostrogs) were built at the confluences of major rivers and streams and important portages
    … The Russians reached the Pacific Ocean in 1639… by 1640 the eastern borders of Russia had expanded more than several million square kilometres

    The conquest of Siberia also resulted in the spread of diseases. “… it is doubtful that the total early modern Siberian population exceeded 300,000 persons. … New diseases weakened and demoralized the indigenous peoples of Siberia. The worst of these was smallpox “because of its swift spread, the high death rates, and the permanent disfigurement of survivors.” … In the 1650s, it moved east of the Yenisey, where it carried away up to 80 percent of the Tungus and Yakut populations. In the 1690s, smallpox epidemics reduced Yukagir numbers by an estimated 44 percent. … ”

    Upon arrival in an area occupied by a tribe of natives, the Cossacks entered into peace talks with a proposal to submit to the White Tsar and to pay yasak, but these negotiations did not always lead to successful results. When their entreaties were rejected, the Cossacks elected to respond with force. … . 8,000 out of a previously population of 20,000 in Kamchatka remained after being subjected to half a century of Cossacks slaughter.
    … The Russian Cossacks were named luocha (zh), after demons found in Buddhist mythology, by the Amur natives because of their cruelty towards them
    … When the Russians did not obtain the demanded amount of yasak from the natives, the governor of Yakutsk… used meat hooks to hang the native men. In the Lena basin, 70% of the Yakut population died within 40 years
    … The Russians faced tougher resistance when from 1745-56 they tried to exterminate the gun and bow equipped Koraks until their victory.
    … A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands … The command was that the natives be “totally extirpated”
    … Kamchatka today is European in demographics and culture with only 2.5% of it being native, around 10,000 from a previous number of 150,000, due to the mass slaughters by the Cossacks after its annexation in 1697
    … The Aleuts in the Aleutians were subjected to genocide and slavery by the Russians for the first 20 years of Russian rule

    ————————————————————

    2. Colonization of Kazakhstan:


    Republic of Kazakhstan History

    … XVII – early XVIII centuries … the Cossacks … from Russia began to settle along the Ural River and later on established a line of settlements and fortifications across the Kazakhs northern boundary
    … 1740 … the Middle Horde voluntarily subjected itself to rule by Tsarist Russia.
    … The following 150 years saw the gradual colonization of the Kazakh-controlled territories by Tsarist Russia. The process of colonization that lasted nearly 150 years was a combination of voluntary integration into the Russian Empire and encroachment and outright seizure.
    … By the 1880s Russian forces had conquered all of Central Asia. In present-day Kazakhstan, Cossack outposts developed into peasant settlements as Russians and other Slavs migrated to the steppes in increasingly large numbers. In the period between 1906 and 1914, the influx of settlers averaged more than 140,000 people per year.

    Nomadic Land Claims in the Colonized Kazakh Steppe

    Picture of Russian settlers near Petropavlovsk

    —————————————————————–

    3. Colonization of Crimea:

    Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)
    … the Crimean Khanate formally gained its independence (but in reality became dependent on Russia)
    … Turkey ceded to Russia two key seaports, Azov and Kerch, allowing the Russian Navy and merchant fleet direct access to the Black Sea

    Deportation of the Crimean Tatars
    … the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland: in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population, but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population of Crimea. At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians and other Slavic nations. … Already between 1784 and 1790, out of a total population of about a million, around 300,000 Crimean Tatars left for Ottoman Empire. The Crimean War triggered another mass exodus … : between 1855 and 1866 at least 500,000, and possibly even up to 900,000 Muslims left the Russian Empire and emigrated to the Ottoman Empire. Out of that number, at least one third was from Crimea, while the rest were from the Caucausus.

    The Problem of Crimean Tatar Emigrations in the Russian
    Historical Literature, 1800-1930

    … The dominant theme in the studies from the 1860s … is the need to rapidly colonize Crimea by Slavic and partially by German settlers … The authors of these studies advance numerous proposals on “saving” the region. They openly declare the anti-Tatar sentiments: “…to detain on our land a tribe who does not want to live with us and will only be a burden to us means to bother about something that is impossible as well as disadvantageous” (N. Scherban). From the point of view of state interests “the reduction of the Tatar population” in order to “fill the region with more talented race” is recommended (N. Scherban), because “the Tatars, due to their Moslem-Asiatic character, are not amenable to be improved” (K. Khanatsky). However, Khanatsky confesses that “as a labor force which has become attuned to the local environment” the Tatars “have a significant advantage,” but only ” the leadership will be in hands of the enlightened people” (I. Khanatsky).

