The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
A Short History of the 20th Century
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This is essentially a short history of the 20th century from the point of view of HBD realism and the maxim that “population is power.”

This century turned out to be an “American Century.”

But it wasn’t obvious that it was going to be that way – while the United States was almost predestined to play a primary role, several other countries – primarily, Germany and Russia – had the potential to emerge as true peer competitors. And China took a surprisingly long time to emerge out of its slumber.

Why did things turn out the way they did?

***

Hopes of the Great War

Germany in 1914 was the single strongest Great Power in Europe – had Great Britain or Russia not entered the war, it would have almost certainly crushed France “by Christmas”. Germany had more than 150% of the population of France (65 million to 40 million), more than twice as many men of conscription age (Germany’s TFR was at 5 children per woman during the 1890s, while France’s hovered at 3 children per woman), and to top it all off, its troops consistently had 25% more combat effectiveness than the French and British. France wouldn’t have stood a chance.

map-ww1-germany-annexation-plans

Germany’s war aims involved annexing large chunks of France, levying massive indemnities on the losers, annexing or controlling Belgium, converting the western parts of the Russian Empire into German vassal states, and making a continental economic association dominated by Germany. This would be the EU on steroids, under German political suzerainty. It would consequently speak on equal terms with Britain on naval and colonial matters.

Probability: Benefit of hindsight and all that, but had the Schlieffen Plan been carried out as originally intended, without weakening its outermost wing, and if German divisions hadn’t been panickedly redirected towards the Eastern Front, there’s a good possibility that France might have been knocked out in 1914. And had France lost, then Germany would have almost certainly crushed Russia in 1915. As it was, the French held, and for the next two years, no side in particular could be said to have been winning, though the situation on the home front in the Central Powers was deteriorating at a faster pace due to the British naval blockade. The critical turning point came in early 1917, when unrestricted submarine warfare and Zimmermann’s extraordinary blunder helped coax the United States into the war. After that, the odds shifted sharply against Germany, Russia’s revolutionary troubles and the French mutinities after the Nivelle Offensive regardless. The collapse of Russia gave Germany a reprieve, and a second chance to seal the deal before American reinforcements made themselves felt. But after the Second Battle of the Marne it was all over; a bloodied, strangled, and mutinying Germany could not hope to resist the more than 100,000 new American troops pouring into the European theater every month.

Consequences: A victorious Germany would have been a strong challenger to the United States, but its position would have been fragile nonetheless – the major loser states of Europe (France, Italy, Russia) would have been resentful, with France and Russia in particular coveting their lost territories; Britain would be deeply hostile, its natural reaction to any continental hegemon, and doing its utmost to foment new coalitions against Germany; and Russia in particular, despite being shorn of much of its territory, would still be developing much more quickly and healthily had it not been hobbled by Communism. Germany’s geostrategic position would remain precarious.

map-ww1-france-annexation-plans

Had France won on its own terms, Germany would have been basically finished as an independent Great Power: Alsace-Lorraine and the Saar would have been re-annexed, the West Rhineland would have been demilitarized for the next 30 years at best if not occupied for the indefinite future, and there were ideas about breaking up Germany into its constituent states altogether.

However, France itself obviously would not had the demographic weight or momentum to dominate the 20th century. Moreover, Britain was not going to be much more supportive of French and Russian territorial expansionism than they would have been of German.

map-russia-plans-ww1

The country that would have prematurely emerged as a superpower – in the late 1910s, as opposed to 1945 – would have been the Russian Empire.

Probability:

Scenario #1:
Russia was neither winning nor losing in WW1. Geographically, it was winning strongly against Turkey and Austria-Hungary, but only holding the line against Germany. Despite initial difficulties with shell production, the Russian Army by 1916 was a well-supplied and well-fed force capable of successful large-scale offensives. The Russians, for their part, did not consider themselves to be losing; the Budenovka had been designed and mass produced for the victory parade in Berlin and Constantinople.

Scenario #2:
The February Revolution, which only occurred by a fluke of weather and miscommunication, portended massive problems for the war effort. Even so, though much is made of desertions in 1917, it’s worth pointing out that Russia was unique in having issued edicts abolishing the death penalty in the military, allowing soldiers’ soviets, and allowing Bolshevik agitators free reign to demoralize the Russian armies. Most of these radical and insane measures were getting revoked after the first half-year of the Provisional Government’s rule, with accompanying improvements in morale and offensive capability. Certainly holding out for another year – probably even less, since the Germans would not have had access to Western Russia’s resources and would have not have been able to release troops for their final western offensives – would have been perfectly feasible. But as it was, a further series of incredible mistakes and flukes led to the Bolshevik coup and the collapse of the Russian as the Bolsheviks unilaterally demobilized Russia’s 7 million man military.

Consequences:

Scenario #1:
Romanovs, not Hohenzollerns, would have headed the kingdoms of Poland and Bohemia (which was highly Russophile at that time); Romania and Serbia would also be allies; needless to say, the Ukraine would remain in the Russian Empire. The only country that could be expected to be unhappy with this arrangement is Poland. Germany itself could be expected to be resentful at its territorial losses, but these would sooner (conveniently) be directed towards Poland. Finally, the Turks would have been bottled up within internal Anatolia, with Constantinople (Tsargrad) going to Russia and Western Armenia forming a land bridge all the way to the Holy Land. With control of the Bosphorus, the Mediterranean gradually becomes a Russian lake as the Great Naval Program is resumed post-1918. In this scenario, it is plausible that a Cold War would develop between France/Great Britain and Russia.

Scenario #2:
Much of this became moot in 1917. The Provisional Government denounced annexations, and in any case, the United States’ entry into the war meant its rhetoric about national self-determination would also need to be honored to some extent. Russia’s territorial gains after this point would have likely been limited to just Galicia, but then again, it hardly needed more territory. This may well have been the most stable postwar configuration. There would be no cause for a Cold War between Russia and the West. Germany would remain resentful – if not as much had the more maximalist territorial ambitions of France/Russia been met – but Russia would have had no cause to cooperate with it as the outcast USSR had to, and Nazis would not have come to power in Germany without the Bolshevik menace.

***

Russia Shoots Itself in the Foot

It’s no exaggeration to say that the Bolsheviks lost Russia its century, and in all likelihood its future for all time. This is a point made all the more painful by the fact that it was largely self-inflicted, whereas Germans could at least reconcile themselves with the thought that they made two “honest” attempts to achieve world supremacy.

Demographics: No Bolshevism means no Russian Civil War, no famine, no collectivization, no Great Famine, no Great Terror, no World War II because they left the job unfinished in the first one, no post-war famine to mark Stalin’s “gratitude” to the Russian people, no alcoholization epidemic. It would not have had a population of 600 million, as Dmitry Mendeleev (yes, that one) projected for the end of the century. But it would be vastly higher than today.

russia-demographics-no-ussr

One massive study headed by Russian demographer Anatoly Vishnevsky calculated that without the demographic catastrophes of the 20th century, the population just within Russia’s borders would have constituted 282 million by 2000 – that’s almost exactly twice its actual figure.

Not to get into an extended debate about the Ukraine Question, but it also seems obvious that a Russia whose brand was pumped up by victory in the Great War (or at least not tainted by defeat), which was not forcibly identified with Bolshevism and divided up into ethnic republics with artificial borders, and which didn’t create man-made famines in the Ukraine in the 1930s would have remained quite solidly unified. Since the Ukraine and Belorussia had even higher demographic losses than Russia due to Soviet tyranny and WW2 German depredations, respectively, their end of century populations can also be safely doubled. Adding in Russian settlers in Southern Siberian (northern Kazakhstan), you would have a population of 400 million 100 IQ Slavs.

The question of whether Finland, the Caucasian states, southern Central Asia, and the Baltic states would remain is more questionable. If so, that would be another 100 million.

Economics. With primary enrollment above 80% by 1914, and projected by the Education Ministry to reach 100% by 1925 – in the event, the Civil War postponed that to 1930 – full literacy was “locked in.” A Russian economy that didn’t lose out on more than a decade of economic development, only to be consequently burdened and distorted by central planning, would have converged to broadly West European living standards, like East-Central Europe was doing prior to the Soviet occupation, and as the Mediterranean states progressively managed to do after WW2.

Culture/Science. It is equally obvious that a country with Europe’s second largest number of university students in 1914 after Germany, which was spared “philosophers’ ships,” the abolition of university entrance exams in the 1920s, Lysenkoism, Stalin’s mass murders, sharashkas, and subsequent decades of ideological orthodoxy would have generated much more science, culture, and soft power.

What could have been: A half-billion population continental superpower with a GDP comparable to that of the United States producing vast amounts of science and culture.

What the Bolsheviks created: A 145 million population rump empire with a GDP comparable to that of Germany (if measured on a PPP-basis; otherwise, Spain) producing as much science as the University of Cambridge; in the long-term, probably destined to be a mere resource appendage of China, with little more than the sight of Germany “doing away with itself” and an America turning into Greater Mexico to console itself with.

De Tocqueville had forecast a bipolar world dominated by the United States and Russia. While American military planners were writing of them being the last two superpowers before WW2 had even ended, by dint of “geographical position and extent, as well as vast munitioning potential,” as Paul Kennedy points out in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, “of the two, the American “superpower” was vastly superior.” In 1945, the US accounted for half the world’s manufacturing output; the USSR was a military giant with feet of clay. While it slowly gained on the US up until the 1970s, the legacy of its demographic bloodletting and economic inefficiency precluded true parity from ever being achieved – up until the point its own historyless elites sold it down the river.

***

Germany’s Missed Opportunity

map-ww2-germany-fatherland-1964

Germany’s plans for WW2 victory are relatively well-known: Apart from the total extermination of Jews within Europe, it would also gobble up Lebensraum in Eastern Europe. Generalplan Ost called for the genocide of most of the European Slavic populations through a threefold approach: Outright extermination; helotization; and selective assimilation of the more Aryan-looking Slavs into the German race. Moscow and Leningrad would be wiped off the surface of the Earth. Some Russians would be expelled into a rump USSR behind the Urals. In Robert Harris’ Fatherland, the post-war Nazi regime wages an unpopular Vietnam-style campaign against Soviet partisans around the Urals in order to build character and patriotism amongst its conscript soldiers.

Probability: I think the objective chances of German victory in 1941-42 were high. They made three critical meta-mistakes:

(1) Declaring war on the United States.
In that case, there be no American Lend-Lease, which was critical for making up deficiencies in Soviet production (e.g. copper wire, aviation gasoline). There would also be no “second front” in the form of the bombing campaign, which put a crimp on German production when they did start to ramp it up. The Soviets would have never enjoyed air superiority, and the resources invested into AA defense would have gone into more tanks and artillery.

(2) Treating the peoples of the occupied territories and POWs extremely harshly.
They could have always just promised them everything, then drawn out the daggers once the USSR was definitively defeated. I guess it doesn’t pay to be prematurely nasty.

(3) Waiting too long to go into full economic mobilization.
German military production peaked in 1944, when the air campaign was at its peak and the Allied armies were already closing in.

Consequences: With France and the European USSR occupied, Germany would dominate the entirety of the North European Plain, making it truly strategically secure. Germany was behind in the nuclear program, but massively ahead on missile technology; a rapid victory over the USSR would have also allowed it to reassign production points into air defense and a heavy bomber force. It would also embark on a bigger buildup of its U-Boat fleet, which might enable it to force Britain to sue for peace.

The idea of a Nazi German superpower is the topic of countless alternative histories from The Man in the High Castle to Wolfenstein. Their economic system wasn’t the best, but it was still far more efficient than central planning. German population perhaps at around 150-200 million today, comparable to the White population of the United States, and of similar quality. It would also form an economic association with 200 million other Europeans, with itself at the center. There would be resentment against its hegemony, but Nazi Germany would also be far more ruthless in crushing it than its Wilhelmine Germany. In this scenario, I would sooner bet against the United States.

The results for Europe’s non-German nations would be pretty glum, ranging from various degrees of extermination to mere subjugation. In all fairness, there were many power centers in Germany (what some historians call “polycratic chaos”), with different ideas about what to do with the occupied territories. Perhaps there would have been no extermination of the Slavs, but merely their breakup into small, German-dependent entities such as the Lokot Autonomy, with mentions of Russia rigorously suppressed/replaced with terms such as the “Muscovite state” (funnily enough, this sort of historiography live on amongst Ukrainian nationalists). The Germans allowed prostitution and abortion to flourish in France while suppressing it in Germany, in the belief that they would accelerate France’s “race degeneration” into demographic irrelevance; on the other hand, Himmler once suggested killing 80% of the French population. It’s hard to tell what would have happened. One might also point out that Hitler was in ill health by 1944, and unlikely to live past 1950. The successor would have played a large role in determining what would later happen, e.g. a hardcore ideologue such as Himmler, the more practical German military, or the hedonistic and corrupt, but not very ideological Goering.

***

The American Singleton

The US unambiguously won the war – it accounted for something like 50% of world manufacturing production by 1945. It dominated all the markets. From the late 1940s, it effected a blisteringly rapid buildup of nuclear arms. The USSR, in contrast, had been economically hollowed out by the war. Some 40% of its military-aged male population was gone, and a good part of the rest was incapacitated. Its nuclear deterrent would not become credible until 1955 or so.

nuclear-megatonnage-usa-ussr

In the late 1940s-early 1950s, if it had really wanted to, the United States could in theory have conquered the entire world and/or instituted a one world government.

In this scenario, the USSR/Russia would probably have been ended as a world power forever. A good percentage of its top cities would have been nuked, resulting in the deaths of perhaps 10-20 million further Russians. Its non-Russian territories would have been detached, and it would have been occupied and vassalized by the US as surely as was Western Germany. Its population today might be around 120 million, though having transitioned back to capitalism much earlier, it would be quite a lot richer.

There were several groups of people calling for preemptive nuclear war on the USSR. The first group were some more hardline American generals, such as Patton and MacArthur. Another surprising proponent was John von Neumann. The common thinking was that nuclear war was inevitable, so the US might as well launch it now, while it still had vast preponderance and the capacity to emerge largely unscathed. In all fairness, they had a point from a purely rational perspective, especially one that privileged their own countrymen’s (future) lives over Russians.

However, in the event they were all overruled, so an American singleton didn’t come to pass.

***

Another interesting scenario suggested by commenter Thorfinnsson is what would have happened if the USSR had signed a separate peace treaty with Nazi Germany in 1943.

I don’t think this was really politically realistic, even for a totalitarian regime like the USSR. And it was perfectly understandable for Stalin to think that he might as well finish the job and seize the eastern half of Europe, now that half of the job was done.

With the Wehrmacht having its hands untied in the East, D-Day would no longer be feasible. However, the Manhattan Project would not be going away, with the result that a campaign of democidal atomic attrition against the German population would begin from 1945.

The Nazis are not limp-wristed like the Kaiser or even Hindenburg/Ludendorff and will hold onto power as German city after city gets wiped off the Earth.

At some point, Germany will be sufficiently weak for an Allied invasion to be possible, especially considering that there would have been years to prepare for it. Obviously, at this point, the USSR could use the opportunity to scavenge. Even the East Europeans will be less of a problem at this point, having been subjected to 2-3x the degree of democide by the Nazis as they were historically. There would be fewer of them, and they’d hate the Germans even more.

The USSR could have used the armistice with Germany to refocus on science spending and turbocharge the nuclear program, developing it earlier and having a credible deterrent by 1950 instead of 1955 – so no Operation Unthinkable in principle. On the other hand, spying might have become much more difficult, since the Western Allies would be highly hostile to the USSR had it unilaterally quit.

Once the Western Allies finished atomically deconstructing Germany, having reduced its population by perhaps 10 million and subsequently occupied it, they would have turned their attention to the USSR. Hopefully it had used its 5 year window wisely.

***

The Maoist Swamp

China during the first half of the 20th century was too disunited, too illiterate, and too agrarian to entertain any superpower pretensions.

That said, it could have emerged into the limelight a lot sooner if not for the economic idiocy of Maoism, which even made Soviet central planning seem rational.

Here is a typical series of anecdotes from a textbook on the Chinese economy:

The government assumed direct control over all urban hiring: From the early 1960s onward, the government assigned 95% of high school or college graduates to work and took the authority to hire and fire away from individual enterprises (Bian 1994). Voluntary job mobility within urban areas disappeared, while workers gained protection from being fired. By 1978 voluntary quits and fires had become virtually nonexistent: in that year 37,000 workers in all of urban China quit or were fired, about one-twentieth of one percent of all permanent workers. A worker was 10 times more likely to retire and four times more likely to die on the job than to quit or be fired. The state decided your job, and a job was for life. This complete absence of labor markets was an extraordinary feature of the Chinese command economy. In the Soviet Union, workers were rarely fired but they were free to quit. In fact, in 1978, in the Russian Republic, 16% of all industrial manual workers quit their jobs during the year (Granick 1987, 109).

China in 1950 was perhaps 10 years behind Taiwan, and level pegging with the Koreas. By 1990, it was 20 years behind South Korea.

Had China maintained pace with Korea, its economy would have overtaken the US around 1985 in PPP terms (IRL: ~2012) and around 1995 in nominal terms (IRL: ~2022).

Today, Korea is close to Japan’s level in per capita terms, or around two thirds of the US level. So a capitalist China would now be perhaps three times the size of the US economy.

Today, China produces half the world’s elite level science (up from 25% five years ago). But a China at Korea’s or Japan’s per capita level would already be at about 150% of the American level (where it would level off because Mongoloids seem to be consistently less scientifically productive than Europeans, despite higher IQs).

Still, the one good thing about the Maoist legacy is that it did not destroy China’s demographic potential, like the USSR destroyed Russia’s through democide and promotion of national autonomies. The populations of both South Korea and Taiwan increased by a factor of 2.5x from the early 1950s to today; China’s increased by almost the same number. The Great Leap Forwards famine was canceled out by a lagging fertility transition.

And of course the Maoists didn’t try to set up Fujianese Soviet Republics, enshrine their right to leave the PRC in the Constitution, and promote non-Standard Mandarin languages.

A high-IQ, fully literate country with the world’s largest population was always bound for great things. The Chinese Communists didn’t screw things up too much, apart from delaying its emergence by a generation.

***

 
Hide 534 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sean says:

    AK: Fixed, thx.

    [MORE]

    its troops consistently had 25% the Anglo-French combat effectiveness. ?

    (?) Don’t you mean Germany had 50% more population than France

  2. DFH says:

    Moreover, Britain was not going to be much more supportive of French and Russian territorial expansionism than they would have been of German.

    Britain is once again not only the most correct but also the most moral great power

    • LOL: byrresheim
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Marcus
  3. So I searched (Ctrl+F) for the word “Jew” in this long article. Found only one mention: in the context of Nazi plans for post-war Europe…Disapointing, but unsurprising from Karlin. For those who are interested, there is a good book on the subject: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine.

    As a thought experiment, imagine a 20th century where Jewish people did not exist:

    -Russia’s “October Revolution” would have never happened
    -Neither would America’s Immigration Act of 1965.

    Russia living up to its full potential still would not be able to compete with pre 1965 USA. America’s advantage in human capital was too great. The main reason things are now looking up for Russia (and China) is that the Jew has managed to royally fuck things up.

    • Agree: Vojkan
  4. Germany’s war aims

    German war aims in WW1 were fluctuating and opportunistic, and there was no unaminity about them among the various power centres, so it’s questionable imo if one should treat them as a coherent plan.
    Personally I think Germany’s chances to become a true superpower were always rather dim, her geographical position (encircled by hostile powers, which is basically still true today) is just too disadvantageous.

    The February Revolution, which only occurred by a fluke of weather

    If I understand correctly, McMeekin claims that in his book about the Russian revolution(s), so it’s not just an eccentric opinion of yours. It doesn’t sound very convincing though imo. Chance and contingency certainly play a role in history that shouldn’t be underestimated, but a monarchy with centuries of tradition behind it doesn’t just collapse because of some accidents of weather…clearly there were deep systemic issues, as already indicated by the revolutionary unrest pre-WW1. I think most people here, myself included, will sympathize with your view of the Bolshevik takeover as a catastrophe…but does that mean one should absolve the old regime of all responsibility? WW1 wasn’t going well at all for Russia and put her society under unprecedented strain during a dangerous transition phase; in retrospect, stumbling into that war and failing to end in 1916 or so was a horrible mistake.
    Regarding your counterfactual history, I always wonder how you’re mostly focused just on superpower status, external relations, annexations etc. As far as I can remember, you have never sketched out the potential political development of such a Tsarist Russian superpower…presumably some reform would clearly have been necessary. You’ve also never told us what the ideology of such a power and its appeal for non-Russians would have been. Both the US and the Soviet Union had very powerful narratives of a universalist character…I doubt Tsarist Russia could have come up with something similar.

    It’s no exaggeration to say that the Bolsheviks lost Russia its century, and in all likelihood its future for all time.

    Wow, cheerful. No offense, but somehow I doubt that kind of message will inspire mass enthusiasm in Russia.

  5. 5371 says:

    [Most of these radical and insane measures were getting revoked after the first half-year of the Provisional Government’s rule, with accompanying improvements in morale and offensive capability]

    No, none of them got revoked. Kornilov demanded this as did everyone sane, but Kerensky after leading him to expect cooperation threw him to the wolves. At the front and in the economy things continued to go from bad to worse until the skeleton of the Provisional Government was finally swept away. If by miracle it had survived till Germany was defeated in the west, it would have been in no condition to haul in gains, even had its ideology allowed for them. Italy got very little at the conference table despite ending the war in vastly better shape. More likely. if Russia had continued demopozzed, it would have ended up even smaller and weaker than the interwar USSR.

  6. @Felix Keverich

    Re-Jews. You are obsessed. What relevance do they have to the topic, anyway?

    Re-USA. I think 400 million Eastern Slavs (unsovokized) would have easily been competitive with 200 million Anglo/Germano/Scotch-Irish.

  7. neutral says:

    I assume this is part one, however I am going to cover both halves of the century.

    Look at where the jews were in 1900 and then again at 2000, how can this be described anything other than the jewish century of total victory. Related to that is the rise of the non white world, compare the demographics of places like Africa, South America or India to Europe 1900 and 2000, whites went from ruling the world, to having their own lands taken over by non white masses they ruled within a century. Long before books like Camp of the Saints was written, Mein Kampf already mentioned on how Europe was facing a demographic doom from the the non white world, the jewish century also was almost definition going to the mean that this century was the death of the white race.

  8. Three unexplored alternate histories in this well-written post:

    • British Empire remains a world superpower
    • Japan wins Pacific War and Second Sino-Japanese War, goes on to become a superpower
    • Chiang Kai-shek wins Chinese Civil War, China becomes superpower much sooner

    British Empire

    This scenario requires that Joseph Chamberlain (father of Neville) become His Majesty’s Prime Minister.

    Joseph Chamberlain was a proponent of Imperial Federation. The United Kingdom would enter into a federal state with Britain’s white dominions (and, eventually, likely new white-minority controlled states in Africa) with King George V as British Emperor and an imperial parliament in London.

    Chamberlain was also a protectionist and pro-German (as Foreign Secretary he led three unsuccessful attempts to negotiate an Anglo-German alliance). The Anglo-German alliance was not a sure thing in a Chamberlain government as the Germans wished to include Austria-Hungary in the alliance, but certainly was much more likely with Chamberlain as PM rather than Lord Salisbury or Arthur Balfour (let alone rabidly Germanophobic liberals like Asquith and Grey).

    His protectionism however would’ve arrested Britain’s relative industrial decline (and provided it with a viable chemicals industry by 1914) and increased the industrialization of Canada.

    If historical WWI took place, Germany would’ve been defeated sooner owing to an industrially stronger British Empire and the ability to impose conscription in the ex-dominions (now, presumably, federal kingdoms much like the largest German states) as well as immediate conscription in Britain upon the outbreak of war.

    In the event of an Anglo-German alliance, I assume that Serbia would’ve backed down completely to Austria-Hungary’s demands as it seems doubtful to me that Russia would wish to add Britain and Japan to its list of enemies.

    But in the event WWI took place with Britain in the Central Powers, the outcome is hardly in doubt. France would’ve been steamrolled in 1914 and Russia in 1915. Japan would’ve attacked the Russian Far East. After dispensing of the French Navy, the Royal Navy would’ve entered the Black Sea and destroyed the Russian Black Sea Fleet and every port on the coast.

    Other powers like Italy, Rumania, and America never would’ve joined the Franco-Russians either. In fact Italy might well have declare war on France in the hope of REDEEMING Nice and Corsica.

    Needless to say there would be trouble after the war with the Anglo-German accord, who would have few strategic interests in common after victory. Britain would also have trouble postwar with Japan or America or possibly both.

    A unified British Empire would still be in a position of weakness relative to the United States owing to a lower (white) population, smaller industrial base, inferior science and technology, dependence on seaborne trade, geographic dispersal, and the extremely vulnerable position of Canada.

    However, it would also be able to draw on the resources of the empire. Britain was also by far the world leader in shipbuilding productivity and output in 1914, and with no Washington Naval Treaty may have maintained this edge.

    Canada would’ve developed some sort of “Populate or Perish” mentality like the Australia did during the Pacific War and would have a larger population today.

    Japanese Victory

    First person to say Japan never could’ve won gets to eat lead from my .45.

    Yes, we all know the reasons it NEVER could’ve happened: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

    Japan’s decision to initiate the Pacific War was based on its experiences in defeating China in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russia in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan was a pygmy compared to either state, but it won. Japan was basically fighting 18th century style cabinet wars, and thought it could do so again.

    It couldn’t do so because of the massive popular outrage the attack on Pearl Harbor generated in the very easily propagandized American population which was governed by the evil, demented Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    But perhaps the initial Japanese military victories were simply inadequate to produce the desired political victory. What if Japan had invaded Hawaii and then gone on to raid the West Coast and destroy the Panama Canal?

    This wouldn’t have been limited to carrier raids either. The Yamato had a longer range than all American shore batteries. The US Army Air Forces at the time had only about 1,500 modern aircraft, and all dogmeat for Zeros. By the spring of 1942 the Japanese could’ve destroyed every substantial port and shipyard on the West Coast and disabled the Panama Canal.

    They then could’ve gone on to invade Australia and perhaps Ceylon.

    Shipping was extremely limited as were fuel reserves, but the Japanese could potentially have seized the US Navy’s vast fuel reserves at Pearl Harbor solving for that problem.

    FDR would’ve remained committed to the war he engineered, but with such a string of disastrous defeats his political standing would’ve sunk. Congress since 1937 had been controlled by the “Conservative Coalition”, and while Southern Democrats were pro-war Northern Republicans (outside of New England) generally were not.

    Seems quite reasonable to suspect a Peace Treaty would’ve been concluded by mid-1942. Since Germany declared war on the US on December 11, presumably this would’ve ended American involvement in the European Theater of Operations as well.

    Result: Axis Victory.

    Contrary to some I think postwar relations between Germany and Japan would’ve been fine. They were extremely isolated from each other and unable to project power into each other’s domain, and each would have a mutual security interest in defending themselves from a potentially vengeful America.

    Japan’s economic miracle would’ve continued, China would’ve been defeated and dismembered, and with no “modern fertility transition” there mighty today be 200-300 million Japanese (with the center of the Japanese population shifting to Manchuria and perhaps even Australia) along with over 100 million Japanized Koreans and Taiwanese.

    Japan’s main strategic challenges would be keeping China down and avoiding a renewed war with America.

    The future trajectory of a victorious Fascist Italy is also interesting to consider. Over 100 million Italians, and in control of Libya’s hydrocarbons.

    ChiNat Victory

    This one doesn’t need much explanation at all. And contrary to ChiCom propaganda, there was considerable progress in China under nationalist rule despite the country not being completely reunified and various ongoing wars (including even a little-remembered Soviet invasion in the late 1920s).

    There were numerous issues with corruption under Chiang’s rule, but corruption is an overrated problem (just look at modern, corrupt China). The ChiNats also had a political problem in that they were beholden to China’s unpopular and unproductive landlord class, but as cities and industries developed the landlord class would’ve lost influence.

    Main danger would be the USSR choosing to initiate Operation August Storm 2 and continuing into the North China Plain, but that seems out of character for Stalin.

    A second danger might arise later on involving Soviet-American rapprochement as China emerged as a superpower. In our timeline Gore Vidal wrote in 1985 that the USSR and America would need to ally in order to head off the coming “Sino-Japanese World Order”. As the ChiNats were much softer on Japan than the ChiComs, I don’t see a problem in principle with Sino-Chinese rapprochement other than Washington itself and some of the harder elements of the Japanese Right (e.g. Shintaro Ishihara).

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  9. Sean says:

    Russia has abundant energy, mineral resources, arable land and a population that live well compared to East Asian countries that hardly have a tree left. It has enough population to defend the country. Russia is no longer in a pissing contest with the world’s most powerful country? Good, it’s well out of it. If Russian leaders had kept out of Great Power entanglement such as the pre WW1 infrastructure development bankrolled by France (intent on using Russia to fight Germany) Russia would be in a better position today. It’s sensible for Russia to take a breather, the finish line may be a long way off, and previous attempts to overtake the front runner have not gone well for those who tried.

  10. fnn says:

    FDR began Lend-Lease to Soviets even before US officially entered the war.

    https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/03/14/lend-lease-how-american-supplies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559

    The first convoys with American goods were already being sent to the USSR by August 1941.

  11. @German_reader

    As far as I can remember, you have never sketched out the potential political development of such a Tsarist Russian superpower…presumably some reform would clearly have been necessary.

    Politically, there were two possible currents based on the nature of Late Tsarism.

    Option one, championed by ministers such as Witte and Stolypin, was conservative constitutional monarchy. Somewhat like the Kaiserreich and Austria-Hungary. The Duma would’ve been designed so as to produce conservative majorities (e.g. the Third Duma).

    Option two of course was imperialist dictatorship with a substantial expansion of the Okhrana and widespread use of Cossacks to crush strikes, riots, etc.

    The Russians also appeared to be completely clueless on what to do on the labor problem, but in fairness not many other countries at the time knew what to do either. Durable solutions only emerged in the 1930s, and these weren’t without problems either (e.g. labor unions ruined Britain).

    Radical agitation would remain a problem regardless of what option was chosen owing to Russia’s large Jewish population, sundry troublesome minorities, and rank indiscipline at Russia’s universities.

    You’ve also never told us what the ideology of such a power and its appeal for non-Russians would have been. Both the US and the Soviet Union had very powerful narratives of a universalist character…I doubt Tsarist Russia could have come up with something similar.

    Orthodoxy, Pan-Slavism, and the global center of conservative reaction.

    You also don’t need a universalist ideology to be a superpower, though it helps…at least until you get high on your own supply and wreck your own country.

    Non-universalist ideology can also spread beyond its borders by being adapted for local circumstances. Witness the Arrow Cross in Hungary and the Iron Guard in Rumania.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @German_reader
  12. @Thorfinnsson

    By the spring of 1942 the Japanese could’ve destroyed every substantial port and shipyard on the West Coast and disabled the Panama Canal.

    Is that really true and did the Japanese ever consider doing it? I find it difficult to believe tbh. And most likely Americans would just have been even more enraged and more determined to crush Japan.
    One puzzling omission by the Japanese though was that they never really did much with submarine warfare (unlike the Americans who sank so much of the Japanese merchant navy). Maybe that could at least have dragged out the war and imposed higher casualties on the US, making negotiations more likely.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  13. Mr. XYZ says:

    Excellent post, Anatoly!

    I completely agree that Russia had extremely massive potential in the 20th century and blew it as a result of the Bolsheviks and Nazis. Interestingly enough, Russia would have probably fared better during the 20th century in a scenario where Germany would have won World War I; after all, the Germans would have probably overthrown the Bolsheviks in such a scenario.

    As for Nazi Germany, I think that a total population of 150-200 million is extremely unrealistic unless a massive number of non-Germans (as in, in the tens of millions) are successfully Germanized. Nazi Germany’s fertility was relatively low in spite of government incentives to raise it and I don’t know if the Nazis would have been able to have a decades-long baby boom like the Americans did had they won World War II.

    Having Germany win World War I (which would have probably been very possible had Britain remained neutral in World War I) is very interesting. On the one hand, they would set up a Mitteleuropa customs union and be able to extract a lot of resources from it, but on the other hand, any attempts to result in deeper integration would run a very real risk of the Germans losing their control over Mitteleuropa. After all, if Mitteleuropa becomes a federal state, the Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, et cetera there would probably demand equal suffrage and equal representation–something which could result in the Germans in Mitteleuropa becoming outnumbered (as in, even if Germany itself is a part of Mitteleuropa). Thus, if Germany wins World War I, it would have to eventually either give up on its dominance of Eastern Europe (because the rise of liberal norms in Germany will not allow indefinite German control of Eastern Europe without giving them representation in the German Parliament) or completely withdraw from Eastern Europe and give its puppet states there genuine independence. As a side note, though, Russia could be really hurt by the loss of its extremely high-IQ Ashkenazi Jewish population; after all, almost all Ashkenazim in Russia would end up under German rule if Germany wins WWI and imposes a Brest-Litovsk-style peace treaty on Russia. If Germany was smart, it would take advantage of this by allowing talented Jews to immigrate to Germany from Eastern Europe en masse and work on things such as technological development and the sciences.

    As a side note, Russia still has the potential to become great even right now. All it needs is to wait for IQ-enhancing technology to become developed and commercialized and then to use this technology on a large scale. Indeed, it would be especially beneficial if high-fertility people in Russia would use this technology since it could then result in a high-IQ breeder population for Russia–something which will certainly help Russia since the breeder % is going to increase with each generation. In the long(er)-run, Russians could combine gene editing for high-IQ with gene editing for high fertility to really make progress in regards to this.

    Finally, I wonder if the U.S.’s population would have been quite as large today if it wasn’t for World War II. After all, World War II resulted in a decades-long baby boom in the U.S. and also probably–due to the socially liberal trends that it helped result in–resulted in a loosening of immigration laws in the U.S. earlier than would have otherwise been the case. Thus, I wonder if, without World War II, the U.S. could perhaps have a population of 170-180 million Whites today rather than 200 million Whites–as well as a smaller Asian and possibly Hispanic population as well.

  14. Mr. XYZ says:

    Also, off-topic, but out of curiosity–Anatoly, do you think that the Soviet Union would have still eventually collapsed and broken up had it not been for Operation Barbarossa?

    Specifically, in a scenario where France doesn’t fall in 1940 (or later), there would be no Operation Barbarossa since the Nazis wouldn’t have the resources to invade the Soviet Union (plus, it would be extremely stupid to do so if France is still undefeated). Do you think that this would be enough to prevent the Soviet collapse and break-up later on?

  15. Scenario #2:
    Much of this became moot in 1917. The Provisional Government denounced annexations, and in any case, the United States’ entry into the war meant its rhetoric about national self-determination would also need to be honored to some extent. Russia’s territorial gains after this point would have likely been limited to just Galicia, but then again, it hardly needed more territory. This may well have been the most stable postwar configuration. There would be no cause for a Cold War between Russia and the West. Germany would remain resentful – if not as much had the more maximalist territorial ambitions of France/Russia been met – but Russia would have had no cause to cooperate with it as the outcast USSR had to, and Nazis would not have come to power in Germany without the Bolshevik menace.

    Seems likely to me that SPD-ruled Germany and Socialist Revolutionary ruled Russia would’ve been able to cooperate. If nothing else Russia would require Germany’s capital goods and Germany would require Russia’s raw materials.

    The Nazis might never had come to be without embittered German veterans shocked at the spectacle of Soviet Munich, but that doesn’t preclude other revanchist German groups coming to power in Germany.

    The lesson General von Schleicher and many other Reichswehr officers drew from WW1 was that Germany needed to be reorganized as a “Wehrstaat”. The Weimar Constitution effectively gave the President the power to rule by decree, which is what the last pre-Hitler Chancellors did.

    In a counterfactual where the Nazis don’t exist, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that the Reichswehr itself would’ve assumed power in the 1930s. Disillusioned by the Great Depression, seems unlikely that workers would break their power with a general strike as they did with the Kaap Putsch.

  16. @Thorfinnsson

    Orthodoxy, Pan-Slavism, and the global center of conservative reaction.

    But that wouldn’t even have been attractive for all Slavs (e.g. Poles), let alone anybody else.

    Witness the Arrow Cross in Hungary and the Iron Guard in Rumania.

    Unless I’m mistaken, the Iron Guard never got into power, and the Arrow Cross only did so very late with strong German support, so those aren’t really success stories.
    One problem for the Axis side in WW2 imo was that there wasn’t really a fascist international and that the Nazis due to their rather extreme racial ideas and narrow Nordicism weren’t serious about the Europe idea.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  17. @German_reader

    The Japanese considered invading Hawaii, but ruled it out owing to the number of troops required (they estimated 100,000–seems realistic since the US Army had 56,000 men in Hawaii) and shortages of shipping.

    The Japanese never did much with their submarine warfare owing to their Mahanian doctrine. The role of submarines in the IJN was reconnaissance and to hopefully thin out the American battle fleet prior to the Decisive Battle to occur in the Western Pacific.

    Ironically, the very success of the Pearl Harbor Raid made it impossible to fulfill this plan. America’s prewar doctrine, known as War Plan Orange, did indeed involve sailing the battle fleet into the Western Pacific and engaging the Combined Fleet.

    With its battle fleet crippled by Pearl Harbor, America improvised a new strategy based on cutting off Japan’s sea lines of communication through island hopping, carrier raids, and submarine warfare.

    Japan kept up its strategy until the catastrophic Battle of the Philippine Sea. Prince Takamatsu was the only influential naval officer to advocate a different strategy, but he was not listened to. Takamatsu wanted to sue for peace after Midway, and after that was ignored he advocated for a force of 10,000 aircraft to be able to concentrate anywhere at various key air bases in the Pacific to engage American ships when they appeared.

    In fairness to Japan the Pacific wasn’t the Atlantic and America wasn’t Britain. The Pacific was a much larger theater, there was much less shipping than the Atlantic, and America wasn’t dependent on any imports.

    The main beneficiary of Japanese commerce raiding would’ve actually been Germany and the main victim Britain.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Jan
  18. neutral says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t see how the British Empire could have kept its non white subjects, India would have left the British Empire in any kind of alternative history because the British empire was preaching liberalism as it’s core ideology at the start of the century and this contradiction could not endure for too long. With India leaving then the rest of the non whites would also leave, the British empire just consisting of Canada, New Zealand and Australia is not an empire anymore. Of course the other alternative is for the British empire to grant all subjects equal rights, but that would also be the end of Britain (kind of whats happening right now) and thus it would not be a real British empire.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @DFH
  19. @German_reader

    But that wouldn’t even have been attractive for all Slavs (e.g. Poles), let alone anybody else.

    The commenter Dmitri has found the solution to this vexing problem.

    U wuz slavz.

    Russian archaeologists, linguists, geneticists, historians and other eminent experts throughout the Empire would busy themselves producing evidence that other populations are, in fact, Slavs. They just had no idea until the Russians kindly showed them.

    For instance, Slavs once ruled as far West as the Elbe, and Germany today still has Slavs in the form of the Wends. Not too much of a stretch for Dmitri to discover that Germans themselves are Slavs. :D

    Welcome to the Slavic brotherhood, Slavic_reader. Did you know your ancestors built the pyramids?

    Unless I’m mistaken, the Iron Guard never got into power, and the Arrow Cross only did so very late with strong German support, so those aren’t really success stories.
    One problem for the Axis side in WW2 imo was that there wasn’t really a fascist international and that the Nazis due to their rather extreme racial ideas and narrow Nordicism weren’t serious about the Europe idea.

    The Iron Guard didn’t get into power, but King Carol II instituted comprehensive antisemitic legislation, gave economic control of Rumania to Germany, concluded a formal treaty of alliance with Germany, and declared war on the Soviet Union.

    Seems like a success story.

    Hungary was indeed not much of a success story, but it’s worth noting that Horthy too instituted antisemitic legislation on the German model. German antisemitism was even growing popular in the Netherlands and France by the late 1930s.

    Fascism also spread to Brazil, apparently with no assistance from Germany or Italy.

    The issue really is that Germany and Italy were not interested in exporting fascism anywhere other than Austria. Spain doesn’t count since the Francoists were simply Catholic reactionaries, which Hitler himself admitted. There were a number of good candidates for exporting fascism (e.g. Greece), but they preferred to simply invade these countries instead.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  20. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    [MORE]

    Anatoly, once again you show your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

    With a cursory reading of your articles, one could say that you are obsessed with the troubles that blacks, browns, and muslims bring about. But if someone wants to bring up the Jewish Question you try to slander them and you are asking us to ignore what is right in front of our face. Maybe you are delusional and obsessed with Muslim immigration.

    Also, you are the only writter at Unz who censors and deletes comments that bring up the Jewish Question. Regulars at Unz tend to learn over time that you have no credibility and are not to be trusted.

    AK: I don’t censor or delete any comments whatsoever apart from Wally’s (who only spams his codoh forum 24/7).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  21. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:

    600 million Russians? That would mean 600 million drunks. Nice Super Power you have there.

    Russia would still be a resource state much like a Middle Eastern country or Venezuela. But now you have to spread the wealth that much more since in your alternate universe I assume there would not also be an increase in oil reserves.

    Alternate futures are fun to think about though. In my alternate timeline, Aztecs invent the wheel and conquer west all through Russia creating light brown artic Aztec half breeds.

    In this version Anatoly still ends up writing at Unz, but with a 10 point drop to his IQ becuz HBD, but at least he has tan skin. Half his articles are on if he is white enough to count as an honorary white.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Dmitry
  22. @Anonymous

    Karlin has the weirdest haters on the Unz Review.

    People who insist he’s not antisemitic enough, even though he’s written on JQ and named the Jews as one of Russia’s enemies.

    People who say he censors too much, even though comments here don’t even require approval.

    Then of course there’s Sovok rage, which was an amusing discovery for me. Their hatred is at least rational, other than the truly demented Lazy Glossophiliac.

    What’s Steve Sailer’s secret to having no haters? It’s not censorship, since he approves my trash comments demanding that he stop publishing in Taki’s Mag. Powerful RETIREMENT AGE MINDSET at work????

  23. @Anonymous

    Nordics are all alcoholics and simply have consumption repressed by the state.

    We still have a pretty good record, even back when we were all drunk all the time.

    The drunken Soviet Union had many great achievements despite its dysfunctional economic system and ideology. The Red Army issued each conscript a vodka ration during the Great Patriotic War and won.

    Alcoholism is a public health problem, but otherwise not a big deal on a societal scale. Some lost productivity, but nothing too drastic since drunks need money to buy booze.

    • Replies: @inertial
  24. @Mr. XYZ

    Re-Germans overthrowing Bolsheviks. Agreed, likely if they’d won; the Kaiser wanted to do that even before in early 1918. But (with plenty of help from retrospect) it’s now clear that German victory was going to be a longshot.

    Re-German TFR. Well, they raised it to 2.4 children per woman by 1939-40, then it collapsed for obvious reasons. Germany would have still had the baby boom common to the entire industrialized world in the 1950s-60s, and it would (all else equal) have been bigger, since it wouldn’t be missing 30% of its young men. The Nazi ideology would have raised it even higher. And at the very least, it certainly wouldn’t have collapsed, as it did in West Germany from the 1970s; no reason to think it would have done worse than the GDR at the very least.

    Re-Russia. That assumes Russia will have a decisive head start in IQ-enhancing technology. While I probably do more to promote that than most, Russia is weak in technology, very weak in the commercialization of technology, and has various flavors of obscurantist who’d be interested in holding it back. I would bet on China and even the US exploiting it ahead of Russia, though perhaps not leftist-infested Western Europe.

    Re-US. Not sure. The baby boom was common to the entire industrialized world, whether they participated in the war or not. (E.g. look at the demographics articles for Sweden or Ireland on Wiki). Not sure that it would have voided those liberal social trends, either. If anything the war might have postponed their coming by a bit.

    Re-No Barbarossa. I think the collapse of the USSR only became more likely than not in 1990, though expert opinion differs; see Stephen Cohen (Soviet Fates & Lost Alternatives) vs. Daniel Treisman (The Return) for differing views (optimistic/pessimistic, respectively). Certainly internal reform at an earlier stage away from central planning and a move away from Communist ideology as the binding glue of the state, undertaken under higher quality leaders than the drunkards and ideologues it was instead blessed with, would have reduced the risk of a breakup. Wrt Barbarossa specifically, I think the consensus view is that Victory in WW2 is one of the things that helped the USSR legitimize itself. And its one of the main propaganda tropes justifying the RF today.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Mr. XYZ
  25. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson

    Then of course there’s Sovok rage, which was an amusing discovery for me. Their hatred is at least rational, other than the truly demented Lazy Glossophiliac.

    Wasn’t LG once propped here as a worthy source?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  26. @neutral

    I meant to write on this but forgot to do so given all the other material.

    India, Ireland, Malaya, and Burma would’ve been major problems. How Britain dealt with those problems would’ve depended on its own internal politics. Generally speaking if you have a monopoly on violence and are willing to use it you can control any population indefinitely.

    I don’t see any issues whatsoever keeping African colonies under firm control. However, keeping the African colonies raises a very dark specter indeed. With British administration they would have increased their numbers even more and been more prosperous. The settler colonies were very sound until after WW2 in keeping non-whites out, but mainland Britain itself was generally not (though perhaps with more of them they would’ve been).

    African deluge into white territory much earlier than our own timeline?

    That said there’s an optimistic scenario on this as well. American and Caribbean blacks now have moderate fertility.

    • Replies: @DFH
  27. @Mikhail

    He’s a smart guy with many interesting observations, but has a demented hatred of Karlin whom he calls a “neocon cockroach”.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  28. Jon0815 says:

    What the Bolsheviks created: A 145 million population rump empire with a GDP comparable to that of Germany

    The Commies do deserve credit for Russia’s nuclear superpower status though. In a world without the USSR and Cold War, either the USA is the sole nuclear superpower, and Russia is just one of several powers with a minimal-deterrence arsenal of a few hundred warheads, or there are no nuclear superpowers.

    Another interesting scenario suggested by commenter Thorfinnsson is what would have happened if the USSR had signed a separate peace treaty with Nazi Germany in 1943.

    (…)

    With the Wehrmacht having its hands untied in the East, D-Day would no longer be feasible. However, the Manhattan Project would not be going away, with the result that a campaign of democidal atomic attrition against the German population would begin from 1945.

    It’s questionable whether Americans would have supported such a campaign against a white population. Also, without Normandy the USSR would probably occupy the entirety of a nuke-devastated Germany before the US army could get there.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  29. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    AK: Thorfinnsson is correct. I don’t delete low quality comments, I collapse them. Like this, LOL.

    [MORE]

    Anatoly definitely censored my comments about J in the past. Maybe he quit doing so recently because of the negative feedback.

    But he is totally dishonest about the J question. Totally defensive and ignores the obvious. Just like his rather strange groupies do too.

    By the Way Thor, that Antisemitism word you use does not mean anything to me.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  30. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    And its one of the main propaganda tropes justifying the RF today.

    Not that today’s RF needs any justifying.

    From an ethical position, Russia has arguably more ample reason to honor the likes of Denikin, Wrangel and Vlasov, when compared to those in Ukraine doing such for Petliura, Shukhevych and Bandera.

    Touchy items not discussed by the JRL propped Paul Robinson, among others.

  31. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson

    Can’t be too smart with that neocon designation.

    I’d probably be called such as well regarding an acknowledgement of what Richard Pipes happened to get right:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/25062018-remembering-richard-pipes-oped/

  32. @Anonymous

    If you participated more in AK’s comments you would know that I am a committed antisemite. For me it is not a slur. I am antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic and every other allegedly awful thing you’re not supposed to be. No sense fighting the label. Agree & Amplify.

    I do not know what you posted before, but his pattern know is to collapse comments he deems low quality. They can still be expanded by clicking [MORE].

  33. Mr. Hack says:

    What’s all of this hypothesizing and postulating about alternative histories really worth? I suppose it’s only an exercise in fantasizing about what could have been, an opportunity for a bunch of armchair historians to bring their misspent erudition to light. My favorite comment so far (no offense Anatoly) is this one:

    Alternate futures are fun to think about though. In my alternate timeline, Aztecs invent the wheel and conquer west all through Russia creating light brown artic Aztec half breeds.

    In this version Anatoly still ends up writing at Unz, but with a 10 point drop to his IQ becuz HBD, but at least he has tan skin. Half his articles are on if he is white enough to count as an honorary white.

    Still, it’s a well written piece, entertaining to read and think about. And it’s all for free, what else can you want? :-)

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  34. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Jon0815

    The Commies do deserve credit for Russia’s nuclear superpower status though. In a world without the USSR and Cold War, either the USA is the sole nuclear superpower, and Russia is just one of several powers with a minimal-deterrence arsenal of a few hundred warheads, or there are no nuclear superpowers.

    No they don’t. Who in 1917 and beforehand had nuclear capability? Russia was advancing with or without the Commies, who were historically lucky.

  35. DFH says:
    @neutral

    Apart from Malaysia, the non-white areas of the empire were barely an asset, if not a net drain.

    the British empire just consisting of Canada, New Zealand and Australia is not an empire anymore

    Britain + the white colonies would still have been more powerful than any other country except the US or possibly Russia.

    the British empire was preaching liberalism as it’s core ideology at the start of the century and this contradiction could not endure for too long

    Contradictions can endure for as long as they need to. India would have been quiescent were it not for the combination of the earlier decision to give some Indians western educations and the subsequent decision of the first Labour government to promise the Indians self-government. ‘Liberalism’ is here, as usual, an obfuscatory word. The real problem stemmed from the spirit of evangelical Christianity that took hold towards the end of the 18th century.

    • Agree: Thorfinnsson
  36. @Jon0815

    Re-nukes. I dimly recall you claiming this before, but I fail to see how or why that would be the case.

    Re-white population sympathy. Again, no sure. Western Allies had no compunctions about leveling German cities with aerial bombardment, including in cases where it didn’t serve an important military purpose (Dresden being the classical example). Nukes just make it more effective.

    I mean, the Americans even came up with the Morgenthau Plan, which would have been semi-genocidal if actually implemented.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @German_reader
    , @Jon0815
  37. DFH says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    mainland Britain itself was generally not (though perhaps with more of them they would’ve been)

    They were not really seen as a threat in the same way as in the colonies. But the government between the wars did have a report comissioned on the dangers of miscegenation in port cities and how to stop it. There were also riots after WW1 in the cities where there were large numbers of non-whites.

    http://www.heretical.com/british/riot1919.html

    Similarly, there was an act passed before the war aimed at restricting Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_Act_1905

    There was also earlier a strong reaction even to the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa, and it was one of the reasons the Conservative government lost in 1910.

    So it probably would not have been a problem without Jews/the war.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  38. DFH says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    the Americans even came up with the Morgenthau Plan

    An ((((American))))) came up with it, and there was a very strong reaction from most of the British and American governments, despite the war, against it.

  39. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Yeah, having the Germans win World War I would have been much more beneficial for Russia than the situation in our TL.

    Also, this is why I mentioned the idea of British neutrality in World War I in my previous post–Germany’s best bet to win World War I would have been for both Britain and the U.S. to remain neutral. Once Britain and especially the U.S. were in the war, Germany was likely screwed. Indeed, I have doubts that even a German capture of Paris in 1918 would have been enough to win the war; after all, France, Britain, and the U.S. could still fight on from the rest of France even if Paris was captured.

    Interestingly enough, had World War I been delayed until 1917, Germany would have probably had better odds since Russia’s growing military power might have been enough to keep Britain–and thus the U.S.–neutral. I don’t think that the increase in Russian military power between 1914 and 1917 in a scenario where World War I begins in 1917 would have been enough to compensate for British and U.S. neutrality. Plus, even if Russia would have performed adequately on the front lines, it would have still had its fair share of defeatists at home–thus ensuring that the potential for a stab-in-the-back would remain.

    In regards to German TFR, Yes, the Nazis did raise it a bit up to 1939-1940, but I wonder if it was sustainable as well as how much further they could have raised it. In any case, though, you’re correct that a larger population of young German men–assuming a quick Nazi victory–would have ensured that Germany would have popped out more babies in the 1940s and beyond. Plus, it would probably help that the Nazis discouraged women from working.

    BTW, what was East Germany’s TFR? Was it in the range of 2.0? If so, I’m thinking that a surviving Nazi Germany’s population today would be in the range of 110 million. We have 80 million plus Austria which gives you about 90 million, and the greater number of births in Germany should perhaps add another 20 million to Germany’s population. It’s a rough guess, but without more detailed data, I can’t speculate in greater detail in regards to this.

    As for Russia, wouldn’t gene editing eventually allow it to close any gaps that emerge between it and, say, the U.S. or even China? After all, if gene editing could eventually result in the Black-White gap in the US (1 SD) being completely eliminated (since gene editing could eventually allow one to fix all of the genes for IQ within the genome within one generation), why exactly couldn’t it likewise result in the gap between Russians and the U.S./China completely disappearing? Indeed, wouldn’t all countries and ethnic groups eventually (assuming universal usage of this technology) have the same average IQ as a result of gene editing?

    As for the U.S., that’s a fair point about Sweden’s and Ireland’s TFR. However, it is possible that these countries also benefited from the post-World War II wave of economic growth even though they themselves weren’t directly involved in the war. What’s interesting, though, is that the U.S. did not experience a massive baby boom after the end of World War I and actually saw its TFR significantly fall during the 1920s–an ostensibly prosperous time. That said, though, I’ll do more research and thinking about this issue. However, I do stand by my contention that WWII resulted in social liberalism in the US. In the 1920s and 1930s, there was no large-scale movement (at least not anywhere near the scale of what occurred in the 1950s and 1960s) to end segregation or get rid of anti-miscegenation laws; in contrast, after the end of World War II, there was a large movement to get rid of things such as segregation and anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. Indeed, even before the Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court case (1967), numerous U.S. states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws whereas no U.S. state actually did this between 1888 and 1947.

    As for Operation Barbarossa, it’s interesting that you think that Operation Barbarossa helped the Soviet Union legitimize itself. I mean, I don’t disagree with this, but I do wonder how much this was compensated by the extremely massive demographic losses which occurred as a result of World War II. After all, the male-female ratio in the Slavic republics of the Soviet Union in 1950 was something like 3-4, or 75-100–making even Germany’s 85-100 (or 17-20) ratio pale in comparison.

    Also, what do you think that the odds would have been of the Soviet Union eventually getting a more competent reformist leadership (in comparison to real life) in a scenario where there was no Operation Barbarossa? Any thoughts on this?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  40. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Mr. Hack

    To be honest, it’s fun to speculate about a more populous Ukraine–including one which still has its Jewish population intact.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  41. @Anatoly Karlin

    Western Allies had no compunctions about leveling German cities with aerial bombardment

    Well tbh indiscriminate area bombing was mostly done by the British, American use of air power against Germany was more directed towards specific targets (suppressing the Luftwaffe, railroads, oil industry etc.).
    I don’t think there’s much point to speculating about a scenario in which WW2 is won by continuous use of nukes, that’s too divergent from the real timeline, too many unknowns.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  42. @DFH

    Good to see.

    I agree that Anglos before WW2 were generally getting the problem under control, and there’s no reason to suspect this process would’ve stopped.

    In fact the Germans specifically looked to the Anglo settler countries for inspiration when crafting their own antisemitic legislation.

    Jews did develop dangerous control over film, radio, and later television in America, but in the absence of WW2 this is nothing HUAC couldn’t have discovered and destroyed.

    So even the Nazis have the most correct and most moral great power to thank.

    The idea that the Jews, who never posed an existential threat ever in the past, are these invincible foes today is ridiculous. For most of European history they were well under control and tolerated because of useful services they provided. The Jews are clever, aggressive, and well organized. But they’re also highly outnumbered and extremely myopic and unlikeable.

    Most conveniently, they’re also barely represented in the military and police.

    A good number of them are also now getting high on their own supply.

    The Jewish Century is ending.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  43. dfordoom says: • Website

    the United States’ entry into the war meant its rhetoric about national self-determination

    It’s amazing how the U.S. commitment to national self-determination was such an incredibly convenient justification for the destruction of economic and political rivals like the Russian, German and British Empires.

    In fact it’s uncanny how all of the U.S. moral crusades for freedom and democracy and self-determination and all the other clichés just happened to provide justifications for American global hegemony.

  44. @German_reader

    Re-Germany. I think Germany’s chances of winning WW2 in 1941-42 were far from dim. And victory would have pretty much guaranteed it a stable superpowerdom – at least so long as the Nazis manage to keep it all together after Hitler.

    Re-Russia. In retrospect, everything becomes clearer. But Russian industrial output was 120% of 1914 levels in 1916. Factories continued getting set up left and right (six automobile factories alone were laid down in 1916, including what would later become the famous ZiL factory in the USSR – lots of armored cars to have come online from 1918 in another timeline). As of 1916, only sugar was being rationed; the home front situation was much worse in Germany by that time. Basically until February, there were few obvious signs of incoming crisis.

    Re-ideology. I agree with Thorfinnsson’s comment.

    To add to that, pre-Soviet Russia had a serious (liberal-)conservative tradition, most notably laid out in the Vekhi. Paul Robinson wrote a good introductory article to it: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/putins-philosophy/

    It’s obviously not the sort of stuff that would have inspired fanatical loyalty amongst unstable foreigners, but that’s sooner a good thing.

    It would have also had considerable (non-official) soft power. Recall that it was quite diffused with all sorts of cultural movements and artistic trends: (Russian) Futurism, Constructivism, Suprematism, Cosmism.

    Re-enthusiasm. Well, drumming up enthusiasm is not my job. There’s plenty of people who get specifically paid for that. And well, am I wrong?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @German_reader
  45. Jon0815 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Re-nukes. I dimly recall you claiming this before, but I fail to see how or why that would be the case.

    Because a non-Soviet Russia would probably have lacked the motive and will to get into a very expensive nuclear arms race with the USA.

    Russia being one of only two nuclear superpowers, rather than just one of multiple 2nd-tier nuclear powers, is an unlikely historical accident, which almost certainly would not have happened without the Communists.

    Here’s the thread where this was discussed before (in which @reiner Tor agreed with my argument, and improved it by making a strong case for why, in a world without the Cold War, the USA would probably have pursued and achieved nuclear primacy):

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/double-horseshoe-theory/

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  46. @Thorfinnsson

    In fact the Germans specifically looked to the Anglo settler countries for inspiration when crafting their own antisemitic legislation.

    ? Which Anglo settler countries had antisemitic legislation?

    nothing HUAC couldn’t have discovered

    Wasn’t that committee originally created to investigate alleged Nazi subversion?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  47. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You know, I’ve always wondered if a reformist such as Albert Speer could have eventually risen to power in Nazi Germany sometime after Hitler’s death. I mean, Franco’s Spain reformed after his death, but then again, Nazi Germany was much more brutal than Francoist Spain was. Still, the Soviet Union also became less brutal after Stalin’s death; thus, a less brutal Nazi Germany after Hitler’s death certainly appears to be a very real possibility.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  48. dfordoom says: • Website

    It’s no exaggeration to say that the Bolsheviks lost Russia its century, and in all likelihood its future for all time.

    But it was really that clown Gorbachev who did that wasn’t it?

  49. @German_reader

    America followed a different bombing doctrine from the British, but the results were not particularly different other than not sparking fire storms. Even with the Norden bombsight, precision bombing with unguided bombs from over 20,000 feet (6,000 meters for you foreigners) is only possible under perfect conditions. And even then a formation of 1,200 bombers is not going to pass over the target in a perfect stream so each bomber can drop its bomb load precisely.

    As for America attempting to nuke Germany into submission, I’m not convinced it would’ve worked. America’s atomic bomb production capacity was initially highly limited. By the time it scaled up enough it’s possible that Germany itself would have the bomb. Germany’s atomic bomb program had a number of weaknesses, but the first American atomic explosion would’ve eliminated those weaknesses overnight.

    Quite plausible that an American atomic bombing of Germany in the summer of 1945 would result in a German atomic bomb by the summer of 1946. How many times could America successfully nuke Germany by then?

    Even if Germany failed to produce a credible way to nuke America by the summer of 1946 (I’m sure something would have been improvised), it could’ve nuked every city in the United Kingdom. Would the British allow their island to be reduced to ashes so America could keep nuking Germany? Doubtful.

    Even if Germany failed to produce the bomb quickly, Britain would’ve been subjected to nerve gas and biological attacks as retaliation. While chemical weapons are highly overrated militarily, they are terrifying.

    Peace in the East in 1943 also would’ve changed Germany’s priorities with consequent effects for the Anglo-Americans. Every high velocity gun allocated to anti-tank roles on the Eastern Front would be re-purposed for anti-aircraft work. CAS aircraft production would be reduced in favor of production for fighters and bombers. Factories purposed for producing tanks and trucks would be churning out equipment for u-boats instead.

    It’s quite possible German-Soviet trade would be revived as well, though by no means certain. This would’ve drastically increased German armaments output and have significant impacts on the quality of German weapons as well. For instance German armor, anti-armor shells, and jet engine quality would all have increased significantly.

    What would 300 operational Type XXI u-boats in early 1945 have resulted in? Germany with no Eastern Front could have defeated the Allied combined bombing offensive in 1944, which Speer estimated would’ve resulted in a 50% increase in armaments output. Add that 50% to all the vast resources allocated to the Eastern Front.

    I’m not ruling out Karlin’s scenario of America nuking Germany into oblivion, but it’s by no means certain.

    The grimmest possible scenario is Germany going nuclear but America (and Britain, for some reason) refusing to give in. Britain gets reduced to ashes, America starts relying on the B-36 to keep nuking Germany, and Germany develops ICBMs and perhaps the Amerika Bomber.

    End result the disastrous destruction of North America and Europe.

    Potentially great news for Russia though!

  50. @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, drumming up enthusiasm is not my job.

    I got the impression though that you’re now some kind of nationalist activist, and while honest analysis and self-criticism is important, “Russia’s got no future, it all went to shit generations before we were born” isn’t really an inspiring sentiment.
    I mean, I can relate to some extent given the trajectory of my own country, so busy now abolishing itself, I often wonder what might have been if war had been avoided in 1914, or even if things had turned out differently in 1932/33. But unfortunately one can’t change the past, so such gloomy musings aren’t of much use.

    • Replies: @inertial
    , @Daniel Chieh
  51. @German_reader

    No Anglo country had antisemitic legislation, though there were informal controls particularly in America. The most famous example is that America’s Ivy League schools capped Jewish enrollment, but there were many other informal controls. Banking and law were for instance segregated by religion (including Catholics, so the Irish had their own banks and law firms).

    Rather the Germans looked to America’s immigration and segregation legislation for inspiration, as before the war the Nazis attempted to solve the problem through law. When American diplomats complained about Germany’s antisemitic laws, the Germans always referred to American legislation for inspiration.

    Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa also developed related controls on immigration.

    HUAC was originally created to investigate Nazi sympathizers, but its predecessors were mainly concerned with Communists. And HUAC quickly expanded its mandate to investigate Communist and Japanese subversion as well. After the war HUAC became aggressively anticommunist and also acted against Hollywood.

    • Replies: @inertial
  52. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    Had Imperial Germany been able to permanently destroy French military power, it would have been put in an easier situation. After all, in such a scenario, it could focus most of its energies on Russia (there would be the risk of a British blockade in the event of a war with Britain, but the solution to this would be not to piss Britain off).

    As for Russia, IMHO, what hurt Russia was the fact that it did not develop a parliamentary government in time. Had there been more experience with democracy in Russia, it is possible that the politicians there would have been more responsive to the needs of the people–such as to food shortages–during World War I. For that matter, had Russia had more experience with democracy, a Bolshevik coup might have very well been much less tolerated since everyone else wouldn’t have tolerated it–preferring to wait until the next elections instead.

    IMHO, what benefited the U.S. relative to Germany and Russia during the 20th century is that the U.S. was more democratic (even though it certainly wasn’t perfect, since Black people generally weren’t allowed to vote in the Southern U.S. until the 1960s). Basically, American politicians were more responsive to the needs of the people than Germany’s and Russia’s politicians and especially leadership (the German Kaiser and the Russian Tsar, respectively) were. In turn, this helps explain why the U.S. avoided revolution in the 20th century and experienced much less brutality than either Germany or Russia did during this time (while the lynchings of Blacks were certainly a huge shame and tragedy, they absolutely pale in comparison to the Holocaust and Stalinist terror; plus, AFAIK, these lynchings weren’t government-sponsored).

    Also, as a side note, it really would have been interesting to see a Mitteleuropa federal union after a German WWI victory if Germans would have actually been willing to make this work (this would mean giving equally and the suffrage to the non-Germans in Mitteleuropa–thus giving non-Germans there a lot of political power).

  53. Rye says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Re-Jews. You are obsessed. What relevance do they have to the topic, anyway?

    I think that he has a point. Your optimal projection for Imperial Russia does not take into account the many more millions of extremely intelligent (potentially further boosted by substantial and possibly disproportionate Flynn effects) and highly cohesive foreign tribesmen with a known penchant for conspiratorial misanthropy towards European peoples (even one’s with which they ostensibly have a peaceful history), within Russia’s borders. This is a problem which Russia would have had to address, via forced assimilation, expulsion or something else. Even the Soviet Union had to eventually develop a specific policy to address the Ashkenazi question. This topic definitely deserves a mention, love em or hate em, Ashkenazi Jews aren’t a population which can be ignored.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  54. @Mr. XYZ

    The history of Communism shows that eventually fanatics lose their grip on power. This is logical, as once a new system cements its grip on the power structure the power structure is gradually taken over by ambitious strivers rather than fanatics.

    Not just Communism either. Iran seems to be governed by fairly normal people now. The middle ages the Catholic Church was mainly governed by ambitious people.

    By the 1980s I assume a Nazi German empire would be governed by typically ambitious people. Other than the H-man himself and his inner circle, most of the “old fighters” were not particularly impressive either since Nazism had less appeal to intellectuals of the era than Communism did.

    It may have happened even sooner since the Nazis didn’t liquidate capitalists, aristocrats, intellectuals, and other wellsprings of talent.

    I wouldn’t call Speer a reformist though. More of an opportunist.

  55. @Mr. XYZ

    Government with democratic participation has its advantages, but doesn’t seem to be critical. Plenty of powerful nondemocratic states both today and historically.

    And your comment on the USA is ridiculous. Allowing black people to vote, anywhere and at any time, is always a net negative. Including even for the blacks themselves, as whenever they hold political power destroy their own polities.

    The lynchings of blacks were neither a tragedy nor a source of shame. Your negrophilia is embarrassing.

    The USA avoided revolution for the simple reason that we never lost a serious war nor got close to it.

  56. @Mr. XYZ

    but the solution to this would be not to piss Britain off

    That’s based on the assumption that Britain only entered WW1 because of the German invasion of Belgium, but Grey and his Foreign Office clique would have pushed for a British entry into the war anyway, and probably would have eventually succeeded (though the German invasion of Belgium and the war crimes committed there were still a huge own goal since Germany lost the battle for international opinion right at the start of the war).

    what benefited the U.S. relative to Germany and Russia

    The US benefits from a uniquely blessed geopolitical position and was never subjected to the kind of stress Germany and Russia were in the world wars, so such comparisons are meaningless imo.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Mr. XYZ
  57. Mr. XYZ says:

    Oh, sure, one can have a non-democratic state and be powerful. However, would non-democratic states be as responsive to the needs of the people?

    As for Blacks, sure, their own cities often look bad (due to the crime, poverty, et cetera) and are filled with corruption. However, if you want better government, wouldn’t it make sense to discriminate in regards to suffrage based on IQ rather than based on race? After all, there are some high-IQ blacks–just much fewer of them in comparison to Whites in a proportional sense.

    Also, why exactly were the lynchings of blacks neither a tragedy nor a source of shame? Please explain.

    As for the U.S., we had a draw with Britain in the War of 1812–when Britain burned down our capital city–and yet even this wasn’t enough to trigger a revolution in the U.S.

    As for Russia, it was winning World War I and yet experienced a revolution because it couldn’t maintain order and stability on the home front. Maybe it would have done a better job with this if its government would have been more responsive to the needs of the people–for instance, by being elected by the entire population instead of having elections be gerrymandered to favor the wealthy, landed elites. Also, having an elected leader (as in, a leader elected by the people) instead of having a hereditary Tsar might have also helped Russia.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @DFH
    , @dfordoom
  58. @German_reader

    There was no realistic way for Germany to defeat France without going through Belgium. The terrain of the German-French border doesn’t allow for an army of millions to invade. Britain declared war in a matter of hours after Germany invaded Belgium, before any war crimes were committed.

    And it’s not like the Schlieffen Plan was a secret mystery either. The particulars were never revealed, but the general plan was discussed in German military journals for decades before WW1.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  59. @Mr. XYZ

    Re-British neutrality. Key problem was that Germany still attacked though Belgium (which Britain was treaty-bound to uphold), plus I don’t know if the naval/trade rivalries between the two countries, an additional source of tension, would have died down in the intervening years. Antebellum Britain was full of patriotic publications (what we’d now call military sci-fi) about the coming war with Germany. Incidentally, Russia!1917 would have completed the Great Military Program, making the Schlieffen Plan no longer practicable.

    Re-GDR fertility. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Statistics_since_1900

    Re-gene editing. The real interesting question is what sort of things the countries that go first achieve before the others catch up. Indeed, the gap that develops may be so big that they never catch up. (It will take China more than 200 years to catch up to the industrial revolution launched in Britain – and that didn’t even involve the appearance of massive average IQ differentials). There is also the very germane issue of all power being relative. I do not see IQ gene editing as being something that is likely to enhance Russia’s relative power, at least not with the current people in charge (who are more likely to hamper or ban its spread than promote it).

    Re-Barbarossa. But those male/female disbalanced had disappeared into relative unimportance by the late 1980s.

    Re-Soviet leaders. I assume it was always going to come down to a power struggle between Khrushchev, Malenkov, Beria, etc. Who’d have won – no idea. I don’t even know if Khrushchev would have won again if the experiment was simply rerun. Despite being a scumbag personally, there’s reason to think that Beria would have moved towards economic liberalization, made good with the US, and ruled the USSR more like a Latin American dictator.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @for-the-record
  60. @Jon0815

    reiner Tor wrote:

    I think nuclear weapons suit the American psyche well. It’s all hardware no manpower, requires no martial skills, is expensive, but gives literally big bang for the buck. Air power is similarly well suited for them, in that it’s expensive, allows for war to be waged far from your shores, and requires less martial skills or masses of soldiers. It’s also possible to use it without taking a lot of casualties.

    Nuclear weapons are actually very cheap relative to modern conventional forces.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  61. @Thorfinnsson

    The question is if there ever was a realistic chance for the Schlieffen plan to succeed, my impression is that a non-trivial part of the modern literature assumes it could never have worked due to insufficient logistics.
    In any case, taking an eminently political decision like violating the neutrality of a 3rd country due to purely military considerations, without consideration of the political consequences, was rather short-sighted imo.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  62. @Rye

    Well, Soviet SJWs abolished university exams in the 1920s, and with “class enemies” (read: intelligent Russians) effectively barred, they became dominated by Jewish ideologues and stupid Russian proles.

    So it had a period where Jewish “conspiratorial misanthropy” ran amok to a far larger extent than was ever the case in the West anyway, or was ever likely to happen in a non-Communist Russia.

    • Replies: @Rye
    , @inertial
  63. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    I don’t think that dying en masse in the trenches would have appealed to the British, though.

    If Germany doesn’t invade Belgium and the war in the West still descends into trench warfare, would the British have actually wanted to enter the war when they would have known for a fact that it would kill, maim, and cripple a lot of their young men? I mean, in our TL, there was the hope of a quick Entente victory when Britain entered the war; in contrast, in this TL, it would be perfectly clear to the Brits that entering the war is going to result in a lot of pain for Britain before any gains are actually going to be visible.

  64. @German_reader

    Schlieffen was a genius and his plan would have likely worked, it was Moltke the Younger who done goofed up.

    * He reduced the strength of the farmost wing to just 53% of the Army, instead of the 75-90% that Schlieffen had obsessively argued for.
    * This was especially bad because both the Belgians and the British expeditionary force put up a much stronger fight than the Germans expected.
    * Took away four divisions to fight the Russians, which in the end proved pointless anyway – Tannenberg was done by the time they arrived.
    * Moltke was just a mediocre commander in general, who had the bad luck to face an excellent commander in Joffre.

  65. @Mr. XYZ

    Nobody had a vision of dying “en masse in the trenches” in the summer of 1914 other than a few prophets–who were probably just lucky rather than prophetic. For the past century the only truly bloody war had been the American Civil War. Optimism bias is universal.

    If Germany hadn’t invaded Belgium it couldn’t have knocked out France, which would then lead to a different trench line.

    The British could’ve found other outrages, such as using the German Navy to blockade France. Given strong Germanophobic sentiment in Britain at the time, especially in the rabidly Germanophobic Liberals like Asquith and Grey governing Britain that the time, it’s not unreasonable to suspect they would’ve found another reason.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Anon
    , @Seraphim
  66. @Mr. XYZ

    I don’t think that dying en masse in the trenches would have appealed to the British, though.

    Many of those cut down in the so-called pals battallions at the Somme in 1916 were volunteers who must have joined up after the first months of WW1 which already had seen hundreds of thousands killed; even if they had many illusions about the nature of the fighting, there must have been at least some awareness that this was a war of mass casualties.
    If Germany hadn’t invaded Belgium, there might have been more controversy about Britain entering the war, but I still think it would have happened, it was the logical outcome of Grey’s pre-WW1 policy (which included such scenarios as Britain transporting Russian troops to the Pomeranian coast, and other military planning with France and Russia).

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

    That’s why I am suggesting not invading Belgium at all. Rather, play defense on the Franco-German border and focus most of your attention on the East. Invading Belgium was a stupid move since it ensured that, if Germany couldn’t achieve a quick victory, Germany was going to face an extreme world of hurt.

    As for Russia in 1917, sure, Germany’s Schlieffen Plan would be obsolete, but Germany could still fight both France and Russia with an East-first strategy at this point in time. Sure, Germany couldn’t win a quick war, but Germany would just have to prepare itself for a long war in such a scenario. Plus, as I said above, no invasion of Belgium means that Britain would likely remain neutral–something which would be even more true in 1917 due to Russia’s growing military power.

    As for GDR fertility, it looks like it was at sub-replacement levels since the 1970s. Thus, I am not optimistic about Nazi Germany being able to sustain an above-replacement fertility rate indefinitely.

    As for the countries that go first, they will certainly achieve great things. However, as long as the lower-IQ countries will manage to raise their IQs to the levels of the higher-IQ countries, they should eventually converge in regards to things such as achievement and living standards. Plus, it is worth noting that higher-IQ countries can help lower-IQ countries raise their IQs; for instance, if a country is too poor to commercialize gene editing, the higher-IQ countries can pay these costs for the lower-IQ countries. Indeed, Russia should ask its Chinese friends to help it out with this once China’s quality of life significantly surpasses Russia’s.

    China only took so long to catch up to Britain because it had to deal with Qing dynasty officials who were opposed to modernization as well as decades of civil war and then decades of Communist rule. Had China been led by competent modernizers since the late 1800s, its trajectory would have probably looked similar to Japan’s–as in, China would do what Japan did within a very similar time-frame.

    As for relative power, Russia has a lot of living space and thus is more capable of sustaining a large population than other countries are. For instance, Israel is never going to be capable of sustaining a billion people due to a lack of living space and resources, but I wouldn’t rule out Russia being capable of sustaining a billion people. This is why, if average IQs are able to converge worldwide, I would expect the countries which are more capable of sustaining an extremely large population to become the new leaders of the world. In regards to living space and resources, Russia obviously has a huge advantage over countries such as Israel.

    As for the Soviet male-female imbalance, Yes, it was significantly reduced by the 1980s. However, the fact of the matter is that a lot of Soviet men who would have had children (or more children) were killed in World War II–something which had an extremely negative impact on the Soviet Union’s demographics for decades to come. Without Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union’s sex ratios would be similar, but the total population would be much larger.

    Why do you have doubts that Khrushchev would have won a power struggle in the Soviet Union if this simulation could have been rerun?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  68. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Go on, speculate. I’m all ears…

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  69. @Anatoly Karlin

    I don’t think von Moltke’s plan was particularly flawed. The situation in 1914 had changed from von Schlieffen’s day owing to major increases in French military power in the 20th century, which Germany didn’t begin to respond to until 1912. Schlieffen’s original plan depended on the optimistic assumption that the German armies could live off the land in their advance, which proved correct, but may not have with a stronger right wing.

    As it was the Germans might have taken Paris with von Moltke’s plan if von Bulow had been more aggressive and coordinated better with von Kluck.

    The Germans, being the losers, were quick to look for scapegoats as to why they lost. While von Moltke did prove to be a bad leader in 1914, I’m not so sure his plan was wrong. Following the original Schlieffen Plan could’ve exposed the Germans to being cutoff by a French counterattack.

    The real missed opportunity was the Kaiser blinking at French neutrality overtures owing to complains by mobilization officers. Barring an Icebreaker-esque French heel turn, the outcome would’ve been Germany and Austria-Hungary annihilating Russia.

    Bottom line is when you attack an inherently more powerful coalition than yourself, you rely on fortune. That Germany did as well as it did in both World Wars is a testament to German skill and tenacity.

  70. @Anatoly Karlin

    I can’t judge that tbh, opinion on that seems to be divided. But Moltke certainly was pretty flawed, apparently also had some kind of nervous breakdown. The allies also had the advantage though of better logistics, communication, transportation etc.

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

    Actually, based on the information here, it looks like Schlieffen underestimated the logistics of his endeavor:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan#Analysis

    Thus, I am unsure that sticking to the original Schlieffen Plan would have made a significant difference in regards to this. I mean, it’s possible that Germany would have performed better at the Marne and perhaps even won there, but it’s also very possible that it would have lacked the logistics to finish the job and capture Paris.

  72. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    That’s exactly my point! In August 1914, most people apparently expected a short war. By the end of 1914, though, it became clear that the war was not going to be a short one.

    Had Britain remained neutral at the beginning of WWI, it might have hesitated to join later once it became clear that the war was not going to be short.

    • Replies: @refl
  73. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    That’s a good point about the volunteers. AFAIK, Britain didn’t introduce conscription until 1916–two years after the war started!

    Thus, it is possible that, even without Belgium, Britain would have eventually entered the war anyway. Still, I suspect that there would have been much more debate in Britain about this–especially if the front lines in the West still descend into trench warfare.

    Also, I made a previous point here–had World War I been delayed until 1917, Germany might have actually been in a better position. After all, in 1917, Britain might have felt that Russia’s growing military might is a sufficient reason for itself to remain neutral in any European Great War; in turn, this would have probably been enough for Germany to wipe the floor with France and Russia in a long war.

  74. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Mr. Hack

    To start, imagine Britain and the U.S. remaining neutral in WWI and thus having Germany win this war and create an independent Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Philip Owen
  75. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    I strongly doubt that France would have actually been willing to remain neutral in World War I.

  76. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    Interestingly enough, I have previously interacted with this one guy on a Facebook alternate history group who apparently read a lot about this topic and who thought that Schlieffen was full of hot air–with an unrealistic plan that had no chance of actually working in 1914 (as opposed to 1905-1906, when he believed that Germany could have won a lopsided victory due to Russia still recovering from the shock of its war with Japan back then).

  77. inertial says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Glossy’s rage is excessive but you have to consider that he lived in the USSR and Karlin didn’t. All Karlin knows about the USSR is anti-Soviet propaganda.

    AK: I am sure that the bulk of the literature on the Soviet economy (and one’s own lying eyes) is propaganda. I suppose Glossy’s parents must have been hoodwinked, having emigrated to the US in the 70s or 80s.

    • Replies: @inertial
  78. Mr. XYZ says:

    Also, out of curiosity–@Anatoly Karlin: Do you think that the Black-White IQ gap in the U.S. will never be closed?

    After all, if you are skeptical about Russia ever catching up to China, why would you be any more optimistic about the Black-White IQ gap? After all, if Blacks and Whites use IQ-enhancing technology at the same rate, both of their average IQs will increase but the gap between them will remain.

  79. iffen says:

    Before Barbarossa, Ribbentrop organizes a plot and has H. assassinated. He solidifies the alliance with Russia and Germany and Russia together roll west, not even slowing down for the Channel.

  80. @Thorfinnsson

    Sailer is simply the Ultimus Americanum. A relict of a bygone Californian golden age of genteel grace and good neighborliness. Sailer’s affability and lack of contrariness means even those who disagree with him can’t find fault with him and he never comes off as irritable or angry in his writing. He is the Mr. Rogers of American conservatism and his ideas of “citizenship/stewardship” are the bedrock of post-war American mainstream ideology (which has failed) that only seem strange today because the 21st century is so pozzed. If this were still the 60′s, Sailer would probably be regarded by most as practically a liberal.

    Karlin is simply a product, like most of us, of the post Cold War era. An already decadent age where trolling and memes substitute for reasoned discourse and the Elloi host on twitter dictates the caliber of discourse and behavior. I think my manner of thinking is probably 90% similar with Karlin’s and I recognize that he sometimes likes to get snarky, which I really enjoy because I mostly agree with him, but I think might really enrage those he disagrees with. I think Karlin is also much more of a radical because his rationality is untempered compared to Sailer. While Sailer notices, his solutions are limited by his niceness and I doubt he nor his distractors believe he is willing to get truly dirty in political fights. Karlin, like you yourself, and me for that matter, see a problem and advocate the most immediate, effective, and expedient solutions. Whether it be White Sharia, Jew expulsion, or gulags for Muslims, or sending all the Manchus and Mongols to human abattoirs to be rendered into protein pellets for fish farms.

  81. @Duke of Qin

    Ultimus Americanum

    you missed an -or- (ultimus Americanorum).

    see a problem and advocate the most immediate, effective, and expedient solutions.

    The problem though is that not only are those solutions often morally dubious, there’s usually not even an attempt to explain how they could be implemented. Ok, China has its Communist party which now is cracking down hard on Uyghurs, good for the Han, I guess. Realities in the US and much of Europe are very different, with even moderate nationalists mostly marginalized and subjected to coercion by the state themselves. Entertaining fantasies of cleansing violence is just political masturbation under those conditions (and might also have ugly effects on one’s character).

    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    , @DFH
  82. Annatar says:

    I would concur with the opinion that the bolshevik victory stunted Russia’s potential, perhaps permanently, the demographic impacts were in my estimation the most severe, in 1914, the population of Russia as it exists in its current borders was around 90 million, 36 years later in 1950 it had risen to only 103 million, an expansion of only 15%, over the same time period America grew from 98 million to 151 million, a growth of 55%. Hence, America’s population went from being around 1.1x Russia’s to 1.5x that of Russia from 1914-1950.

    In the absence of the Revolution Russia’s population likely expands by around 1.5% p.a. in the 1914-1950 period, somewhat slower then 1.9% p.a. growth seen in 1900-14 due to falling fertility meaning Russia has 154 million people and the Russian Empire as a whole has over 300 million by 1950. If Russian GDP per capita is 40% of US levels in this scenario which is quite likely, its total economic output will be around 80% of US levels, instead of around 50% which is what the highest soviet era estimates place it at.

    The revolution and its aftermaths, I consider the Soviet-German war to be somewhat the fault of the bolsheviks as an Imperial Russia would have found it easier to work with other nations to confront Germany in the 1930′s basically destroyed Russia’s demographic potential and hence stopped it from becoming a power equal to that of the United States.

    Furthermore in WW2, even the losses incurred during it could have been lower if the Soviet High Command and Stalin were not so incompetent, millions of soldiers were needlessly lost in 1941 and to a lesser extent in 1942 because of the refusal to countenance withdrawals, furthermore, if those millions of soldiers had been withdrawn, the Wehrmacht could have been stopped further west in 1941 and less territory occupied with the result that the millions of civilians who died in those areas due to German occupation would have lived, hence millions of lives, perhaps as many as 10 million were lost simply due to the incompetence of the Soviet leadership.

    With regard to Germany, I think its position by 1941 in was far better then at any time in WW1 and what ultimately doomed it was strategic impatience, the German Government should have known that it is impossible to build a thousand year Reich in a few years, if Germany had consolidated its gains on 1939-1941, it could easily have solidified its position as a great power and perhaps even have become a superpower. The excessive emphasis on being always on the offensive which characterized both the military and civilian elite of Germany in WW2 proved to be its undoing.