    Russian and Crimean Tatar population 1783-2014

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {… the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland}

    The so-called 'Crimean' Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.
    So it wasn't 'their' homeland to lose: invading nomadic Tatar hordes massacred and ethnically cleansed the peoples who were living in Crimea before the Tatar invasions.

    Tatars' native lands are far, far to the East of Crimea.


    The Tatar/Muslim gangs from the criminal Crimea Khanate were involved in raids into Russian/Slavic lands to grab Slavic slaves for centuries. Millions of Slavs were captured and sold into slavery by the savages.

    That is until the Russian Empire broke their back.
    Good riddance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @ utu

    My grandfather did exist, was a communist and served in the Wehrmacht.
    You should make less dumb statements on the internets.

    And yes, people in the Wehrmacht could talk like that. It was not riskfree (dont try to do that as a conscript), but it was quite possible, especially in a Wehrmacht context. Soldiers, especially decorated ones, could say things civilians could not (certainly to other soldiers, less so to civilians).

    Also, lol at assuming that stating “dont think of surrendering lads, if we do we all die in Siberia”, would get the officer into major problems with the higherups.
    “If we surrender we die, so lets fight” is not something that gets you into the Volksgerichtshof (which was a remote risk in 1945 anyway), heck, that was a constant Nazi propaganda trope (and effective because it wasnt that wrong).
    “If we surrender we die, because we murdered millions Russians” (more frequently the “fucking Waffen SS shitheads” instead of “we”. “Blame the SS” was a popular Wehrmacht thing to do in general) was what was said to soldiers who did not quite buy NS propaganda in general.

    Also, if you are an officer, whoever wants to execute you needs to be a higher officer, and he has to convince other higher officers that you need to be executed. Enlisted personel could be simply shot, but officers could, generally speaking, not.

    There were btw. plenty of Wehrmacht soldier who did not commit warcrimes, fucking anyone with a brain knows that Gefreiter Arsch who is a cook in the Etappe does not get even an opportunity to do any “warcriming”.

    To quote the actual Nazi law on “Wehrkraftzersetzung”:
    „1. Wer öffentlich dazu auffordert oder anreizt, die Erfüllung der Dienstpflicht in der deutschen oder einer verbündeten Wehrmacht zu verweigern, oder sonst öffentlich den Willen des deutschen oder verbündeten Volkes zur wehrhaften Selbstbehauptung zu lähmen oder zu zersetzen sucht;
    2. wer es unternimmt, einen Soldaten oder Wehrpflichtigen des Beurlaubtenstandes zum Ungehorsam oder zur Widersetzung oder zur Tätlichkeit gegen einen Vorgesetzten oder zur Fahnenflucht oder unerlaubten Entfernung zu verleiten oder sonst die Manneszucht in der deutschen oder einer verbündeten Wehrmacht zu untergraben;
    3. wer es unternimmt, sich oder einen anderen durch Selbstverstümmelung, durch ein auf Täuschung berechnetes Mittel oder auf andere Weise der Erfüllung des Wehrdienstes ganz, teilweise oder zeitweise zu entziehen.”

    Translation:

    1: Who publically calls or incites for the refusal to serve in the German or allied (meaning allied to Germany), or in another way attempts to paralyse or degrade the will of the German or allied (once more, Germanies allies not “the allies”);
    2: Who undertakes to incite a soldier, or conscript on holiday, to mutiny, to resistance, to violence against a superior, to desertion or to absence without leave, or who in some other manner undermines the valor (literal translation would be manliness) of the German or an allied defense force;
    3: Who undertakes, for himself or another, by selfmutilation, by deceit or by some other means, to to dodge the fullfillment of his soldierly obligation, fully, partly or for a period of time.

    “We killed millions, we know have to fight and win because the Soviets will kill us due to vengeance” is, because it is quite clearly not aimed at reducing German fighting spirit, not “Wehrkraftzersetzung”.
    The officer stating that would also clearly not be “Fahnenflüchtig”, meaning that this would not be for a Standgericht, but rather a regular military court to decide, and unless an officer is excessively unpopular with his higherups, and his higherups got nothing better to do, not a thing will happen.

    Heck, before most German soldier got shot, there were judges, paper trails etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Now considering that Russians:

    Don’t have any “white guilt” from colonialism

     

    Really? Just considering events from the Colonial time period here and not even considering modern era Soviet oppressions of its non-Russian minorites.

    1. Colonization of Siberia
    2. Colonization of Kazakhstan
    3. Colonization of Crimea



    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Colonization of Siberia:


    Russian conquest of Siberia
    ... In order to subjugate the natives and collect yasak (fur tribute), a series of winter outposts (zimovie) and forts (ostrogs) were built at the confluences of major rivers and streams and important portages
    ... The Russians reached the Pacific Ocean in 1639... by 1640 the eastern borders of Russia had expanded more than several million square kilometres
    ...
    The conquest of Siberia also resulted in the spread of diseases. "... it is doubtful that the total early modern Siberian population exceeded 300,000 persons. ... New diseases weakened and demoralized the indigenous peoples of Siberia. The worst of these was smallpox "because of its swift spread, the high death rates, and the permanent disfigurement of survivors." ... In the 1650s, it moved east of the Yenisey, where it carried away up to 80 percent of the Tungus and Yakut populations. In the 1690s, smallpox epidemics reduced Yukagir numbers by an estimated 44 percent. ... "
    ...
    Upon arrival in an area occupied by a tribe of natives, the Cossacks entered into peace talks with a proposal to submit to the White Tsar and to pay yasak, but these negotiations did not always lead to successful results. When their entreaties were rejected, the Cossacks elected to respond with force. ... . 8,000 out of a previously population of 20,000 in Kamchatka remained after being subjected to half a century of Cossacks slaughter.
    ... The Russian Cossacks were named luocha (zh), after demons found in Buddhist mythology, by the Amur natives because of their cruelty towards them
    ... When the Russians did not obtain the demanded amount of yasak from the natives, the governor of Yakutsk... used meat hooks to hang the native men. In the Lena basin, 70% of the Yakut population died within 40 years
    ... The Russians faced tougher resistance when from 1745-56 they tried to exterminate the gun and bow equipped Koraks until their victory.
    ... A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands ... The command was that the natives be "totally extirpated"
    ... Kamchatka today is European in demographics and culture with only 2.5% of it being native, around 10,000 from a previous number of 150,000, due to the mass slaughters by the Cossacks after its annexation in 1697
    ... The Aleuts in the Aleutians were subjected to genocide and slavery by the Russians for the first 20 years of Russian rule

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Colonization of Kazakhstan:



    Republic of Kazakhstan History

    ... XVII - early XVIII centuries ... the Cossacks ... from Russia began to settle along the Ural River and later on established a line of settlements and fortifications across the Kazakhs northern boundary
    ... 1740 ... the Middle Horde voluntarily subjected itself to rule by Tsarist Russia.
    ... The following 150 years saw the gradual colonization of the Kazakh-controlled territories by Tsarist Russia. The process of colonization that lasted nearly 150 years was a combination of voluntary integration into the Russian Empire and encroachment and outright seizure.
    ... By the 1880s Russian forces had conquered all of Central Asia. In present-day Kazakhstan, Cossack outposts developed into peasant settlements as Russians and other Slavs migrated to the steppes in increasingly large numbers. In the period between 1906 and 1914, the influx of settlers averaged more than 140,000 people per year.

     

    Nomadic Land Claims in the Colonized Kazakh Steppe

    Picture of Russian settlers near Petropavlovsk

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Colonization of Crimea:


    Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)
    ... the Crimean Khanate formally gained its independence (but in reality became dependent on Russia)
    ... Turkey ceded to Russia two key seaports, Azov and Kerch, allowing the Russian Navy and merchant fleet direct access to the Black Sea

     



    Deportation of the Crimean Tatars
    ... the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland: in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population, but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population of Crimea. At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians and other Slavic nations. ... Already between 1784 and 1790, out of a total population of about a million, around 300,000 Crimean Tatars left for Ottoman Empire. The Crimean War triggered another mass exodus ... : between 1855 and 1866 at least 500,000, and possibly even up to 900,000 Muslims left the Russian Empire and emigrated to the Ottoman Empire. Out of that number, at least one third was from Crimea, while the rest were from the Caucausus.

     



    The Problem of Crimean Tatar Emigrations in the Russian
    Historical Literature, 1800-1930

    ... The dominant theme in the studies from the 1860s ... is the need to rapidly colonize Crimea by Slavic and partially by German settlers ... The authors of these studies advance numerous proposals on "saving" the region. They openly declare the anti-Tatar sentiments: "...to detain on our land a tribe who does not want to live with us and will only be a burden to us means to bother about something that is impossible as well as disadvantageous" (N. Scherban). From the point of view of state interests "the reduction of the Tatar population" in order to "fill the region with more talented race" is recommended (N. Scherban), because "the Tatars, due to their Moslem-Asiatic character, are not amenable to be improved" (K. Khanatsky). However, Khanatsky confesses that "as a labor force which has become attuned to the local environment" the Tatars "have a significant advantage," but only " the leadership will be in hands of the enlightened people" (I. Khanatsky).