    On China, I would disagree that the Maoist era was a complete failure, although economic growth was slow compared to other East Asian nations, relative to the rest of the developing world it was respectable and the increases in human capital were among the fastest any society has seen. Under Mao literacy went from 20% to 80%, perhaps the fastest increase any society has seen, life expectancy also rose faster then other countries reaching 65 by 1980, up from at most 40 in 1950, perhaps even 35. Overall, economic growth under Mao was moderate and the increases in human capital were impressive by any measure.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  83. inertial says:

    Russia in the early 20th century was a medieval-style absolute monarchy. Russian society, outside of the officialdom, was increasingly unhappy about this but the Romanovs showed no sign of yielding power. If you think that situation would not have ended up with some sort of blow-up at some point over the course of the 20th century you are kidding yourself.

    And another thing. You keep assuming that if the Commies had been defeated in 1917 (or 1918, etc.) they would go poof and disappear. The Communist ideas were (are!) far too strong and attractive for this to happen. They would be back and likely more popular than ever (as the road not taken.)

  84. inertial says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    After the war HUAC became aggressively anticommunist and also acted against Hollywood.

    No, it acted together with Hollywood against certain low level Hollywood employees.

  85. @German_reader

    Most people’s have broader moral horizons than you may think. When the power of the state is used forcefully to demand something, human ethical particulars hardly ever get in the way and people are very quick to rationalize things. I like to think that politics in the West is entering a new axial age where everything becomes realigned and thus the possibilities of action become broader.

    I was mostly joking about the fish food comment. Oh I do hate barbarians, but I readily admit my opinions are an order of magnitude even rarer than the already rare Chinese liberast. To my consternation, existing Manchu households are already 50% intermarried and Mongols are already over 40% and are by far the most mixed ethnic groups. I wouldn’t be surprised if the mixed households for the post 90′s cohort is already topping 80% so its looking even less likely than throwing out Africans and Muslims in Europe who still maintain significant endogamy.

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  86. Rye says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I still think that you are being a bit dismissive of the issue. The shear number of Ashkenazim, their continued population growth, the history of bad blood, the heterogeneity of the Imperial Russian elite and the lower average genetic capital of the Russian population relative to Western Europe suggests to me that Russia was bound to become an Ashkenazi plaything in the absence of increasingly draconian anti-Semitic policies, potentially culminating in some very nasty stuff.

    It is sobering to note that the alternative timeline which doubles the contemporary Russian population would also leave Russia with an order of magnitude more Jews. At its peak Russia had almost 20 times more Jews than it does today, given natural growth you’d probably have 40 times the current number by now. Assuming, in the absence of the Russian Revolution, the passage of something comparable to the American 1924 immigration act, the Russian Empire would be the absolute center of the Jewish world, with over 10 million Ashkenazim. Some form of RuZOG Empire probably wouldn’t have left ethnic Russians much better off than they are today.

  87. @Rye

    Without Zionism to guide them, a Jewish state compelling divided loyalties, or an attempted genocide to revenge. Would the Russian Jews of a hypothetical Uber-Russia be as problematic as the Masha Gessens of today or would they be more like the loyalist Jews of the Kaiser’s Reich.

    A question to ponder.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Rye
    , @Dmitry
  88. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Germany had its fingers in Ukraine during this period, supporting the conservative Hetman, Paul Skoropadsky. If the old hetman had been able to hold on, a strong alliance with Germany was definitely in the making. It’s not clear how Ukraine would have figured into the Russian equation though – the old Hetman definitely had some deep seated positive feelings towards Russia too. In the end, he was not strong enough to hold on, and his back and forth between Germany and Russia betrayed a strong schizophrenic element within his foreign policy designs. In the end, a good German pension sealed his image as a German lackey.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  89. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Duke of Qin

    That might depend on how Russia previously treated them.

  90. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Mr. Hack

    If Germany wins WWI, the Hetman can remain in power in Ukraine for a longer time period.

    That said, though, it would have probably been wise for Germany to put someone in charge of Ukraine who was capable of getting significant popular support there. What about replacing Skoropadsky with Vasyl von Hapsburg (who would be crowned King of Ukraine)?

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Mr. Hack
  91. Mr. XYZ says:

    If Germany was willing to invest a lot of money in its Mitteleuropean satellites in the 20th century, then it could have achieved significant progress there. The IQs of the peoples in Mitteleuropa were generally pretty high and thus they were probably capable of enjoying a living standard comparable to the German one if they were allowed to develop to their full potential.

    I wonder how much Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Baltic immigration there would have been to Germany in such a scenario, though. After all, many people in Mitteleuropa might have dreamed about moving to Germany to improve their lot.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  92. Rye says:
    @Duke of Qin

    or an attempted genocide to revenge

    Check.

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

    World Jewry was effectively at war with Russia in the decades running up to the revolution, and they arguably still are. American Jews have been successfully pushing through sanctions against Russia since at least the time of Grover Cleveland.

    https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/grover-cleveland-on-the-status-of-jews-in-russia-in-1895-state-of-the-union-address

  93. Dmitry says:
    @Duke of Qin

    I think people receive very strange (statistically unrepresentative) views about the overall demographic, from self-selecting minority who are prominent journalists, businessmen or political activists.

    Russians in Israel (which is the main descendence of Jewish population), are mainly gopniks. People like Karlin (or most commentators here) would not fit in with them. Karlin and commentators, are too intellectual and cultured, and I doubt people who would be walking down the street shouting, or wresting drunk outside bars.

    That’s not saying Jewish descendants are low IQ cattle. But they just assimilated culturally and had children with very ordinary general population.

    If you are talking about Russian speakers in the far abroad, by far the most stereotypically gopnik are in Israel.

    I could imagine America attracts more intellectual ones – as America is (despite being a primitive/cultureless country) a kind of paradise of high wages for anyone who is more intelligent than a complete retard.

    But if you look at Jewish demographics – there’s 1.3 million Russian-speakers in Israel (and we know mainly anti-intellectual people), while in America it’s only 250,000.

    In Russia itself today, Jewish descendants to the third-generation – only around 1 million (spread all over the country), and a majority not noticeable from the general public except genealogically (aside from some few small religious/cultists who have been allowed to re-established).

  94. Dmitry says:
    @Anonymous

    If the population is larger, there will be less of a “resource state”, with less of a “resource curse”.

    And possibilities for economic growth? Turkey’s economy is developing to the same level, from a similar base, in the same time period – without natural resources.

  95. Seraphim says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Again paraphrasing Basil Fawlty (John Cleese): ‘Don’t mention the Jews’.
    The ‘Russian’ revolution ‘only occurred by a fluke of weather’.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  96. @gmachine1729

    Hah, I’m vain enough to always appreciate it when someone finds what I write interesting. How did you find your way to the Unz review by the way? It seems to be becoming a magnet of sorts for various English literate Chinese reactionaries.

  97. I agree with most of what is written, but I’ll spend some time on the country you wrote the least on, China. In my view, you are too sanguine on Mao and it appears to be largely motivated by the fact that Mao had very expansive views on demography and this overshadows any other critique you have of him and his ideology. To my mind, China was destined for demographic greatness even with a more moderate approach. A much richer China at 800 million souls would be vastly more powerful than what we have today.

    There is a second difference, namely that I do not take China’s rise for granted in the same manner that you appear to do with the comparison with Korea and Taiwan. China’s growth statistics post-2011 are no longer as credible as it was during 1980-2010, for reasons I’ve delved into before (and this is a phenomenon shared by other countries, most notably Turkey but also India).

    This impression is re-inforced by the casual throwaway line at the end that ‘the Chinese communists didn’t screw things up too much, apart from delaying its emergence by a generation.’

    Once again, I quibble. Mao’s legacy continues to be problematic. The official line that he was “70% right and 30% wrong” is underlining the fact there is still a need to legitimise him in order to legitimise the Party. After all, how can an organisation remain legitimate if its founder and ‘paramount leader’ was a total madman? He has to be salvaged somehow, even if the veneration is far more moderate than it used to be, a lack of a total break hampers China, especially economically. This leads itself to the fact that many of his ideas, and echoes of his ideas, are far harder to stomp out. We’re seeing the effects of that play out today.

    China’s growth model is not sustainable, especially after Xi has essentially turned back to command-and-control statism and is now increasingly relying on ever-greater debt leverage. China’s total debt-to-GDP – public plus private – is already 50% greater than Germany’s (300% for China and 200% for Germany) despite having less than one fifth in nominal income per capita. Worse, China’s leverage is increasing. Worse yet, I am using official statistics, which is taking the post-2011 growth figures for granted. If Chinese post-2011 growth numbers are manipulated, and consequently lower than the headline number, then the picture is even worse. But I’ve used official statistics to point out that even if you take them (unwisely) at face-value, the situation is quite serious, with no signs of letting up. Korea or Taiwan had nothing like this at their equivalent stage of development.

    If Mao had been more thoroughly de-legitimised, it would have been harder for command-and-control instincts to creep back in. A demographically smaller China, but one which broke far more clearly with Mao, and far more early, would have been richer, more powerful and still quite large. Several times that of the US with far greater demographic quality.

    There are also other reasons why the Korea/Taiwan comparison is flawed. Both of those countries were allowed by the US to essentially run a mercantile trade policy in exchange for accepting American hegemony in East Asia (with China being too weak to veto it during the 20th Century). Many people are not aware that South Korea essentially banned any imports of vehicles during the late 1960s, which is how they were able to foster their own companies like Hyundai and then export them, first to the third world and then gradually to the West. By the time the most severe trade barriers had come down, Hyundai was already competitive with Western firms. Such blatant protectionism was common throughout East Asia.

    China was never going to be allowed this in the long run. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Japan, Korea and Taiwan never allowed much FDI. China had no choice but to do so, and as a percentage of GDP, FDI inflows peaked at much higher rates in China than it did in those other countries.

    However, even this concession was not enough because it was always an unspoken assumption that China would gradually liberalise to become one giant Japan or Taiwan. Big, but ultimately submissive to the Western order. This is now unfolding into the delusion it always was. I don’t think China will collapse and I do think that they will continue to rise, but more slowly than many assume. I question your casual acceptance of thinking they’ll become as rich as South Korea, partly because their economic model is unsustainable and partly because their growth data post-2011 is not credible. I do think Mao’s legacy and the necessity to keep him legitimate hurts here, and it allows a debt-based overcentralisation strategy to become fashionable again.

    This of course leaves the question if China would have been blocked by the US regardless, even if it had broken with Mao earlier. In my view, that is almost a given, but the critical difference is that it would have had the shadow of the USSR to shield itself with for much of the cold war and then in the bask of the 1990s and the ‘end of history’ it could have gained at least another decade. More crucially, however, is that it would not be ideologically bound bestow legitimacy onto a man who was a complete disaster, and in so doing empower those with terrible economic instincts, so whatever choices it would have to take, it would do so from a far more rational basis, which would have ensured a much more sound economic future path.

  98. Miro23 says:

    My final reaction after reading this article was that the 20th Century was bad, but it could certainly have been worse. After the dust settled, Europe finds itself made up of independent states that more or less correspond with ethnicity and historic homelands, and the whole Imperial concept has been discredited (British, German, Russian and to some extent French).

    However, that’s no to say that there aren’t still some troublesome problems.

    The European Community promised to cement a peaceful relations in Europe (basically between France and Germany) and promote European growth, but in fact it morphed into a Trojan Horse for corporate globalization and mass non-EEC immigration (although it’s now getting some serious push-back with Brexit etc).

    The US fell under the yoke of Jewish activism (particularly the pro-Israel component) which has not yet evolved into full blown totalitarianism but it could. There’s some push back (e.g. the election of Trump on an American nationalist platform) but it’s not clear how this story will resolve. It’s probably the main question, given the hostility of US Jewry to Russia and the national self determination of European countries in general.

    Also, the US is still the world’s leading military power, and if US Jewry can dominate Congress, the media and the FED, they’re also probably quite close to obtaining their desired control over the US nuclear arsenal. They already determine US war policy and they’re only a coup away from absolute power.

    • Agree: utu
  99. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, Soviet SJWs abolished university exams in the 1920s, and with “class enemies” (read: intelligent Russians) effectively barred, they became dominated by Jewish ideologues and stupid Russian proles.

    Somehow, this worked out pretty well. Would’ve been even better if the Soviet government in the 1930s didn’t get out a machine gun a started shooting itself in the foot.

  100. inertial says:
    @German_reader

    I got the impression though that you’re now some kind of nationalist activist, and while honest analysis and self-criticism is important, “Russia’s got no future, it all went to shit generations before we were born” isn’t really an inspiring sentiment.

    There is absolutely no way of getting Russian nationalism off the ground without somehow incorporating the Soviet period in a positive way.

  101. @DFH

    Don’t be so smug. You had your island and so never had the prospect nor the need to dominate the whole continent or annex large territories (in Europe, elsewhere you did it quite a bit), but when it was needed, you sure had no compunction about starving enemy civilians to death, whether directly in concentration camps (the Boers) or indirectly through naval blockade (the Central Powers). It’s easier to be moral if you have the upper hand and it nicely dovetails with your interests.

    • Replies: @DFH
  102. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    There was a nascent power struggle between Germany and Austria-Hungary over Ukraine. Germany was the much stronger power, Austrians were being sneaky. Vasyl was brought into southern Ukraine (Germans did not like this) and was more popular than was Skoropadsky among the Ukrainian people, and Austrians already owned Galicia.

    Had A-H survived, and become strengthened under Karl I, it is possible that it could have pulled an Italy, if other powers sought to attack Germany. There was considerable resentment of Germany among Austrians who weren’t pan-German nationalists. In such a case Ukraine and probably Poland would go to Hapsburg.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  103. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    you missed an -or- (ultimus Americanorum).

    I believe that just the ‘-um’ genitive plural ending is an acceptable poetic variant

  104. DFH says:
    @reiner Tor

    You had your island and so never had the prospect nor the need to dominate the whole continent or annex large territories

    Russia and Germany hardly ‘needed’ to annex Poland, nor France Belgium.

    or annex large territories (in Europe, elsewhere you did it quite a bit)

    Non-European so who cares

    you sure had no compunction about starving enemy civilians to death, whether directly in concentration camps (the Boers) or indirectly through naval blockade (the Central Powers)

    The treatment of the Boers was wrong, as was the whole Second Boer War, but the naval blockade was obviously the fastest way to bring the war to an end, in which it suceeded.

  105. utu says:
    @Polish Perspective

    Your BS generator is out of tune.

  106. @DFH

    I doubt Westminster would have tolerated foreign powers setting up bases in Scotland or Ireland.

    Britain was not particularly virtuous, they simply had a good strategic position.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  107. @inertial

    Bingo. Karlin can’t do it because he is a materialist and he doesn’t recognize the need for “faith” or more accurately what should be called believing your own bullshit. You and I don’t need it, but the average prole does. Removing traditional restraints on moral behavior didn’t really affect elite behavior that much because they had natural self control and discipline. The proles all went to shit though because they couldn’t control themselves and need stricter and more clear moral guides.

    To quote Xi Jinping, “To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”

    It doesn’t have to be true, but the majority at least need to believe in it to be true to act as a schelling point. Communism sucked and Stalinism sucked harder. However, just because this is true doesn’t mean you can’t pretend its not in order to coordinate group action. Do you think the Jews tell themselves that their shitty semitic god is nothing more than the tribal egotism of unwashed desert monolaters who kept accruing more power to their totemic god in a giant game of “my dad can beat up your dad” with their neighbors? No, they tell themselves they are the chosen of Yahweh.

    I think Russia needs to go the Juche route and transmogriphy Stalin from Georgian fucktard to Russian demigod. Strip him from the actual person of Stalin by rewriting his past and make him the Supreme light of the Russians and all the Jews and Liberasts are just haters cause he’s our awesome demigod and not theirs. Sounds unrealistic sure, but hell it worked for the Muslims.

    A more realistic and interesting proposal is to turn Russia back into a constitutional monarchy. There are probably plenty of Romanov pretenders out there who would leap at the chance to sit on a throne. Just gotta make sure you dont get a cucked European aristocrat one though.

  108. @Polish Perspective

    Ask two economists and get three opinions. There are some good basic fundamentals that economics teach: price controls ineffective, state control bad, increased specialization and low trade barriers good, but any time they begin whipping out the charts and the math formulas to prove how this must happen, you have better luck getting an honest answer from reading chicken entrails. Germany in 1945 was absolutely wrecked. It had had practically zero productive capital left. About 7 million of Germany’s bravest were left fertilizing European battlefields. It’s women were prostituting themselves to their erstwhile vanquishers for cigarettes, potatoes, and shitty chocolate. Forget debt to GDP ratios, hundreds of thousands literally starved to death in the winter of 45. Didn’t stop Germany from reclaiming it’s top spot as Europe’s strongest economy by 1945 though. Germany had one thing other countries didn’t; Germans. Germans that could and did bootstrap themselves up from absolute devastation to prosperity with a generation and a half.

  109. Mitleser says:

    It’s no exaggeration to say that the Bolsheviks lost Russia its century, and in all likelihood its future for all time. This is a point made all the more painful by the fact that it was largely self-inflicted, whereas Germans could at least reconcile themselves with the thought that they made two “honest” attempts to achieve world supremacy.

    Russians can reconcile themselves with the thought that their nation has (probably) a future, whereas German prospects are much bleaker.

  110. Fascinating article and quite succinct indeed. History without the tons of nonsensical ideological ballast and prejudice such as it is usually presented by academics. In my opinion, your treatment of history actually confirms the validity of Guido Giacomo Preparata’s masterly Conjuring Hitler. How Britain and America made the Third Reich (2005), but also of other works (by Greg Hallett et al.) .

    If the insistence with which the victorious Entente powers at Versailles, St.-Germain and Trianon demanded that Germany (and Austria Hungary) exclusively assume responsibility for the outbreak of the Great War (i.e.) “war guilt,” were not in itself proof that it was the Entente that actually was responsible, your short history of the Twentieth Century is. England, France and Russia (and the US along with them), were terrified of Germany. Britain and the US were also terrified of Russia.

    The Anglo-Saxon elites realized that an even greater danger loomed on the horizon, namely an alliance between a Europe dominated by Germany, and Russia. That would signify the end for both the British Empire and the US elites’ (Rockefeller!) ambitions for world domination. As Halford McKinder, father of geopolitics, put it in 1904, it should at all costs be prevented that the “Heartland” (the Eurasian mainland) be dominated by a single power bloc. This would isolate and marginalize the two Anglo-saxon maritime powers.

    Like the crazed villain in a third-rate Hollywood production, the English and the Americans were hell-bent on world domination. They were prepared to bring down civilization in flames in order to have their way.

    That is an even shorter way of formulating your insightful analysis.

    • Replies: @Respect
  111. There is a case to be made that Britain was the real culprit in causing the conditions that led to WW I. Britain succeeded in blocking Russian expansion into east Asia and towards Persia and India. The British even contemplated using Japanese troops to defend India. Russia had nowhere to expand except towards Constantinople and the Balkans. This brought Russia into a state of tension with Austria-Hungary. https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/rivals-masquerading-as-allies.html

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Philip Owen
  112. neutral says:

    Didn’t stop Germany from reclaiming it’s top spot as Europe’s strongest economy by 1945 though

    There was no real Germany after 1945, Germany ceased to exist (as well as Western civilization) in 1945, what came after was merely a business zone serving the international jew. The survivors happened to have mostly German DNA at the start but as you are well aware that has rapidly changed.

  113. In the first few sentences already nonsense, so I did not read further.
    Germany knew quite well of the secret agreements between GB, France and tsarist Russia, to carve up three empires, the German, the Habsburg and the Ottoman.
    Trotski in 1917 found the agreement in the tsarist archive, and published it.
    GB wanted war, Made in Germany had the opposite effect, more German products were bought, and GB feared German economic expansion to the SE, the Berlin Baghdad railway, it was planned through Mosul, a concession of ten miles on both sides, the most oil rich region known then.
    GB even feared for India, the railaway was to be extended to Basra, from there German goods could easily be smuggled to India.
    Zionism, hardly known, began under German protection, the Kaiser visited Jerusalem, 1890 or so.
    There were many German schools, hospitals and whatever in Palestina.
    The attack on France was meant to prevent a two front war.
    From de very first day the USA made war possible, France and GB could not have waged war without USA food and arms.
    The USA was not at all neutral, it accepted the British blockade of Germany, so Germany could not buy anything in the USA.
    Despite all this GB would have had no capitulate in November 1917, hunger, U boat war.
    So the USA also entered the war militarily.
    Wilson’s Fourteen Points, especially the new concept ‘self determination’, designed to break up the empires to be destroyed.
    I refrain from specifying literature, this time.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Philip Owen
  114. @Duke of Qin

    Economists,as most other academics, hardly ever separate in what they say or write analysis of facts from political opinions.
    On top of that, alas a lot of stupid economists exist

  115. @Anatoly Karlin

    Re-Jews. You are obsessed. What relevance do they have to the topic, anyway?

    Indeed. It’s not like the Jewry emerged from last century as the wealthiest and most influential tribe on the planet, running world’s only superpower from behind the scenes, after crippling Russia with Judeo-Bolshevism. Let’s face it, if the 20th century had an actual winner, the Jewry was it.

    Re-USA. I think 400 million Eastern Slavs (unsovokized) would have easily been competitive with 200 million Anglo/Germano/Scotch-Irish.

    Nope. You must assume that people of the same race are born equal (or half equal? lol), and every problem with contemporary Russians stems from sovok influence. I’ve had enough interaction with Slavic people to know this isn’t true.

  116. @Seraphim

    I find it peculiar that he spends so much time mourning the country we have lost, without ever mentioning the culprit, admonishing me for naming the culprit. It’s just weird.

  117. Seraphim says:

    Take into consideration the country he lives in, where the subject is taboo. It is not ‘weird’, it is simply prudence. Better talk of the weather, it’s much safer.

    AK: Yeah, I like totally never do anything to offend the Eternal Jew.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  118. LondonBob says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    My family always relate their uncles and fathers enjoyed fighting on the Western Front, British morale was consistently high throughout the war and far left rewriting of history should be seen for what it is.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @DFH
    , @Respect
  119. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Duke of Qin

    I think Russia needs to go the Juche route and transmogriphy Stalin from Georgian fucktard to Russian demigod. Strip him from the actual person of Stalin by rewriting his past and make him the Supreme light of the Russians and all the Jews and Liberasts are just haters cause he’s our awesome demigod and not theirs.

    Agreed. People need something to believe in and something to give them cohesion and direction. It doesn’t have to be true as long as it’s useful.

    Most nations have some kind of national myth. Most of these national myths are totally untrue but it doesn’t matter.

  120. dfordoom says: • Website
    @LondonBob

    My family always relate their uncles and fathers enjoyed fighting on the Western Front

    My grandfather fought on the Western Front, and at Gallipoli. He didn’t enjoy it. Of course he was Australian, not British. The war left him filled with hatred. Not hatred of the Germans and the Turks. He had no quarrel with them. He was filled with hatred for the British.

    Maybe the British themselves had an absolutely splendid time in the trenches. I guess it’s possible.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  121. LondonBob says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Yes the human capital in America is the highest, add in natural resources and their status as a continental landmass with oceans on either side and it is easy to see why the US rose to supremacy. Imagine a US that stopped immigration in 1900, or earlier. A 1950s style country ruled over by an enlightened WASP elite.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  122. LondonBob says:
    @dfordoom

    Sounds like you and your family have deeper issues.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  123. @LondonBob

    US found a perfect solution in mid 1920s: annual immigration quotas to match the country’s existing racial make-up (90% European at the time). The Jewry campaigned furiously against it.

  124. DFH says:
    @LondonBob

    My great grandfather liked Salonika because the Bulgarians didn’t shoot at them and they didn’t shoot at the Bulgarians

  125. @Anatoly Karlin

    But they are very expensive in an absolute sense, they are only cheap relative to their destructive power. But then catch is, they are basically never used. So unless you already have a fairly strong military, it doesn’t actually make sense to build up your stockpile over a minimum deterrence of a few hundred warheads. Besides, any power quickly building up its stockpile will be interpreted by the other powers as a preparation for a Third World War and so they will become highly hostile. So it’s more likely to lead to an arms race (and other hostile measures like trade restrictions etc.) than any other type of military buildup, which is a very high price to pay.

    Please remember that even if you have the biggest stockpile in the world (Russia in 1999), you will still regularly be humiliated by other nuclear powers if your military is otherwise shitty. There are some benefits to being a nuclear superpower (especially in the case of an actual war, probably even if you are targeted for soft destruction by the strongest country and military-political alliance, i.e. the US and its allies), but since nuclear war is usually viewed as unlikely, a conventional deterrence (i.e. a strong conventional military) might be actually more useful in most situations. It’s possible that the US was deterred from targeting Russian military assets in Syria not by the Russian nuclear deterrent (which was probably seen as unlikely to be used for Syria… I mean, seriously, Syria?), but by the risk of losing US warships to a possible conventional Russian retaliation.

    So it’s unlikely that outside of the context of the Cold War, any other power would’ve engaged in such an extreme nuclear buildup to rival the US stockpile.

    And I think it’s ultimately a good thing in the long run to be a nuclear superpower, but only in the long run, so you needed the commies to go there.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  126. “… with little more than the sight of Germany “doing away with itself” and an America turning into Greater Mexico to console itself with.”

    And what consolations these are. The Germans have given up on themselves almost entirely for reasons one might understand, chiefly seven decades of being told, rightly or not, what a scourge they have been to humanity, but for the US to utterly melt down on its right to exist as a nation at the same time it is trumpeting its indispensible character is utterly mystifying. Future historians will puzzzle over the decline and fall of the US, much like we do over Ancient Rome.

  127. Respect says:

    From a corner of Europe I am receiving in the last 20 years bad vibrations from Europe , as well as from the european extension of north america .

    For a few decades I thought that western Europe , after the two disastrous world wars , had learned the lesson and wanted to live in peace and progress in collaboration with North America , the real beneficiary of the two world wars .

    I never undestood the continuous hostility of the west towards Russia , or the USSR . Comunism is not my favorite system , but you can not isolate normal people of the same continent from each other . You can not pretend that large areas of the world don`t exist because you don`t like its political regime

    . Communism fell , and the western hostility and blocking of Russia continues . That`s not a good attitude of western europe and north america . Unfortunately I realized that we are much more aggressive than I thought . Unfortunately I realized that we are not the good guys I thought we were .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the arrogant and supremacists germans want a IV Reich , as well as their hiwis from Ucraina , Croacia , Rumania , baltics etc.. .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the colonialists english and french still consider the world as their colony .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the north americans vould like to live forever in that magic moment of 1945 when they run the world and that they thing that this moment should last a millenium .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the russians feel as threatened by the west as they were by the III Reich .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the russians feel that whatever they do , even if they dismantle the USSR like did Gorbachov , even if they let the northamericans sack Russia as they did with Yeltsin they neved will please the arrogant and supremacist west .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that the Russians are so fed with the west that they have the finger at the atomic trigger , and the next war will be the last .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that we , europeans and northamericans do not realize that we are in a relative decline , demographic , religious , cultural , economic .

    I have the uncomfortable feeling that we are so arrogant and supremacists that we do no realize that we are being disliked and confronted by large rising parts of the earth like China , India , the islamic countries , Russia ….

    And believe me , these uncomfortable feelings worries are worrying me a lot .

  128. Bliss says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Let’s face it, if the 20th century had an actual winner, the Jewry was it.

    True. It was the Jewish Century as well as the American Century.

    It was certainly the most eventful century in the history of mankind. Especially in science and technology.

  129. Seraphim says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    It was not King Carol II who declared war to Soviet Union and had no formal alliance with Germany. It was under his reign that URSS occupied the Romanian regions of Basarabia (present Republic of Moldova), Northern Bukovina and Hertza (June 28 – July 4, 1940) after the Ribentropp-Molotov Pact. On September 1940 Hungary occupied Northern Transylvania with the backing of fascist Germany and Italy. Facing a popular revolt the King appointed General Ion Antonescu as Prime-Minister and the next day was forced to abdicate and leave the country. General Antonescu brought the so-called Iron Guard into power-sharing accord, which was interrupted in January 1940 and all Iron Guardists arrested or forced into exile in Germany, where they have been interned in camps until 23 August 1944, when Romania withdrew from the anti-Soviet war and turned arms against Germany, liberating Northern Transylvania.
    General Antonescu formally joined the Tripartite Pact on 23 November 1940 and brought the German troops to Romania and joined the Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941.

    The Arrow Cross came to power in October 1944 after the Germans who occupied Hungary in March, forced Admiral Horthy, who negotiated a cease-fire with the Soviets and ordered Hungarian troops to lay down their arms, into exile in Germany.

  130. Respect says:
    @LondonBob

    change your nick to London Bomb

  131. @DFH

    Russia and Germany hardly ‘needed’ to annex Poland, nor France Belgium.

    So you are an islander who doesn’t understand that continental powers had foreign armies ravaging their lands multiple times over the centuries, so no area was large enough and the larger your country, the more strategic depth you had.

    Non-European so who cares

    So while according to your morality all Europeans were to stay weak and insecure, vulnerable to attacks by their neighbors (often allied to the British), Albion could all the while devote all its energies to conquering non-Europeans, thereby becoming the strongest power in the world. How convenient!

    the naval blockade was obviously the fastest way to bring the war to an end, in which it suceeded.

    So now we suddenly switched to pragmatism.

    The war might’ve ended earlier without the blockade, just with different winners. It’s not obvious that without starvation the GDP of the Central Powers was bound to collapse during the war.

    I don’t blame you for starving civilians, but I do blame you for your smugness.

    • Replies: @DFH
  132. Bliss says:

    In the late 1940s-early 1950s, if it had really wanted to, the United States could in theory have conquered the entire world and/or instituted a one world government.

    It is likely that America or another country/entity will get that opportunity again in the 21st century.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  133. Doug says:

    Good article, but what about Japan? Assume the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere survived WWII more or less intact. It seems pre-destined to become the world’s super-power. It’s everything from the Mao-free China scenario, plus a Japanese style high trust government, an ideological emphasis on demographics, 300 million Southeast Asians with 90-110 IQ, geopolitical domination of half the world’s oceans, and maybe another 600 million South Asians (including 15 million 120 IQ Brahmins, Parsis and Jains)

    For sure, there’d be massive atrocities committed by the conquering Imperial Army. However peacetime Japan proved to be a highly competent and relatively benign colonial admistrator. Japanese occupied Manchuria was by far the most developed part time of China circa 1940.

    • Replies: @Bucky
    , @Mikhail
    , @Logan
  134. Rand Paul is visiting Russia with the aim of improving relations between Russia and the US.

    Read ResetEra’s reaction here: https://www.resetera.com/threads/senator-rand-paul-visits-moscow-calls-for-more-more-engagement-with-russia.60242/

  135. DFH says:
    @reiner Tor

    So you are an islander who doesn’t understand that continental powers had foreign armies ravaging their lands multiple times over the centuries

    Poland-Lithuania and Belgium were effective as buffers without actually being annexed.

    So while according to your morality all Europeans were to stay weak and insecure,

    Yes, poor little France in the 18th century and Germany in the 20th were so weak and insecure, obviously they just had to secure hegemony over the rest of Europe for their own self-defence.

    Albion could all the while devote all its energies to conquering non-Europeans, thereby becoming the strongest power in the world

    This did not actually happen in practise, since acquisition of extra European territory among all powers peaked during periods of heightened competition and tension in Europe. Also large wars in Europe inevitably involved Britain anyway, so ingenious as your theory is, it never actually played out.

    The war might’ve ended earlier without the blockade, just with different winners. It’s not obvious that without starvation the GDP of the Central Powers was bound to collapse during the war.

    What’s your point? Britain should have capitulated to German domination?

    I don’t blame you for starving civilians, but I do blame you for your smugness.

    It’s indisputable that Britain has acted far more morally over the last several centuries than at least France, Germany or Russia, yet this doesn’t stop constant silly comments about ‘the Eternal Anglo’ or whatever.
    Again, the fact that British actions were also prudent does not negate the fact that they were more moral, in the same way that being raised properly does not negate the morality of someone’s actions. If you read British foreign policy discussions, it is clear that most of the participants did genuinely believe in the rightness of their actions as well as their being in Britain’s interests.

  136. Japan will rise again. I am sure that they are making Gundams in secret facilities as we speak.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  137. @Hyperborean

    They were probably relatively virtuous, but they could more easily afford it than others. This became their undoing, after they became too virtuous for their own good. They could’ve stayed strong longer if they were more ruthless, perhaps even to this day they’d be a very strong power (way above their present weight).

    But you could say the same of the Romanov empire, too, who were way too lenient. Even the Kaiser had problems in the ruthlessness department, his army was reluctant to shoot deserters, which was the proximate cause of the disintegration of the army.

  138. Bucky says:

    The counter against Jew-conspiracy theorizing is that a lot of events are inevitable due to population demographics and national boundaries. So Jews don’t cause the rivalry between France and Germany. It just exists as a natural result of geography and language boundaries.

    But then the author points out that Russia’s communist turn was an utter disaster for its nationhood, and that it was self-inflicted. This is such a radical break that it is not a demographic inevitability but is willed by a small group of ideologues.

    Here’s another: the victory of the United States meant actually implementing ideas of self-determination and equality that it had taken on when it was an upcoming junior power poking and prodding at the elder European powers. In the long run, those ideas are going to result in a demographic tide of Africans overrunning Europe. This occurred because of US aid to Africa stimulating their population growth, but most importantly because US guilt over treatment of its own Africans acts as a legitimizing force for African culture and people so that they are given a holy status that isn’t questioned or challenged. US notions of racial guilt are imposed on European powers, as are its notions, developed in its own unique context and not a European context, of multiculturalism.

    And lastly, American consumption levels and anti-nature beliefs, unique due to its form of Christianity, will accelerate global warming, which in turn will further accelerate Sub-Saharan migration.

    And so the real answer is that in this great game, they all lost. The Africans will ultimately win and in doing so will erase these nations. Because African population growth is truly uncontrolled and unrestrained. If you think about it, a “one child” policy simply cannot work in Africa due to African behavior. And the overall American Christian guilt, as well as the cultural influence of Africans in music and sports and entertainment, will weaken any natural resistance to this migration. Africans will pour into Europe as global warming worsens, and they will end European culture and the old European rivalries.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  139. @Annatar

    If Russian GDP per capita is 40% of US levels in this scenario which is quite likely…

    Probably quite a bit higher, that’s only 10% points more than Russia!1913 levels, and equivalent to USSR!1935 (admittedly, that’s at the height of the Depression) and USSR!1960 levels.

    With regard to Germany, I think its position by 1941 in was far better then at any time in WW1…

    I agree. Furthermore, I think the war with the USSR was its to lose.

    Under Mao literacy went from 20% to 80%, perhaps the fastest increase any society has seen…

    Cohort data from the 1982 census:

    A few comments:

    1. Apart from female literacy accelerating beyond trendline (though this started in 1944), there was no change in trend lines under the Communists.

    As with foot-binding and many other things, they merely take credit for other people’s achievements.

    2. You actually had a reversal of literacy accumulation for the cohorts who came of primary school age during the GLF.

    Making large gains in LE during the early stages of development is cheap and easy, involving things like vaccinations, antibiotics, obstetrics. The Maoists did accomplish that, but it was nothing to boast about, and how have happened regardless anyway (e.g. South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam all made similar gains during the same period from a comparable base).

    • Replies: @anon
  140. The Fourth Reich already exists, it is called “European Union” and it is entirely subservient to Washington. Few people realize that the EEC, the EU’s forerunner, was created by German-speaking Roman Catholic politicians: Konrad Adenauer (FRG), Alcide de Gasperi (Italy, but born in Southern Tyrol under Austrian rule), and Maurice Schumann (France, but born in Alsace when it was still German).

    Through the more than 30,000 rules and decrees it issues annually, the Brussels Eurocrats exert a dictatorship that is probably the nastiest and most vicious in the world, while reducing Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Poles, etc. etc. to slavery. Surely, it must be the nazi dream come true. The common inhabitant of the EU zone has no say or influence whatsoever on policy making. Voting in “national” elections is absolutely pointless.

    One might also feel compassion for the US people, since they are subjected to a similar and in some instances even worse repressive political system. But in a sense, it might be seen as their reward for f**king up the world. By setting up the nazis and fighting a war against them, they also opened the gates for all those pernicious nazi practices that they are now increasingly also the victims of.

    Unfortunately, it is always the middle and lower classes that pay the highest price.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @jacques sheete
  141. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    USA joined the war in April 1917. Effective measures to counter the U-bots have been introduced immediately by reintroducing the convoy system. “The convoy system defeated the German submarine campaign.” GB was not in the situation to capitulate. American troops were coming to the rescue (1 million in France in May 1918 – arriving at a rate of 10,000 a day) and they would have continued to come even if Germany would have fight to the last man.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  142. @Rye

    So you think that eliminating 140 million future Russians is not a bad deal for eliminating 9.5 million future Jews.

    Thanks for clarifying your exchange rate, I guess. With “counter-Semites” like these, who even needs Jews?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Rye
  143. @DFH

    It’s indisputable that Britain has acted far more morally over the last several centuries than … Russia

    Really? “Indusputable”? I’m gonna dispute the shit out your ridiculous statement. Anglos are a pestilence on the world, second only to their masters the Jews.

    • Replies: @DFH
  144. @gmachine1729

    You missed one of the most powerful takes on the history of this blog.

  145. @Bucky

    What way Africa will develop, is open to question and only time will tell. It would not surprise me if with increasing levels of education and (hopefully) wealth, Africans would also begin to limit procreation and hence, family size.

    The reason so many Africans are now coming to Europe is a combination of some key factors:
    - The crisis of African agriculture due to cheap and subsidized imports of foodstuffs from the EU
    - NATO and US military intervention in Africa
    - The generous treatment by the authorities of many Africans that have arrived before
    - The Italian maffia is engaged in virtual slave trade on an enormous scale (they pay for transportation and demand five years of free labor in return; then the African immigrant is free to go wherever he wants in Europe)
    - NGO’s that cooperate with the maffia and European authorities
    - The EU actually wants all those Africans to come, because the purpose is to dismantle what is left of the welfare state and to reduce salaries even further (good for Big Business!)
    - Sizeable numbers of Africans and mohammedans will make it easier for European governments to intimidate the citizenry and cow it into submission, according to the old adage divide et impera

    • Replies: @Bucky
    , @Philip Owen
  146. @inertial

    I am not going to write an essay about it here, I mean there are already only about a couple of dozen ones touching on this theme written by Kholmogorov and myself on this very blog, but both you and Duke of Qin are simply wrong on this.

    I mean, talk of “red-brown” alliances, Starikov, Eurasianism, Kara-Murza, National Bolshevism – these figures and themes has only played a prominent role in Russian far right discourse for… well, the entire late 1980s until recently. And they have all ended up in the gutter, driving off all normal people and inevitably getting backstabbed by their leftist “friends.”

    You write about this as if it is something that has not been tried whereas it is in fact the wall that Russian nationalist idiots have been bashing their heads against for the past generation.

    The parts of the Soviet legacy that can be salvaged and mined have been done (note the title of Russia’s foremost nationalist webzine: Sputnik & Pogrom), the rest needs to go in the dumpster.

    • Replies: @inertial
  147. @German_reader

    Negativity signaling isn’t always useless for drumming up enthusiasm; it can inspire efforts in others to prove the reverse to him.

  148. @Duke of Qin

    I’d say it’s just that Sailer signals for Boomer tribalism; Karlin is representative of the younger “Internet” generation with fundamental different values. The age difference and the topics chosen, as well as commentary digression is evident.

  149. DFH says:
    @anonymous coward

    Typical retarded anti-anglo rambling

  150. LondonBob says:
    @Rye

    I get your point, but even with the mass migration of the Victorian period there was still the Bolshevik revolution and 90s Russia, absent that would the Red Terror been worse, would the Trotskyite faction have won out and proven more durable?

    Certainly the West would have been very different as I have speculated already.

  151. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Are any of those “now” factors going to change in the foreseeable future? No, not in the least. They will only accelerate.

    I looked it up. Projections are that 1/3 of humanity will be African by 2100. In 1950 it was around 10%. Africa will go from 1 billion to 4 billion. Three billion more Africans.

    Do you know why “one-child” cannot work in Africa? Same reason why in America you have Africans who have fifteen kids and are grandmothers by the time they are 35. Because the building block of civilization is the family. But africa never had a civilization, heck it never could build the wheel on its own, and today is only sustained due to the pathological altruism of outside civilizations. Their norm is high birth rates and high death rates. Our modern western technologies have taken off one end of natural population controls.

    Why is AIDS spread so much via heterosexual sex in Africa? Because of heterosexual behavioral norms in Africa, which generally are more polygamous, and their implementation of the act itself frankly, results in more bleeding.

    For all of the German apologizing going on here, its actions in the 20th century only brought the US to power which itself will be a midwife to African expansion and subsequent degeneration and destruction of human civilization.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  152. @Felix Keverich

    Re-Jews. It was an article about Great Power politics and demographics. Again, how are Jews relevant to that? Why are you such a philo-Semite that you want everything to be about Jews?

    Re-Slavs. You are speaking of vague generalities.

    400 million Eastern Slavs are clearly sufficient to generate economic output at least equal to that 200 million American Whites.

    US Whites are composed of the following major demographic groups: Puritan descendants (higher IQ); German immigrants (higher IQ); descendants of English indentured laborers; Irish immigrants (similar IQ); Scots-Irish borderers (probably actually lower IQ). So, average IQ of (Flynn-maxed) Eastern Slavs and US Whites would be similar. The US Whites would have a larger smart fraction, which would make them somewhat richer per capita (perhaps 30%), and probably they would produce at least as much or somewhat more elite level science.

    Or do you have in mind some other factor of success on which 400 million Slavs would be completely overshadowed by 200 million US Whites?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    , @Felix Keverich
  153. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Yea,

    Being in bed with islamists from the Crimean War on

    Starving millions of ssubcontinentals

    Spawning a liberal borg which leads to millions of infanticides & the perishing of countless cultures

    Moral

    Like the monkey who cuts off the King’s head trying to swat a fly.

    • Replies: @DFH
  154. @reiner Tor

    What would have been the incentive for an isolationist and low military spending America to embark on a nuclear weapons program?

    (Which is cheap once developed, but the Manhattan Project itself was very expensive – and success could not be certain. Building more ships would in other situations have been seen as the safer bet).

    In my opinion it is the countries with a more threatening security environment that would be most incentivized to develop nuclear weapons.

    What I think would have happened in the alternative time is that the following entities: The Russian Empire; Great Britain and France (together or separately, depending on how close the Liberal camp would be); Germany (if it retained sufficient independence) would have embarked on a multipolar arms race for the Bomb, followed by rapid buildups, limits to which would have become the subject of consequent multilateral negotiations.