     

    Russian and Crimean Tatar population 1783-2014

    {… the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland}

    The so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.
    So it wasn’t ‘their’ homeland to lose: invading nomadic Tatar hordes massacred and ethnically cleansed the peoples who were living in Crimea before the Tatar invasions.

    Tatars’ native lands are far, far to the East of Crimea.

    The Tatar/Muslim gangs from the criminal Crimea Khanate were involved in raids into Russian/Slavic lands to grab Slavic slaves for centuries. Millions of Slavs were captured and sold into slavery by the savages.

    That is until the Russian Empire broke their back.
    Good riddance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    None the less, they were still brown people colonized by whitey, so they should feel some white guilt. The French colonized Algeria under the same circumstances and they still get to have guilt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. AP says:

    The so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.

    Crimean Tatars are a mix of the invaders and of the natives (Greeks, Goths) whom they found when they invaded. That’s why they don’t look like Asians. Saying a Crimean Tatar is not a native of Crimea is like saying a Mexican Mestizo is not a native of Mexico.

    Russians, in contrast, didn’t arrive until the end of the 18th century and weren’t even a majority in Crimea until the 1940s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    And for sure there were no Ukrainians there until Khrushchev made his most consequential mistake.

    You forgot to mention Jews who were in Crimea in the slavery business.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Russians actually have a presence in Crimea dating to the 10th century via the Principality of Tmutarakan, which stretched from the Taman peninsula to Kerch in Crimea all the way to Sudak.

    https://riss.ru/images/pdf/journal/2016/2/13_.pdf

    So historically, Russia has a far better claim to Crimea than the Crimean Tatars (if not the Greeks but they would then own half the Mediterranean anyway).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Avery
    {… the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland}

    The so-called 'Crimean' Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.
    So it wasn't 'their' homeland to lose: invading nomadic Tatar hordes massacred and ethnically cleansed the peoples who were living in Crimea before the Tatar invasions.

    Tatars' native lands are far, far to the East of Crimea.


    The Tatar/Muslim gangs from the criminal Crimea Khanate were involved in raids into Russian/Slavic lands to grab Slavic slaves for centuries. Millions of Slavs were captured and sold into slavery by the savages.

    That is until the Russian Empire broke their back.
    Good riddance.

    None the less, they were still brown people colonized by whitey, so they should feel some white guilt. The French colonized Algeria under the same circumstances and they still get to have guilt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    I have no problem publicizing the ugly historical fact that Europeans - aka 'whites' - colonized brown peoples, and yellow peoples, and black peoples. French colonized Algeria _and_ Viet Nam and several other African (continent) countries besides Algeria.

    Your comment was about Russians, and you had some links from Wiki.
    I specifically commented about the so-called 'Crimean' Tatars.
    That's about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. utu says:
    @AP

    The so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.
     
    Crimean Tatars are a mix of the invaders and of the natives (Greeks, Goths) whom they found when they invaded. That's why they don't look like Asians. Saying a Crimean Tatar is not a native of Crimea is like saying a Mexican Mestizo is not a native of Mexico.

    Russians, in contrast, didn't arrive until the end of the 18th century and weren't even a majority in Crimea until the 1940s.

    And for sure there were no Ukrainians there until Khrushchev made his most consequential mistake.

    You forgot to mention Jews who were in Crimea in the slavery business.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    And for sure there were no Ukrainians there until Khrushchev made his most consequential mistake.
     
    They came alongside the Russians in the 18th century, though they were outnumbered by them.

    In the 1897 census, Crimea was 33% Russian, 11% Ukrainian, and 35% Tatar.


    You forgot to mention Jews who were in Crimea in the slavery business.
     
    It was mostly a Crimean Muslim business. If Russian nationalists and their fans justify mistreating Crimeans because of 18th century slavery, they probably don't have a problems with American whites (or at least Southerners) being mistreated because of 19th century slavery, also.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. AP says:
    @utu
    And for sure there were no Ukrainians there until Khrushchev made his most consequential mistake.

    You forgot to mention Jews who were in Crimea in the slavery business.

    And for sure there were no Ukrainians there until Khrushchev made his most consequential mistake.

    They came alongside the Russians in the 18th century, though they were outnumbered by them.

    In the 1897 census, Crimea was 33% Russian, 11% Ukrainian, and 35% Tatar.

    You forgot to mention Jews who were in Crimea in the slavery business.

    It was mostly a Crimean Muslim business. If Russian nationalists and their fans justify mistreating Crimeans because of 18th century slavery, they probably don’t have a problems with American whites (or at least Southerners) being mistreated because of 19th century slavery, also.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. A 1897 census would have been 11% Malorussian, not Ukrainian.

    While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, there are not 100% the same. Malorussian could also mean non Ukrainian Cossak.

    As far as punishing the Tatars goes, interestingly enough the Kazan Tatars got a considerably better deal then the Crimean ones if you look at represenation in Imperial Russian nobility etc.

    I think the reasons for this are:

    1: Kazan Tatars did later fight for Russia against other Khanates. When Crimea was captured, there were no such other Khanates left.
    2: Kazan was an independent power when it fell, Crimea was de facto an Ottoman protectorate. It seems to be a feature of Russian attitudes to treat independent enemies less harsh then dependents of enemies. F.e. Treatment of Finland (which was perceived as independent from Germany) after WW2 compared to Romania (which was not perceived as independent), or even the comparably benign treatment of East Germany (Soviet repression in GDR has a bodycount in the hundreds, which is incredibly low all things considered).
    3: Crimean Tatars also raided Malorussia a lot, and as such were incredibly unpopular with far more numerous important minorities. This meant the Czars had a good reason to screw the Crimean Tatars to please other minorities (not that distinct from using the Jewish bogey-bottom man) and well, in Soviet times Ukrainians were pretty well represented in the Soviet hierarchy, while Crimean Tatars were not at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    A 1897 census would have been 11% Malorussian, not Ukrainian.

    While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, there are not 100% the same. Malorussian could also mean non Ukrainian Cossak.
     

    The two terms were the same, there was merely ideological (but not ethnic) wiggle-room. That is, a Ukrainian-speaking person who was a Russian Nationalist would be considered a Malorussian, as would be a Ukrainian nationalist. The Ukrainian language was standardized as Malorussian and then changed names - but the two terms meant the same thing. The term Malorussian had a specific meaning.

    "Malorussian" Cossacks in Russian territories had origins in Ukraine (Kuban was something like 50% Malorussian/Ukrainian - it was settled largely by the descendants of Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks).

    I agree with points one and two.


    in Soviet times Ukrainians were pretty well represented in the Soviet hierarchy,
     
    Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were both under-represented, Ukrainians more under-represented than Russians, at least until the 1960s, decades after the Tatars were screwed.

    Although there are folk memories involving Tatar evil (people in Ukraine could scare children by saying Tatars will eat them if they misbehave, or whatever) by the 1940s there had been no slave raids for centuries and Tatars weren't harming anyone, so they were not unpopular or hated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AP says:
    @Mightypeon
    A 1897 census would have been 11% Malorussian, not Ukrainian.

    While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, there are not 100% the same. Malorussian could also mean non Ukrainian Cossak.

    As far as punishing the Tatars goes, interestingly enough the Kazan Tatars got a considerably better deal then the Crimean ones if you look at represenation in Imperial Russian nobility etc.

    I think the reasons for this are:

    1: Kazan Tatars did later fight for Russia against other Khanates. When Crimea was captured, there were no such other Khanates left.
    2: Kazan was an independent power when it fell, Crimea was de facto an Ottoman protectorate. It seems to be a feature of Russian attitudes to treat independent enemies less harsh then dependents of enemies. F.e. Treatment of Finland (which was perceived as independent from Germany) after WW2 compared to Romania (which was not perceived as independent), or even the comparably benign treatment of East Germany (Soviet repression in GDR has a bodycount in the hundreds, which is incredibly low all things considered).
    3: Crimean Tatars also raided Malorussia a lot, and as such were incredibly unpopular with far more numerous important minorities. This meant the Czars had a good reason to screw the Crimean Tatars to please other minorities (not that distinct from using the Jewish bogey-bottom man) and well, in Soviet times Ukrainians were pretty well represented in the Soviet hierarchy, while Crimean Tatars were not at all.

    A 1897 census would have been 11% Malorussian, not Ukrainian.

    While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, there are not 100% the same. Malorussian could also mean non Ukrainian Cossak.

    The two terms were the same, there was merely ideological (but not ethnic) wiggle-room. That is, a Ukrainian-speaking person who was a Russian Nationalist would be considered a Malorussian, as would be a Ukrainian nationalist. The Ukrainian language was standardized as Malorussian and then changed names – but the two terms meant the same thing. The term Malorussian had a specific meaning.

    “Malorussian” Cossacks in Russian territories had origins in Ukraine (Kuban was something like 50% Malorussian/Ukrainian – it was settled largely by the descendants of Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks).

    I agree with points one and two.

    in Soviet times Ukrainians were pretty well represented in the Soviet hierarchy,

    Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were both under-represented, Ukrainians more under-represented than Russians, at least until the 1960s, decades after the Tatars were screwed.