    The United States would have joined in once the race got going, but would have still participated in those negotiations. Italy and Japan would also have joined the race, but would have lagged since they’d have had fewer Science Points.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  155. Bucky says:
    @Doug

    Japan erred greatly in doing Pearl Harbor.

    They should have simply attacked the Phillipine. Americans could hardly care about them.

    A japan which controlled East Asia would have saved us the trouble of Korea and Vietnam, though there would have been other troubles.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  156. Miro23 says:
    @Spisarevski

    Japan will rise again. I am sure that they are making Gundams in secret facilities as we speak.

    They better start thinking about it. The US is supposed to provide them with a security guarantee but we know what international agreements with the United States are worth. Probably a better tactic would be to seriously try to make friends with the Chinese – but it’s difficult when the Chinese regularly whip up national feeling with accounts of Japanese Imperial oppression.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski
  157. @Anatoly Karlin

    The United States would have joined in once the race got going

    And immediately would’ve spent more money on it than the rest combined. The main reason why US military spending over the past few decades has been by far the largest is only partly explained by American militarism (arguably Russia has spent at least as much relative to its GDP), and to a large extent by the sheer size of the US economy.

    In your hypothetical, US GDP would still have been bigger than any other power (even Russia would have had a hard time catching up even without communism and assuming it’d have kept its empire), and the US would have no need for a large army (or even air force, except a naval air force), so a relatively larger portion of its military spending could’ve gone to build up a nuclear stockpile.

    Other powers would’ve had a larger incentive to build up and maintain relatively larger conventional forces, of which the US would only need a navy. The UK would also invest in a large navy (the same size as the US Navy), but this would be a relatively much larger burden on the UK economy, so the UK would’ve had a harder time building up a superpower sized nuclear force. (As happened in our timeline.) Whereas Russia would’ve had a bigger army and air force, and perhaps also a relatively large navy, each of which would be very useful for Russia (in decreasing importance), and probably also a smaller GDP well into the mid-20th century, so its spending on its nuclear forces would’ve been less.

    Oh and lest we forget, if other powers started building ICBMs, even an isolationist US would’ve started to feel threatened, so its military spending (especially into its nuclear forces) would’ve gone up. So this also leads us to the US throwing a lot of money at the only security problem it’d have (which is to say, at building up and maintaining its nuclear forces).

    would have still participated in those negotiations

    It’s questionable how successful those negotiations would’ve been. However, I’d suspect that by the time such negotiations resulted in an agreement, the US would already have had the largest stockpile by some margin. And if that was the case, the nuclear arms limitations treaty would’ve recognized that status and would’ve allowed the US to maintain a larger nuclear force than the rest.

    The reason why current arms limitation treaties allow Russia to have the same sized nuclear stockpile as the US is because they had already started out with the same stockpile by the time the negotiations were started. Why would the US, whose national character is especially well disposed to nuclear weapons, unilaterally dismantle its already larger nuclear stockpile?

    Russia would have allies (like France) which the USSR didn’t have, so it wouldn’t feel the pressing need to match the American nuclear arsenal anyway.

    I think being a nuclear superpower required a special competition between the US and Russia/USSR.

  158. @Miro23

    There was a very interesting article on this site that argued how Japanese and Chinese elites actually work together behind the scenes despite the political theater and what the plebs in the two countries think of each other.

    https://www.unz.com/efingleton/on-pearl-harbor-day-a-question-is-todays-japan-really-a-sincere-american-friend/

    I don’t know if it’s true but I hope it is. East Asians better work together unless they want their Confucian civilizations to be dominated and eventually destroyed by “western values”.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  159. @Polish Perspective

    Thanks, good comment.

    1. China was of course never in any danger of peaking at 800 million. It was at 500 million after WW2. As a Third World country with its demographic transition still ahead of it, a massive population spurt was inevitable. It would probably be around where it is regardless (no Maoism means no GLF, but also a faster fertility transition; net effect is roughly same population, but older).

    2. I have been reading about these problems with Chinese growth figures and its debt issues for years but the problem is that there is absolutely no agreement about the economists about how serious this is. My general impression (though I don’t follow the debate closely) is that under Xi, many of the SOEs have actually been cleaned out.

    Incidentally PP, would you be interested in writing an article for The Unz Review outlining in detail your analysis of GDP growth manipulation in China, India, and Turkey?
    If so, is the email you use to comment here your correct one and can I contact you there?

  160. Seraphim says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    One wonders how many Eastern Jews emigrated to Germany post WW1.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  161. AP says:
    @DFH

    It’s indisputable that Britain has acted far more morally over the last several centuries than at least France, Germany or Russia,

    Better than Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia, sure. Otherwise, they were less moral than all of those, over the centuries.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    , @jilles dykstra
  162. @Bucky

    Projections are just that: projections. As the author of the above article wrote, projections for Russia’s population growth have failed to materialize and there is no certainty at all that those for Africa’s population will. And as for so many of our certainties and assumptions, much of what we think, say or write about Africa and Africans will turn out to be sheer nonsense.

    The polygamy you are referring to is a case in point. Sexuality still being very repressed in the “West” it would not surprise me if Western Europeans were on average as unfaithful and polygamous as Africans. However, data in this field are very unreliable, if available at all, but the evidence from popular culture (movies, song lyrics), divorce courts, the writings of authors with firsthand experience at being unfaithful, such as Karl Marx, and the behavior of role models throughout Western History (from Charlemagne to Bill Clinton) suggests similarity rather than difference.

    • Replies: @Bucky
  163. Vendetta says:

    The Roosevelt Administration was determined to bring America into the war against Germany one way or another. Had Germany not obligingly declared war after Pearl Harbor some pretext or another would have been seized upon. And the Lend-Lease Act had already been extended to cover the Soviet Union several months prior to Germany’s declaration of war on America.

    Stuart Slade’s alternate history novel “The Big One” is a flawed but interesting read into what kind of plans the US had on the drawing board for its nuclear campaign against Germany. Slade has major shortcomings as a novelist and in some respects as a historian (haven’t read through any of the sequels in full as they grow more and more and self-indulgent and implausible as his timeline goes on). Slade is a neocon creep, a pencil pusher, and a strategic bomber autist. But he does know his nukes and his planes pretty well.

    The novel is premised on a Halifax coup removing Churchill from power in 1940, leading to a ceasefire between Britain and Germany. The US responds with a major military buildup that deters Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor, the US enters the war against Germany after some naval incident in 1942 or 43. Germany’s invasion of Russia goes farther with no distractions to the West; Moscow is besieged, Stalin is dead and replaced by Zhukov, America sends an expeditionary army to fight on the Eastern Front (Japan is left alone to conquer China in exchange for non-interference with the sea lanes to Vladivostok).

    The war goes on till 1947 in a stalemate, the US Navy having won complete control of the Atlantic and launched devastating carrier raids on Europe but having been unable to open up a second front anywhere. A little implausible for the Eastern Front to have been locked in stalemate that long, in my own opinion, but he had to stretch the timeline long enough for the B-36 Peacemaker to make its early entrance. 200 of these bombers fly into Germany, their extreme high altitude performance making them virtually immune to interception (by the Ta 152, the jets, the Wasserfall missile, or any of Germany’s other cutting edge wonder weapons) and drop nukes on 200 different cities at once.

    Long story short, America’s war planners foresaw the exact problem you brought up. One nuke might not be enough to shock the Germans into surrender, and the shock effect would diminish after each subsequent strike. And once the Germans saw the atomic bomb was a real possibility (their own marginal nuclear weapons project had been suspended in 1943 due to flawed theoretical conclusions that the bomb was infeasible), they would obviously reactivate their own program and race to get the bomb too.

    So the plans on the drawing board, which Slade referred to as the basis of his novel, were not to whittle Germany down one bomb at a time like you described. The plan was to stockpile a large number of them (several dozen to two hundred, there were a few versions on on the drawing board) and to use them all in one wave to shock Germany into sudden and total surrender.

  164. Respect says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Thank you for your comment , I am from south Europe and have been thinking what you say for the last years . It is good hearing it so clearly from some one with a german nick .

  165. This century turned out to be an “American Century.”

    Wrong.

    It was an American Zionist century from beginning to end. “America” served (and still does serve), as a most useful pack of idiots and suckers. If anyone doubts it, try reading the autobio of “rabbi” Stephen Wise for starters and check out those who influenced Woody Wilson and FDR as well.

    “America” was infiltrated and completely subdued by crackpots such as that.

  166. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel

    If the “repressed” western sexuality were as polygamous as Africa’s, AIDS rates would be much higher. AIDS rates are not very high at all among heterosexuals in the West. This would suggest a lack thereof.

    Africa’s AIDS rates are more similar to the homosexual AIDS rates. Homosexuals of course are not repressed in their sexuality nor their promiscuousness.

    Saying that projections are wrong is like saying that all stereotypes are untrue. Stereotypes are based on a certain truth often enough. Global warming projections are just projections but the basic logic is simple enough to work out. But hold on to that PC skepticism.

    Past is prologue. Africans proved themselves utterly incapable in the past and present. They have shown that they are prone to envy and destruction, as we see now in South Africa. Why would they be any different in the future?

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  167. “The successor would have played a large role in determining what would later happen, e.g. a hardcore ideologue such as Himmler, the more practical German military, or the hedonistic and corrupt, but not very ideological Goering.“

    I think Goering had fallen out of favor by 1944 and Martin Bormann had maneuvered himself into the clear #2 spot. Bormann was more organized and even less ideological than Goering, so in the event of a German victory, Bormann probably would have been the best choice for everyone involved.

  168. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    How did you get the 9.5 million Jews figure?

    Also, if Russia would have treated its Jews well, I suspect that they would have been pretty manageable. Sure, many of them could have pushed for mass Third World immigration into Russia (something on which non-Jewish Russian leftists and some Russian minorities, such as Muslims, would have probably supported them on), but they would have also been the ones who would have been pushing science and technology forward in Russia due to their higher average IQ–which means extremely disproportionate representation at the tails of the IQ bell curve. Plus, the U.S. had a lot of Third World immigration–with not all of it involving high-IQ individuals–and yet the U.S. managed to survive and remains a prominent science and technology powerhouse as well as a world leader. There’s no reason that a non-Bolshevik Russia would have been unable to do the same.

    • Replies: @Rye
  169. The problem with all of this is that it didn’t happen! “If” history is an amusing intellectual game but it changes nothing in regard to our modern world. Mr Karlin also gets some of his historical facts wrong. For example, he claims that “had Great Britain or Russia not entered the war, it would have almost certainly crushed France “by Christmas””. Perhaps, but if Russia hadn’t entered the war, France wouldn’t have entered the war either and Germany wouldn’t have been at war with France in the first place. That, in itself, shows just how absurd this sort of speculation is.

  170. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Seraphim

    I doubt that it was very many, but Germany had severe economic problems as result of its World War I loss–for instance, hyperinflation in 1923 followed by the Great Depression several years later.

    Had Germany won World War I, these economic problems would have probably been less significant. Plus, I am talking about mass Eastern European immigration to Germany throughout the 20th century–not necessarily immediately after a German victory in World War I.

  171. Hans says:

    The author might could take a short while to read The Book of Coincidences aka The Jew World Order Unmasked. An outstanding summary of the best sources but liable to cause trembling and gnashing of teeth – http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/zioncrimefactory/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/The-Jew-World-Order-Unmasked.pdf

  172. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    What percentage of elite-level science do Jews in the U.S. produce?

    I think that a lot of the elite-level science in a non-Bolshevik Russia would have been produced by Jews due to their higher average IQ–which means extreme overrepresentation at the right tail of the IQ bell curve. Of course, this assumes that Russia would actually begin treating its Jews well.

  173. @Bucky

    AIDS is also statistically connected with marginalization and inferior living circumstances (hence it has a strong economic and sociological content). And without considering myself a defender of the African or desirous of uttering romantic notions, I think it is not correct to make the kind of sweeping statements you are making. Africa, like every nation or continent, has a varied and highly differentiated make-up. Thus I hesitate to buy the AIDS argument. Too simplistic.

    And as for the African incapacity to innovate or improve you are invoking, I should perhaps reply that the part of the world that has made the most real contributions to the advancement of humanity, in a technologcal and a cultural sense, is Western Europe. All essential inventions that make modern life possible, were made in Europe or by Europeans. Many inventions claimed by the US were stolen from Europeans (such as the telephone, invented by Meucci). Yet the US has been more aggressive, ruthless and persistent in the use of weapons (invented by others), and is at least superior in that sense.

    Does that prove the US is superior or that Europe is superior? It all depends on one’s values, I guess;

    • Replies: @Bucky
  174. @Anatoly Karlin

    Germany still attacked though Belgium (which Britain was treaty-bound to uphold)

    This is by no means so certain as it was ex-post facto made out to be:

    The treaty itself was ambiguous; it merely placed Belgium under “the guarantee” of the signatories. Thus Asquith wrote the King, “It is a doubtful point how far a single guaranteeing state is bound under the Treaty of 1839 to maintain Belgian neutrality if the remainder abstain or refuse” — where by “doubtful” he evidently meant “debatable”.

    Welch, Justice and the Genesis of War, p. 123.

  175. Respect says:
    @DFH

    It’s indisputable that Britain has acted far more morally over the last several centuries than … Russia

    what a joke , english are pirates ,

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  176. Rye says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    So you think that eliminating 140 million future Russians is not a bad deal for eliminating 9.5 million future Jews.

    I just think that this information is worth including in these sorts of hypothetical projections for Russia. You imply that a hypothetical uber-Russia would have been able to deal with this issue, even though the actual Imperial Russia arguably couldn’t (despite significant efforts). What would have been different? This is not an issue that a sensible HBD-aware hypothetical history should ignore. At least mention that your optimal projection for Russians would likely be contingent on a far harsher policy towards Ashkenazim.

    With “counter-Semites” like these, who even needs Jews?

    I have both Ashkenazi and Russian ancestry, I’m just trying to be realistic. In the big picture, your optimal projection for Russians is in fact just an optimal projection for Ashkenazim.

  177. Jef says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Karlin – You underestimate the US ability to economically stifle a country, population numbers are meaningless.

    You also do not mention how the US belligerently being the first and only to nuke whole civilian populations, declaring themselves winners and top of the heap, then setting about telling the world who gets to not be productive and who gets to buy American production is what defines the 20th century and beyond.

    Our ability to economically trounce and devastate a country into submission might be coming to an end but there are still hundreds of thousands dying needlessly because of it.

    You seem overly enamored with capitalism but I would say that we have never truly had capitalism or any other ism for that matter. The consumer/cannibalistic capitalism we now have is threatening life on planet earth so how could THAT have ended up different?

  178. @Mr. XYZ

    Use the reply button–I almost missed this.

    Oh, sure, one can have a non-democratic state and be powerful. However, would non-democratic states be as responsive to the needs of the people?

    Maybe some non-democratic states.

    Nazi Germany did quite a lot for the people (before sending them off to slaughter, anyway). Communist China in the past generation has lifted three quarters of a billion people out of poverty, and today has an interesting model in which it uses opinion polling to drive government policy.

    Meanwhile most so-called liberal democracies have completely abandoned the needs of the people.

    As for Blacks, sure, their own cities often look bad (due to the crime, poverty, et cetera) and are filled with corruption. However, if you want better government, wouldn’t it make sense to discriminate in regards to suffrage based on IQ rather than based on race? After all, there are some high-IQ blacks–just much fewer of them in comparison to Whites in a proportional sense.

    Here’s the problem with high IQ blacks:

    Do I have an objection to Thomas Sowell voting? No. But an IQ filter for the black vote won’t produce a lot of Thomas Sowell voters. It will produce Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, Genius T. Coates, etc. voters.

    As a general rule free blacks in white societies are parasites upon the white host, and their political instincts reflect this.

    Given enough experimentation you could probably come up with a filter which gives you mostly Thomas Sowell voters, but why bother? There is nothing wrong with racism or racial discrimination, and the idea that these are wrong must be abandoned.

    Also, why exactly were the lynchings of blacks neither a tragedy nor a source of shame? Please explain.

    Something like only 3,000 black people were ever lynched. A good number of those lynchings were done to actual criminals as well. Meanwhile blacks murder almost 10,000 people per year every year, usually for incredibly stupid reasons like “unwanted party guests”.

    The disastrous situation of the South after its defeat in the Civil War made extrajudicial violence necessary. The South was economically wrecked, one-third of its men dead, the slaves set free and given rights, and occupied by Northern troops.

    This resulted in blacks actually taking over Southern governments, and you can imagine how they proceeded to govern. Owing to the irresponsible, irrational Constitutional amendments the Radical Republicans placed into the Constitution to give blacks rights, there was no legal or peaceful way for Southerners to reclaim their governments.

    Only through massive intimidation and violence were the Southerners able to take back their governments, after which they systematically enacted laws to exclude blacks from political power while technically remaining in compliance with “civil rights”.

    It’s therefore no surprise at all that lynching drastically declined following the end of Reconstruction and the Redeemer governments coming to power.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @bj
  179. Miro23 says:
    @Spisarevski

    Thanks for the interesting link, but the Japanese & Chinese already seem to have decided that the US (plus its “values”) is on the way out.

  180. @for-the-record

    Further proof that Britain wasn’t obligated to (unilaterally) defend the neutrality of Belgium: the Netherlands was also a co-signatory, and hence guarantor, of the Treaty of London (1839), but it remained neutral during WWI.

  181. Rye says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    How did you get the 9.5 million Jews figure?

    Pre-war Imperial Russia had about 5 million Jews, I just doubled it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Historical_demographics

    yet the U.S. managed to survive

    AK in an ethnic nationalist, I don’t think that his goal is simply the perpetuation of a Russian state. Besides, given the fact that Imperial Russia never treated its Jews leniently, it is unlikely that Russians would get the same punishment that the relatively philo-Semitic Americans got.

  182. DFH says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Also, why exactly were the lynchings of blacks neither a tragedy nor a source of shame? Please explain.

    This is primary school-tier. Most of those lynched were criminals. Should Americans be ashamed that vigilante justice was carried out on child rapists or, at best, cattle rustlers? About a quarter of those lynched were white, which is actually a higher proportion than that of whites who are exectued today in the South.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  183. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel

    AIDS is not spread by poverty. You could make the case for malaria, dysentery, and other hygienic diseases being a result of poverty. Not AIDS. it is a marker of behavior.

    Further…a people’s behavior is truest to themselves when in poverty.

    The other whatabboutism is ludicrous, but suffice to say, do continue being the white knight. There is no reason to take any action on climate change, not white we debate the remaining .05% of uncertainty.

  184. DFH says:
    @Anon

    Being in bed with islamists from the Crimean War on

    Allying with the Ottomans was bad, but something that France and Germany also did (at different times) and Britain helped the Greeks and other Balkans get their independence. The support for the Caucasian rebels was very minor.

    Starving millions of ssubcontinentals

    Famines happened in India all the time. Millions of Indians’ lives were saved by avoiding the banditry, warfare and Afghan raiding/invasion that would probably have been involved in the Mughal collapse.

    Spawning a liberal borg which leads to millions of infanticides & the perishing of countless cultures

    I think you are getting Britain mixed up with France.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
    , @dfordoom
    , @Seraphim
  185. Marcus says:

    Germany 1871-1945 was a one trick pony (unparalleled military tradition), and therefore not a real contender to unseat the US/UK. Its industry and agriculture were still fairly backwards, it failed at diplomacy, intelligence gathering, “soft power,” etc.

  186. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Duke of Qin

    Bingo. Karlin can’t do it because he is a materialist and he doesn’t recognize the need for “faith” or more accurately what should be called believing your own bullshit. …

    Ironic view of faith and materialism. The sovoks stress the image (albeit faulty) that before the revolution there wasn’t this and that. Why can’t there be a mote objective overview, with the acknowledgement that Russia didn’t need a Bolshe revolution and Stalin? He didn’t single-handedly win WW II, contrary to the emphasis that he won it.

    As for faith:

    [MORE]

    Kuban Cossacks rock.

  187. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    This resulted in blacks actually taking over Southern governments, and you can imagine how they proceeded to govern.

    Absolutely batshit crazy stuff like public funding for education.

  188. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Doug

    The matter of Japan and Russia recently came up in this article:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-could-have-been-1938-russia-and-japan-almost-went-war-27372

    Excerpt -

    During the Russian Civil War in 1919, Japan sent 70,000 troops to support the anti-Communist White Army. The Imperial Japanese forces nearly annexed Siberia before withdrawing.”

    Japan had little if any interest to support the idea of a patriotically strong Russia. The above excerpted downplays the actual intention of Japan. One would be hard pressed to find substantive Japanese support for the Russian Whites.

    Regarding a prior National Interest piece dealing with an aspect of the Russian Civil War:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/

  189. LOL. History is what happened. What could have possibly happened is fantasy, a different literary genre.

  190. @DFH

    but the naval blockade was obviously the fastest way to bring the war to an end

    iirc it was also kind of illegal under international law back then, and it also made Anglo-American whining about the evils of German submarine warfare patently hypocritical.
    Britain also did a lot of other dubious things in WW1, like dragging Italy into the war with promises of territorial annexations.
    No offense, but sometimes you really exaggerate with your Anglo triumphalism. Moral considerations aside, how can Britain’s trajectory over the past century be seen as positive? Seeing the state of Britain today, something went profoundly wrong.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @DFH
    , @RadicalCenter
  191. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Vasyl von Hapsburg (Vishivanyj) would have been an excellent choice. In your scenario, he would have had to have convinced the Vienese center to give more support to his expression of Ukrainian patriotism. Not to mention that Germany and Austria-Hungary were not always walking in lockstep together.

    The Hapsburg/Ukraine connection is still very much in the news, and not just the purview of history fanatics:

    Around 2012, according to the indictment released on Friday, Mr. Manafort and his colleague Rick Gates “secretly retained a group of former senior European politicians to take positions favorable to Ukraine, including by lobbying in the United States.”

    They were informally called the Hapsburg Group, according to the indictment, which used an alternative spelling for the Habsburgs.

    Although the former politicians purported to provide “independent assessments,” according to the indictment, “in fact they were paid lobbyists for Ukraine.” Mr. Manafort used at least four offshore accounts to wire more than 2 million euros to pay the group of former politicians, according to the indictment.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/world/europe/hapsburg-group-mueller-manafort.html

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  192. Marcus says:
    @DFH

    Most sanctimonious, e.g. portraying it’s “balance of power” policy with regards to the continent as motivated by moral concerns, sure.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  193. Marcus says:
    @German_reader

    Typical of Brits to complain about the “underhanded” U-Boots while pulling stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship
    Britain today is getting its just desserts from centuries of duplicity and hubris wrapped in the most unctuous rhetoric

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  194. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Vasyl von Hapsburg (Vishivanyj) would have been an excellent choice. In your scenario, he would have had to have convinced the Vienese center to give more support to his expression of Ukrainian patriotism.

    He would’ve been grand for a certain kind of Ukrainian view – by no means shared by many Ukrainians. Cheers to the Riurikist-Romanovist legacy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  195. @DFH

    Britain should have capitulated to German domination?

    Obviously not, but they should have considered working towards a negotiated end of the war on a status quo basis. Instead Britain’s leadership consistently radicalized and widened the war (dragging other participants like Italy, Romania and Greece into it with all manner of dubious promises and pressure tactics) and engaged in an obsessive quest to destroy “Prussian militarism”. Britain must bear at least some responsibility for the disastrous post-war order that resulted from WW1.

    • Replies: @DFH
  196. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    Britain also did a lot of other dubious things in WW1, like dragging Italy into the war with promises of territorial annexations.

    iirc, Italy already had some sort of secret treaty with France even when it was in the Triple Alliance. Trieste and the Tirol were nothing compared to the territorial annexations planned by every other great power bar Britain.

    No offense, but sometimes you really exaggerate with your Anglo triumphalism.

    It would not be as necessary except for the ridiculous anti-Angloism that you can see in this very thread. But I still completely believe that Britain behaved better towards other Europeans than any other great power over the last three centuries.

    Moral considerations aside, how can Britain’s trajectory over the past century be seen as positive? Seeing the state of Britain today, something went profoundly wrong.

    I do not really see the relevance of this to the current discussion. The end of the non-white empire was probably inevitable eventually, even if it could have been delayed by a few decades with different choices, and not really a disaster for Britain. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are mostly due to Jewish activism after the war.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  197. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    And don’t forget Skoropadsky too! That ‘ultra-popular‘ Russophile who came storming in to Kyiv on a waive of German bayonets, and left (8 months later) as soon as those bayonets would no longer sustain him! :-)

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  198. @DFH

    But I still completely believe that Britain behaved better towards other Europeans than any other great power over the last three centuries

    Do you regard 1840s Irish as non-Europeans?
    I agree though that there’s a lof of unhinged Anglophobia on Unz review.

    Mass immigration and multiculturalism are mostly due to Jewish activism after the war.

    I’m not sure that’s plausible, even if there undoubtedly are many subversive Jews in Britain.
    As for relevance, I have to admit I find the obsession of many British people with past glory and the world wars somewhat pathetic, it’s a distraction from the depressing contemporary issues like the Paki problem. This national mythology about Britain’s inherent goodness is also quite cynically exploited for very dubious foreign policy actions like participation in the Iraq war, supporting jihadis in Syria or support for those horrible Gulf states.

  199. LondonBob says:
    @Marcus

    Even the link you provide says Q ships were a reaction to U Boats.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  200. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Skoro seems more revered in contemporary Ukraine than your preferred Habsburgite.

    Note how many times he’s mentioned in Subtelny’s book, when compared to your stated preference.

    In retrospect, Skoro blundered by not having a well armed force in accordance with German preferences.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  201. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    Obviously not, but they should have considered working towards a negotiated end of the war on a status quo basis

    I agree, but I do not remember enough about the specific peace proposals to be able to properly comment. Rejecting the German proposals for peace on the Western front alone was correct through.

    dragging other participants like Italy, Romania and Greece into it with all manner of dubious promises and pressure tactics

    If Greece hadn’t dithered so much, then they might have actually been able to achieve the worthy goal of reconquering Ionia and Constantinople. I believe that the Romanians themselves were quite enthusiastic about joining in and taking Transylvania. Germany tried to get Mexico involved in the war and actually did get Bulgaria involved. Britain had originally wanted some sort of neutral Balkan league but the situation was changed by the Ottoman and Bulgarian entrance.

    engaged in an obsessive quest to destroy “Prussian militarism”

    Was it really so bad for Britain to think this, given the series of wars that Prussia had provoked over the previous several decades? It is not like it came to very much anyway; the British did not occupy Germany and supervise de-Prussification campaigns like the Americans did after the Second World War. What was much more unfair was Lloyd-George’s groundless hatred of Hungarian militarism which contributed to the Treaty of Trianon.

    Britain must bear at least some responsibility for the disastrous post-war order that resulted from WW1.

    It is obvious that the British aims were more morally defensible than those of France, Germany or Russia, all of which sought massive territorial annexations. Britain didn’t seek to destroy Germany, even economically, or partition it. Britain moderated the French territorial and reparations demands greatly. Reparations, the loss of some useless colonies and limited rearmament are really incredibly magnanimous terms for a war with more than a million British casualties and nothing compared to what Germany did impose on Russia or would have imposed on France or what the French and Russians would have imposed on Germany if given a free hand.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  202. LondonBob says:
    @Marcus

    NW Europeans have a strong moral element to our make up, it is to our credit, and something to be jealous of.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Anon
  203. @DFH

    About a quarter of those lynched were white

    That surprised me, but you’re right, at least for the period 1882-1968:

    http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1083-lynchingsstate

    Even more surprising is the significant number of non-South lynchings (27 in South Dakota, 26 in Washington, etc.).

  204. LondonBob says:
    @German_reader

    Have the Irish ever achieved anything of note?

    • Replies: @iffen
  205. Marcus says:
    @LondonBob

    Hardly “justified” since Germany wasn’t engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare yet.

    Quick question, how are you limeys enjoying the fruits of your meddling in European affairs twice, with your eponymous city less than 50% British now, jail time for tweets, Paki rape gangs, kids passed out drunk in their vomit, etc.? Was it worth it? Personally, I’m lighting up a victory cigar a la Churchill

  206. Marcus says:
    @LondonBob

    More Anglo deceit, trying to lump yourselves in with more respectable neighbors.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  207. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    Do you regard 1840s Irish as non-Europeans?

    The famine was not caused by the British government, and British handling of it was incompetent rather than malicious. Otherwise British treatment of the Irish in the 19th century was very tame compared to Russian and German attempts to destroy Polish national identity. The Irish would almost certainly have been granted Home Rule, were it not for the First World War. As it is, full independence only became popular after the execution of the rebels in the Easter Rising.

    I’m not sure that’s plausible, even if there undoubtedly are many subversive Jews in Britain.

    It is true though, even without taking into account the anti-racism zeitgeist created by American Jews. Every anti-racism organisation in Britain was founded by Jews. The Runnymede Trust was founded in 1968 by Jim Rose and Anthony Lester, both Jews and the most important anti-nationalist groups were offshoots of the Socialist Workers’ Party, founded by Tony Cliff (né Yigael Gluckstein).
    Their role is even more pronounced in the 1990s wave, with Peter Mandelson, Barbara Roche etc. in New Labour.
    Andrew Joyce has written many articles about this on the Occidental Observer.

    As for relevance, I have to admit I find the obsession of many British people with past glory and the world wars somewhat pathetic, it’s a distraction from the depressing contemporary issues like the Paki problem. This national mythology about Britain’s inherent goodness is also quite cynically exploited for very dubious foreign policy actions like participation in the Iraq war, supporting jihadis in Syria or support for those horrible Gulf states.

    That does not affect the truth of my claims. This is a thread about history anyway. I probably would hardly talk about it were it not for anti-angloism. Most British nationalists I know, I believe, similarly only talk about these things in response to attacks from other nations’ nationalists or those of British Nazi-Larpers.

  208. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    Skoro seems more revered in contemporary Ukraine than your preferred Habsburgite.

    I’ve never been one that has trumpeted the horn for Vashivanyj’s popularity in contemporary Ukraine, unlike your own blasts from the past about Skoropadsky. On the other hand, there are some in Ukraine, especially in the Western regions that are expressing more and more of an interest in their own Habsburg past. The theme that keeps coming up is one about the Hapsburg’s multicultural tolerance, unlike anything that one reads about in Subtelny’s History of Ukraine regarding Ukraine’s inclusion within the Russian Empire:

    Mr. Zhaloba believes this climate of tolerance is one of the major legacies of the Habsburg era in Ukraine. In terms of historical importance, he places it alongside the idea of an independent Ukrainian state that first took root during the period of Viennese rule. “What we see today is the beautiful architecture they left behind, but these buildings are far from the only things the Habsburgs gave to Ukraine. They also introduced Ukrainians to the politics of consensus and European parliamentary traditions. Habsburg rule gave Ukrainians the chance to develop as a political nation, gaining experience in regional administrations and in Vienna itself. Many of these Ukrainian politicians would go on to participate in attempts to create an independent Ukrainian state during the Russian Revolution. There were also pro-Ukrainian dissident movements in central and eastern Ukraine throughout the Tsarist period, but they tended to be more isolated and subject to physical destruction. Unlike under the Tsars, the Ukrainian political traditions that first flowered in Habsburg Ukraine were able to enter the social mainstream and proved resilient enough to outlive the entire Soviet era. In fact, it would be fair to say the Ukrainian state that emerged in 1991 was built on foundations dating back to the Habsburg Empire.”

    http://www.lvivtoday.com.ua/%20independent%20Ukraine

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Respect
  209. @DFH

    Was it really so bad for Britain to think this, given the series of wars that Prussia had provoked over the previous several decades

    The 1870/71 war was declared by the French whose ridiculous emperor had been a major troublemaker (not just in Europe, but even in faraway Mexico), I don’t see how that war can be attributed simply to German aggressiveness, militarism etc.
    The war against Austria was an internal German affair; the only questionable and aggressive wars may have been those against Denmark.
    And by 1914, those wars were half a century in the past, Germany hadn’t provoked any major European wars since then.
    It’s true that German conduct in Belgium in 1914 was brutal (though much of it – apart from the more exceptional war crimes like taking and executing civilian hostages – was paralleled by Russian conduct in East Prussia), so British outrage about German militarism wasn’t entirely unfounded. But it did have very negative consequences imo since it turned the war into a moral crusade where only total victory was seen as an acceptable outcome.

    It is obvious that the British aims were more morally defensible than those of France, Germany or Russia, all of which sought massive territorial annexations.

    I don’t think German war aims in WW1 were really stable or coherent, rather they changed according to circumstances, though it’s certainly true that influential pressure groups pushed for rather extreme programmes like annexation of Belgium.
    I’ll admit though that on some level you’re probably right, compared with the megalomaniac ambitions of some other powers Britain’s war aims were fairly moderate.

  210. LondonBob says:
    @Marcus

    I am guessing you aren’t a Kevin MacDonald fan.

  211. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Tolerance like the concentration camp at Talerhof, from the empire which raised corporals Hitler and Tito. Marvelous – adding that the Habsburgites were Machiavellian in what they preferred as an independent Ukraine .

    Overall, Ukraine has more monuments honoring its Russian Empire past than for the Poles and Habsburgites.

    Nice sized procession in Ukraine honoring the internationally recognized UOC organized baptism of Rus commemoration – something that some crackpots didn’t like.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  212. Jan says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The United States’ battle fleet was not crippled at Pearl Harbor. Battleship Row was filled with obsolete vessels from WW1. The aircraft carriers, however, were safely out of harms way for Roosevelt’s casus belli.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  213. Rurik says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Re-Jews. You are obsessed. What relevance do they have to the topic, anyway?

    re- a short history of the 20th century?

    just go to 1:30 into the video

    the 20th century began with England going to war with South Africa to steal the gold and diamond mines on behalf of (((Rothschild’s and Oppenheimer’s))) De Beers corporation. Eventually inventing death camps for the families of the Dutch farmers who were defending their country.

    The century ended, more or less, with celebrated black terrorist and murderer Nelson Mandela taking the reins of that nation, which not ironically, might just collapse with another round of those death camps for Dutch farmer’s families after all.

    In between there was the (((Bolshevik))) revolution, the betrayal of Germany at the end of WWI with the Balfour Declaration as motivating force and the enslavement to Eastern Europe and Russia to the Soviet terror.

    All during this period, (the 20th century) the West was led down into a moral and spiritual sewer by Hollywood, Madison Ave, and the rest of the media.

    Germany (in particular and the Christian West in general) has been smeared with endless lies about gas chambers and lampshades.

    N. America has suicidally given over to the political correctness of the Frankfort School. Homos openly adopt little boys. The Boy Scouts has openly practicing sodomites as troop leaders.

    All of this is a direct consequence of Jewish influence on the 20th century, when Palestine was raped – and remains the main reason for the Endless Wars of the 21 century.

    The myopia that would be necessary not to see all of this, is quite impressive.

    Like talking about modern day Palestine without mentioning Jews.

    Or the Bolsheviks without mentioning Jews

    or the Balfour Declaration and America’s participation in WWI, and the subsequent betrayal of Germany vis-a-vis the Treaty of Versailles. Or the (((Weimar regime)))

    no Jews in sight there!

    all those Middle Easter wars in the 60s and 70s. Oil embargoes and Americans getting slaughtered on their Navy ships or in Marine Barracks, but nothing that has anything to do with Jews or Israel!

    The seminal event of the 20th century was the foisting of Israel on the world out of the ashes of Europe. With the enslavement of Russia and Eastern Europe as backdrop.

    ‘None! of which, had anything to do with any so-called Jews, you darn anti-Semite!

  214. @DFH

    Indeed, in the 19th century the British treated the Irish not worse than in the preceding centuries.
    Edmund Curtis, ‘A History of Ireland’, 1936, 2000, London

  215. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    One ‘concentration camp’ for various Russophile crackpots, vs dozens of prisons and gulags created in Russia and Siberia by Imperial gendarmes and Bolshevik operatives to imprison dissidents and undesirables for expressing Ukrainian national sentiments? The difference in scope is mind boggling. I’ll take the Habsburg model any day of the week!

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  216. @AP

    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud

    • Replies: @DFH
  217. Respect says:

    Ukraina , you may enjoy as much as you want your ” Hausburg ” spirit , but most members of the EU do not want you in the UE , your country may go to the cemetery , with the Hausburg spirits .

    We have too many ex-soviets in the UE and we do not like them . You are too late , too large , and too poor ( 2000 dollars per capita income /year ) to join .

    Ucraina should be split :

    - Crimea and Donbass already scaped a miserable ucraruina that forbids russian language to
    native russian speakers , and went back to Russia .

    - Nazi western ukraina can be absorved by Poland

    - Eastern Ucraina russian speaking will go back to Russia -

    - The dangerous sultanate of Kiev , can make some agreements with Turkey .

    - And the little pieces of Hungary and Rumania can go back to those countries

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @AnonFromTN
  218. @Bliss

    In what theory ?
    Dresden was bombed to impress Stalin.
    In 1948 the USSR did not yet have an atomic bomb, yet the USA swallowed the blockade of Berlin.
    The USA was never in a position to conquer the whole world.
    FDR’s phantasy was to rule the world with a Smaller Britain, USSR and China as junior partners.
    Stalin and Mao had other ideas.
    Through cunning and bluff GB was able to rule some 40% of the world.

  219. refl says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Sorry to come up again with a mention I had already put on one of Ron Unz’s recent American Prawda threads:

    firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/ by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

    There was no point ever that Britain remain neutral any time in WWI, as the war had been planned by a certain Anglosaxon elite – and it had been planned as a long war with British naval power through deliberate incompetence keeping up Germany’s ability to fight.
    Quote from the blog:

    “the British naval blockade of Germany between 1914-1916 was a mere charade that was never intended to succeed. It had to appear that a blockade was in operation. It was deemed to be such an essential weapon of war that had a blockade not been implemented, the public would have seen it as a gross dereliction of duty. The London cabal was faced with the difficult problem of running a ‘blockade’ which appeared to be effective, but in reality was a sham.”

    The blog might deserve being featured here, especially since it sees the destruction of imperial Russia as having been planned alongside the destruction of Germany.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  220. Mr. Hack says:
    @Respect

    Your’s is a worn out song that has been monotonously played since 1991. Ukraine is here, and its not going anywhere, getting stronger day by day.

  221. @Anatoly Karlin

    It was an article about Great Power politics and demographics. Again, how are Jews relevant to that?

    Not sure, if serious. America’s replacement demographics is the result of century-long American Jewish activism. The Jews have founded no Great powers, but they did cripple Russia and are currently in the process of killing the USA.

    You are speaking of vague generalities.

    400 million Eastern Slavs are clearly sufficient to generate economic output at least equal to that 200 million American Whites.

    I think great power and economic competiton is more complex, than a simple numbers game. A team of 400 “losers”, who do not trust and do not cooperate with each other, will not be as productive as a well-oiled team of 200 “winners”. In the scenario you describe the Russians, while benefitting from greater numbers, would still be handicapped by their backward, inflexible institutions, and a culture that discourages innovation, personal initiative and entrepreneurship.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  222. DFH says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Oh no, the poor Zulus!!!!!!!!!!!!

  223. @DFH

    Every anti-racism organisation in Britain was founded by Jews.

    Interesting data, though it still seems doubtful to me that the initial non-white immigration wave of the 1950s can be attributed solely to Jewish influence.
    But I see your point; I have to admit I find it rather amusing that the likes of Margaret Hodge are now screeching about “antisemitism” by Muslims whose immigration to Britain was so massively favoured by Jewish activists. Just a very sad situation for the English though.

    • Replies: @DFH
  224. @Seraphim

    These denials always make me laugh.
    That mainstream history ignores that GB would have had to capitulate in November 1917 I know, one finds it in
    Donald McCormick, ‘The mask of Merlin, A Critical Study of David Lloyd George’, London, 1963

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  225. @Jan

    It wasn’t clear yet that aircraft carriers were replacing battleships as the principle capital ship. The range and striking power of carrier aircraft were insufficient until around that time for carriers to displace battleships. Bear in mind that battleships are much more heavily armored and have substantially more firepower than carriers (even modern supercarrier, unless equipped with nuclear weapons, has less firepower than a battleship). Battleship firepower is also available in all conditions, which is not the case with carriers (esp in WW2 when wind over the flight deck was generally required).

    If not for the Washington and London Naval Treaties, all of the major naval powers would’ve had large fleets of modern fast battleships with excellent AAW capabilities in 1939. These would have certainly found employment as capital ships.

    If the Japanese had done what America expected, which was to attack the Philippines but not Pearl Harbor, the US Navy would’ve sailed into the Western Pacific and there may well have been a Jutland-style battleship slug-fest. Aircraft did not manage on their own to sink many battleships which were underway and defending themselves in WW2.

  226. Marcus says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    …Germany didn’t become a real competitor to the US/UK until after WW2, this isn’t arcane knowledge. They had admitted defeat in the attempt at an arms race with the UK well before WWI broke out. They had the strong Prussian military tradition that masked its economic weakness, but only for so long.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  227. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    You can have it – notwithstanding the many Ukrainians who understandably don’t want it.

    Yes, the Soviet and pre-Soviet Russian situations had fault-lines. That said, the Habsburgite option didn’t show itself to be a better alternative.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  228. Respect says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Mr Fack , the Habsburg Empire died , just like Ukraina , Ukraina is as dead as your beloved Austrian Empire ,

    And I do not understand what ” multicultural tolerance ” you are talking about , since western ukrainians genocided poles in Volyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
    and are commiting a cultural genocide against russian speakers , against hungarian speakers , and a physical genocide against the Donbass

    Maybe by ” multicultural tolerance ” you undeerstand that Rusia gave Ukraina low priced oil and gas for decades , and Ukraina was not even thakful for it , that Ukraina stealed russian oil and gas from the pipe lines crossing Ukraina , that now Ukraina wants the EU to pay for her oil ans gas , what will NOT happen ukros , nobody wants you in europe , you have been used by the USA to ram Russia and the EU , and you are the ones that have been destroyed , bad luck , and don`t ask the USA to pay for your oil and gas , Rome doesn`t pay traitors .

    Enjoy you spirit of Habsburg multicultural tolerance !!!

    • Replies: @AP
  229. Logan says:

    Benefit of hindsight and all that, but had the Schlieffen Plan been carried out as originally intended, without weakening its outermost wing

    All true. But the Plan required those outermost units to cover quite considerable amounts of ground each day, on foot. Many of these units were reservists, not in shape for long marching under loads, and had been issued new boots.