    Although there are folk memories involving Tatar evil (people in Ukraine could scare children by saying Tatars will eat them if they misbehave, or whatever) by the 1940s there had been no slave raids for centuries and Tatars weren’t harming anyone, so they were not unpopular or hated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gerad

    The two terms were the same, there was merely ideological (but not ethnic) wiggle-room
     
    errrr...no they weren't you retard. Plenty of evidence from Malorussians who went to America and Canada ( the non-Nazi fuckup diasporta) to know you cant get even basis facts correct.


    Malorussian” Cossacks in Russian territories had origins in Ukraine
     
    ...for the last time.....NO UKRAINE EXISTED at the time to even use these bullshit phrases, you moron.

    Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were both under-represented, Ukrainians more under-represented than Russians, at least until the 1960s, decades after the Tatars were screwed.
     
    ....hahahaha...more lying fuckwit stupidity. "ukrainians" in Soviet times, and now......are overrepresented in positions of authority ..on the east of Russia, Urals,Moscow ,Saint Petersburg and Rostov you braindead dipshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    None the less, they were still brown people colonized by whitey, so they should feel some white guilt. The French colonized Algeria under the same circumstances and they still get to have guilt.

    I have no problem publicizing the ugly historical fact that Europeans – aka ‘whites’ – colonized brown peoples, and yellow peoples, and black peoples. French colonized Algeria _and_ Viet Nam and several other African (continent) countries besides Algeria.

    Your comment was about Russians, and you had some links from Wiki.
    I specifically commented about the so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars.
    That’s about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars
     
    You mean, the ones whose ancestors originated in Crimea thousands of years ago but who have, perhaps, 40% Asian/invader ancestry.

    An example, here.

    So, accordingly, these are Crimean Tatars:

    https://lobelog.com/wp-content/uploads/CT12.jpg

    http://i49.tinypic.com/5l8o54.jpg

    And these are Turkic people from Asia (Kazakhs):

    http://img.antaranews.com/new/2012/03/ori/20120323Kazakh-girls-in-national-dress.jpg

    See the difference ?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. AP says:
    @Avery
    I have no problem publicizing the ugly historical fact that Europeans - aka 'whites' - colonized brown peoples, and yellow peoples, and black peoples. French colonized Algeria _and_ Viet Nam and several other African (continent) countries besides Algeria.

    Your comment was about Russians, and you had some links from Wiki.
    I specifically commented about the so-called 'Crimean' Tatars.
    That's about it.

    so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars

    You mean, the ones whose ancestors originated in Crimea thousands of years ago but who have, perhaps, 40% Asian/invader ancestry.

    An example, here.

    So, accordingly, these are Crimean Tatars:

    And these are Turkic people from Asia (Kazakhs):

    See the difference ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The Crimean Tatars are certainly an interesting admixture. The girl in the pink and white blouse could easily be included in the photo of the three Kazakh girls in the bottom photo. The Tatar young man with the gold turban could easily fit in with most Aryan European men - as could Rinat Akhmetov, who is an ethnic Tatar as well.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg/800px-Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars
     
    You mean, the ones whose ancestors originated in Crimea thousands of years ago but who have, perhaps, 40% Asian/invader ancestry.

    An example, here.

    So, accordingly, these are Crimean Tatars:

    https://lobelog.com/wp-content/uploads/CT12.jpg

    http://i49.tinypic.com/5l8o54.jpg

    And these are Turkic people from Asia (Kazakhs):

    http://img.antaranews.com/new/2012/03/ori/20120323Kazakh-girls-in-national-dress.jpg

    See the difference ?

    The Crimean Tatars are certainly an interesting admixture. The girl in the pink and white blouse could easily be included in the photo of the three Kazakh girls in the bottom photo. The Tatar young man with the gold turban could easily fit in with most Aryan European men – as could Rinat Akhmetov, who is an ethnic Tatar as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    He's a Volga, not Crimean Tatar, however. On account of their partial Greek descent Crimean Tatars tend to be darker than those from the Volga, who have a lot of Finnic ancestry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Russians/(Poles, Slavs, etc.) have to be are stupid/insane/historically illiterate to be Nazis

    Between the Hiwis, the Cossacks, and Vlasov’s troops, some 800 thousand to 1 million Soviets directly helped and/or fought alongside the Nazis. It could have been many multiples of that if Hitler hadn’t been so stubborn and unwilling to accept the help of millions of Soviets who hated Stalin.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @gerad

    Between the Hiwis, the Cossacks, and Vlasov’s troops, some 800 thousand to 1 million Soviets directly helped and/or fought alongside the Nazis
     
    A combination of lies or out of context bollocks....particularly on Vlasov's troops. 800000 to 1 million is an extremely small number for a nation of 170 million you cretin. More so when you consider that the Nazi's swept huge amounts of USSR land during the initial invasion ( as with western Europe) , they were the most technologically advanced country in the world, and that they had already killed millions of Soviets in the first few months of invasion. Many Russians could have just thought defeat was inevitable....but they didn't. Russians also have a great record or defeating foreign invaders...like the pitiful fuckwit loser retards of Poland(multiple times)...so your comment is moronic to assume that the same didn't happen in 1941-45.