    Some of the units simply were not capable of covering the necessary ground. WWI may have turned on – blisters.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  230. @Thorfinnsson

    A bit more on this.

    With respect to firepower let’s take the queen of the battleships, the American Iowa-class.

    The main battery of the Iowa-class consisted of nine sixteen inch (406mm for you foreigners) 50 caliber naval rifles. These could fire 2,700 pound (1,216 kilogram) armor-piercing or 1,900 pound (855 kilogram) high explosive shells.

    By comparison a fully loaded B-29 bomber could carry a 20,000 pound bombload. The Iowa-class exceeded that with a single broadside. And could fire 130 such broadsides before running out of ammunition.

    Meanwhile the state of the art in carrier-borne bombers just a few years before WW2 consisted of mediocrities like this:

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_D1A

    Notice how slow they are and how small their bomb load capacities are.

  231. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    That said, the Habsburgite option didn’t show itself to be a better alternative.

    So what exactly is ‘the better alternative’? Outside of Crimea and Eastern Donbas, I don’t see the rest of Ukraine being interested in any Russian dominated alternative? They’ve already tried it, didn’t like it and want something different, similarly to ALL the other iron curtain countries that have jumped ship, and don’t seem to want to return. Russia is a wasteland, even Karlin seems to admit this, though not directly.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  232. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The British could’ve found other outrages, such as using the German Navy to blockade France.

    1. No one would have given a damn.

    and 2. That specific alternative would have been a stretch; it wasn’t really the doctrine of the German Navy anyway, which focused on maintaining a “fleet in being”.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  233. @Felix Keverich

    It seems like entrepreneurship was beginning to blossom in the late Russian Empire. A number of early aircraft and automobile companies were founded for instance.

    That’s not to say that it matched the Americans of the time (not even close) or that it would’ve matched Americans even fifty years into the future.

    But it’s not unreasonable to believe that capitalist dynamism was beginning to take root in Russia.

  234. @Anon

    The German admirals wanted to use the High Seas Fleet for offensive operations despite their inferiority in numbers. It was the Kaiser who refused (mainly for political reasons).

    In a war against France, where the German Navy would be overwhelmingly preponderant, obviously they would’ve undertaken offensive operations.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jon Halpenny
  235. @jilles dykstra

    Britain was already almost bankrupt by the late spring of 1917. The American declaration of war brought immediate relief because America allowed credit to its new allies so they could continue to buy war supplies.

    It is hard to see how the Entente powers could have continued in 1917 without the entry of America.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  236. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    So what exactly is ‘the better alternative’? Outside of Crimea and Eastern Donbas, I don’t see the rest of Ukraine being interested in any Russian dominated alternative? They’ve already tried it, didn’t like it and want something different, similarly to ALL the other iron curtain countries that have jumped ship, and don’t seem to want to return. Russia is a wasteland, even Karlin seems to admit this, though not directly.

    Some wasteland when compared to Ukraine.

    The fact of the matter is that many in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine don’t buy your anti-Russian BS.

    Once again noting the nice sized procession in Ukraine honoring the internationally recognized UOC organized baptism of Rus commemoration – something that some crackpots didn’t like.

    Likewise with the Ukrainian boxer who didn’t go along with the Kiev regime seeking to get his most recent fight taken out of Russia. Upon his victory, the Kiev regime awarded him a title, which he declined.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  237. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Blockading this coastline: http://smartraveller.gov.au/Countries/europe/western/Pages/france.aspx#modal-country is somewhat more difficult than merely “conducting offensive operations”, if it would even have mattered given France’s land borders with Italy and Spain (are we assuming Italy is sitting this one out too?)

  238. @Thorfinnsson

    The British had already assumed responsibility to protect the northern coast of France in 1912 with the Anglo-French naval agreement. In the event of war, Britain would not allow naval attacks against the French coast.

  239. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    Interesting data, though it still seems doubtful to me that the initial non-white immigration wave of the 1950s can be attributed solely to Jewish influence.

    Jews were very heavily involved in even that wave of immigration; for instance the shipping company that owned the famous ‘Windrush’ was Jewish and the minister who authorised it to bring Jamaicans to Britain was Jewish.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/12/jews-the-ss-empire-windrush-and-the-origins-of-multicultural-britain/

    Nevertheless, I agree that it was possible there would have been some sort of guest-worker program without the Jews, but they were the main force in stopping the very strong movement across British society against non-white immigration. For instance, the act banning racial discrimination and introducing hate speech regulations was a Jewish creation.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/11/20/jews-multiculturalism-and-the-war-on-free-speech-a-too-case-file/

    Of course there were some Jews opposing it, like Gerald Nabarro who is the only ‘based Jew’ I can think of off the top of my head, and Thatcher’s heavily Jewish cabinet did not try to restart mass immigration, but this does not detract from the responsiblity of certain other Jews.

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

    • Replies: @German_reader
  240. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    The fact of the matter is that many in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine don’t buy your anti-Russian BS.

    Exactly how many? Provide some facts, not your generally monotonous propagandistic BS.

    Once again noting the nice sized procession in Ukraine honoring the internationally recognized UOC organized baptism of Rus commemoration – something that some crackpots didn’t like.

    Yes, the procession in favor of the UOC commemoration shows that religious tolerance is alive and well in Ukraine. Anything wrong with that?

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @Mikhail
  241. @Respect

    The funniest thing is, Putin will be the ultimate defender of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, just to make sure Poland does not get anything. Germany would hate giving anything to Poland maybe even more than Russia.

    Europe will tolerate this huge Somalia on its outskirts and make encouraging noises until the next Chernobyl-like catastrophe on one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants (built by the USSR and never properly repaired or updated) or on one of the few remaining chemical plants. After that the EU will beg Putin to take hand grenades away from monkeys, with the US just looking on, and will even pay him for the expense of doing so.

    Mind you, Ukraine will remain “independent” (to the same extent it is “independent” now), as Russian populace would not let any ruler absorb this shithole, let alone pay off its debts. But the puppet-master running that pathetic show will change.

    Personally, I’d prefer the US/EU to run it, on general principle “you broke it – you own it”, but I am sure both the US and the EU will shirk this responsibility. Look on the bright side, though: in 50 years Ukraine will surpass Honduras in per capita GDP.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @AP
  242. Vendetta says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    There’s only one scenario I’ve ever read for a Japanese victory in the Pacific that struck me as plausible. And the key premise of it? No attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Suppose there is no first strike from Japan to trigger the war the Roosevelt Administration was goading them into, but the Japanese continue to defy American sanctions and ultimatums. The US ends up declaring war on Japan first under flimsier pretexts – perhaps an American ship in the West Pacific getting torpedoed by a (presumably) Japanese submarine.

    With no Pearl Harbor to leave them crippled, America’s battleships will still be the centerpiece of the US fleet and its plans. The American battle fleet sets sail for the Philippines according to its pre-war plans.

    These plans are ones the Japanese not only knew but built their entire doctrine and fleet to counter. The US battleships run into the air raids from the Japanese carrier strike force, long range torpedo attacks with the Long Lance, night harassment, and finally be pounded upon and finished off by Japan’s own battle line. Whatever slow, straggling battleships limp away from the disaster (these are the old Standards, fast battleships haven’t been commissioned yet) will get picked off by submarines and aircraft.

    Because the ships were all sunk at sea instead of port, there will be no raising and repairing them as was the case for most of the ships hit at Pearl Harbor. Loss of life will be far greater. And because this was a war of choice and not a war of revenge, this military disaster at sea will become a political catastrophe for Roosevelt at home.

    If the Japanese, who’ve won an honorable victory I n this case instead of making a “dastardly” sneak attack, are astute enough to take advantage of this by offering peace on no terms other than being left alone to continue their war in China without US interference, Roosevelt would have been hard pressed to refuse that offer.

    This also offers Germany a route to possible victory in Europe (most others end up blocked by America’s development of the atom bomb no matter how much the Germans win before that). Taking the US out of the equation early is not enough to lead to German victory over Britain and the Soviet Union on its own, however. It merely opens up the possibility of doing so. Actually doing so would require other further departures from history on the part of the Germans.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  243. @DFH

    Gerald Nabarro

    Hadn’t known of him before, according to Wikipedia he was a convert to Christianity, so not typical. Also from a Sephardi family (my impression is the worst subversives are descendants of East European Jews, especially those from the former Russian empire).
    Interesting material, the disproportionate representation of Jews among subversive movements in Britain and the US, countries which historically have been quite generous towards Jews, is rather striking.

  244. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Britain waited until the Afghans were a spent force & the Mughals gone in all but name.

    Destroying kIndian industry and giving Muslims disproportionate positions in the army was surely negative?

    Even sending the British navy to support Pakistan in, 1917 when it commit genocide in Bengal shows ultimately the crown takes its muslim ancestry seriously.

    If it’s moral to massacre non Europeans then I guess it’s fine when they show British girls how rough sex works.

    Cheers,

  245. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Dignity is worth more than life

    You’ve forgotten this so that your own mothers don’t even shed tears on your destruction

  246. Respect says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Very good points .

    In my case , personally , beeing a south european , I prefer that the UE doesn `t give a cent to ukraruina . We are not happy in south Europe with all these old soviet countries who got into the EU , they get a lot of subventions , they send emigrants that lower our salaries , they send a lot of bands of criminals to west europe , and they are vulgar . Even the english rejected the polish inmigration as was evident in the wave of polish phobia that sewpt England in the Brexit referendum .

    So the US can have Ukraruina , you break it , you pay fot it , hehehehhe

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  247. @Duke of Qin

    Sailer and Karlin differ in taking on different enemies, both characteristic of the milieu in which each finds themselves.

    Steve’s adversaries are bubble headed, college-aged chicks who are experimenting with their emergent sexually-hybridized power politics. Anatoly’s are hard-boiled military men possessing fine analytic minds crossed with the sensibilities of truck drivers.

  248. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @LondonBob

    Yup church enforced inter caste marriage created the sort of whorish prolish cuck population that one would expect

  249. gwynedd1 says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    That technology has been in existence for some time.

  250. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m in a western country and love love European, Middle Eastern and North/East African pussy.

    Guess I thank multiculturalism.

  251. @Vendetta

    The trouble with this scenario is that the United States embargoed exports of scrap metal, oil, and gasoline to Japan. The Dutch did agree to sell oil to Japan, but under American pressure offered less than Japan required.

    Thus there was no need for America to declare war first. It could simply starve Japan.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  252. Vendetta says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Historical hindsight leads me to believe that an inverse of the Schlieffen Plan would have been Germany’s most likely pathway to victory in World War I. Maintain a purely defensive posture in the West while focusing decisive offensive power against Russia in concert with Austria-Hungary.

    A coordinated offensive posture in the east (as opposed to the Germans defending at Tannenberg while the Austrians got the bulk of their standing army destroyed while trying to attack on their own in Galicia) would have brought the Russian Empire to its knees sooner than was the case historically (Karlin’s citation of the victory medals the Russians were still making themselves is meaningless; Hitler for instance remained convinced the tide could still turn even as the Red Army was reaching the gates of Berlin).

    Meanwhile France gets to exhaust itself with fruitless attacks in the west, there’s no invasion of Belgium to settle the debate in Britain over whether or not to intervene, Britain isn’t there to draw Italy, Turkey, and America into the war, and Russian morale will collapse all the sooner without Britain’s constant assurances of “just try and hold on a little longer, there will be a breakthrough soon in the West.”

    Hard to see Germany losing such a war unless she makes some spectacular stumbles of her own, but also hard to see how the wisdom of this pathway to victory might have been apparent to the Germans in 1914 using only the facts as they were known at the time.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  253. AP says:
    @Respect

    Ukraina is as dead as your beloved Austrian Empire

    LOL no:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    And I do not understand what ” multicultural tolerance ” you are talking about , since western ukrainians genocided poles in Volyn

    Volyn wasn’t part of the Hapsburg empire but part of Russia. The villagers were simple Orthodox folk who had hundreds of their churches burned down by the Polish government, had been subjected to Polish colonization, were stirred up Galician nationalists who had rejected the Hapsburg legacy and who were inspired in part by Germans, and reacted like Balkan or African savages. It was like the Khmelnytsky revolt which Russians don’t complain about – I wonder why? :-)

    Are you a Serb or Bulgarian?

  254. Gentlemen,
    Little sense to labor points and bring up details that, interesting though they may be, do not fundamentally alter events and should not blur the interpretation of what really happened.

    The essential points are that Britain (or England, as it was then called) desperately wanted a big war to destroy Germany and Russia. England wanted to prevent at any cost an alliance between the world’s number one technological and intellectual powerhouse (Germany) and Russia, with its vast area, untapped resources and dazzling potential. France also wanted to destroy Germany for obvious reasons, while Russia was impatient to seize Constantinople and the Dardanelles and acquire a grip on the Balkan Slavs. After war had broken out, the French government was given assurances that the US would join the war and help achieve the Entente’s war aims.

    In 1918, the job had not yet been finished and thus another big war was needed to give England and the US what they wanted. Therefore, they supported and bankrolled the nazis and helped Hitler come to power. The vast and profound research by Annie Lacroix-Riz (which I doubt will be translated into English) has shown that by the late 1920s, French big business and haute finance also decided to support and finance the nazis, as did their counterparts in Belgium and the Netherlands. With remarkable vision, the French, Belgians and Dutch realized that their only salvation lay in working together with the Germans. This helps to explain the scale of collaboration with the Germans after 1940. Incidentally the (Jewish) bosses of Berlin’s leading banks ALSO supported Hitler and his nazis since 1928.

    Except for the real dying and unspeakable suffering on a massive scale, one gets the impression that both World Wars were elaborate theatrical representations.

    The US came out the strongest after the shooting stopped. However, given the close ties between US and German business established after 1918, it is hardly surprising the US has been emulating the nazi example in those areas where its successes seemed most impressive: propaganda, weaponry (and its use), technology, academia, etc.

    Recently, to the surprise of ever so many in the US, Russia has made a comeback and China is well underway to end US predominance. I personally believe that US predominance has brought us nowhere and that it is about time somebody put an end to it.

    The people of the US deserve to live in a normal and decent country, not in “God’s Own Country” or a “Shining City Upon a Hill.”

  255. AP says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Back to being stupid, I see.

    in 50 years Ukraine will surpass Honduras in per capita GDP.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    Per capita GDP PPP, 2017:

    Ukraine: $8,667
    Honduras: $4,986

    Per capita GDP nominal, 2017:

    Ukraine: $2,640
    Honduras: $2,480

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  256. Respect says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Mr Fack , nobody loves Ukraina . Neither Russia , nor the EU , The US just uses ukropia to harm Russia and the EU .

    You seem to have a delusional idea of a chimeric Habsburgian ukropia/utopia , but nobody likes a country that robs the gas and oil to his neighbours .

  257. Vendetta says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Like I suggested, Japan would have to do some goading of its own to get the Americans to strike first instead.

    Torpedoing a China-bound American merchant vessel or a US Navy destroyer off the Philippines by submarine offers a slim shred of plausible deniability, that together with a defiant stance diplomatically could provoke Roosevelt to either go to war or back down, since he’d already exhausted just about all his other options short of war to punish Japan.

    Obviously if you’re sinking something like the Lusitania this could still backfire and provoke a furious patriotic overreaction, but not as likely if it’s something smaller and less ‘innocent.’

    Perhaps a less risky way of provoking this would be to seize and impound some American merchant shipping, with the crews taken as live hostages. Returning these prisoners alive and unharmed could then be a part of the generous offer to end the war on limited terms.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  258. AP says:
    @LondonBob

    I think Spengler was right when he viewed post-Norman invasion England (and Britain) as essentially a Viking state par excellence. Democratic and laudable at home, but plundering and ruthless abroad.

    Britain has certainly been worse than pre-Nazi Germany or pre-Bolshevik Russia. Would you rather be an Irishman under Britain, or a Tatar, Ukrainian, Latvian, etc. under Russia? Germany was bad in Namibia but produced a model colony in eastern Africa. Britain placed Boers in concentration camps, killings 10,000s of them. British interference during the first world war prolonged the war by years, leading to millions of deaths, and caused the wrong side to win.

    Of course, the genocidal regimes based on 20th century ideologies were much worse than the merely plundering Brits. And in its own way France was probably no better.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    , @DFH
    , @Philip Owen
  259. Vendetta says:
    @Duke of Qin

    Was going to comment on this but Duke of Qin already covered just about all I had to say. Sailer is affable, moderate, more likely to ask questions than to assert his opinions on subjects outside his particular areas of expertise, and he doesn’t get angry in his writing. When he’s mad about something, it shows up in sarcasm, not in a screed. His writing is conversational, not preachy. He brings up a subject, makes a couple of observations about it, adds an anecdote or two, a couple witty one-liners, maybe points out another story it seems connected to.

    Most people are writing lectures, Sailer is writing the openings of conversations, which is why he gets inevitably gets dozens if not hundreds of replies to his posts, no matter what the subject matter (I have yet to come across another writer who can get me to pay attention for more than three seconds to golf course design).

  260. @Vendetta

    The Japs sank the USS Panay of the Yantze Patrol in 1937. No war (though they did apologize and pay compensation).

    The Second Battle of the Atlantic featured unrestricted submarine warfare from the outset. Unlike in 1917, FDR wasn’t able to use this as an excuse for war.

    Torpedoing a US Navy destroyer in the Philippines? That’s an act of war.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  261. @Vendetta

    Your proposed strategy seemed plausible to me as well. But I believe that Hitler’s rancor (justifiable) towards the French in the wake of post WW1 reparations and land seizure goaded him beyond sensibility. Also, having been a soldier in the trenches, his feelings went beyond politics. His hatred and contempt for the French was personal and nothing was going to slake that demon’s thirst but blood, so it seems pointless to try and reimagine that bit of history.

  262. @AP

    You can find any numbers you want on the web. This site (https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-per-capita-ppp) says that Ukrainian GDP (by PPP) was $7894 in 2017, down from $8740 in 2008 or $10464 in 1990, whereas this site (https://tradingeconomics.com/honduras/gdp-per-capita-ppp) shows constant growth of Honduras GDP (indeed, $4542 in 2017).

    On the other hand, this site (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=rLZoW4OgJIO5ggfW75iwBg&q=ukraine+GDP+ppp+per+capita&oq=ukraine+GDP+ppp+per+capita&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1.3063.5853.0.6196.11.11.0.0.0.0.224.946.9j1j1.11.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.942….0.v5cGDbHw3Bs) shows Ukrainian GDP at $2186 in 2016, this site (https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ukraine/gdp-per-capita) shows $2640 in 2017.

    Whatever. The great “success” of the Ukrainian state is clearly reflected by millions of residents working in Poland, Russia, and other countries, as well as in the reluctance of current “government” to conduct a census. Congratulations!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Anon
  263. refl says:
    @Hans Vogel

    “Except for the real dying and unspeakable suffering on a massive scale, one gets the impression that both World Wars were elaborate theatrical representations.”

    I could not say it better. I have believed the mainstream western narrative for forty years – until the Kiew coup in 2014. That disaster taught me to see the geopolitical power play that has been going on since the 1890 at the least.
    It had always seemed odd that Germany should deliberately have started two World Wars, when a simple look at the globe should have told them that in the long game they would not stand a chance.
    The plan of the angloamerican establishment, as you find it in Carol Quigleys writings, was the integration of the english speaking colonies plus the US into a federation with the British empire. This had to be achieved via a joint war effort against Germany which at the time was the main adversary, but certainly an easier one than Russia once it fullfilled its potential.
    Germany was the ramsporn against Russia and as the Prussian elite managed to at least survive defeat and revolution in 1918, a crank was casted who would stop at nothing the second time round.

  264. LondonBob says:
    @AP

    Spengler?!? Not sure who that is and certainly never paid him or her any attention.

    I would rather be an Irishman, you seem to have the odd Irish American perspective there. South Africa was a model colony. In guerilla warfare it is perfectly natural to seek to isolate the populace who support and protect them.

    British interference during the first world war prolonged the war by years, leading to millions of deaths, and caused the wrong side to win. What does inteference mean? How did this prolong the war, and why is this worse than starting the war? How did the wrong side win the war, Britain won?

    You went well over the edge with that one, impressive. Clown.

  265. @AnonFromTN

    Hack’s Law in full swing I see.

    On the other hand, this site (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=rLZoW4OgJIO5ggfW75iwBg&q=ukraine+GDP+ppp+per+capita&oq=ukraine+GDP+ppp+per+capita&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1.3063.5853.0.6196.11.11.0.0.0.0.224.946.9j1j1.11.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.942….0.v5cGDbHw3Bs) shows Ukrainian GDP at $2186 in 2016

    The source for this figure (stated directly beneath the chart) is the World Bank.

    See here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

    It’s for GDP per capita in current US Dollars. This is nominal GDP per capita and in line with AP’s figure.

    The site allows you to sort for GDP per capita PPP as well and gives a figure of $8,666.9 for the Ukraine (how specific). Incidentally higher than 1990, though barely.

    this site (https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ukraine/gdp-per-capita) shows $2640 in 2017.

    This is also nominal. Explicitly states that market exchange rates are used.

    Same website lets you show GDP per capita PPP, along with future IMF forecasts:

    https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ukraine/forecast-gdp-ppp-per-capita

    This took me all of two minutes to assess. The charitable interpretation is that your research skills are poor.

    Whatever. The great “success” of the Ukrainian state is clearly reflected by millions of residents working in Poland, Russia, and other countries, as well as in the reluctance of current “government” to conduct a census. Congratulations!

    How about the great success of the Russian state, reflected by AnonFromTN living and working in the United States of America?

    You have been exposed as being sloppy and wrong. AP is correct.

    And I’m hardly known here as a friend of the Ukraine, which I want eliminated.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Mr. Hack
  266. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonFromTN

    How long until India passes Ukraine as a whole?

    NW & S India already have hence the famous expression:

    You no longer have Dharma nor toilet nor warm weather in Borderland aka Ukraine||

  267. @Thorfinnsson

    Well, I did my search in a few minutes in between my real work (yes, in the US – I work in biological research, and Russia now has very little of it; still many times more than Ukraine, though).

    If you compare the fraction of the population that works abroad, Russian is many time smaller than Ukrainian.

    As to elimination of Ukraine, hate to disappoint: it is not on the cards. Putin is likely to emerge as the ultimate defender of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, just to make sure Poland does not get anything. BTW, Germany would hate giving anything to Poland maybe even more than Russia: Poland annexed a lot of German lands and shows no sign of wanting to return them.

    Europe will tolerate this huge Somalia on its outskirts and make encouraging noises until the next Chernobyl-like catastrophe on one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants (built by the USSR and never properly repaired or updated) or on one of the few remaining chemical plants. After that the EU will beg Putin to take hand grenades away from monkeys, with the US just looking on, and will even pay him for the expense of doing so.

    Mind you, Ukraine will remain “independent” (to the same extent as it is “independent” today), as Russian populace would not let any ruler absorb this shithole, let alone pay off its debts. But the puppet-master running that pathetic show will change. Personally, I’d prefer the US/EU to run it, on general principle “you broke it – you own it”, but I am sure both the US and the EU will shirk this responsibility.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Thorfinnsson
  268. DFH says:
    @AP

    I think Spengler was right when he viewed post-Norman invasion England (and Britain) as essentially a Viking state par excellence. Democratic and laudable at home, but plundering and ruthless abroad.

    Nothing Britain did compares to Frederick’s unjustified annexation of Silesia and Poland (along with Catherine and Russia) or France’s flagrant annexation of neighbouring states under Louis XIV and Napoleon.

    Britain has certainly been worse than pre-Nazi Germany or pre-Bolshevik Russia. Would you rather be an Irishman under Britain, or a Tatar, Ukrainian, Latvian, etc. under Russia?

    Is this a joke? The Irish probably had a higher standard of living than even actual Russians, and were perfectly able to create their own national and cultural organisations.

    Britain placed Boers in concentration camps, killings 10,000s of them.

    Germany violently deported tens of thousands of Poles from their home and tried to destroy their nationality and religion.

    British interference during the first world war prolonged the war by years

    wtf is interference supposed to mean? Britain’s vital interests were at stake in stopping the domination of Europe that Germany wanted. You might as well say that German intereference in the dispute between Serbia and Austria started that war, if you accept that line of argument.

    caused the wrong side to win.

    Do you get turned on by thinking about a giant German empire sprawling across Europe?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @AP
  269. @DFH

    Germany violently deported tens of thousands of Poles from their home and tried to destroy their nationality and religion.

    in imperial Germany? I know German policies against Poles became progressively harsher in the last decades before WW1, but what does “violently deported” (where to?) mean?

  270. iffen says:
    @LondonBob

    Have the Irish ever achieved anything of note?

    They ejected the Anglish from their island for the most part.

    They ran a pretty good police department in NYC for a while.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  271. AP says:
    @DFH

    Nothing Britain did compares to Frederick’s unjustified annexation of Silesia and Poland

    These were certainly badactions too, but Irish were treated worse than Silesians and Poles were.

    Is this a joke? The Irish probably had a higher standard of living than even actual Russians,

    I doubt it but don’t have the time to look this up. % dying of famine in Ireland was huge.

    Britain placed Boers in concentration camps, killings 10,000s of them.

    Germany violently deported tens of thousands of Poles from their home and tried to destroy their nationality and religion.

    British slaughtered 10,000s of Irish people and the Irish native language was successfully eradicated during British rule.

    Nothing the Kaiser’s Germany did was on the scale of what was done to the Boers by the British.

    British interference during the first world war prolonged the war by years

    wtf is interference supposed to mean? Britain’s vital interests were at stake in stopping the domination of Europe that Germany wanted.

    I agree.

    And for the sake its vital interests Britain was willing to have millions of Europeans die, just to prevent something completely natural from happening (the Continent being dominated by its most populous and economically dynamic country).

    caused the wrong side to win.

    Do you get turned on by thinking about a giant German empire sprawling across Europe?

    Were Communism, Nazism or for that matter 21st century post-modern leftism better than what the world had been like had the right side had won World War I by 1916, the likely result had Britain not interfered?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @DFH
  272. AP says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Still dumb and sloppy:

    Europe will tolerate this huge Somalia

    Per capita GDP PPP Ukraine: $8,667 (2017)
    Per capita GDP PPP Somalia: $547 (last recorded in 2010)

    until the next Chernobyl-like catastrophe on one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants (built by the USSR and never properly repaired or updated

    Some of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors, in the country’s West, were built as late as 2004:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine#List_of_reactors

    Bad news: Ukraine’s oldest and largest largest nuclear plant (indeed, the largest in Europe) which was mostly from Soviet times, is in the southeast, upwind from southern Russia:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/1977542f-0f11-4429-9ca6-5886f503f684/ukraine-reactor-types.png.aspx

  273. Vendetta says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    They’ve got to find some way to get the Americans to strike first if they’re going to have a prayer of winning. Figuring out what kind of provocation they could have pulled off to trigger that without whipping the American public into war fever as well may be difficult, but not nearly as difficult as coming up with a plausible scenario for them to win the war offensively as you’ve suggested.

    You’ve already noted the problems with Japan’s shipping shortages which makes any invasion of Hawaii on December 1941 an extreme stretch unless they’re abandoning their landings on most on most of their other initial invasion targets. I’m not going to go ahead and rule out it out as impossible – after all, there’s no reason on paper the British should have surrendered in Singapore, but surrender they still did. A similarly irrational collapse of nerve among the defenders or their commanding officers could deliver the Japanese a victory in Hawaii, although they’re facing rather long odds without it – the Japanese had not developed a good amphibious doctrine yet for landings against determined defenses, as demonstrated in the case of Wake Island.

    Assuming they get as far as step one – which is already going out on a limb – that’s where the real difficulties start piling up. First off, there’s not going to be any fuel reserves captured from Hawaii. The Americans will put it all to the torch if they know the islands are going to be lost.

    Can the Japanese carriers strike the West Coast? Yes they can, a few times. But the logistical difficulties will be far too immense for them to launch the kind of total bombing campaign you’re envisioning.

    First off, Japan has six fleet carriers with enough speed and range to launch these hit-and-run raids on extremely distant targets (assuming none are lost or out of action in the battles it took to secure Hawaii), with about 400 aircraft between them. Can’t tell you the exact composition offhand but it’s a mix of the A6M Zero, D3A Val, and B5N Kate.

    Of these the Val is going to be the only one capable of dropping bombs on ground targets. You have maybe a couple hundred of these, a single engined dive bomber. Far from knocking out all the shipyard capacity on the West Coast, you’re not even going to be putting a dent in it. Compare this situation to that of the Battle of Britain, where the Germans sent many hundreds of larger twin engined bombers and failed to cripple the British war effort, or to the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany, where thousands and thousands of even larger four engined bombers were incinerating entire cities and Germany’s industrial output was still growing, not shrinking in spite of these losses.

    Forget it, these carrier strikes just wouldn’t be capable of delivering the necessary scale of destruction. And there’s more to consider than just securing enough fuel for the ships. All the aviation gasoline and the munitions the planes would need to maintain a high sortie rate would have to get shipped out to Hawaii too. Whatever the Japanese bomb on the West Coast can be repaired afterwards, while any Japanese pilots that get shot down over America are lost for good – they’ll end up running into the same problems of elite pilot attrition as they did historically.

    And sailing the (massively fuel-guzzling) Yamatos all the way up to the US coastline is courting disaster when one of them runs ends up running into an American submarine (the Japanese record at ASW being horrendous right up until the end of the war historically, they lost a ton of big prize ships to US submarines).

    Finally there’s the problem that none of this would break the American will to fight. In fact if the Japanese captured Hawaii with its large American civilian population and treated the people they conquered there similarly as they did to those everywhere else, the American people will hate the Japanese even more fiercely than they did historically.

    The only way to get around all this is for Roosevelt to make the first move and declare war without the backing of the American public.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  274. @Duke of Qin

    Through Steve Hsu I guess. He was kind enough to introduce me to this smart af weird af Jewish weirdo Ron Unz via email too. Can you clarify what you mean exactly by “Chinese reactionary.” Haha, who else besides Daniel Chieh, chinese mom, you, and me. I never felt there were that many Chinese on here; instead, more Russians, particularly Sergey Krieger and Andrei Martyanov.

    By the way, you’re probably at least +2 or even +3 sigma for interesting/knowledgeable even when filtering above, say, a +2 sigma IQ threshold. I was thoroughly impressed by your erudition on Xinjiang, India, and the Muslim world at large. Add me on WeChat (which you can find out by emailing me) and I can tell you more.

    By the way, you’re totally welcome to keep my collection of your quotes (https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/duke-of-qin-unz-review/) up to date. Just email me with the updates, preferably in blockquoted html format (that is, every quote, blockquoted separately, per the current format). And I trust your judgment on the filtering (yes, in case you haven’t noticed, I only took a subset of sufficiently interesting quotes).

    And create additional content too: https://gmachine1729.com/submit-content-for-publication/.

    Also, those of you here who read Chinese would enjoy this: https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/zeldovich-yakov-知乎/. (This is the menu homepage for his quotes, you’ll have to scroll over the actual menu to see the list of pages of his quotes.)

  275. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    How about the great success of the Russian state, reflected by AnonFromTN living and working in the United States of America?

    Very good! Now when are we going to see Thor’s law go into effect: the price of alligator shoes, comparing radial tires; the world carved up between 3-4 dominant empires?

    Although I seldom agree with your conclusions, I am thoroughly impressed with your breadth of knowledge regarding world history and current events. Do you just read history books for kicks or do you have a more formal background in studying history?

  276. @Duke of Qin

    You might also like this: https://gmachine1729.com/lists-and-statistics/中国红歌/.

    Others on Unz Review are welcome to get a taste of Chinese red music too. ;)

  277. @Hans Vogel

    The vast and profound research by Annie Lacroix-Riz (which I doubt will be translated into English) has shown that

    I read French, so can you provide some references please.

  278. @AnonFromTN

    I don’t think any of the the Ukrainian internet defense force posters here pretend that the Ukraine is more economically successful than Russia or is even close to it.

    What they object to is the habit of Russian chauvinists painting Ukraine as on par with a West African country–or Honduras.

    Karlin nailed this one pretty well. Russian chauvinists tend to view the Ukraine in a way comparable to how Westerners view Russia (the gas station with nukes).

    Many Ukrainians live and work in Poland and Russia for more or less the same reason you work in America. Opportunity calls.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Gerard2
  279. @Mr. Hack

    Do you just read history books for kicks or do you have a more formal background in studying history?

    President Thorfinnsson will be the 1st US president since Harry S Truman who didn’t attend university, I believe. Although perhaps we can take up a collection to help him overcome this handicap.

  280. @Mr. Hack

    No formal training in anything. I’ve simply always enjoyed reading and writing since I was a boy.

  281. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Yes, the procession in favor of the UOC commemoration shows that religious tolerance is alive and well in Ukraine. Anything wrong with that?

    More accurately put, it shows that many don’t buy into he kind of anti-Russian BS which you favor. Reasonably objective accounts confirm that the aforementioned procession (involving the UOC with loose ties to the ROC-MP) had a greater participation than the Filaret led one which Porky supports in a most divisive manner.

    Regarding the tolerance in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine:

    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  282. @Vendetta

    “Amphibuous warfare doctrine” was something that America developed in response to assaulting fortified beaches. Despite the 56,000 US Army troops in Hawaii, there were plenty of open beaches available. The early Japanese (and German–see Norway) amphibuous invasions relied on surprise.

    Capturing the Pearl Harbor fuel reserves in tact is indeed a stretch, but not impossible. Germany for instance captured a number of in tact refineries during Operation Blue.

    I agree that Japan’s carrier aviation was not up to the task of destroying America’s ports and shipyards on the West Coast. The task they were up to was providing air cover for Japan’s battleships to destroy these ports and shipyards.

    Is this all a longshot? Sure. I can think of many, many things that could go wrong. For instance, the Hawaii invasion force might well be defeated by determined American defenders, leading to the loss of 100,000 men at the outset of the war. Woops.

    But what I outlined was not fundamentally impossible.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  283. Chuck says:
    @Duke of Qin

    Stop LARPing as a Chinaman.

  284. ricpic says:

    So much better to go through life as a Swiss than to be ground up and ground down as a citizen/subject of a “great” nation with hegemonic ambitions.

  285. inertial says:
    @inertial

    AK: I am sure that the bulk of the literature on the Soviet economy (and one’s own lying eyes) is propaganda. I suppose Glossy’s parents must have been hoodwinked, having emigrated to the US in the 70s or 80s.

    Have you ever wondered why every single of your commenters who has personal experience of the USSR is anti-anti-Soviet? Even though we are the ones who supposedly suffered the under the brutal Commie yoke.

    Propaganda usually isn’t outright lies, it’s just not the whole truth. That’s how the Soviet propaganda worked too, only with the opposite sign. Anyway, the point is that there is a lot about the USSR that you don’t know because you weren’t told about it.

    We already discussed the economy. It had major weaknesses but major strengths too. Overall, it provided a decent if not spectacular standard of living that generally kept up with the West but with no hope of catching up. And economy is not everything.

    I know you believe that the alternative Tsarist Russia would’ve had all the good points from our timeline with none of the bad, but that’s just, like, you opinion, man. I am really skeptical of this fanboyism. To me, you are the exact mirror image of the folks who think that if the Soviet Union hadn’t been destroyed by traitors and foreign agents it would’ve been building space colonies.

    As for Glossy, according to my calculations, his parents emigrated around 1992.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  286. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    You cannot build any kind of popular movement, let alone a nationalistic one, while pissing on recent past. At best, you’d fail; at worst, you’d succeed and open the doors wide for the poz.

    And yeah, creating working synthesis is hard. But it’s your job if you call yourself a nationalist. Or else you’d be the one in the dumpster.

  287. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    I’m for free expression, pro and against. Everybody was allowed to express themselves, SO WHAT’s THE PROBLEM?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Respect
  288. dfordoom says: • Website
    @LondonBob

    Sounds like you and your family have deeper issues.

    Australians just adore fighting other people’s wars for them. Seriously, they do. If the war happens to be entirely pointless it’s even better.

  289. bj says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    “There is nothing wrong with racism or racial discrimination, and the idea that these are wrong must be abandoned.”

    I agree one hundred percent. If it’s good enough for Jews, it’s good enough for me.

  290. @Anatoly Karlin

    Ron Unz seems to think otherwise about his own people… what’s that he discovers that you are unable to. Perhaps, this article for once should have focused on a people who are clearly the shakers of the world. I don’t think the commentator’s obsession can in any way alter truth, which what should be the focus. Just saying…

  291. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bucky

    Japan erred greatly in doing Pearl Harbor.

    They should have simply attacked the Phillipine. Americans could hardly care about them.

    They should have ignored the Americans and confined their attacks to the colonial possessions of the British (Hong Kong, Malaya), the Dutch (the Dutch East Indies) and the French (Indo-China). None of those European powers were in any position to do anything effective about it. That would have given the Japanese a nice little empire.

  292. @Thorfinnsson

    Do you mean to say that this view is just as wrong? I am not so sure. I have no access to Russian propaganda, whereas I am constantly bombarded by the American one (even though I did not watch TV for 10+ years, it is hard to avoid propaganda completely). My info about Ukraine is from friends and relatives who are still there, less than half of them in Donbass, with the rest in Kiev-controlled Ukraine, from Lvov to Kiev to Kharkov region.

    BTW, Russians used to view Ukraine as something similar to Russia. Bad feelings emerged only after the coup in 2014 and the rise of rabidly anti-Russian stance of CIA-installed thugs. In fact, Donbass people are a lot more militant: you can get punched in the face for speaking Ukrainian there, whereas in Russia proper it’s OK. That’s understandable, though: nobody shoots and shells Russians in Russia proper.

    As to working abroad, it is indeed the matter of opportunity. The telling thing is the fraction of the population doing that: how many people see this opportunity trumping remaining in your own country. Believe me, moving to a different country has a lot of drawbacks. Besides, my job was always pretty clean and exciting, from post-doc to full professor and endowed chair. Most Ukrainians in Poland and Russia are employed in low-skill grunt jobs: construction workers at best, fruit pickers and toilet cleaners at worst. Just think how bad the situation must be to make these jobs look like lucrative opportunities.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Cyrano
    , @Thorfinnsson
  293. @Hans Vogel

    Surely, it must be the nazi dream come true.

    Absolutely false.

    Read Marx’s commie manifesto and you’ll see whose dreams have come true. It’s clear that the Nazis were an attempted reaction against the longstanding evils of the Reds of the time and what we have now is a global mafia controlling virtually everything . It was a nightmare that the Nazis tried to prevent.

    The rest of your comment describes reality well.

  294. @for-the-record

    Germany still attacked though Belgium (which Britain was treaty-bound to uphold)

    No treaty ever bound Britain any more than any treaty ever bound the USA to anything. Treaties have probably been broken by those two more often than honored. See US Rep Claude Kitchin’s speech to congress in Denson’s, The Cost of War, p503

    Also, there are those who argue that Belgium had broken its neutrality before Germany invaded because of its dealings with Britain, I believe.

  295. @Marcus

    Germany 1871-1945 was a one trick pony (unparalleled military tradition)

    Citation please or it’s a BS claim. Ridiculous, too.

  296. @Duke of Qin

    Didn’t stop Germany from reclaiming it’s top spot as Europe’s strongest economy by 1945 though. Germany had one thing other countries didn’t; Germans.

    Things are not so simple. North Korean have something most other countries don’t have: ethnic Koreans. The internal system used matters a great deal, as well as the external circumstances not just the people. And I don’t think I’ll have to educate you on the Marshall plan. Even beyond that, Germany was already an industrial power pre-WWII so the knowhow was there, which is another crucial factor.

    Ask two economists and get three opinions.

    Not on China’s leveraging. I say this as someone who wishes China well and genuinely likes the country, as well as Xi’s social/cultural instincts.

    China’s legacy of Maoism is problematic because it necessitates a veneration of a man whose legacy was largely catastrophic. This includes his economic ideas. Thus even if outright economic Maoism is implausible in China, it nevertheless lends credence to a brand of economic thinking which is inefficient and overly centralised, because any Chinese leader who wishes to go that way can always invoke the Great Helmsman. A Party which claims he was “70% right” cannot easily disassociate themselves so surgically from his legacy. And there is wide agreement within China as well as outside it that it’s debt-fuelled expansion has been problematic. China is far more indebted than other East Asian countries were at a similar level of development, and this is even using official data.

    To AK. I’ll write this here in order to avoid multiple replies.

    China was of course never in any danger of peaking at 800 million. It was at 500 million after WW2. As a Third World country with its demographic transition still ahead of it, a massive population spurt was inevitable. It would probably be around where it is regardless

    Well, you’re the demographic expert and not me, but this only strengthens my argument even more about the problems of the legacy of Maoism, since even the silver lining used (demography) is largely null and void whereas the disastrous economic legacy argument is still intact. This plays out today, because there was never a clean break with him.

    My general impression (though I don’t follow the debate closely) is that under Xi, many of the SOEs have actually been cleaned out.

    Many SOEs have been consolidated and in fact given greater importance. I am not an ideologue on SOEs in of itself. But the returns to investment from SOEs are much lower, and this has been shown conclusively by using official data Nick Lardy from PIIE among others. So I’m just following the data and the data shows that the private sector is getting less loans while the SOE sector is getting more, even as returns fall. The result is that leverage is exploding. So why does he do it? Control. That’s the political dimension.

    Would you be interested in writing an article for The Unz Review outlining in detail your analysis of GDP growth manipulation in China, India, and Turkey?

    While I do write about it, I should caution you that I am actually specialised in productivity research. I simply have a general interest in macroeconomics, which most people in my field do (after all, that’s why we got in).

    Secondly, I’m not sure what I would add that isn’t already known. It’s not like I am sitting on some great treasure trove of suppressed information or a unique angle. I’m simply pointing out information which is out there, though admittedly most of it is based on academic papers and a few obscure blogposts by various professors. Anyone willing to dive deeper into the subject can just go to those sources, they usually have a list of papers in of themselves and a good summary for each nation. Professor Harry Xu’s papers on China is a good start. He’s the erstwhile Angus Maddison’s research partner on China. Professor Erik Meyerson’s research on Turkey. Finally, prof Ajay Shah on India. Each of them in turn have a network of professors which they also draw from. It’s not my specialised field but theirs.

  297. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. XYZ

    However, would non-democratic states be as responsive to the needs of the people?

    The idea that liberal democracies are responsive to the needs of the people is an illusion. Liberal democracies use deception and manipulation to give that impression.

    In reality non-democratic states may actually be more responsive to the needs of their citizens.

    Did Churchill care more about the British people than Hitler cared about the German people? I very much doubt it.

    Democracy has had very good propagandists working on its behalf.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  298. dfordoom says: • Website
    @DFH

    Allying with the Ottomans was bad

    Why?

  299. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Mass immigration and multiculturalism are mostly due to Jewish activism after the war.

    I’m not sure that’s plausible, even if there undoubtedly are many subversive Jews in Britain.

    Britain has been wrecked by its own homegrown British elites. The same vicious hypocritical slime who had been responsible for so much of Britain’s disgusting and ultimately self-defeating foreign policy over the centuries.

    There’s something peculiarly poisonous about British elite types. Perhaps it’s the combination of arrogance, incompetence and feeble-mindedness. What’s really odd is the hatred the British elites feel for anything actually British.

    With elites like that Britain has had no need for Jews.

  300. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    As for relevance, I have to admit I find the obsession of many British people with past glory and the world wars somewhat pathetic,

    Past glories are all they have.

    • Agree: utu
  301. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Have the Irish ever achieved anything of note?

    They ejected the Anglish from their island for the most part.

    And now they’re possibly the only nation more pathetically pozzed than the Brits.

  302. AP says:
    @inertial

    Have you ever wondered why every single of your commenters who has personal experience of the USSR is anti-anti-Soviet?

    I suspect some combination of – “lost generation”, too old to adapt to the new world fully, and bitter; good childhood memories; defensiveness because it’s hard or admit one’s hardships and those of one’s parents and grandparents were all for nothing, essentially (not an unhealthy approach).

    Overall, it provided a decent if not spectacular standard of living that generally kept up with the West but with no hope of catching up

    Kept up at a very low level. Not desperate, third-world low level, but very pathetic for European peoples. Of course those living that life didn’t know any better, there was more equality so they couldn’t compare make live comparisons, they were living better than their parents and grandparents, so they may have been satisfied and accepting of their personal circumstances, maybe even more satisfied than today.

  303. AP says:
    @AnonFromTN

    My info about Ukraine is from friends and relatives who are still there, less than half of them in Donbass, with the rest in Kiev-controlled Ukraine, from Lvov to Kiev to Kharkov region.

    And it is clear what that info is worth when you compare the country to Somalia or state in 50 years it will reach Honduras.

    Most Ukrainians in Poland and Russia are employed in low-skill grunt jobs: construction workers at best, fruit pickers and toilet cleaners at worst.

    https://www.ft.com/content/aeda9ebe-3afa-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

    “Ukrainians earn the same wages as Poles, they’re not cheap labour, as opposed to Poles hired in western Europe,” says Blazej Madejski, vice-president of Pro-Net Media, which installs telecoms and electricity transmission lines and is Mr Talalai’s employer. “There are few Poles left in [construction] here as they work in the EU. Without the Ukrainians, our company couldn’t be efficient.”

    While you are correct that most are involved on physical work, it is not necessarily unskilled – many of the construction jobs in Poland are skilled, such as electrical work or plumbing, and pay well even by Russian standards (Polish salaries are much higher than Russian ones).

    As to working abroad, it is indeed the matter of opportunity. The telling thing is the fraction of the population doing that: how many people see this opportunity trumping remaining in your own country.

    Ukraine obviously is much poorer than Russia. However when comparing the two countries, % working abroad is not a very valid measure – most of Ukraine is within a day’s drive of the Polish border, and there are no restrictions for working in Poland. Russia is much more isolated geographically due to its sheer size. For similar reasons a higher % of Poles work abroad than do Russians, but this doesn’t mean Poland is poorer than Russia – Poland has much higher salaries than does Russia.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  304. Seraphim says:
    @DFH

    The fact that France and Germany did the same bad thing does not lessen British guilt.
    Russia was an ally of the Ottoman Empire too (the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi – 1833), which pissed off the British no time, leading to the policy of Palmerston that “the Ottoman Empire was to be preserved, supported, reformed, and strengthened.” and the Russians kept at bay. The treaty slowly fell into abeyance and it was practically invalidated by the Crimean War.
    Committing a voluntary anachronism you can say that the famous hymn of British ‘jingoism’: “We don’t want to fight but by Jingo if we do,/We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too,/We’ve fought the Bear before, and while we’re Britons true,/The Russians shall not have Constantinople”, originated then.

  305. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    The problem(s) noted in Joshua Cohen’s linked article, as well as numerous others.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  306. utu says:
    @German_reader

    If I remember correctly he is Wasserpolnisch. This may explain his Uber-British pride.

  307. @dfordoom

    Hitler cared about the German people.
    Traudl Junge, with Melissa Müller, ‘Until the final hour’, London, 2004
    Churchill tried to kill Hess in May 1941, he did not want peace.
    Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, ‘Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up’, London 2002
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998

  308. @Hans Vogel

    ” In 1918, the job had not yet been finished and thus another big war was needed to give England and the US what they wanted. Therefore, they supported and bankrolled the nazis and helped Hitler come to power. ”
    Anyone who understands how Schacht from 1933 on resurrected Germany economically knows that it was done without any outside help, just clever Keynesian policies, with control of wages.
    In order not to be dependent on outside financing Schacht began international barter.
    This made bankers furious.
    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  309. Cyrano says:
    @AnonFromTN

    The desire to be liked by the west is one of the most self-loathing and destructive display of attempts at self-validation that many Slavic nations have fallen victims to.

    Even Russia for a brief period (1991- 2000) succumbed to this deadly delusion of seeking approval from US as a way of getting a confidence in their self-worthiness.

    If US seek proof of their superiority over the Slavs by having them kiss their a** es, they’ll always have their Polaks, the Russians are simply too good for such a scheme, too much they have accomplished in their history as a nation to lover themselves to the ranks of the lesser Slavs like the Polaks and the Ukrainians (and the Croats, I might add).

    Mind you, not all Russians are equally smart, there are some idiots among them too. Like that character Navalny, he is so stupid, someone should make him an honorary Ukrainian.

    But, for the most part, Russians have always displayed the ability to quickly recover from any disastrous tendencies such as a desire to be liked by the west. As far as the Russians are concerned – that streetcar called desire (to be liked by the west) left the station in the year 2000 – when Putin came to power.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  310. @Jon Halpenny

    Not entirely correct.
    USA neutrality laws forbade loans to warring parties, this was circumvented by giving them credit, that is, GB and France.
    This began in 1914.
    Later loans became legal.
    In the 1938 Nye investigation into why the USA went to war militarily the question was asked as to the difference between credit and loan.
    The answer: none

  311. @Thorfinnsson

    The Japanese admiral, forgot his name, who in Japan led the strike on Pearl Harbour understood very well.
    When he was told by the proud Japanese who had carried out the attack that the three carriers had not been destroyed, he became white in the face.
    FDR knew the hour the attack would take place, Kimmel, who accepted to put the USA fleet in the ‘mousetrap’ Pearl Harbour, had sent the three carriers on excercise before the attack.
    Mainly scrap iron was destroyed, as demonstrates the fate of the British battle ships Repulse and Prince of Wales.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  312. @refl

    The blockade was so succesful that an escaped British POW was caught on a German railway station because he ate white bread, from his food packet.
    The Germans had not seen white bread in years.
    James W. Gerard, ‘My four years in Germany’, New York, 1917
    After the capitulation GB continued the blockade, 900.000 German deaths.
    The situation was so horrible that British occupation troops began to revolt
    But GB had success, the Weimar Republic did sign the Versailles Diktat.
    Of course, it was sabotaged where possible

  313. Respect says:
    @Mr. Hack

    You are only in favor of YOUR own free expression , NOT of russian ukranians free expression

    You just parrot the silly western ( or globalist angloyankee ) slogans that are provoking the decadence of the west . You do not show common sense , that`s your problem .

    I think that ukraina collectively has the lowest IQ country in Europe , and one of the lowest in the world .

    Congratulations to Russia for getting rid of such moronic , bad faith and destructive country as ukraruina .

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  314. @jilles dykstra

    Memoirs always need to be treated with caution. I suggest you read Preparata’s 2005 book on precisely Hitler’s finances and Schacht’s rôle

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  315. Respect says:
    @Hans Vogel

    ah ! , if the french napoleons had not invaded and destroyed Spain ,

    ah ! if the mexicans had not lost California , New Mexico , Arizona , Texas , Nevada Utah , Colorado , Florida , Luisiana …..

    History would have been different , don`t you think so ?

    Just elucubrations .

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  316. @Respect

    Please, do not put words in my mouth or–Heavens forbid–suggest I engage in counterfactual history.

    • Replies: @Respect
  317. Respect says:
    @Hans Vogel

    No , no , it is just spanish elucubrations , I don`t put any word in your mouth .

    why germany doesn`t back spain with the catalonian rebellion ? and protects with judicial tricks the rebel puigdemont ? , we are very dissapointed with what we tought were our german friends , with friends like this who needs ennemies .

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  318. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Actually, Russia did not try to expand in the Balkans because she was blocked in Asia. Russia was always a presence, and a significant one at that, in the Balkans and Black Sea (where she was ‘at home’ for centuries). It was Austro-Hungary and Germany which wanted to reverse the gravitation towards Russia of the Balkans and to control the Straits and that was the reason of the state of tension between Russia and Austro-Hungary. The so-called ‘blocking’ of Russian expansion was in fact the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 or the Convention between the United Kingdom and Russia relating to Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet, establishing their spheres of influence. It was meant rather to block the expansion of Germany in these spheres.
    The expansion of Russia was to the Far East as the building of the Transsiberian Railway illustrate.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  319. @for-the-record

    Indeed it is, so there is no impediment to reading it! Preparata was denied tenure as a result of it, which fact accurately reflects the utter demise of academia, not only in the US, but everywhere in the “West.” What is generally taught at colleges and universities under the name of “history” is a case in point: most of it consists of rather boring fairy tales studded with high-sounding terms such as “democracy,” “liberty,” “freedom,” “western values,” etc. Nevertheless, guys like Preparata, Irving and such are treated little better than heretics during the darkest years of the Middle Ages, merely for producing thoroughly documented studies that contradict orthodoxy.

  320. @Respect

    Germany could never support Catalan independence, because if it did, this would set a precedent and open the door for the independence of Bavaria, Saxony and perhaps Hamburg. Moreover, Germany is still an occupied country (since 1945) and not an independent state itself. I am afraid that if Catalonia really wants independence, Catalans should be prepared to fight a long and bitter war of independence.

  321. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra

    The Admiral was Isoroku Yamamoto.
    The British battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales have been sunk near Singapore on 10 December ’41.
    The ‘scrap iron’ destroyed at Pearl Harbour were American battleships: Arizona, Nevada, West Virginia, Oklahoma.

  322. Seraphim says:
    @Seraphim

    The taboo is ‘Jews made the revolution and are responsible for millions of Russian deaths’, not on holding a considerable degree of appreciation for Jewish cultural and scientific accomplishments…Jews’ verbal IQ-powered political acumen.. and pointing out that ‘Russia is one of Europe’s more pro-Israel countries, and according to the ADL, it is more philo-Semitic than almost any other East European nation’.

    “That said, I am not one of those people who ascribe the Bolshevik Revolution to Jews – the Bolsheviks were a predominantly ethnic Russian party, and it was the Balts, not Jews, who were instrumental in terrorizing central Russia into submission in the critical early months of the Civil War”.

  323. Seraphim says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Among the prophets who had the vision of “dying en mass in the trenches were

    “Jan Gotlib (Bogumił) Bloch (Russian: Иван Станиславович Блиох or Блох) (July 24, 1836, Radom – December 25, 1901/1902, Warsaw) Jewish- Polish banker and railway financier who devoted his private life to the study of modern industrial warfare. He published six-volume work, “Budushchaya voina i yeyo ekonomicheskie posledstviya (Russian: Будущая война и её экономические последствия – Future war and its economic consequences), popularized in English translation as Is War Now Impossible?, in Paris in 1898″. Bloch concluded that new arms technology (e.g. smokeless gunpowder, improved rifle design, Maxims) had rendered maneuvers over open ground, such as bayonet and cavalry charges, obsolete and that a war between the great powers would be a war of entrenchment and that rapid attacks and decisive victories were likewise a thing of the past. Such a war would become a duel of industrial might, a matter of total economic attrition. Severe economic and social dislocations would result in the imminent risk of famine, disease, the “break-up of the whole social organization” and revolutions from below.
    and
    “Tsar Nicholas II, who impressed by these conclusions issue his famous rescript that was to result in the First Hague Peace Conference (1899), followed by the second in 1907. A major effort in both conferences was the creation of a binding international court for compulsory arbitration to settle international disputes, which was considered necessary to replace the institution of war as well of limitation armaments, interdiction of the most destructive arms, interdiction of aerial bombardments, rules of conducting the war.
    Yes, the ‘bloody’ Tsar hell bent on invading all and sundry, taking advice from a Jew (and the ‘Railroad Baron’ at that – so much for the restrictions that the Jews suffered under the Tsars).

    The Germans probably saw a Russian-Jewish conspiracy to disarm them and resisted the proposals.

  324. Seraphim says:
    @Logan

    Probably the Schlieffen Plan would have succeeded, had Germany not attacked Russia, disregarding the advice of Bismarck to never attack Russia.
    “The vitality of the Russian will not be less tenacious; In our opinion, we will always do the best we can to treat them as an elementary danger against which we maintain protective dikes, but which we can not remove from the world. By attacking today’s Russia, we would consolidate its cohesion; but by awaiting her attack we may experience her inner decay and decomposition sooner than her attack”.
    Bismarck was contemplating the possibility of revolution in Russia.
    Hitler did not make the same mistake and France was eliminated in no time. But he made the same mistake of not heading Bismarck’s advice not to attack Russia.

    • Replies: @Logan
  325. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    Another one of your stupid replies, Mickey. Joushua Cohen’s linked article is informative and does indeed point out that the central government in Ukraine needs to show more caution and reel in the antics of right wing extremists. But the peaceful demonstrations of two different religious denominations in Kyiv is indeed reflective of a society that is moving forward in the realm of freedom of expression, a sign of a healthy society. Don’t obfuscate the two situations, as you’re so prone to do.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  326. @Seraphim

    Britain was Japan’s ally during the Russo-Japanese war, although the British did not take part in the combat. Russia could expand no further in east Asia after defeat to the Japanese. And the 1907 agreement re Persia was at a time Russia was weak following the defeat by Japan.

    Russia had nowhere left to expand except towards Constantinople and the Balkans

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @Seraphim
  327. @AnonFromTN

    The Ukraine was doing a lot worse than Russia long before the Maidan. The post-Maidan recession was steep, but brief.

    Bad feelings are understandable, but there are no data to suggest that the Ukraine is Honduras.

    Fruit picking and toilet cleaning aren’t that bad. If you can get paid four or five times what you’d get paid in your current job right now, you might consider those jobs as well.

    As the child of immigrants my view is that generally almost all immigrants underrate the difficulties off immigration.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @AnonFromTN
  328. Mr. Hack says:
    @Respect

    You are only in favor of YOUR own free expression , NOT of russian ukranians free expression

    Nonsense.

    I think that ukraina collectively has the lowest IQ country in Europe , and one of the lowest in the world .

    Based on your writing style and inability to effectively communicate, I think that you exhibit the lowest IQ of any commentator that I’ve seen here in a long, long time. Bye, bye, durachok!

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Respect
    , @Respect
  329. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Bad feelings are understandable, but there are no data to suggest that the Ukraine is Honduras

    .

    The Hondurans are a gifted people. I own some of their pottery, some of the finest that you’ll find in Central America.

  330. @Marcus

    It sort of is. Germany was somewhat less productive than the Anglos (about 75% of the UK level and 2/3 of the American), but otherwise, its technological level was extremely high – it dominated Nobel Prize science, and was far ahead of the Anglos in the newer chemicals and electronics industries (so much so that their industries couldn’t even implement some German blueprints in those areas, requisitioned as part of reparations after WW1).

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @Marcus
  331. @Mr. XYZ

    Re-Germany. Okay, German population might be lower than 150 million. But I don’t think by much. Note that apart from fewer missing military-age males and greater natalism propaganda, they’d also have highly-fertile settlers planting themselves on East European farmsteads, and they planned to Germanize a minor percentage of the Slavs (small in relative terms, but very considerable in absolute numbers).

  332. @Thorfinnsson

    Okay, thanks, that’s a good counterpoint.

  333. @AP

    1. There were 8.5 million people in Ireland on the eve of the Great Famine – that’s around half the population of Great Britain. Around 1 million died, another 1-2 million emigrated; by independence, its population was down to 3 million. It is still the only country in the world to have had a higher population two centuries ago (!) than today.

    From what I recall of reading about it – most of the prime land in Ireland was controlled by English absentee landlords, who used it to grow grain and beef. The Catholic Irish grew potatoes on the more marginal, rocky lands to the south and west (also the regions where the Irish language remains commonly spoken today). The potato blight affected those areas hardest, while the English estates were fine and continued exporting food to Great Britain. Although there were calls to provide famine relief, the dominant philosophy of laissez-faire precluded them from sending food aid or even banning Irish food exports (which by itself would have been enough to prevent the famine); Malthusianism was also in vogue, with the famine also being seen as a way to control the soaring Irish population. In the event, the largest dollop of aid (funnily enough) came from the Ottoman Empire, which as I recall send a couple of ships with grain to the Irish. There are even some monuments thanking the Sultan for that in Ireland and possibly Boston.

    The decline of population pressure after the famine and emigration contributed to an increase in Irish living standards, which indeed must have risen considerably above those of the Russian Empire after the 1840s. That is sort of what would happen when most of the impoverished subsistence farmers die out or continuously emigrate for the next century, while the more Anglicized Irish in the east, who operate in the context of a developed market economy as opposed to a subsistence one, remain.

    2. I don’t see how Great Britain could possibly be blamed for interfering in WW1 in pursuit of its own interests (preventing a European hegemon).

    I mean France, too, resisted the German attack. Should it also have surrendered at the outset to “prevent something completely natural from happening”?

    In any case the dominant view – apart from a narrow circle of prophets – was that the war would be over by Christmas.

    • Replies: @AP
  334. Mitleser says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Yes, there was. In the Russian Empire.
    Why expand abroad if you can practice inland colonization?

    Give Russia 20 years of internal and external peace and quiet and it will change beyond recognition.

    - Pyotr Stolypin

  335. @inertial

    Have you ever wondered why every single of your commenters who has personal experience of the USSR is anti-anti-Soviet?

    This is incorrect both here, and in IRL.

    I know plenty of people (non-liberals) who both lived in the USSR and are anti-Soviet. If you don’t, maybe you should get out more and talk to more Russians.

    Overall, it provided a decent if not spectacular standard of living that generally kept up with the West but with no hope of catching up. And economy is not everything.

    Of course the economy isn’t everything. Too bad that the USSR failed on almost everything in that sphere too.

    Science – Lagging.
    Culture – Maintained high culture in crystallized form, but failed to create novelties.
    Moral values – Abortion, divorce, alcoholization, etc. rates all very high
    Homicide rates – Equalled US rates, far above US White rates
    Corruption – Endemic, if generally petty, because you can’t get ultra-rich; but underlying moral values of its society fully revealed in the 1990s.
    Inequality – Formally low, like Scandinavia, but in practice, most inequality expressed itself in terms of access; and this inequality was very high.
    Soft Power – Attractive to some Western intellectuals and Third Worlders, discredited by the 1980s.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @inertial
  336. @Anatoly Karlin

    I should like to know your soureces for those figures on productivity; are these contemporary or the outcome of later calculations?

  337. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Thanks for the info about Ireland.

    2. I don’t see how Great Britain could possibly be blamed for interfering in WW1 in pursuit of its own interests (preventing a European hegemon).

    I mean France, too, resisted the German attack. Should it also have surrendered at the outset to “prevent something completely natural from happening

    There’s a moral difference between going to war to defend oneself against an invader of one’s own territory (completely understandable) and going to war to prevent some other power from eclipsing one’s own. If the USA decided to go to war against China or Russia*, resulting in millions dead, to prevent their eclipsing the USA or achieving old world dominance, this is would be immoral and evil. It might be understandable why they would do it, but it would still be an evil thing to do. An exception might be made if these rising powers explicitly called for world domination and conquest (as in the case of Nazism or Bolshevism, or if there were some kind of a rising technologically enhanced expansionist Islamic superpower) but otherwise it is just wrong.

    *Okay, Russia will never be in a position to do this, thanks to the 20th century, but theoretically

    • Replies: @Anon
  338. @Polish Perspective

    Thanks for the reply.

    The reason we would be happy for you to write about it is:

    (1) Ron Unz himself is interested in this topic, and would like to publish a piece about it on the UR. It is extremely likely that it would be featured on the front page.

    In particular, Ron is suspicious about the Indian figures because it appears to him that they produce very little while claiming good GDP numbers.

    Since so much of their economy is domestic and based on services and the government is so notoriously corrupt and incompetent, I really wonder whether the statistics can be trusted. According to Wikipedia, China’s per capita PPP GDP is only about twice as large, but can that really be correct?

    While there’s at least a few popular articles on the Chinese numbers, I think there’s basically none about the Indian ones.

    (2) Obviously it doesn’t need to be written to an academic level. Even though you don’t specialize in that field, you are obviously very well informed about it (relative to other non-specialists who don’t specifically study that), and just recounting the general arguments and your assessment of them would be very valuable.

    (3) If I were to do it, it would either be (a) inferior, since I don’t myself follow these debates closely – certainly not to the point of reading papers and obscure blog posts about it; (b) I would have to spend a couple of weeks researching it, which unfortunately I don’t have the time for.

    Anyhow, it’s up to you, of course. But it is something that Ron, myself, and surely many other UR readers interested in “Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media” would be very interested to read about.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    , @Mitleser
  339. The Irish author Tim Pat Coogan, in his book, “The Famine Plot, England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy”, claimed a figure of 1.7 million for excess mortality in the Famine years. This would be 20% of the estimated population in 1845.

  340. Marcus says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Nevertheless, Germany didn’t recognize the importance of oil or motorization/mechanization until well after Anglo-French: they hardly produced any of their own tanks in WWI and were still dependent on the lightweight mark II panzer in the early years of WWII.

  341. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AP

    If one of those powers invaded a state that both it and the US were bound by treaty to defend, US intervention would be more understandable, though its merits would be debatable.

  342. Marcus says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Homicide rates – Equalled US rates, far above US White rates

    I know things were already pointing towards a 90s style collapse in the mid 80s, but this seems hard to believe

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  343. @Cyrano

    Navalny is not particularly smart, but he is not clinically stupid, like sincere believers in Western superiority. He just knows which side of his bread is buttered. His wife’s Gucci handbags attest to that.

    Historically Poles and Ukrainians always chose the losing side in every conflict they were involved in. There is stiff competition between them for the honorary title of alpha-losers. Kurds can compete with either, so these three share the first, second, and third place in this category. For the normal people it does not matter which ones are the champions.

  344. @Thorfinnsson

    Sorry to ruin your glass house, but with the same effort and education I can make 10 times more in finance or similar occupation, or 3 times more in the pharmaceutical industry. But I won’t do it. My most important reason is that I enjoy my freedom. When you are funded, even your department chair is not your boss, just a colleague. I also enjoy the creativity necessary in my line of work. When in your short lifetime you figure out something that evolution spent millions of years creating and perfecting, you feel very good. Besides, I do not approve of fraudsters, and both banks and pharma companies are the ultimate cheats, like Pentagon contractors.

    In my book, money is not the only metric of success, not even in the top five. From my perspective, Einstein, Dostoyevsky, Bach, or Mozart were a lot more successful than Jeff Bezos.

  345. For the potential alternate histories of the USSR/Russia, how do you think Trotskyism would have affected Russian history? What would Trotsky have done for the USSR, had he won out over Stalin?

    • Replies: @Respect
  346. Respect says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Mr Fack , enjoy this magnificent austrian Habsburg style , unfortunately gone with the wind , now enjoy Conchita Wurst

  347. Respect says:
    @ImmortalRationalist

    what if … what if ….. if my grandmother would have a penis it would be my grandfather

  348. @Marcus

    The failure of the Germans to develop a good tank in WW1 was indeed surprising, but only in light of Germany’s great automotive strength (the modern car and internal combustion engine were both developed in Germany!).

    German Dreadnoughts, pound for pound, were superior – more heavily armored; running on oil, not coal – to British ones. Krupp guns were a byword for excellence in artillery throughout the 19th century. I don’t recognize the world you paint.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  349. @Marcus

    RSFSR murder rate ranged between 5-10/100,000.

    US rate: Likewise.

    • Replies: @AP
  350. @Marcus

    These are mere technological details that essentially only marginally impact on the outcome of a conflict. One may have the fanciest of equipment, yet if one doesn’t know how to use it properly, it will all be useless.

    Much more important was the informal German command style, i.e. Auftragstaktik, which was so much more superior than the Anglo-saxon Befehlstaktik, or strictly following orders. Yet due to the Anglo-saxons gaining the upper hand in the World Wars by sheer economic and demographic weight, this “management style” has now become prevalent in the “west.” It is all just protocol with no room for personal interpretation. Protocol dumbs people down, just look at the intellectual level of the average US person or the average EU subject (though still slightly superior). That is also why the educational system has been dismantled everywhere in the “west.” The elites and governments do not need people, they need stupid people.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  351. I appreciate the sales pitch. Not bad! Though I am serious about my non-expertise. I am simply reading academic papers and obscure but highly erudite and well-sourced posts (here and here) made by the real experts in the field. If Unz, who is a very smart guy, wants to dig in on Indian GDP statistics, those three are good starting points. I’m sure he will learn a lot from it.

    Regarding his point about India’s PPP, I believe I’ve pointed out Martin Ravallion’s skepticism on the issue before. This is the guy who was instrumental in designing the first ambitious ICP program in 1990 and who has made research on academic issues such as the price-level index – which is key in calculating PPP ratios in relation to nominal income, and as such important for poverty measurement as well as relatively GDPpc rankings – his life’s calling. What can I add that he cannot? It would be preposterous of me.

    It isn’t enough to be merely right or have a generalised understanding, even if sound. An article requires domain expertise in a way that a throwaway blog comment does not. Those are the standards I have on others in order to take them seriously, and I don’t see why I should exempt myself.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @reiner Tor
    , @JJ
  352. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Another one of your stupid replies, Mickey. Joushua Cohen’s linked article is informative and does indeed point out that the central government in Ukraine needs to show more caution and reel in the antics of right wing extremists. But the peaceful demonstrations of two different religious denominations in Kyiv is indeed reflective of a society that is moving forward in the realm of freedom of expression, a sign of a healthy society. Don’t obfuscate the two situations, as you’re so prone to do.

    You’re wrong as usual. Porky’s spiteful comments against the established UOC in favor of Filaret reveals that very point, as is true with the other types of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist activity (some of it which has been fatally violent) in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  353. Marcus says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Much more important was the informal German command style, i.e. Auftragstaktik, which was so much more superior than the Anglo-saxon Befehlstaktik, or strictly following orders.

    This was a double-edged sword, e.g. Ludendorff rose to the top because of his brilliance, but he ended up working 24/7 late in the war and eventually going insane due to fatigue.

    These are mere technological details that essentially only marginally impact on the outcome of a conflict. One may have the fanciest of equipment, yet if one doesn’t know how to use it properly, it will all be useless.

    I’d say tanks made a big impact in WW1, if mostly from a psychological standpoint. The Germans were also unable to develop a dependable strategic bomber in WW2.

    Their logistics was a shitshow (forgetting to bring antifreeze to Russia!), red tape prevented new equipment from being produced in sufficient quantities and delivered to the frontline, etc. The Prussian military tradition produced great officers, but German organization was really subpar; perhaps this was a function of a recent unification relative to their rivals.

    intellectual level of the average US person or the average EU subject (though still slightly superior). That is also why the educational system has been dismantled everywhere in the “west.” The elites and governments do not need people, they need stupid people.

    The design of the US education system was highly influenced by the “Prussian model,” though it of course diverged greatly from the original over time.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Hans Vogel
  354. AaronB says:
    @Polish Perspective

    It isn’t enough to be merely right or have a generalised understanding, even if sound. An article requires domain expertise in a way that a throwaway blog comment does not. Those are the standards I have on others in order to take them seriously, and I don’t see why I should exempt myself.

    Take the plunge. Be bold. Nothing great is accomplished without risk – plunge in media res. Be a cowboy. Your attitude was not the attitude of Europeans in their great age. You have no idea how many “experts” are really just improvising as they go along yet manage to say interesting and notable things. A bit of intellect and a bit of boldness is all you need.

    P.S – I have zero interest in the topic and do not care whether you write this article.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  355. Vendetta says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Logistics, logistics, logistics.

    You have two Yamato battleships (and actually, only the lead ship was in commission by the end of 1941 – Musashi was still fitting out and wasn’t commissioned until August of 1942, and was then in trials till the start of the next year before joining the fleet).

    These ships don’t have an endless supply of ammunition. They stow 100 rounds of ammunition for each of their main guns (and not all of that is high explosive for shore bombardments, a portion would be armor piercing shells for anti-ship combat).

    Rate of fire is one or two shells per gun per minute. Even assuming the magazines are dedicated 100% to high-explosive shells, these ships will fire off their entire ammunition supply in about an hour and a half of full, sustained bombardment.

    Take a look at this, by the way:

    These guns had an unusually complex construction, perhaps reflecting the difficulty in manufacturing such a large caliber…

    A great disadvantage of this type of construction was that the gun could only be relined by completely boring out the inner A tube. This was so expensive a process that it was considered to be more practical to simply replace a worn out gun with a new one, although it does not appear that either battleship was ever regunned during the war. This may be seen as a reflection of the brief combat life of these ships.

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php

    Projected barrel life of these weapons? 150-250 rounds. They only get to fire off a full magazine a couple of times before they need to be replaced. And if re-lining the barrels is not an option, getting a gun replacement means sending it all the way back to Kure, Yokosuka, or one of the other major yards back in Japan.

    The Yamatos are not workhorse vessels. They’re your champion racehorse. Between the short barrel lives of their guns and their massive fuel consumption operating at full combat speed, these ships are built for one thing: short bouts of decisive naval combat against the enemy battle line. Sending these on a long cruise off enemy shores to bombard ground targets is hitching your prize racehorse to a plow.

    The Japanese workhorse is the refitted Kongō class battlecruiser. These are the ships they sent to Guadalcanal to bombard American airfields. These ships are faster and far better suited to long range missions, but their main armament is 14” caliber, and they are far more vulnerable to counterattack from the enemy.

    The amount of targets that would need to be hit on the West Coast is not trivial either. Off handedly I can think of the following: major navy yards in Bremerton, WA and Terminal Island, CA (and Bremerton is in the Puget Sound, a confined inlet that would be extremely hazardous for a Japanese fleet to enter – a confined space for valuable battleships to run into aircraft, submarines, and mines). A major fleet base in San Diego. Bethlehem Steel’s yard in San Francisco. Seattle-Tacoma, the Kaiser yards, CalShip, Western Pipe & Steel, Oregon Shipbuilding, not even sure if I’ve come close to naming them all yet.

    There are targets all along the West Coast, from Los Angeles to Seattle (plus the Panama Canal) meaning you can’t just hit them all in a few sorties. There’s just not enough firepower and not enough time to hit all the things you’d need to hit. Committing the full power of the fleet to a campaign against the West Coast will starve the other naval theaters of both combat power and logistical support (supplying Hawaii enough to support the bulk of the fleet will already be straining Japan’s logistics capabilities to their limits, if not beyond them).

    This poses a major problem in the Dutch East Indies, for instance, Japan’s only major source of wartime oil. Not enough shipping available to replace convoy losses and defend the islands, and Japan will be crippled by lack of fuel no matter how victorious it is on the West Coast (and the carriers being committed to Hawaii and the West Coast means no Easter Sunday raid to drive the British fleet out of Ceylon).

    On top of all this, attacks on US home soil will rally Americans behind the war effort like nothing else could. The majority of US shipbuilding capacity is on the East Coast, not the West (largest yards are Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Norfolk, and Boston navy yards, Bethlehem Steel at Fore River, New York Ship, Newport News, Federal Shipbulding, and Bath Iron Works). Disabling the Panama Canal is only a delaying measure; the US Navy can and will sail around South America if it has to – when Russia fought Japan in 1905, they sent their Baltic Fleet all the way around Africa to get to Japan.

    It’s a no-win scenario, long term, no matter what damage it inflicts on the US in the short term. Victory for Japan is not beyond the realm of possibility – but the only way I could see it happening is under the terms I described above.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  356. Avery says:
    @Marcus

    { red tape prevented new equipment from being produced in sufficient quantities and delivered to the frontline, etc.}

    Another reason was German penchant to over-engineer and spend enormous resources to create the next “wonder weapon”.

    For example, the Tiger tank: a superb tank that could destroy the T-34 at great distances while a T-34 had to get really close to cause damage to it, if any. Yet because it was so over-engineered, Germans were only able to produce about 1,400. It sucked up enormous resources to produce and was hard to maintain and repair. Resources that could have been used to mass produce ‘good-enough’ tanks. And only about 6,000 Panther tanks (…an improved copy of T-34). were produced 1943-1945.

    While about 55,000 T-34s were produced from 1941-1945.
    And US produced about 50,000 Shermans between 1941-1945.

    Same with battleships.
    The Bismarck was a superb battleship that blew away British ships at great distances.
    But because there were so few like it in the Kriegsmarine and Brits had so many warships, it was hunted down by swarms of lesser British ships and finally sunk. Its excellent armor and superior guns could not save it.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  357. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail

    ‘Porkys’ entitled to his opinions (although he should probably be less vocal about them) as you are. Trump is another public leader that should probably hold some of his opinions more to himself. His opinions did not in any case negatively impact on two different religious communities peacefully expressing their views in public. Let me make myself clearer for you, because you seem to have enveloped yourself into that thick forest that only you can see out of:

    Do you see anything wrong with people peacefully gathering in a public square to celebrate a religious holiday, in a manner that they feel most comfortable in acknowledging?

    Nothing got out of hand at either gathering, so what’s the problem?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  358. Vendetta says:
    @Marcus

    Germany’s overall posture on the Western Front was defensive rather than offensive for most of the war. Tanks were conceived as an offensive weapon to produce breakthroughs against an entrenched enemy.

    Germany returned to the offensive in the west in spring of 1918, by which point they were already short of oil – trying to mechanize at that point would have been foolish. Instead they pioneered new and improved infantry tactics to overcome the same obstacles, which proved to have a far more decisive impact on the battlefield than first generation tanks did.

    Point about the Panzer II is similarly inane. The results of their campaigns in 1940 speak for themselves – the Germans understood far better than their adversaries the importance of tanks and how to use them to their maximal effect. The Panzer I, II, and the adopted Czech LT-38 were all taken into service as stopgaps until superior machines could enter service. And what were their opponents fielding at that time? The British had early mark cruisers, Mark VI tankettes, the machine gun-armed Matilda I – none of them very impressive vehicles. As for the French? Majority of their armored forces were lightweight Hotchkiss H35 or Renault R35 derivatives, or the antiquated Renault FT. Sure, the heavyweight Char B1 and the excellent Somua S35 were available, in limited numbers – just as the early model Panzer III and IV were available in limited numbers to the Germans.

    As for your earlier post about Germany’s economic “weakness” in 1914 relative to Britain – it is nonsense. In terms of coal, steel, electrical power, and most other industrial outputs, Germany had surpassed Britain. Shipbuilding was one of the few areas where this was not the case, and it was financial constraints more so then industrial ones that limited German shipbuilding – there were gap years in which the German yards had slips available but the battleships didn’t end up getting ordered because the budget wasn’t there for them. And that is because the army absorbed a much larger share of the defense budget in Germany than it did in Britain – the Germans had to outfit standing ground forces several times the size of Britain’s.

  359. @Polish Perspective

    If Unz, who is a very smart guy, wants to dig in on Indian GDP statistics

    The idea is to share the information with The Unz Review readers. I guess no one here has time enough for it, neither Anatoly nor Ron. Whereas you’ve already done the heavy lifting of having read up on the subject, you’d just have to give us a short (article-sized) executive summary, probably not much longer than the sum of maybe four-five of your comments.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  360. @AaronB

    AaronB says:

    Agree: reiner Tor

    Wow.

    • LOL: AaronB
  361. Vendetta says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    A little off in the quotes on the dreadnoughts. Oil-fired propulsion came late to both sides, only showing up in late generation dreadnoughts like the Queen Elizabeths or the Königs (and mixed coal-and-oil propulsion in their immediate predecessors).

    German protection was indeed superior, but slightly offset by the British warships usually carrying larger-caliber guns. There are also some less obvious differences that end up being quite important operationally.

    British battleships were built for high seas service – the German ones really weren’t. British battleships had enough bunk space to sleep their crews on board. The German ones did not – they had hammocks. On most nights their crews slept ashore or on an accommodation ship moored nearby.

    Both sides built ships more suitable for their own particular needs. For an all out naval brawl close to your own shores, you’d want the German battleships. To defend a worldwide empire, you would want the British battleships.

    It’s in battlecruisers that I would say the Germans had more of a clear cut superiority – German battlecruisers were designed for long range operations as well, and their greater protection really made a difference here. The dreadnoughts of both sides could take plenty of pounding. British battlecruisers were fine ships in many other respects but lit up like powder kegs under enemy fire.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  362. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    So Russian murder rate during Soviet times was about 2 to 3 times higher than the US white murder rate.

  363. @Marcus

    I do not agree: tanks had a negligeable effect. Moreover, those innovative French and British tanks suffered too many breakdowns for them to be considered a wise investment of time and money.

    On the other hand, the Austrians in 1916 pioneered new infantry tactics that the Germans (Sturmtruppen) and the Italians (arditi) were quick to emulate. In essence, these were what the English (when they belatedly adopted them during WW II) would much later call commando tactics.

    Please note that German Sturmtruppen actually succeeded in breaking through enemy lines on the Western front, something the tanks were hardly capable of: too slow, too cumbersome etc.

    As for Germany failing to develop a strategic bomber during WWII, this in my eyes is extra evidence that the Germans never planned or wanted to kill civilians on a massive scale by cowardly firebombings (Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim), and certainly did not want to fight the Anglo-saxons. That is why Hitler, Himmler, Hess and the like frantically tried to conclude peace with England.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  364. Logan says:
    @Seraphim

    When he was in power, Bismarck was allied with Russia and Austria-Hungary and friendly with Britain. His only real enemy was France, but, as he’d just demonstrated, Germany could kick French fanny whenever they felt like it.

    Kaiser Bill managed to alienate Russia, and then, for some utterly unknown reason, decided to scare the crap out of the Brits by building a blue water fleet whose only conceivable purpose would be to conquer UK.

    The British, with their superior fleet, could never really threaten Germany, but Britain had little in the way of any army and depended entirely on their navy for security.

    So Bill managed to make enemies, entirely unnecessarily, out of two of the three Great Powers Bismarck had managed to make allies or at least be friendly neutral with.

  365. Logan says:
    @Doug

    The Japanese were also surprisingly popular in Formosa/Taiwan. Certainly more so than the Chinese Nationalists who eventually replaced them.

    • Agree: utu
  366. @Vendetta

    Thanks for the information.

  367. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    I always knew that you were ‘OFF THE GRID‘ old boy, but you don’t really need to advertise it! :-)

  368. Of course, the Great Power that has arisen is the EU. The 2nd half of the 20th Century could be described as the EU’s century so far.

    With the UK out of the way, as the late General De Gaulle would have wished, the EU is free to deepen its structures having had widening forced upon it by the UK. 500 million rich people with potential for growth (the Eastern countries) and post colonial links of many kinds will challenge any potential power. The Hot Banana (sometime Blue) is still the greatest concentration of industry and commerce on the planet. Russia lost its chance to join in the mid 2000′s when Putin decided that all he had to sell was oil and the EU had to buy that anyway. Russia and the UK face a future as EU satellites without seats at the top table. The toxic politics between them suggest that it will be a long time before they cooperate to exploit what few mutual advantages they might extract from their situation. Balance of Power can’t be played from outside.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @g2k
  369. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    At times, you’ve a way of diverting in a way that makes as much sense as this chap:

    You’re right about Porky and Trump.

  370. @Hans Vogel

    It’s a common assertion that German productivity did not reach UK levels until after the currency reform of 1947 when Germany became a genuine free market economy. Breaking the cartels was part of the reform.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  371. @AP

    What about a Pole under Russia?

    Britain was so bad, the Commonwealth held together.

    • Replies: @AP
  372. AP says:
    @Philip Owen

    Poland was better off under Russia than Ireland was under Britain. Irish language – largely eliminated. A high % of the population dead or driven out.

    I hope I don’t come across as someone who hates Britain. It was on the right side against Revolutionary France, and during World War II and the Cold War. And it treated its own people very well and decently. But overall it was worse on the world stage than either Germany or Russia prior to Nazism and Bolshevism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  373. @Philip Owen

    What are you taking? I want some of that stuff, too. Seems to be better than cocaine or LSD.

    On a more serious note, EU is almost as far from being a great power as Burkina Faso. It bloated after 1991 to become as clumsy, unruly, and hopeless as the USSR. Politically, it acts like the US lapdog, even to its own detriment (anti-Russian sanctions and welcomed “refugee” invasion being just the latest examples).

    Great powers never shoot themselves in the foot by orders of outside forces. Independence makes them great, and that’s what the EU lacks sorely. There might have been potential, but it was wasted.

  374. @Hans Vogel

    - Sizeable numbers of Africans and mohammedans will make it easier for European governments to intimidate the citizenry and cow it into submission, according to the old adage divide et impera

    Brexit suggests otherwise.

  375. @jilles dykstra

    GB would not have had to capitulate. The convoy system was working. The British blockade of Germany was more effective than the German blockade of GB. Many German civilians were short of food. GB was outcompeting Germany in technology: tanks, acetone.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  376. @Jon Halpenny

    Why did Russia have to go anywhere?

  377. @Duke of Qin

    https://gmachine1729.com/2018/08/07/jack-ma/

    I bet many of you, the person I’m replying to especially, would like this. Please advertise it as much as you can.

  378. @Mr. XYZ

    A much bigger independent Ukraine at that. Essentially the whole Black Earth west of the Volga plus the Kuban to boot.

  379. @Polish Perspective

    Ahhhhh I had a long edit to my original post but it got deleted because the time countdown on edits closed and ate everything.