    What's more is the massive amounts of different ethnicity who fought for the USSR and got medals and the highest honours. Compare that to those who fought for the British Empire..and it's a no contest- win for USSR. If the Nazi's had got a similar foothold in Britain or America as they did in the USSR then without doubt a much higher proportion of British people, certainly nearly all members of most british colonies.....would have defected to the Nazi's. Thats because Russians are the most most patriotic people on the earth.

    And forget the colonies...also in Ireland there could have been big defections to the Nazis if they got a foothold on the UK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The Crimean Tatars are certainly an interesting admixture. The girl in the pink and white blouse could easily be included in the photo of the three Kazakh girls in the bottom photo. The Tatar young man with the gold turban could easily fit in with most Aryan European men - as could Rinat Akhmetov, who is an ethnic Tatar as well.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg/800px-Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg

    He’s a Volga, not Crimean Tatar, however. On account of their partial Greek descent Crimean Tatars tend to be darker than those from the Volga, who have a lot of Finnic ancestry.

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

    When talking about Tatars, one needs to make distinction between Volga Tatars and Crimean Tatars:
    - linguistically their languages belong to different subgroups of Turkic language group;
    - genetically both groups are diverse, with admixture due to multiple invasions and intermarriages. Crimean Tatars usually are darker skinned, some look like Turks or Armenians, Asiatic phenotype is rare. Volga Tatars usually are fairer, Asiatic phenotype is more frequent, but not to common, darker skinned are rare. There is a subgroup of Siberian Tatars, among whom prevalent Asiatic phenotype.

    In the Russian Empire ethnonym Tatar was applied to multiple Turkic ethnic groups: Azeris, Balkars, Kumyks, Shorians, Nogaytsev, Altai people and few others. Sorry, for misspellings.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. @AP

    The so-called ‘Crimean’ Tatars were invaders to Crimea: they were not indigenous to Crimea.
     
    Crimean Tatars are a mix of the invaders and of the natives (Greeks, Goths) whom they found when they invaded. That's why they don't look like Asians. Saying a Crimean Tatar is not a native of Crimea is like saying a Mexican Mestizo is not a native of Mexico.

    Russians, in contrast, didn't arrive until the end of the 18th century and weren't even a majority in Crimea until the 1940s.

    Russians actually have a presence in Crimea dating to the 10th century via the Principality of Tmutarakan, which stretched from the Taman peninsula to Kerch in Crimea all the way to Sudak.

    https://riss.ru/images/pdf/journal/2016/2/13_.pdf

    So historically, Russia has a far better claim to Crimea than the Crimean Tatars (if not the Greeks but they would then own half the Mediterranean anyway).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    1. Crimean Tatars seem to be about 40% Asian in origin. The rest of their descent appears to be Greek and Ostrogothic (the last Ostrogoth kingdom in Crimea was assimilated sometime in the late middle ages). Both of those groups were in Crimea prior to the Rus.

    2. Were those Slavic settlers, or Rus Vikings, though. The Rus, at one time, controlled parts of Bulgaria too.

    3. Most of Crimea wasn't part of this outpost:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C#/media/File:Rus-1015-1113.png

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Russians actually have a presence in Crimea dating to the 10th century via the Principality of Tmutarakan, which stretched from the Taman peninsula to Kerch in Crimea all the way to Sudak.

    https://riss.ru/images/pdf/journal/2016/2/13_.pdf

    So historically, Russia has a far better claim to Crimea than the Crimean Tatars (if not the Greeks but they would then own half the Mediterranean anyway).

    1. Crimean Tatars seem to be about 40% Asian in origin. The rest of their descent appears to be Greek and Ostrogothic (the last Ostrogoth kingdom in Crimea was assimilated sometime in the late middle ages). Both of those groups were in Crimea prior to the Rus.

    2. Were those Slavic settlers, or Rus Vikings, though. The Rus, at one time, controlled parts of Bulgaria too.

    3. Most of Crimea wasn’t part of this outpost:

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Here's a map:

    https://cs8.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2016/05/20/6/1463731391120985653.png

    The outpost was centered on territory outside Crimea. The population seems to have been largely Greek or Circassian, ruled by Rus princes though who knows how many Slavic settlers lived among them.