    Long story short. State capitalism seems to work, at least for the far east, in development. China’s strategies aren’t particularly unique and are basically following in Japan and South Korea’s footsteps. The same policies that they took, even when pooh poohed by Western economists at least lead to their current development levels. The countries that slavishly followed conventional Western Wisdom (asides from no brainers like not collectivizing agriculture, shooting your kulacks) on development never get anywhere and amount to anything, becoming at best resource appendages or cheap outsourcing destination and consumers of high margin western products. Xi hasn’t nationalized any new industries, but simply isn’t liberalizing existing ones to the extent that the great and good desire.

    There is a principal agent problem in development economics that, like the tribe, no one is particularly interested in touching. Simply put, Western educated economists represent the economic and political interests of developed Western states, not those of developing states. The likes of David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, et al. may claim to be representing American interests and may even believe to actually be doing so but the ultimate effect of the totality of their policies they advocate lead somewhere else entirely. Maximizing Chinese power means the destruction of the liberal Western democratic post-war American order. There is no denying this simple fact. The same people that advocate for “pro-market” Chinese development policies do not support this endeavor, and will also advocate for what you and I know are extremely destructive policies elsewhere. Thus I have no reason to trust them when it comes to Chinese economic policies, and every reason to be extremely skeptical.

    • Agree: gmachine1729, dfordoom
  380. @Anatoly Karlin

    The issue with Indian PPP GDP has a fairly simple answer. The easiest way of reporting higher economic growth is to underreport inflation which eats into nominal GDP growth. By underreporting inflation, you also misinterpret current price levels hence this would also seriously effect PPP inflators which depend on knowing the current prices of goods and services to know the purchasing power of the currency. India has a PPP multiplier (3.6) that is on the high end of countries in it’s nominal GDP per capita levels and is also higher than all of the closest neighboring countries; Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The thing with PPP is that it assumes that as wages rise, nominal price levels will also rise to match and thus as a countries economy becomes wealthier, the PPP multiplier should shrink as prices equalize to a developed world standard. India doesn’t seem to be following this rule, in fact its PPP multiplier has increased 50% over the last 3 decades from 2.5 back in 1987 whereas most other countries have seem them either remain static (as poor now as they were then) or shrink.

    There are other potential explanations for this wierd shift in the PPP multiplier such as really skewed price levels from massive differentials in wages (yay caste system) but the simplest and most powerful cause is probably due to undercounting inflation and reporting unreleastic price levels, hence purchasing power of the currency is being inflated.

    Karlin, are you familiar with the general trends in human height and how increased nutrition, health, and economic growth go hand in hand in driving up people to get taller? Sailer linked to a study last year and it appears that Indian heights seem to have flatlined in the 60′s and that Indian 16 year olds as of 2016 were only marginally taller than Indian 16 year olds in 1976. It was a agglomeration of several surveys. There are other smaller surveys that show really bifurcated results which may just be bad data quality, then again it maybe not. Kerala seems to have witnessed strong (by Indian standards) growth in heights while some others such as Meghalaya actually shrank. Again it may have just been bad data though but it does open up some interesting possibilities. Ahh caste systems, the gift that keeps on giving.

  381. Gerard2 says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Come on Thorfinnsson you’re a smart guy and a great poster on here …but this is completely wrong.

    Ukraine is a failed, African style state, in aspects of wealth, governance, healthcare, energy, corruption…Ukraine is equal to or worse than the worst African states ( and imagine if these African states had the levels of (Russian/Soviet orchestrated) literacy, education, infrastructure etcetera as Ukraine inherited in 1991…the gap would be even worse). Iit is a tragedy of a country.

    All the North African countries ( even with chaotic and bloody revolutions) plus Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Gabon and numerous others ..their people more are much more wealthy than the lemmings in Ukraine.

    What they object to is the habit of Russian chauvinists painting Ukraine as on par with a West African country–or Honduras.

    “they” are not “Ukrainians” but deranged maggots who are in fact American/Canadian Banderatards from families of losers who fled the USSR in disgrace………..very similar to how paedophiles from the UK relocated to Australia barren spots decades ago , to avoid detection

    Russian chauvinists tend to view the Ukraine in a way comparable to how Westerners view Russia (the gas station with nukes).

    Russians know Ukraine extremely well, the same people, same culture, same mentality, do business there, go on holiday there, most have family there, idolise the same people in pop culture and historically, same humour, use the same banks, same babushka’s, villages similar and so on…..

    there is simply no comparison between this and dumb as f**K westerners who don’t have any idea about Russia and haven’t visited it. Plus some of them aren’t dumb but are simply going on what they read from the corrupt, lying dumb as f**k western journalists in Russia

    This is completely different than in America when an Italian-American, despite his or her loud statements may, literally, not have any clue about Italy.

    • Replies: @AP
  382. @Duke of Qin

    Productivity and quality matter too, not just survival and imitation of overseas production. Protectionism does not develop high productivity or high quality. Japan succeeded best in electronics where protection was low.

    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
  383. @Duke of Qin

    And what can we do to contribute to “the destruction of the liberal Western democratic post-war American order,” aside from some evangelization on the internet. 对,我也觉得美国现在整体而言是反人类的。Yes, I also feel that America on the whole now is anti-civilization.

    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
  384. @Philip Owen

    Productivity and quality are the results of competition for customers. For most countries that aren’t the US and China, protectionism really just helps 1 entrenched market monopolist. China is massive enough for a large number of market participants across most industries. If Xi really wanted to benefit the Chinese everyman, he would privatize (into Chinese hands) the telecom sector and instead of the comfortable state oligopolists of China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom and force them to compete everywhere for customers. They are moribund, state owned, and inefficient, but also not that much worse in service compared to AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon in service. The level of service (crap) is similar, it’s just that the different ownership structures push the money to different parties. The Chinese SOES are less profitable because they employ more (often useless) employees while the US private counterparts being owned by private capital are more efficient in that their profits all flow vertically upwards towards owners. Their end utility is the same, it’s just that different people get their cut.

    China’s auto industry is plagued by a similar problem. The reason that Chinese automakers are not a threat to Western automakers is because the Communist Party is on the side of West. The biggest car companies are SOE’s in joint ventures with Western car companies who have cozy profit sharing relationships. They dont want to interrupt this and don’t want competition from private Chinese automakers. The US trade pundits make bullshit complaints about forced joint ventures. You know who doesn’t complain joint ventures? US companies in cozy nepotistic profit sharing agreements with SOE’s. A true win-win for both. The Chinese SOE’s dont have to do much work, and the Communist Party suppresses domestic competition in favour of the State entity in bed with a foreign company.

    The areas where I have seen the most genuine whining about Chinese economic obscurantism is in the finance industry and honestly I’d prefer to keep the US out of that sector entirely.

  385. @gmachine1729

    The beauty is, we don’t have to do anything but wait. Not to sound like a Marxist, but the West is going to be undone by their own internal contradictions and the US while on paper remains the strongest is much weaker than it appears. Massive system instability that they constantly predict for China is just as applicable to the US if not even more so. The US is undergoing a massive demographic and cultural transition and is far ahead of all European states. US had around 3.9 million births last year, but not even 2 million was non Hispanic white and this number has been in unending decline for decades. It’s admixture is only 62% non Hispanic white now but this really hides just how significant the 30+ age white cohort is and how huge the youth non-white population is. I know some people don’t think Hispanics are too bad, including our host Unz, and indeed they aren’t bad people at all. But based off the socio-economic indices and what constitutes “white” in mugshots I am extremely skeptical of them being able to sustain present US prosperity levels or technological sophistication. The US obviously isn’t going the South Africa route, but Brazilification and its Latin American socio-economic and political systems are I think inevitable for America. Actually Argentina is probably the best long term example of what is going to happen in America as the differential population growth of Indio and European (Spanish, Italian, and German) elements slowly but steadily tipped the country from one of the Richest countries at the start of the 20th century to a middle rank one by the end of it. Some countries in Western Europe are salvageable if they jettison American vassalage and start kicking out it’s Afro-Arab elements which are so obnoxious that they engender immediate feelings of disgust rather than Latinos which are met by most Americans in their daily lives with indifference. It remains to be seen if they have the will to live and pass on their homelands to their children rather than follow America in it’s death spiral. Nations can survive declining demographics. France did, so did Ireland. They can’t survive declining demographics and importing other people’s children.

    In the meantime I’m buying Huawei products and using a Xiaomi robot vacuum.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @gmachine1729
    , @Cyrano
  386. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Where further than Vladivostok could have Russia expand? Conquering Japan? Re-conquering Alaska? Russia had reached the natural limits of her expansion and was busy to consolidate and fructify it and to defend it against the encroachments of Japan and Britain and of the new boy in town Teddy.

    Russia in fact lost very little and Japan gained very little too (if you think in perspective it planted the seeds for the ‘nuclear stand off’ between the ‘Little Rocket Man’ and the “mentally deranged U.S. dotard,”). As a matter of fact, she was not losing the war and the Japanese were loosing their nerve. The defeat of the Russian Fleet at Tsushima only obscures the fact that on the Manchurian front Russians were in recovery and the Japanese were giving signs of war weariness. The Peace treaty was actually a draw. Americans and British recognized the claims of Japan in Korea for pledges of Japan to stay away from the Phillipines and Singapore.
    The victory of Japan inflamed the anti-colonial nationalist movements across Asia, especially in India which made the British to reconsider their Great Game with Russia. The rise of Japanese anti-Americanism and ultra-nationalism made also the Americans to reconsider.
    It had a less observable effect. The German Chief of Staff von Schlieffen assessed Russian forces as “…incapable of standing up to another army…” and therefore he modified his initial plans for a strong resistance in Prussia against the Russians and concentrating on his famous plan as if Russia did not exist or could be easily expedited. It was the same delusion that made the German Staff to asses the capabilities of the Soviet Army assessing them by its performance in the Finnish War.

    Regurgitation of the meme of ‘Russian expansionism’ is just an expression of ‘Russophobia’. Russia at the door of NATO!

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
  387. JJ says:
    @Polish Perspective

    I have always enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments. If you decide to do it for us readers, here are some interesting statistics I found on a Chinese site, which might be useful:

    For the majority of readers here who don’t understand Chinese, I did some translation for some data from the same chart:

    https://imgur.com/a/Y4AJFbu

  388. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I know plenty of people (non-liberals) who both lived in the USSR and are anti-Soviet.

    Yes, I know. For example, myself. Back in my Usenet days in the late 90s I used to argue a lot with sovoks (one of whom had become fairly famous later.)

    Then I got older, wiser, and more empathetic. I got a better idea about the 2-3 generations that came before me – what their outlook was like, what they were trying to accomplish. Revisiting the old Soviet culture helped. I don’t think I was wrong before, except in some details. I am still not a big fan of the Soviet practice (you should look up my comments directed at Glossy.) It’s a matter of head vs. heart.

    Another issue is that the new crop of the anti-Soviets didn’t live in the USSR and frankly don’t know what they are talking about. Soviet Union had many bad sides but it was not the zombie apocalypse of their imagination. When I see something like that it provokes a natural reaction.

    Science – Lagging.

    USSR was leading in some scientific areas and lagged in others. The same is true for every other major scientific center. You can’t apply Western metric to the Soviet scientific output, the systems were too different.

    Culture – Maintained high culture in crystallized form, but failed to create novelties.

    Considering the novelties created in the last 70 years, perhaps this was not so bad?

    Ah, screw it. I’ll address specific items on this list at another time. And I don’t even disagree all that much. My point is that you could easily create a list like that for e.g. USA. Just ask an average Unz.com commenter. And such a list is going to be mostly true. But it won’t be the whole truth. And this is the crucial thing.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  389. One more comment pertaining to No Bolshevism… The Russian army in support of Armenia would not have been withdraw, the Armenian Genocide would have been averted and instead of this farcical Erdogan country that plays west verse east while supporting ISIS, there would have been a strong and modern Armenia that would have kept things in order in Asia Minor as an unaligned powerful Christian country. Just as “the Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian 20th century and possibly their future forever”; likewise the Turks destroyed the Armenian 20th century and possibly their future forever. Even to this day, the Turks and their Azeri bastard cousins dream of a greater Pan Turanism sans any pesky Christian Armenians, aka Nagorno Karabagh.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  390. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AP

    If you count the mass deaths and the weakening of Christendom that resulted from the propagation of Lutheranism (and subsequent reactions and so on), then Germany was pretty horrible. But to be fair, a great deal of this burden fell on Germany itself.

    • Replies: @AP
  391. @Duke of Qin

    Wow you’re optimistic. And how exactly will non-whites ruin America. Aren’t there enough smart whites and East Asians to keep the high technology running, at least in certain locations in the country? On this note, somebody I know, white, thinks that the Indians might actually undermine social trust in the workplace enough that Indian style nepotism/corruption becomes the norm. He once said that the two groups which do the most damage to America are the Indians and the Jews, the former of which is more or less a dumber and less white version of the latter.

    In the meantime I’m buying Huawei products and using a Xiaomi robot vacuum.

    Great, I plan to buy a Lenovo and Xiaomi too. I now feel somewhat hoodwinked into Apple.

    What do you do professionally by the way? I’ve worked as a software engineer at both big and small tech companies, and I also know math, but I’m currently not working. Yes, I’ve seen first hand the corruption and dysfunction in the tech industry, especially when there are Indians. The interview process is often very arbitrary, far from meritocratic. Once I’m full time again, I’ll have less time to comment here and to blog.

    If you happen to rich and retired, I certainly wouldn’t mind some donations. (I added a PayPal button to my blog yesterday.) I heartily believe that the world would be a much better place if politically woke plus technically smart Chinese like me control more resources.

    I’ve already written here that I came to America at age 6 not on my own choosing, and I want to find a way to go back to China. Plenty of people will dissuade me and think I’m crazy, and I am well aware that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Still, I can’t imagine committing cultural suicide by raising children in America. Right now, the Chinese are playing a futile, losing game in America, better to just let the https://gmachine1729.com/2018/06/16/the-brahmins/ ruin it.

    Also, my thoughts on US elite schools (in Chinese): https://gmachine1729.com/2018/02/24/美国名校为洗脑提拔(伪)精英华裔的政治工具/.

    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    , @iffen
  392. AP says:
    @Gerard2

    Ukraine is a failed, African style state,

    HIV rate:

    Benin: 1.14
    Burundi: 1.11
    Russia: 1.1
    Liberia: 1.0

    Ukraine (including Donbas, Europes’s HIV capital): .83 (lower without Donbas)
    Latvia: .7

    in aspects of wealth, governance, healthcare, energy, corruption…Ukraine is equal to or worse than the worst African states

    wealth:

    Ukraine GDP PPP (2017): $8,667
    Burundi GDP PPP (2017): $771

    governance:

    Nobody ate the former president in Ukraine

    healthcare:

    life expectancy (2015) Ukraine: 71.3
    life expectancy (2015) Russia: 70.5
    life expectancy (2015) Sierra Leone: 50.1

    All the North African countries ( even with chaotic and bloody revolutions) plus Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Gabon and numerous others ..their people more are much more wealthy than the lemmings in Ukraine

    The ones you listed have higher GDP per capita in nominal terms, thanks to Ukraine’s currency devaluation. By that measure, Romania now has a higher per capita nominal GDP than does Russia.

    In terms of GDP per capita PPP, Ukraine beats Morocco in North Africa, and Sudan. And Russia bets Romania, according to IMF (but according to World Bank Romania now surpasses Russia in terms of PPP also, as does Turkey).

    “they” are not “Ukrainians” but deranged maggots who are in fact American/Canadian Banderatards from families of losers who fled the USSR in disgrace

    Ukrainians in America have one of the highest incomes of white ethnic groups in the USA. Well above the USA average, and several times higher than the Russian average. While your kind were packed in Khrushchovki and waiting in long lines for food, those Ukrainians who escaped West were living like prosperous Americans.

    Fleeing the pathetic USSR was a wise move. Are you bitter :-)

    Russians know Ukraine extremely well,

    Above is an accurate demonstration of how well you know Ukraine.

    the same people, same culture, same mentality, do business there, go on holiday there, most have family there, idolise the same people in pop culture and historically, same humour, use the same banks, same babushka’s, villages

    So according to you, Russians are pretty much the same as Africans, except with a little more money?

    Good to know.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    , @Mikhail
  393. Avery says:
    @General Koofta

    { the Turks destroyed the Armenian 20th century and possibly their future forever.}

    Nope: not forever.
    Temporary difficulty.
    You should have more faith in our ancestors.
    During our ancestors’ 5,000+ history, there have been lots of dark, darker, and darkest days: we are still around.

    In 1988 nobody, but nobody, could have foreseen that Armenians — who had just lost ~50,000 people in the devastating Spitak earthquake, ~100,000 injured, several hundred thousand left homeless, USSR collapsing, all Soviet era industries vanished overnight,…..war,blockaded, no natural gas, no electricity, no heating oil, no gasoline,….no nothing — would not only throw out nomad UygurTürkoğlu squatters from sacred ancestral Artsakh, but also liberate much historic Armenian lands, held captive for centuries by the nomads.

    Have faith.
    And do whatever you can to help.
    Best days for Armenia and Artsakh are ahead.

  394. AP says:
    @Anon

    I was focused on the last couple centuries but I agree with you there.

  395. Cyrano says:
    @Duke of Qin

    Why shoot a person while he is busy committing suicide? The rest of the world doesn’t have to do anything, just sit back and relax, and watch the western civilization disintegrate.

    If I had to pick one factor that will be crucial in the demise of the west, I would say it’s the propaganda. They’ve gotten so good at it – it has become a way of life. Propaganda can be useful to mask your real motives and put positive spin on actions that otherwise might be considered deplorable, but you have to be able to feel safe to tell the truth once in a while.

    In the past, for everything that the west (US) didn’t like, their first response was – throw some good old propaganda at it. They have become so accustomed to it – they are now using it on their own president. Trump is right, he even tries to be politically correct by calling the propaganda used against him – fake news. Trump is not ideal, but his motives are pure. He is trying to save them, but I guess they are too far gone to be saved.

  396. @AP

    governance:

    Nobody ate the former president in Ukraine

    I have to admit, I am curious. In which country did this happen?

    • Replies: @AP
  397. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Ukrainians in America have one of the highest incomes of white ethnic groups in the USA. Well above the USA average, and several times higher than the Russian average. While your kind were packed in Khrushchovki and waiting in long lines for food, those Ukrainians who escaped West were living like prosperous Americans.

    Not according to this and my own overall observations:

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

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @AP
  398. @gmachine1729

    Optimistic would depend on your point of view. Of course America wouldn’t collapse over night like some African state after the Whites leave and no one can keep the lights on, but rather it will be a gradual entropy as the nature of the state and society “coursens” as the general population is no longer productive enough to support both the size of the state and its wealth transfers between constituents that keeps the peace. Many people foolishly herald Trump as some sort of White savior, but he is really the start of Caudilloism in America. He talks “bigly” but cannot deliver what his constituents really want to him to do because he is unable to reverse the demographic trends that are already baked into the cake. Also something I learned from Karlin is that I heavily suspect some epic levels of Zrada and Trumpsliv coming down the line. Even if all immigration were to end tomorrow, America would still be screwed because of the numbers already present and again the differential fertility. Chinese Americans and are 1% of the total population and very low fertility in the US, much lower than they are in our homeland and again are better served by going back to our homeland if we want to stay what we are. There is nothing but death that awaits the Chinese and indeed all the East Asians in America and the people who think the moon is a little bigger are fools, because they don’t realize the extra money they earn comes at the cost of not having any grandchildren.

    I dont want to divulge too much personal information about myself because of the inquisitorial nature of American society so I don’t even use any social media at all. Unlike Karlin, personal commitments rather than anything else force me to stay for the near future but I too would like to go back and dont relish raising children in the US.

    Your white friend’s opinions on Indians sound like mine. Their socially predatory and destructive behavior is a learned / ingrained adaptation from their own homelands of intense ingroup outgroup competition between Indian jati groups. Thankfully it seems to rapidly disappear within one or two generations without sustained immigration. Honestly I dont care if they want to gorge themselves on the decaying corpse of American society, I just want them gone from Singapore though because their numbers are too large now that it has reached criticality and that the next generation will likely retain some of the social attitudes of the first and basically wreck Singapore until the Chinese elites there recognize what is going on and fight back.

  399. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mikhail

    In overall terms, there’s room to quibble about that Wiki link which breaks down different Slavic American groups groups, only to then include a separate Slavic category – which upon follow-up thought, likely means the mish mosh types that for example might be something like 1/4 Serb, 1/4 Croat, 1/4, Russian and 1/4 Polish.

    In any event, there’s seems to be good reason to question just how high is the socioeconomic scale of Ukrainian-Americans versus other Whites in the US – as brought up at this thread.

  400. utu says:
    @Duke of Qin

    The same people that advocate for “pro-market” Chinese development policies do not support this endeavor, and will also advocate for what you and I know are extremely destructive policies elsewhere. Thus I have no reason to trust them when it comes to Chinese economic policies, and every reason to be extremely skeptical.

    This is the most important point.

  401. AP says:
    @Hyperborean

    Okay, I looked it up and it was a rumor, denied by the alleged perpetrator:

    https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2008-09-02-voa2/405462.html

    The man who is believed to have captured and killed former Liberian President Samuel Doe at the start of the country’s civil war in 1990 has made his long-awaited appearance before the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to explain his role in the war. Prince Johnson says he told the TRC that Doe’s body was cremated and his ashes thrown into a river.

    But Doe’s family led by Jackson Doe, the late president’s brother is claiming that Johnson and his Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) rebels committed cannibalism.

    But Johnson, who is now senior senator from Nimba County, told VOA he’s not a cannibal.

    “I told Liberians and the international community that when Doe died on the base because of series of injuries he was embalmed for 25 years and buried. But along the way, months or a year two later, there was a dirty propaganda that was propagated from the Amos Sawyer (former interim president) camp that we did not bury Doe, that we ate Doe. And of course we from Nimba are not cannibals,” he said.

    “The Nimbaians are not cannibals. Even if I was a cannibal, I did not eat Doe because he was embalmed with chemicals for 25 years. So if they can eat human beings with chemicals, we don’t eat human beings with chemicals,” Johnson said.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  402. Mitleser says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In particular, Ron is suspicious about the Indian figures because it appears to him that they produce very little while claiming good GDP numbers.

    Is inequality in India not as bad as it seems?

  403. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    Not according to this and my own overall observations:

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

    Your observations are useless.

    The wiki article places “white” at $61,349 and Ukrainian as $66,430.

    However it is for 2015 data, which for some reason in anomalous. In other years Ukrainian American median household income is higher relative to most other groups.

    In 2016 Ukrainian American median household income was $72,449 (compared to Swedish $71,217, Serbian $70,028, German $67,306, Scotch-Irish $64,187, etc. etc.). Common Ukrainian-American professions are medicine and engineering.

    To see the numbers go to the wiki article, click on the reference link, and go to year:

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

    So Ukrainians whose ancestors fled Sovok and came to America had a median family income of $72,449 in 2016. Compare to what it is in Russia (or Ukraine), for those who did not escape.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  404. @Philip Owen

    Then why did the USA enter the war also militarily in 1917 ?
    The fear was that Germany would win, then the USA credits and loans to GB and France would not be repaid, the German had to pay.
    Read Harold L Ickes, Tansill, I already mentioned the biography of Lloyd George.
    Never heard of the 1938 Nye investigation ?
    Tanks in WWI, hardly used.
    The WWI weapon on land was the machine gun, in the oceans the U boat.
    Andreas Michelsen, ‘Der U-Bootskrieg 1914- 1918’, Leipzig 1925 (Wolfenbüttel ISBN: 978-3-939791-41-6)

  405. @Philip Owen

    In a serious debate, one needs evidence and hard data, not common assertions. I can believe though that German productivity levels caught up with English levels in 1947, after having made a steep drop due to terrorist aerial bombings by the US and the RAF. I was interested in Anatoly giving me the sources on pre-World War I productivity he mentioned. I doubt there are any reliable ones.

    As for a genuine free market economy, I doubt one has ever existed anywhere since the US civil war. Surely the German cartels were broken…to make room for US-dominated cartels such as the seven sisters!

  406. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    No, my observations aren’t useless, contrary to your bravado. Much like how you’ve recently walked back your prior claim that Ukrainian is closer to Polish than Russian.

    As for the most recent issue at hand:

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

    The above link doesn’t directly give figures in line with your spin, which (if right) seems to have year by year fluctuations that have back and forth variations.

    This takes the form of so whataboutism:

    So Ukrainians whose ancestors fled Sovok and came to America had a median family income of $72,449 in 2016. Compare to what it is in Russia (or Ukraine), for those who did not escape.

    Ho less true is that of others whose families fled Communism, particularly other Slavs (Russians included).

    • Replies: @AP
  407. iffen says:
    @gmachine1729

    I heartily believe that the world would be a much better place if politically woke plus technically smart Chinese like me control more resources.

    LOL

    Welcome to the human race!

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @utu
  408. @Seraphim

    Russia had ambitions to get a large part of the trade with China via Port Arthur, threatening Britain’s position in Chinese trade. As result of the war Port Arthur and south Manchuria were lost and Japan also got Korea and south Sakhalin. Russia also lost most of its navy. Russia also suffered heavy financial deficits.

    The outcome of the war was highly favorable for Britain. Before the war the British asked Japan to give soldiers to defend India, but after the defeat of Russia this was no longer necessary. Britain was also able to make a treaty with the weakened Russia to limit the expansion in Persia.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  409. g2k says:
    @Philip Owen

    Have to call bs on this. The EU was an atlanticist project from the outset and countries within it are American satrapies with only very limited sovreignty when push comes to shove. This has been intensifying since the end of the cold war. The Maastricht treaties set in stone that eu member states must have a common foeign policy, most have American troops based there and the absorbtion of the former eastern bloc has injected a hardcore anti Russian element. There was absolutely no way they could’ve joined in such circumstances.

    The EU will most likely remain quite prosperous in the coming decades, but become somewhat of a backwater. Look at AKs stats on tech compainies, AI etc. These countries are also becoming relentlessly anglicized at an increasing pace which is decaying indigenous culture there: the average educated German speaks better english than an english prole, watches yank tv shows, identifies with the Democrats and copies all of the stupid polical fads from there.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  410. utu says:
    @iffen

    Perhaps getting a job would be good start in the quest of controlling some resources.

    • Replies: @iffen
  411. @General Koofta

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/if-worst-comes-to-worst-in-armenia/

    Armenia was a real geostrategic asset for the Russian Empire before World War I, when ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were a potential dagger in the backs of the Turks. Their desire to create a Greater Armenia tallied well with Russia’s centuries-long project to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, and it was their consequent loyalty to Petrograd that more than anything else spurred on the Armenian Genocide. Had Russia won the war, a Greater Armenia would have stretched deep into Anatolia, creating an Orthodox landbridge to Lebanon and the Holy Land. With Russia in control of Tsargrad, and the Greeks recreating Magna Graecia, the Turks would have been bottled up in the Anatolian highlands (perhaps no other nation was spared so catastrophic a 20th century fate as Turkey by the Russian Revolution).

  412. @Hans Vogel

    This is a standard viewpoint in economic history, and the relative poverty of the German bourgeoisie relative to its British equivalents was remarked on even in the late 19th century.

    But okay, if you want a source, there’s of course the Maddison historical GDP per capita series.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  413. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    No, my observations aren’t useless

    Yes, they are, and are contradicted by the links.

    Much like how you’ve recently walked back your prior claim that Ukrainian is closer to Polish than Russian.

    ???

    I’ve consistently stated the fact that the Ukrainian language has more words in common with Polish than with Russian, but that Ukrainian grammar and pronunciation is closer to Russian than to Polish. Overall, this makes Ukrainian between the two languages.

    The above link doesn’t directly give figures

    You are dense, so I have to repeat my response:

    However it is for 2015 data, which for some reason in anomalous. In other years Ukrainian American median household income is higher relative to most other groups.

    In 2016 Ukrainian American median household income was $72,449 (compared to Swedish $71,217, Serbian $70,028, German $67,306, Scotch-Irish $64,187, etc. etc.). Common Ukrainian-American professions are medicine and engineering.

    To see the numbers go to the wiki article:

    1. click this link to the wikipedia article:

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

    2. Click the link to the references after each group’s income.

    3. Click (2016) on the left.

    4. Scroll around.

    So Ukrainians whose ancestors fled Sovok and came to America had a median family income of $72,449 in 2016. Compare to what it is in Russia (or Ukraine), for those who did not escape.

    Ho less true is that of others whose families fled Communism, particularly other Slavs (Russians included)

    Didn’t claim otherwise. Fleeing communism was a smart thing to do for anyone.

    In 2016 Ukrainian median family income was behind that of Russians (probably a combination of Jews from Russia, and Whites) and Balts but ahead of Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, “Czechoslovaks”, and Slavs generically. It was well ahead of German, English, Irish, and other of the groups with many people that constitute most American whites. Only Italians were slightly ahead.

    Overall Ukrainians had among the highest incomes of white ethnic groups. Several times of the income of people like gerard’s family who were left behind in Sovok.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  414. @inertial

    Considering the novelties created in the last 70 years, perhaps this was not so bad?

    I know a little bit about music. I don’t think minimalism is that bad (and Arvo Pärt’s Como cierva sedienta isn’t even minimalist in any meaningful sense, for example), and it’s at least something. The USSR, coincidentally, made everything in its power to make Arvo Pärt leave the country. (I don’t know how firmly anti-Soviet he was, being Estonian, but at least they could’ve tried throwing money and privileges and prizes at him.) Though before that, Shostakovich was something, and perhaps Stalin’s influence on his music wasn’t all bad.

    • Replies: @inertial
  415. @Anatoly Karlin

    Thanks for the info, though I was aware that the English bourgeoisie was richer than their German counterparts. More specifically, I am curious to know on which sources you based the assertion that English productivity was superior to that of Germany. Are there any reliable data on this, preferably by broader category (agriculture, forestry, heavy industry, artisanry, etc). It would seem to me that German productivity in those areas where they were leading, such as steelmaking, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electricity, was far greater than in England.

  416. @g2k

    Fully agree with your succinct analysis of present-day Europe. Quite annoying indeed the advance of imported stupidities and fads from the US. The days when any educated European could speak, understand, read and write German and French (and sometimes even English!) and often Italian as well, have passed. US English is a poor replacement, since it closes off the mind as well for everything that has been and still is written in French and German. This is truly unfortunate, since it is impossible to understand the collective history of the continent and its culture, without first-hand access to all those publications in French and German. Today, many if not most students at European universities study history on the basis of US college textbooks, which is a real shame.

    • Replies: @DFH
  417. iffen says:
    @utu

    Perhaps getting a job would be good start in the quest of controlling some resources.

    I dunno, if one is really smart it seems you should be able to figure out how to get people to just bring resources and dump them at your feet.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  418. @iffen

    Government! It’s very important that I am paid to tell you what to do.

    • Replies: @iffen
  419. DFH says:
    @Hans Vogel

    The days when any educated European could speak, understand, read and write German and French (and sometimes even English!) and often Italian as well

    French perhaps, but German was a long way behind French and English, even in its turn of the 20th century heyday.

    US English is a poor replacement, since it closes off the mind as well for everything that has been and still is written in French and German

    Anything that 97% of people would want to read is either originally in or translated into English

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  420. @DFH

    “Anything that 97% of people would want to read is either originally in or translated into English”

    Really? Dream on!

    In Europe, that is England not included, German was number 2 after French, no doubt about it

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  421. DFH says:
    @AP

    British slaughtered 10,000s of Irish people and the Irish native language was successfully eradicated during British rule.

    Are you talking about Cromwell? Anyway the Irish native language wasn’t ‘eradicated’, it passed out of use because it became a useless language. The most important thing was probably the Church switching to using English. Britain didn’t go around restricting the speaking of Gaelic by the Irish (although iirc, there were early laws against English settlers speaking it) or Irish language associations though, as you suggest. The unsuccesful German attempt to destroy Polish and Polish national identity was far more deliberate.

    Nothing the Kaiser’s Germany did was on the scale of what was done to the Boers by the British.

    Prussia deliberately provoked the Austro- and Franco- Prussian wars (although obviously those countries share the blame too) which killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people.

    And for the sake its vital interests Britain was willing to have millions of Europeans die, just to prevent something completely natural from happening (the Continent being dominated by its most populous and economically dynamic country).

    Obviously a ridiculous standard; you could equally well say Germany was willing to have millions of Europeans die to try and impose its hegemony on Europe (which is also a worse reason).

    Were Communism, Nazism or for that matter 21st century post-modern leftism better than what the world had been like had the right side had won World War I by 1916, the likely result had Britain not interfered?

    How can we possibly tell what might have happened if the First World War had gone differently?
    It doesn’t really matter anyway since none of the participants intended war goals were any of these things; in actual fact the German’s intended war goals were morally worse than the British ones. Maybe if the Germans had won in the Second World War, it would have been better overall in preventing the invasion of Europe by millions of Arabs or Africans, but that hardly means that the Germans were the right side.

  422. George says:
    @Felix Keverich

    -Russia’s “October Revolution” would have never happened

    Is that because Slavs are too stupid to organize something? The proximate cause of the fall of the Czarist government militarism, and specifically losing wars against Japan and then Germany/WWI. Please explain how Czar Nicky would have survived WWI? The best alternative history is Russia would fall to pieces just like Austria Hungary. Actually, there was more holding Austria Hungary together.

    -Neither would America’s Immigration Act of 1965.

    I don’t know about this one. Any chance the Immigration Act had something to do with US foreign policy and the need to resettle refugees from US wars? Real estate and cheap labor interests also loved the law.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
  423. George says:

    “It would not have had a population of 600 million, as Dmitry Mendeleev (yes, that one) projected for the end of the century. ”

    Sure thing boss. That assumes there would not have been civil disorder caused by a massive sustained birthrate. For example China might have double or more population if the Taiping rebellion had not occurred, except that China might not exist if the Taiping rebellion did not occur. China might be numerous smaller countries occasionally launching genocidal wars against each other.

    High IQ East Asians figure out a way to destroy themselves, apparently without any Jewish input:

    The Taiping Rebellion, also known as the Taiping Civil War or the Taiping Revolution,[5] was a massive rebellion or total civil war in China that was waged from 1850 to 1864 between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty and the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom under Hong Xiuquan.

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

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  424. AP says:
    @DFH

    British slaughtered 10,000s of Irish people and the Irish native language was successfully eradicated during British rule.

    Are you talking about Cromwell?

    Yes.

    Anyway the Irish native language wasn’t ‘eradicated’, it passed out of use because it became a useless language.

    Culture-destroying occupations tend to make languages useless. The British authorities banned Gaelic from schools although to be fair by the end of the 19th century Irish natonalists were also calling for English to be used.

    “Nothing the Kaiser’s Germany did was on the scale of what was done to the Boers by the British.”

    Prussia deliberately provoked the Austro- and Franco- Prussian wars (although obviously those countries share the blame too) which killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people.

    To be precise, France under Napoleon declared war on Prussia based on popular pro-war and anti-Prussian hysteria (to their credit, French monarchists were the only ones opposed to this – these were decent people and my criticism of the Fench does not extend to them). The Germans responded by defeating the French and annexing territory that was populated by 80% ethnic Germans, the last of the Germans still living under French rule.

    At this point I will state that France has probably been worse than Britian, historically. It allied with the Ottomans against Christian Austria and Spain, France promoted anti-monarchist rebels in North America, there was the evil Revolution and its effects upon the rest of Europe, France was on the wrong side during World War I, etc.

    Prussia was indeed the aggressor in the Austro-Prussian war. Virtually no civilian casualties, military casualties per wiki of 30,000 from injuries, similar numbers from disease.

    Boer war resulted in around 30,000 military casualties and 46,000 civilian casualties. 26,000 Boer women and children died in British concentration camps.

    “And for the sake its vital interests Britain was willing to have millions of Europeans die, just to prevent something completely natural from happening (the Continent being dominated by its most populous and economically dynamic country). ”

    Obviously a ridiculous standard; you could equally well say Germany was willing to have millions of Europeans die to try and impose its hegemony on Europe (which is also a worse reason).

    Germany was defending a country that had gone to war over terrorist regicide.

    It doesn’t really matter anyway since none of the participants intended war goals were any of these things; in actual fact the German’s intended war goals were morally worse than the British ones.

    Most populous, industrialized, educated and richest Continental country achieving dominance (quite natural) over the Continent is less immoral than a fading power willing to cause havoc and mass destruction just in order to prevent the natural thing from happening. Brits didn’t want Germans to eclipse them in Europe, so they made a mess that resulted in all of Europe falling. That is awful.

    Maybe if the Germans had won in the Second World War, it would have been better overall in preventing the invasion of Europe by millions of Arabs or Africans, but that hardly means that the Germans were the right side

    .

    As bad as the (peaceful, by choice of Europe’s elites) invasion of Europe by Muslims and others is, it is not as bad as the slaughter of tens of millions of Europeans by the Nazis.

    • Replies: @DFH
  425. ” not as bad as the slaughter of tens of millions of Europeans by the Nazis. ”
    Any specification of these alleged slaughters ?

  426. inertial says:
    @reiner Tor

    Pärt doesn’t appear to be much of an Estonian nationalist, considering that he had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. Perhaps he was too religious for the Soviet art authorities. Equally likely, he simply fell victim to politics (in the sense of professional rivalry, as in “office politics.”) A senior and influential Soviet composer didn’t like his music. At any rate, it’s a shame how they treated him. But –

    Imagine a modern American or European counterpart to Arvo Pärt. Every bit as talented and yet for whatever reason never given a chance. Perhaps he is too white and male, or his music is not currently fashionable, or he never learned how to make friends in the art establishment. What would happen to him?

    Well, there is no rival power that is interested in promoting him for propaganda purposes. So he’ll just settle into a quiet teaching job and we would never hear about him.

  427. @DFH

    Prussia deliberately provoked the Austro- and Franco- Prussian wars

    The 1870/71 war was declared by the French who had a long history of aggression against German states and thought they could do it again…turned out they were wrong. Admittedly it was a political mistake to annex Alsace-Lorraine and burden France with huge indemnities, since that made permanent French hostility inevitable. But claiming this was somehow much worse than anything the oh so virtuous Brits or Americans did is bizarre, given America’s aggressive war against Mexico or Britain’s assault on China for the sake of drug dealing (yes, I know, you think wars against “racially inferior” peoples don’t count, but why should anybody else accept such a distinction, just so Anglos can continue with their smug self-righteousness?).

    in actual fact the German’s intended war goals were morally worse than the British ones

    That only makes sense if one assumes that there was a coherent, unchanging German plan for the subjugation of Europe, which wasn’t the case in WW1. Britain’s conduct of the war with the blockade that caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths wasn’t especially moral and its allies (including Tsarist Russia, which was far more illiberal and politically retrograde than Germany) were just as much, if not more, out for territorial annexations as the central powers.

    • Replies: @DFH
  428. DFH says:
    @AP

    Culture-destroying occupations tend to make languages useless

    I guess we can blame the French for ‘eradicating’ Occitan then, and the Germans for ‘eradicating’ Sorbian.

    To be precise, France under Napoleon declared war on Prussia based on popular pro-war and anti-Prussian hysteria (to their credit, French monarchists were the only ones opposed to this – these were decent people and my criticism of the Fench does not extend to them). The Germans responded by defeating the French and annexing territory that was populated by 80% ethnic Germans, the last of the Germans still living under French rule.

    Bismarck was very deliberately attempting to provoke a war with France, in which hundreds of thousands of people died (even excluding the Commune, I think).

    Germany was defending a country that had gone to war over terrorist regicide.

    Austrians could have had justice without making the ridiculous demands intended to provoke war. Anyway, you could say that Britain was defending a country it had a treaty with from an unprovoked attack.

    Most populous, industrialized, educated and richest Continental country achieving dominance (quite natural)

    It wasn’t going to be natural though, since in the circumstances it would have been the result of Germany winning the First World War.

    As bad as the (peaceful, by choice of Europe’s elites) invasion of Europe by Muslims and others is, it is not as bad as the slaughter of tens of millions of Europeans by the Nazis.

    My point was that the unexpected and unforeseen consequences of the German’s morally worse war aims don’t contribute to them being the right side.

  429. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    (yes, I know, you think wars against “racially inferior” peoples don’t count, but why should anybody else accept such a distinction, just so Anglos can continue with their smug self-righteousness?)

    Where did I say that it didn’t count because they were racially inferior? I think that people have greater moral obligations to those racially closer to them than racial aliens. It’s not as if it’s a unique or arbitrary view that I’ve come up with purely for the purposes of Anglo supremacy.

    That only makes sense if one assumes that there was a coherent, unchanging German plan for the subjugation of Europe, which wasn’t the case in WW1

    I don’t know about the German war aims in detail, but I don’t think that there are any which are as lenient as the British treatment of Germany after the war was. Brest-Litovsk certainly was not.

    its allies (including Tsarist Russia, which was far more illiberal and politically retrograde than Germany) were just as much, if not more, out for territorial annexations as the central powers.

    I never disputed this.

  430. AP says:
    @DFH

    “Culture-destroying occupations tend to make languages useless”

    I guess we can blame the French for ‘eradicating’ Occitan then, and the Germans for ‘eradicating’ Sorbian.

    We can blame the French for that, it was explicit French policy. As I said, French have not been better than British.

    As for Sorbs – not a comparable situation. There were millions of Irish on their own island, their language was naturally more viable. A much higher percentage of Sorbs speak Sorbian than Irish speak Gaelic.

    Bismarck was very deliberately attempting to provoke a war with France, in which hundreds of thousands of people died (even excluding the Commune, I think).

    “Deliberately provoking?”

    There was mass popular pro-war hysteria in France, supported by France’s popular dictator/Emperor. It declared war on Prussia.

  431. @DFH

    Austrians could have had justice without making the ridiculous demands intended to provoke war.

    You yourself wrote a few months ago that Austrian demands were “fairly reasonable”:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/pompeo-demands-iran-capitulation/#comment-2338608

    Regarding Brest-Litovsk, sure, in some ways that was pretty excessive (though imo more because the Germans intended to permanently control the new states coming into existence via puppet regimes, not because the loss of non-Russian territories was somehow a great injustice done to Russia), there were many on the German side who were overly greedy when opportunities seemed favorable. But the view that is still popular in Britain that WW1 was about a proto-Nazi Germany deliberately starting a war for the subjugation of Europe is a distortion imo. There was no such plan in WW1. Most of the allied powers had territorial ambitions in Europe as well, and Britain encouraged them in that, and also never made any serious moves to consider a negotiated end to the conflict (which the central powers offered several times in 1916/17).
    I don’t see how any of the powers involved (apart probably from Belgium) can be seen as blameless in the disaster that was WW1.

    • Agree: AP
  432. @DFH

    This thread on war aims, morals, etc. leads nowhere. Despite what the teachings of reigning orthodoxy in the “West” would have us believe, it was certainly NOT the Germans or the Austrians that wanted a war. After all, Germany was doing just fine, outcompeting everyone else and ammassing fortunes, and the last thing it needed was a war; Austria did not need a war either. Italy, which had the fastest economic growth rate of the great powers (about 9% annually), had just had a little war against the Ottomans and was not looking for trouble in Europe.

    That leaves the other three great powers, each and every one of which had strong motives and desires for a big war to redraw the map: England, France and Russia. This latter trio carries most of the guilt and responsibility for starting the Great War.

    There was only one man credited with the ability to prevent the war: Jean Jaurès. And guess what, he was conveniently killed by “a lone gunman” on the very eve of the Great War.

  433. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    You’re the one who is quite dense, in addition to going along with not not accurately recollecting what was communicated.

    According to that link, Ukrainian-Americans are ranked 40th behind numerous others with central/eastern European roots. What you claim isn’t so simple to conclude as per your stated instructions. Hence, you’ve been quite unconvincing as has been true in other instances.

    • Replies: @AP
  434. @George

    Nah, post-Qin, every single successor state has claimed the entirety of China, and it has always ended in a superstate. Technically even R.O.C does to this day, from Taiwan.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    , @George
  435. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    According to that link, Ukrainian-Americans are ranked 40th behind numerous others with central/eastern European roots.

    If I repeat it a third time will you understand it?

    Your link is for 2015 data, which for some reason in anomalous. In other years Ukrainian American median household income is higher relative to most other groups.

    In 2016 Ukrainian American median household income was $72,449 (compared to Swedish $71,217, Serbian $70,028, German $67,306, Scotch-Irish $64,187, etc. etc.). Common Ukrainian-American professions are medicine and engineering.

    To see the numbers go to the wiki article:

    1. click this link to the wikipedia article:

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

    2. Click the link to the references after each group’s income.

    3. Click (2016) on the left.

    4. Scroll around.

    So Ukrainians whose ancestors fled Sovok and came to America had a median family income of $72,449 in 2016. Compare to what it is in Russia (or Ukraine), for those who did not escape.

    In 2016 Ukrainian median family income was behind that of Russians (probably a combination of Jews from Russia, and Whites) and Balts but ahead of Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, “Czechoslovaks”, and Slavs generically. It was well ahead of German, English, Irish, and other of the groups with many people that constitute most American whites. Only Italians were slightly ahead.

    :::::::::::::

    Once the wiki article is updated to the latest available year your confusion will be allayed?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  436. @DFH

    The fact is that many who spoke Irish literally died in the Famine. Estimates suggest up to 20% of the population died and these would have been disproportionately Irish speakers. This mortality, coupled with subsequent emigration was the main reason why the language went into decline.

  437. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    You once again shoot blanks with your densely premised bravado, in addition to not accurately recollecting what has been communicated.

    Once again, the link in question lists Ukrainian-Americans 40th among other Americans, including a good number with roots to central and eastern Europe. Your follow-up claim to substantiate differently isn’t clear-cut in the way that you describe.

    My point about fluctuating trends on that particular, leading to a likely inconclusive finding (specifically, the one you claim) is thereby well premised.

    BTW, this matter can be taken a step further, asking where newly arrived Ukrainians from Ukraine come from, relative to their level of income? For the purpose of trying to prove talking points, statistics have been used in an inaccurate way.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @AP
  438. @Duke of Qin

    I thought you were in Singapore, not America. How much time did you actually spend in mainland China? Can you actually prove to me that you know Chinese by writing something intelligent in it? What you write does make you appear genuinely knowledgeable and smart, but more evidence can never hurt.

    I do wonder what kind of people tend to comment on this site. Age wise, education wise, ethnicity wise, country of residence wise, career success wise, wealth wise, etc. Oh right, also gender wise. ;) What kind of impact has this site really had? Could it be that this place is actually full of un/under-employed losers? Yes, I’m asking myself how worthwhile it is for me to continue to write here.

    Observers of my blog will notice that technical posts have ceased for a while. Maybe I should get back to that. After all, I’m naturally suspicious of the competence of people who only write about soft matters, and maybe I should apply that judgment to myself as well. Of course, I have learned by now the value of being brazen. I increasingly feel Chinese have lost out much career wise and internationally due to relative lack of such quality, which is easily perceived as a sign of weakness. It is indeed very unnatural for East Asians to be the way Indians and Jews are for both cultural and biological reasons. I am surprised there are actually quite a few Chinese here, because Chinese tend to keep a low profile on the internet, especially in America. They are by default timid and risk-averse after all, and it’s debatable whether or not that is the wise choice. Chinese are more do less talk, and while the do part is definitely the foundation, 话语权 must also be consolidated and exercised to some degree.

  439. @George

    The best alternative history is Russia would fall to pieces just like Austria Hungary. Actually, there was more holding Austria Hungary together.

    The people of modern day Belarus, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan had no sense of national identity at the beginning of 20th century and would inevitably return to Moscow’s fold after Germany itself fell to pieces. Russia’s performance in WW1 was underwhelming, but it did no permament damage to Russia’s position. The real catastrophy occured after Bolshevik coup. It took a particularly twisted (Jewish) mind to devise a regime like Soviet Communism. The first Soviet government was 75% Jewish.

    Any chance the Immigration Act had something to do with US foreign policy and the need to resettle refugees from US wars?

    No, it really is the Jew, and his need to divide the “goyim”, as a way to dominate and control them, and prevent a new Holocaust. The idea is that having “goyim” split into multiple warrying factions will make it harder for them to act against the Jew.

    Jews support multicuturalism and mass immigration in every country except Israel. Like a parasite killing his host the Jew is now killing USA.

    • Replies: @iffen
  440. @gmachine1729

    You are engaging in unwarranted generalizations. Individual Chinese in the US are just as different as everybody else. My two smartest post-docs were Chinese (one is an Assistant Professor now), but one of my dumbest post-docs was also Chinese. My second-best grad student was Chinese (and not timid at all; she went on to do a post-doc in a very good lab), whereas my best and smartest, as well as my worst and dumbest grad students were American. So, my experience tells me that people’s origin has zero predictive value. Although I had people from various countries from five different continents in the lab, my sample might not be statistically valid, as I had fewer that 50 people total, including undergrads.

  441. Avery says:

    {…….then Germany would have almost certainly crushed Russia in 1915.} (Karlin)

    How so?

    In 1914 the Russian Empire had a population of ~160-170 million vs 65 million for Kaiser’s Germany. Germans for sure were better led, better trained, and probably better equipped, but how would it be possible for Germany to, quote, ‘crush’ Russia?

    Russia is just too large to be crushed.
    And I doubt Russians would simply surrender.
    You know Russia and Russian people/character better than me of course, but from what I know about Russians they are not the surrendering sort.

    In its day Napoleon’s Grande Armée was the finest fighting force in Europe, sort of like what the Wehrmacht was in its day. Napoleon even managed to enter Moscow. He was hoping that a delegation from Tsar Nicholas would be arriving any day now to discuss surrender terms, but all in vain.

    Of the ~700,000 men he had when he invaded Russia only 27,000 crossed out. (….and no, it wasn’t because of General Winter). After losing his Grande Armée and all his experienced veterans in Russia, his European fate was sealed.

    Mongols dominated a much weaker and disunited Russia for 300 years, and yet they too finally were thrown out and Russia grew stronger and larger over time.

  442. iffen says:
    @gmachine1729

    Could it be that this place is actually full of un/under-employed losers?

    Speak for yourself.

  443. iffen says:
    @Felix Keverich

    his need to divide the “goyim”, as a way to dominate and control them, and prevent a new Holocaust.

    So what were they up to before the Holocaust?

  444. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Excellent Dan C.! We in the opposition need to create an alt.gov. That’s the ticket!

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  445. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    So you didn’t’ understand after three repetitions.

    Perhaps you can find someone to read to you :-)

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  446. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    Once again, the link in question lists Ukrainian-Americans 40th among other Americans,

    Link in question has been updated for 2016 data and lists Ukrainians as # 23 among other Americans.

    Fifteen white ethnic groups are wealthier than Ukrainians and twenty-eight white ethnic groups are poorer than Ukrainians.

  447. @Hans Vogel

    I was told by a US Engineer that until WW2, many engineering courses in the US required German. Decades ago, I read that UK chemistry courses required or taught German as late as the 1950′s.

  448. @AnonFromTN

    my experience tells me that people’s origin has zero predictive value

    How many Sudanese grad students have you had, already?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  449. @DFH

    Ireland like Cornwall or the Scottish Highlands was rural. The languages failed to incorporate modern ideas. So, it did not absorb new arrivals from the Old English onwards.

    South Wales was a leader in the industrial revolution. Despite much more rigorous attacks by the English state on the Welsh language than on Erse or Gaelic it thrived and absorbed incomers until a million English and Irish immigrants arrived in the 30 years after 1880 to join a million Welsh in South Wales.

    Irish died a natural death. It is now in a persistent vegetative state. Ireland during Cromwellian times was not exceptional on a European level. The 30 Years War or the Khlemnitsky rebellion were worse for the scale and proportion of killing (and in Ukraine wholesale enslavement). Some of Cromwell’s army were witness to the killing of the Protestants of Antwerp, an unambiguous case of Church burning.

  450. @gmachine1729

    长江后浪推前浪

    I do find that I’m “bold” compared to many of my co-ethnics, who I find timid; I credit my part Mongol blood for that. But it is somewhat a stereotype, as you know, there are plenty of hot-blooded Chinese as well, Hunan is infamous for making outlaws.

    As for troll wars, wasn’t there a “pink panties/little pinks” of a bunch of nationalist girls who went around arguing with everyone about China in broken English? It was pretty funny, the thought. I bet everyone believed that they had to be wumao, but instead, they’re doing it for free.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    , @gmachine1729
  451. @Guillaume Tell

    No Sudanese, so? There are almost 200 countries in the world (more if you count partially recognized ones), but I did not have 200 people in the lab. My best and most productive tech ever was a black girl from Cameroon, whereas techs from Ukraine, US, and Puerto Rico were middling to bad. One of my collaborators has an excellent post-doc from Egypt who purifies for us quite a few proteins. I had pretty shitty post-docs from Algeria and India, both of which I had to fire. I had one very good post-doc from Russia and two pretty bad ones (fired both). Had two reasonable, but not excellent from Korea, one so-so post-doc from Venezuela. Have good ones from Sri Lanka and the US, and a middling one from Germany. So, no matter how I look at it, I see no correlation between the quality of individual people and their origin, gender, or color.
    What’s your point, anyway?

  452. @iffen

    As an alternative to us dumping resources to other people, other people can dump resources to us. This is an excellent alt.gov.

  453. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Duke of Qin

    There is nothing but death that awaits the Chinese and indeed all the East Asians in America and the people who think the moon is a little bigger are fools, because they don’t realize the extra money they earn comes at the cost of not having any grandchildren.

    I’m not Chinese and I don’t live in America so I don’t have a dog in this fight but I think you’re making a very important point. American “culture” is remorseless. It crushes everything in its path. It’s like the Borg. Everyone must be assimilated. If you live there you are going to lose your own culture, your own identity.

    And it’s not just remorseless, it’s also a degenerate trash culture. Losing your own culture is bad enough. Giving it up in favour of American culture is tragic.

    I’ve always been horrified by the melting pot ideology. Assimilation is genocide. If you put people into a melting pot what you end up with is a tasteless, colourless, formless sludge.

  454. @Daniel Chieh

    I do find that I’m “bold” compared to many of my co-ethnics, who I find timid

    Really? Overall, for better or worse, I find Mainland Chinese to be pretty chaotic.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  455. @AnonFromTN

    Yes, of course there is much variation in group. But there is also variation between groups in terms of the distributions. Like, there has been evidence of an East Asian exception to Dunning-Kruger. There is also that Indians and Jews tend to be much better at the glib/superficial assertive type of talk that signals leadership/confidence in the American corporate context that Chinese generally find very unnatural. There seems to be much consensus on this based on what I see online and from talking with people.

    Even Steve Hsu commented in http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/03/india-silicon-valley-africa.html that

    Aggressive or glib salesy types are more common among the S. Asians. There is even a stereotype among E. Asians (from Asia, even in my father’s generation) that S. Asians can be big talkers who don’t back it up. In Confucian culture, this is considered very bad. Traditional E. Asians are more “under promise — over deliver” types.

    Keep in mind that STEM academia is very different in its culture, especially in the harder, more quantitative fields. I’m mostly talking about so-called “leadership” positions where there is much more money/status at stake.

    Again, there is real evidence. All those Indian CEOs lately. It’s even more obvious in the Jewish case. Don’t forget the ethnic nepotism factor as well. When I used the word “brazen,” I had this in mind too.

    As Duke of Qin has noted, Indians and Jews spent millennia in multicultural, multiethnic societies, whereas the Chinese mostly created a civilization of their own, with interaction with outsiders relatively minimal. From this one would expect that the Chinese would be at a disadvantage in the US corporate world. At the same time though, Jewish/Indian style behavior leads to a tragedy of the commons; its thriving is contingent on a more functional host society to leech on. We already see how in spite of their success at the top of US tech companies, with Indians CEOs at both Google and Microsoft, they cannot develop their own internet giants at home, not to mention India’s dysfunction at large.

    I’m suddenly reminded of how back in January 1963, after the Sino-Indian War, even Mao characterized Indians as pests/ants/flies in a poem. Its English translation: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/poems/poems34.htm.

    On this tiny globe
    A few flies dash themselves against the wall,
    Humming without cease,
    Sometimes shrilling,
    Sometimes moaning.
    Ants on the locust tree assume a great-nation swagger
    And mayflies lightly plot to topple the giant tree.
    The west wind scatters leaves over Changan,
    And the arrows are flying, twanging.
    So many deeds cry out to be done,
    And always urgently;
    The world rolls on,
    Time presses.
    Ten thousand years are too long,
    Seize the day, seize the hour!
    The Four Seas are rising, clouds and waters raging,
    The Five Continents are rocking, wind and thunder roaring.
    Our force is irresistible,
    Away with all pests!

    Wise men think alike. What Duke of Qin has been saying about Indians in Singapore has been more or less the same: 要扫除一切害人虫,全无敌。

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  456. Seraphim says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Well, it was not the the curbing of Russia’s ‘ambitions’ and ‘expansionism’ in the Far East that diverted it to the Balkans. This is the clichéd pop history of anti-Russian propaganda forged around the forged ‘ Will of Peter the Great’, Russia’s ‘messianism’, ‘Third Rome’, threat to European ‘civilization’, cruel oppressor of ‘minorities’. Actually informed by the clichés of the Eurocentric take on history, the ‘West and the Rest’, ‘Whites vs colored’, ‘yellow peril’, ‘white’s man burden’, ‘Enlightenment vs. medieval obscurantism’ memes. No matter what, ‘Russia must be blocked’.

    The reality is that the ‘Oriental question’ was at the center of Anglo (and ‘European’)-Russian relations for centuries. As a matter of fact, Russia was always perceived as a hindrance and a threat to the commercial interests of England and to her ‘expansion’ in the sphere of the natural interests of Russia. Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, China were the immediate neighbours of Russia, with a long history of interactions, commercial, political, ethnical, cultural (yes, the Silk Road). England was the intruder in that sphere, where it created only troubles and mayhem, which they would blame on others. It was not Russia that invaded India, China, Afghanistan, Tibet. Neither Korea for that matter. The Anglo-Russian agreement of 1906 was not ‘imposed’ on a weakened Russia. Quite the contrary. Cooler heads in British politics realized that Russia would regain her strength and their contentious problems would not be ever solved by force but by negotiated compromises, which was always the preferred Russian policy for resolution of conflicts. Also, their worldview of Anglo-Saxons was obsessed by the ‘yellow peril’ and they quickly became suspicious of the Japanese ‘ambitions’. You cannot dismiss the warming of Anglo-Russian relations due to the royal alliances.
    And of course, you must not overlook the increasing meddling of the Americans in all these affairs, with all their ‘bull in the China shop’ way of diplomacy.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  457. @Hyperborean

    Maybe its the older generation I interact with mostly. It can be maddening, there’s a friend that I basically had to kick into a better job; he’s quite talented but basically so cowardly/risk adverse that he’d rather do gruntwork than go into a technical role that he’s well qualified for(and now does well at).

    I mean, people can be loud and vocal, but there’s like something missing at this self-confidence.

    Hopefully its gotten better.

    Man, I could go into rants about my co-ethnics though.

  458. @Hyperborean

    Yup. I believe that they have an eleven point claim over East Asian seas, exceeding China’s. ROC is all manners of hilarity, really. The punchline shall include their reintegration into China.

  459. @gmachine1729

    Paranoia is a virtue, don’t let anyone say otherwise.

    https://vocaroo.com/i/s1sxZGpDkbjW

    Should be more than enough proof that I am what I say I am, and not a really esoteric troll. I read some of your technical blog posts, but higher mathematics was never my thing. I am one of the rare few of us whose aptitude skews slightly more verbal rather so in that way I am unlike the average Chinese.

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  460. @Daniel Chieh

    But it is somewhat a stereotype, as you know, there are plenty of hot-blooded Chinese as well, Hunan is infamous for making outlaws.

    Lol all those revolutionaries, political leaders, and generals from Hunan, Mao most notable of all.

    As for troll wars, wasn’t there a “pink panties/little pinks” of a bunch of nationalist girls who went around arguing with everyone about China in broken English? It was pretty funny, the thought. I bet everyone believed that they had to be wumao, but instead, they’re doing it for free.

    Never heard of it, maybe you can tell me more. Lol, maybe I also come across as a wumao.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  461. @gmachine1729

    Lol all those revolutionaries, political leaders, and generals from Hunan, Mao most notable of all.

    The greatest outlaw of them all! :D

    Never heard of it, maybe you can tell me more. Lol, maybe I also come across as a wumao.

    The actual existence of the wumao has always been exaggerated, though its a funny meme. As for the pinks:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2095458/rise-little-pink-chinas-young-angry-digital-warriors

    The term originated on the popular female-led literature website, Jinjiang Literary City, where users share original writing.

    “Original writing” aka yaoi. Behold the anger of the weaponized fujoshi. :P

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  462. @Duke of Qin

    I think I am also more verbal. But I also excel at pure math and have taken graduate math classes and learned much more on my own there. Sadly, I’m not becoming a mathematician. On the more positive side, I can make more impact elsewhere. In the computer industry perhaps, though I’m increasingly pessimistic there. What I’m hoping for is culturally/politically. Like, I am very proud of my not having succumbed to American culture/brainwash despite having been there since age 6. I hope to set an example for others there. Yes, Chinese in America are such cucks, seriously, have some pride in your culture, don’t give in so easily to liberal idiocy.

    听不出来啊,只能估计一下你不是从哪儿来的,比如不是山东人,也不是四川人,也不是河北人,江苏人浙江人应该也不是,福建人非也,北京人也不太像,只能猜猜,是不是上海人?

  463. @Daniel Chieh

    你也是中国人,什么把你引到Unz Review。Duke of Qin却说此网站较吸引所谓”reactionary Chinese,”又问我何得知之。我回,“Unz是由Steve Hsu介绍的”。我还没捞着问他同问题呐。我比较难想象中国长大的中国人跑到这儿来评论,期望的更多是ABC半ABC之类的,像Yan Shen这样的,而且也是性格品味意外一点的”。虽然看到几个,还是没有感觉这里中国人那么多,好奇除了此文里的四位,还有那些华夏子孙在这里发表代表人类进步思想的言论,为我们中国人在美国英文媒体发出一些声音占有一席之地啊。

    还想问问你们在这儿是出于什么,何为目的?同问题我也在问自己,总而言之,希望将一些更正确基于事实的而鲜为人知的观念公开一些,影响一些人,留下记录,同时认识一些与我类似的人,得以启发和或许未来事业上的合作。

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  464. iffen says:

    Some resident aliens and immigrants in the U. S. remind me of the joke about the conversation between two old maids at a restaurant.

    1st: The food here is terrible. It tastes digusting.

    2nd: Yes, the food is horrible, and such small portions, too.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  465. @iffen

    Isn’t that a Jewish joke?

  466. @gmachine1729

    I’m here because I like Mr. Karlin, his writings and the community present.

    I’m not actually a Chinese nationalist or anything like that, and have been quite opposed to aspect of the Chinese government to this day, such as the retarded GFW and especially its expansion. Most of my beliefs are syncretic from the notion of meaning collapse/surrogate activity(Ted Kaczynski), disenchantment(Max Weber), neoreaction(Mencius Moldbug ), accelerationism(Nick Land) as well as more traditional reactionaries such as Joseph de Maistre although I hold quite a few of the liberals of the time in great respect, especially Voltaire(the original troll). The most influential Chinese thinker on me, besides Confucius, is actually Han Fei – but its a pretty dim view of humanity even if he is the original realist.

  467. George says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “every single successor state has claimed the entirety of China”

    That’s common human behavior, trying to recreate the Roman Empire is the Euro variant. But in an alternative history, Manchuria might have survived as an independent state among other independent states all with factions dreaming of controlling all of China/ Asia/ The world. But in terms of ‘human biodiversity, I think the Taiping Rebellion is the most important event humans might have been able to avoid. The spread of Eurasian diseases to the new world was perhaps more important, but I don’t see how it could have been avoided.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Jeff Stryker
  468. @Marcus

    agriculture were still fairly backwards

    Haber process
    In combination with pesticides, these fertilizers have quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land

    the Haber process served as the “detonator of the population explosion”, enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today’s 7 billion. Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process.

    “Fritz” Haber.

    • Replies: @Avery
  469. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    From the Wiki link you provided:

    [Although the Haber process is mainly used to produce fertilizer today, during World War I it provided Germany with a source of ammonia for the production of explosives, compensating for the Allied trade blockade on Chilean saltpeter.]

    So the Haber Process example does not invalidate poster [Marcus]‘s assertion about German agriculture. I don’t know about the state of German agriculture during WW1 (i.e. advanced or primitive), but clearly the motivation of chemists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch was to help their homeland’s war effort, not to advance German agriculture.

  470. @Seraphim

    Russia was a Commercial threat to the UK? Russia may have been politically ambitious and. Imitation inclined but hardly a commercial threat.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  471. @German_reader

    It is an open question which country will be the first formally subjugated to nationwide sharia “law” and hostile nonEuropean rule, Germany, formerly-great formerly-Britain, AfroFrance, or Sweden. Germans are in no position to lecture the brits on their decline in general, or their surrender to aliens and savages in particular.

    While my country, the USA, is sooooo much better, we’re going for a heavily Mexican Brazil arrangement. Better than rule by Muslims and especially Africans and Arabs like the brits and germans, but not good.

  472. @gmachine1729

    Sorry, I understand very few hieroglyphs, even fewer than poorly educated Chinese peasants. Should have known more, having had five Chinese in the lab over the years and having been in China twice, but here it is. Of course, I can always blame American “dumb, ignorant, and proud of it” attitude after 27 years in the US, but that won’t be true. I don’t live in China, and therefore have no strong incentive to learn Chinese with its complicated writing (even though I have an introductory textbook of Chinese for foreigners). Never progressed beyond nihao and a few other words. Can’t write even those.

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  473. @George

    “every single successor state has claimed the entirety of China”

    That always puzzled me a lot. Even today, we have the Republic of China (Taiwan) that certainly is a republic but clearly is not China, and People’s Republic of China (mainland), which is indeed China, but most certainly not a republic.

  474. Miro23 says:
    @gmachine1729

    I do wonder what kind of people tend to comment on this site. Age wise, education wise, ethnicity wise, country of residence wise, career success wise, wealth wise, etc. Oh right, also gender wise. What kind of impact has this site really had? Could it be that this place is actually full of un/under-employed losers? Yes, I’m asking myself how worthwhile it is for me to continue to write here.

    I doubt the Unz Review will do much for your career advancement – better look elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  475. iffen says:

    I doubt the Unz Review will do much for your career advancement – better look elsewhere.

    No, no, making comments here are definitely CV material.

  476. Seraphim says:
    @Philip Owen

    I think that your quip was addressed to #417:
    “Russia had ambitions to get a large part of the trade with China via Port Arthur, threatening Britain’s position in Chinese trade”. That was exactly the rationale of Mackinder ‘alarm bells’ sounded exactly few days ( 25 January 1904), before the Japanese aggression at Port Arthur (8 February 1904), whose aim was to snatch the control of the Chinese Eastern Railway from the Russians (who built it).

    My post was arguing that it was not the blocking by Britain in alliance with the Japanese, of Russia’s ‘expansion’ in the Far East (which they did manage to do half-way, anyway, Russians remained in place in China, the Japanese got control only of half of the Chinese Eastern Railway), that diverted this ‘expansion’ to the Balkans, where Russia has always been present and, we are suggested, illegitimately threatening the ‘Western’ interests in the Straits and the Black Sea and in Russia proper. The historical reality is that of an ‘expansion’ of the West in the Balkans to expel Russia from there, the second rationale of the Mackinder ‘alarm bells’ (get Eastern Europe, get Ukraine if you want to stop Russia and carve it afterwards to protect ‘Western’ interests).
    Exactly like today, when Russia is branded the ‘aggressor’ in her own land and threatens the interests of ‘Europe’ (and the ‘international community’).
    ‘Commercially’ Russia was no threat, it was not producing anything (except railways and guns, but even there they were just ‘imitators’) although it was already a ‘gas station with big guns’ but no butter, the ‘giant with clay feet’ you can kick at any time. Oh, ‘McCain you’ve done it again’*

    *Aussie TV commercial for McCain pizza.

  477. @Respect

    You take our Mexicans, we’ll take your Slavs. Not even a close call. Send ‘em over to the USA.

  478. Haven’t any of you been to Chicago or Detroit?

    The US did get millions of Polish and Ukrainians-actors Jack Palance and Charles Bronson, for example-between World War 1 and Word War 11.

    White hicks from the rural regions are SO REMOVED from the mainstream that I cannot tell who is a foreigner and who is not.

    • Replies: @bj
    , @RadicalCenter
  479. @AnonFromTN

    Perfect linguistic firewall then.

  480. bj says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Ethnic whites don’t live in Detroit or Chicago. Those neighborhoods were ethnically cleansed while you were out of country. E. Michael Jones chronicles the culture war that changed the demographic face of America.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @anarchyst
  481. Seraphim says:
    @AP

    Toilet cleaning (cleaning in general) requires lots of skills, fitness, willingness to work overtime for the same pay, willingness to do do the job whenever you are required. Actually, it’s called ‘environmental work”. The workers are not called ‘toilet cleaners’ but ‘agents de surface’ (at least in France). It’s huge industry always short of man-power, so demand is very high. It offers lots of job opportunities for those who are not ‘job snobs’. It is casual work, so there is a lot of freedom.
    You don’t see them much around because they prefer to work night shifts and week-ends. It’s a better pay. Someone has to do it. Great pay for garbage collectors, street sweepers, nurses for incontinent elderly people, too. To be honest I don’t know what’s the pay for street walkers (now they are called ‘sex workers’), but I assume that job satisfaction compensate for low earnings.

  482. @Miro23

    and especially @gmachine1729

    If career advancement be your purpose at the moment, just watch CNN, perhaps read the NYT, post silly remarks on YT and Twitter, inane pics on Instagram, and join a sports club or something. By the time you are being made redundant from whatever fine job you might have risen to, or gotten sick of eating supermarket garbage and fast food, you may still have some time to live. THEN you can spend your time reading this and other interesting sites. That is, if they still exist and haven’t been censored into oblivion.

  483. @bj

    Ribniki’s story-

    Ribniki was a Polish guy I knew at CMU who was desperate to get a degree and get out of Flint Michigan-back in 1993 this was California before it became Tijuana.

    John’s parents were older Polish-Americans who’d worked all their life in the GM plant of Flint. John had worked there too, until an accident injured him and he got comp. At that point, he just wanted to get his degree and move out West.

    But he got a pretty Hungarian-American waitress of 19 pregnant in Flint during Spring Break-her Dad was a custodian at the local school.

    She was Catholic and at 23 he was now a father.

    Ribniki moved back to Flint and did whatever menial jobs were available to college dropouts-at one point he managed a tanning salon.

    Then one evening he was walking home from the corner store and was shot in the back in a random drive-by. He lived.

    I FACEBOOKED him years later and he was still in Flint. Ironically, his ex-wife met another guy and divorced him and moved to California with his daughter.

    Now 40, John could not have sold his house in Flint if he wanted. He was stuck there.

    The LUCKY ethnic whites get out of post-industrial rust-belt holes. Chicago is actually not one. But the unlucky ones get a girl pregnant or take a hit off a crack pipe at a party and end up trapped there.

  484. @George

    DAVID

    Manchurian Chinese are not even true Asians, they’re Russian Siberians who invaded China from the North in the Middle Ages.

    I can tell a Manchurian, they are damn near white-looking-obviously the Soviet influence.

    They were not so much Chinese as the only invaders to really “take over” China.

  485. @Jeff Stryker

    I’ve lived in two US cities with heavy Slavic populations. But our Slavic immigration has been dwarfed by less desirable immigration. I’m just saying more Slavic people here would be just fine, especially relative to the people who are actually coming here in vast numbers.

    And I didn’t grow up in a rural area, nor do I live in one now. Thanks, though.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  486. @Jeff Stryker

    Manchurian Chinese are not even true Asians, they’re Russian Siberians who invaded China from the North in the Middle Ages.

    I can tell a Manchurian, they are damn near white-looking-obviously the Soviet influence.

    They were not so much Chinese as the only invaders to really “take over” China.

    From building the pyramids, founding ancient Vedic civilisation and contributing to ancient Sumerian culture, what can’t the Russian race achieve?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @AnonFromTN
  487. @RadicalCenter

    Red Indian Aztecs are a lot less desirable than a Polish guy like Harvey Kietel.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  488. @Hyperborean

    Russians built the pyramids? That is a stretch.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    , @Mikhail
  489. @Jeff Stryker

    It’s an inside joke on this blog.

  490. @Hyperborean

    Looks like you are mixing Russians with Ukrainians. If you believe Ukrainian history books, Ukrainians existed for thousands of years, built Egyptian pyramids, created Sumerian and Vedic civilizations, and dug out Black Sea. Also, Latin was an offshoot of Ukrainian, in case you are interested in linguistics. They had too many other achievements to list them all. Apparently, all over that unfortunate territory haloperidol isn’t administered in time or isn’t working properly.

  491. @Jeff Stryker

    Uh, no? We do have official imperial portraits of the Manchu king. Their documentation is really quite good, even photography toward second half of the 1800s.

    They’re far, far pre-Russian anyway. They may have some faintish roots of Indo-European Siberians, from Tungusic relations, but the Russians met the Tungusic in the 1600s and recorded them as previously undocumented steppe barbarians.

  492. @Duke of Qin

    Duke of Qin, I’m very curious what do you think of Jews? In particular, what do you think of Chinese attitudes towards them? Again, it’s really the Chinese in the West who have had substantial firsthand exposure to them; in China, many have a they’re so smart, they’re so good at business reverence out of mostly superficial understanding. As for what I’ve observed, you can read my blog. ;)

    Sometimes I do like to think that it’s the Chinese smart and armed with the perspective of an outsider culture who are best able to see through their shenanigans, and perhaps this is viewed as extremely threatening. As you say, the Chinese are not well adapted to multicultural, multiethnic societies. So Jews would naturally want to absorb Chinese and China into the post-war liberal democratic American-led Western world order.

    I do ask myself why I suddenly became “anti-Semitic.” Well, it’s just like once you examine their behavior more closely, it’s so obvious what’s going on that I have to call them out for civilization’s sake. The benefit of being Chinese is that you can detach from the rest. 或许我也有点政治野心,望成为中国反犹之父。Of course, I much admire the achievements and creativity of the group. Many of those Soviet songs I listen to were written by Jews, it’s like damn are they artistically talented. I also know personally some Jews whose ability and taste I have a very high opinion of. What I am opposed to is Chinese worshipping them blindly and buying into their political bullshit. Instead of all the misguided conformism, envy, and self-pity over the higher status and achievement of Jews in the Western context, Chinese should cultivate and promote their own unique system and culture, especially in STEM, where the universal standards are such that excellence is necessarily eventually recognized by the outside world. Become good enough that others will come to you, or even if they don’t, you don’t have to give a damn. Become like the Japanese (see the list of Japanese geniuses in science here: https://gmachine1729.com/lists/discrimination-in-science/), except also with scale.

    Fear coupled with contempt is a natural impulse when faced with an alien culture, especially when that culture is formidable in ability. I wonder how much Judeophobia there is among East Asians and the reverse. I will say that I’ve seen many Jews say ridiculous stuff about China and Chinese, often in a defensive way. I once asked my extremely smart Olympiad medalist half ABC friend, a Jew-worshipping self-hating Chinese (whose mother later married a white man), if Jews fear Chinese. He was like, “no, they know they’re smarter than us.” I do wonder how they feel about their losing to Chinese by a wide margin in those 100% fair contests like the math/science olympiads and the Putnam. On that, my friend would say, “they have better things to do.” He will say “where is the Chinese Feynman, where is the Chinese Einstein?” On this, I was surprised to learn that post-war, Japanese + Chinese actually achieved arguably close to what the Jews did in theoretical physics. Of course, in a physics popularization/bullshitting/fame contest, Jews would easily win, a few exceptions like Michio Kaku notwithstanding.

    https://gmachine1729.com/lists/anti-chinese-jews/

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Miro23
  493. Seraphim says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Would you still find more ‘desireable’ the White ‘Polish’ guy if you knew that:
    “Keitel was born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, the son of Miriam (née Klein) and Harry Keitel, who were Jewish emigrants from Romania and Poland, respectively?

  494. utu says:
    @gmachine1729

    Great subject of utmost importance. There should be a video game Jews vs. Chinese: the Ultimate Quest for the Domination of the Planet Earth. Chinese have everything what it takes to win except for the Jewish chutzpah and ruthlessness. But in a long run being polite and diplomatic as Chinese can be is an asset that Jews do not have. Narrowing the problem to IQs and who is smarter is absolutely self defeating and a dead end street. The IQism is tolerate and it functions only because it keeps putting Jews on the top but where are the data? If you go this way you are doomed. It is all about the spirit and faith in yourself and your culture. Unlike Europeans Chinese are not burdened by Christianity entanglements with Judaism that ultimately turned out to be beneficial to Jews. Christianity saved Jews from annihilation by pagan cultures. This lack of burden is the greatest asset you got. I would hope that somewhere in China there are think tanks that are studying the possible scenarios for the Jews vs. Chinese video game. I wonder how well the so called anti-Semitic literature is available in China. You need to draw from the experience of others who learned about Jews from hundreds if not thousands of years of interactions with them. Translating Ron Unz American Pravda series would be a good start. I think that Song Hongbing’s Currency Wars that was not yet translated to English is a step in a good direction. With the attitudes of being at awe with Jews as displayed by your Olympiad friend you will be doomed. Attitudes like these must be nipped in the bud. There will also be a problem with Jewish-Chinese who like children of Amy Chua are Chinese in terms of Chinese food only but their identity and loyalty are Jewish . Keep in mind that all western publications in Asia like Asia Times are run by Jewish operatives. They will be used to penetrate your culture with schmaltzy Haggadah about the Jews. The stories told about Asia and about Jews for Asians are told form the Jewish point of view. The Japanese had a healthy attitude towards Jews for which they often were accused of anti-Semitism (Anti-Smitism without Jews Paradox). Books about Jews were widely read in Japan. Still it did not save them when their financial institutions were attacked and when their elites succumbed to this attack. But possibly it could have been worse. But in the end it all comes down to the elites. What will be the impact on Chinese elites’ children of being sent to all those fancy schmancy schools and lifestyles of rich spoiled elites. Most of them are lost for China.

  495. DFH says:
    @utu

    Christianity saved Jews from annihilation by pagan cultures.

    What are you talking about. The situation for the Jewish diaspora was much worse for Jews in the Christian world than it had ever been in the Pagan one.

  496. dux.ie says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    The y DNA haplogroup distribution for Russian is about 63% yHg R. Compare that to the Manchurian distribution it is unlikely considering that yHg O dominates both Han and Manchu groups. The Chinese commercial DNA testing companies cannot reliably differentiate Northern Han with Manchu.

    Ethnic C D N O Q R G J rest Ref
    Han 7.73 1.92 5.94 79.32 2.51 1.65 0.27 0.27 0.36
    Manchu 43.91 0.00 4.88 51.71 9.76 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hammer2006

  497. @utu

    Unlike Europeans Chinese are not burdened by Christianity entanglements with Judaism that ultimately turned out to be beneficial to Jews.

    That sounds a bit like the anti-Christian arguments made by some white nationalists, I’m surprised to see you writing that, given your sympathies for the Catholic church.
    DFH is right, the pro-Jewish sentiment espoused by many Christians today (sometimes going so far as to claim the Jews’ covenant with God is still valid and a separate way to salvation) was a marginal view for most of Christianity’s history. The dominant Christian view of Jews for most of the last 2000 years has been negative.

    • Replies: @utu
  498. anarchyst says:
    @bj

    I lived in Detroit and through the 1967 riots…It seems that a number of important facts get left out.
    1. “Blockbusting” by jewish real estate agents was rampant. These unscrupulous jews would send postcards to neighborhood residents stating “A “new family” is moving into your neighborhood. If you wish to sell your house, please call XXX-XXXX”). A “new family” was a euphemism for “blacks”. Real estate agents played on the (justified) fears of whites…
    2. HUD (Housing and Urban Development) speculators would purchase the best houses on every block and raze them. This was an attempt to depress property values so that speculators could buy them “on the cheap”. I realize that this runs counter to #1, but, it is fact…
    3. During the riots, black businesses spray-painted the words “soul brother” on their business buildings so that the “angels of death” (looters) would “pass them by”.
    4. The “nail in the coffin” of Detroit was the election of the first black mayor Coleman A. Young. Fulfilling a campaign promise, this jew-enabled black POS abolished one of the most successful crime fighting programs (STRESS–Stop The Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets). This program disguised police as vulnerable old men and women. When the predators would attack, they were quite often dispatched to “the great hereafter”. Too many of mayor Coleman A. Young’s “homeys” were meeting their maker.
    Coleman Young got along with the “movers and shakers”, but detested all white people, showing it with abrasive language and outright hatred of whites.
    The decline of this once-great city can be laid at the feet of the jews and their black lackeys…

  499. @utu

    Chinese have everything what it takes to win except for the Jewish chutzpah and ruthlessness.

    Chinese have their own version of it. They had the nerve to go on an all out war against the West militarily in Korea, which they were successful in. After the Chinese managed to do what the Japanese couldn’t, Japan could no longer look down on China entirely. Twenty years of isolation from the West did not bring China down; it instead enabled a very distinct political culture to emerge there, independent from Western influence. Today, China is sending shivers down the spines of Western elites by succeeding in defiance of the post-war liberal democratic American-led world order. China has already made a fool out of the Japanese-American who coined “The End of History.”

    I wonder how well the so called anti-Semitic literature is available in China.

    Everybody in China knows that Jews basically control America. Plenty of people on the Chinese internet think they’re parasites without a homeland who leeched off others for two millennia, who turned out even worse after the West gave them Israel. Maybe it’s time to add a Chinese section to https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/anti-semitic-quotes/.

    With the attitudes of being at awe with Jews as displayed by your Olympiad friend you will be doomed. Attitudes like these must be nipped in the bud. There will also be a problem with Jewish-Chinese who like children of Amy Chua are Chinese in terms of Chinese food only but their identity and loyalty are Jewish . Keep in mind that all western publications in Asia like Asia Times are run by Jewish operatives.

    Yes, but there are also plenty of people like me who can actually see through, especially in China.

    The Japanese had a healthy attitude towards Jews for which they often were accused of anti-Semitism (Anti-Smitism without Jews Paradox). Books about Jews were widely read in Japan. Still it did not save them when their financial institutions were attacked and when their elites succumbed to this attack.

    Japan has already lost. It’s economically, scientifically, and technologically powerful yes, but still in a subordinate political context. Yes, turns out you lose your freedom of speech and thought once in the American system.

    What will be the impact on Chinese elites’ children of being sent to all those fancy schmancy schools and lifestyles of rich spoiled elites. Most of them are lost for China.

    This trend can reverse, and it is arguably already reversing.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @utu
  500. Miro23 says:
    @gmachine1729

    He was like, “no, they know they’re smarter than us.” I do wonder how they feel about their losing to Chinese by a wide margin in those 100% fair contests like the math/science olympiads and the Putnam.

    You and your friend don’t get it. This isn’t about individuals on level playing fields taking IQ tests.

    It’s more like ethnic packs struggling for the levers of power, with the real action behind the scenes in things like Supreme Court or FED appointments (or Presidential elections) with the deals, selective narratives/ threats.

    Are the Mafia on top in Sicily because they have the highest IQ – or because they can induce the greatest amount of fear and corrupt key politicians?

    • Replies: @gmachine1729
  501. @Miro23

    You and your friend don’t get it. This isn’t about individuals on level playing fields taking IQ tests.

    It’s more like ethnic packs struggling for the levers of power, with the real action behind the scenes in things like Supreme Court or FED appointments (or Presidential elections) with the deals, propaganda/threats.

    Well he’s a 150+ IQ hard STEM guy. He focuses singularly on scientific ability/genius. Nothing wrong with that. I was similar, but I’ve changed over the last year. I’ve realized the Chinese are playing a losing game in America, and either they stay at home and quietly work smart and hard to make their own country better or in America, they to some degree join in the same nasty racial spoils game. Otherwise they will always be held to higher standards and largely confined to STEM, shut out from management and positions of power. Again, Chinese are culturally and perhaps also biologically maladapted to the type of social competition we see in America’s liberal democratic multiethnic multicultural society. Of course, Chinese can just let this shit ruin America in the long run; it certainly won’t harm the competitive position of their home country internationally, so long as Chinese at home don’t buy into America too much. The difficulty is that America is still by far number one and has set the world standard for a while, so you cannot fully insulate yourself.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  502. utu says:
    @German_reader

    Jews always had a special status in the eyes of the Church. While their conversion to Christianity was always welcomed (see Frankists in Poland) there was not consistent policy or concerted effort to convert them. Anglican Church in 19c began missions in Eastern Europe funded explicitly to convert Jews but their true intent was similar to modern NGO intending at penetrating Russia. Their success at conversions was practically nil.