    Its ruler was the prince of Chernihiv, modern Ukraine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AP says:
    @AP
    1. Crimean Tatars seem to be about 40% Asian in origin. The rest of their descent appears to be Greek and Ostrogothic (the last Ostrogoth kingdom in Crimea was assimilated sometime in the late middle ages). Both of those groups were in Crimea prior to the Rus.

    2. Were those Slavic settlers, or Rus Vikings, though. The Rus, at one time, controlled parts of Bulgaria too.

    3. Most of Crimea wasn't part of this outpost:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C#/media/File:Rus-1015-1113.png

    Here’s a map:

    The outpost was centered on territory outside Crimea. The population seems to have been largely Greek or Circassian, ruled by Rus princes though who knows how many Slavic settlers lived among them.

    Its ruler was the prince of Chernihiv, modern Ukraine.

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

    A 1897 census would have been 11% Malorussian, not Ukrainian.

    While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, there are not 100% the same. Malorussian could also mean non Ukrainian Cossak.
     

    The two terms were the same, there was merely ideological (but not ethnic) wiggle-room. That is, a Ukrainian-speaking person who was a Russian Nationalist would be considered a Malorussian, as would be a Ukrainian nationalist. The Ukrainian language was standardized as Malorussian and then changed names - but the two terms meant the same thing. The term Malorussian had a specific meaning.

    "Malorussian" Cossacks in Russian territories had origins in Ukraine (Kuban was something like 50% Malorussian/Ukrainian - it was settled largely by the descendants of Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks).

    I agree with points one and two.


    in Soviet times Ukrainians were pretty well represented in the Soviet hierarchy,
     
    Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were both under-represented, Ukrainians more under-represented than Russians, at least until the 1960s, decades after the Tatars were screwed.

    Although there are folk memories involving Tatar evil (people in Ukraine could scare children by saying Tatars will eat them if they misbehave, or whatever) by the 1940s there had been no slave raids for centuries and Tatars weren't harming anyone, so they were not unpopular or hated.

    The two terms were the same, there was merely ideological (but not ethnic) wiggle-room

    errrr…no they weren’t you retard. Plenty of evidence from Malorussians who went to America and Canada ( the non-Nazi fuckup diasporta) to know you cant get even basis facts correct.

    Malorussian” Cossacks in Russian territories had origins in Ukraine

    …for the last time…..NO UKRAINE EXISTED at the time to even use these bullshit phrases, you moron.

    Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were both under-represented, Ukrainians more under-represented than Russians, at least until the 1960s, decades after the Tatars were screwed.

    ….hahahaha…more lying fuckwit stupidity. “ukrainians” in Soviet times, and now……are overrepresented in positions of authority ..on the east of Russia, Urals,Moscow ,Saint Petersburg and Rostov you braindead dipshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. gerad says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Russians/(Poles, Slavs, etc.) have to be are stupid/insane/historically illiterate to be Nazis
     
    Between the Hiwis, the Cossacks, and Vlasov's troops, some 800 thousand to 1 million Soviets directly helped and/or fought alongside the Nazis. It could have been many multiples of that if Hitler hadn't been so stubborn and unwilling to accept the help of millions of Soviets who hated Stalin.

    Between the Hiwis, the Cossacks, and Vlasov’s troops, some 800 thousand to 1 million Soviets directly helped and/or fought alongside the Nazis

    A combination of lies or out of context bollocks….particularly on Vlasov’s troops. 800000 to 1 million is an extremely small number for a nation of 170 million you cretin. More so when you consider that the Nazi’s swept huge amounts of USSR land during the initial invasion ( as with western Europe) , they were the most technologically advanced country in the world, and that they had already killed millions of Soviets in the first few months of invasion. Many Russians could have just thought defeat was inevitable….but they didn’t. Russians also have a great record or defeating foreign invaders…like the pitiful fuckwit loser retards of Poland(multiple times)…so your comment is moronic to assume that the same didn’t happen in 1941-45.

    What’s more is the massive amounts of different ethnicity who fought for the USSR and got medals and the highest honours. Compare that to those who fought for the British Empire..and it’s a no contest- win for USSR. If the Nazi’s had got a similar foothold in Britain or America as they did in the USSR then without doubt a much higher proportion of British people, certainly nearly all members of most british colonies…..would have defected to the Nazi’s. Thats because Russians are the most most patriotic people on the earth.

    And forget the colonies…also in Ireland there could have been big defections to the Nazis if they got a foothold on the UK.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS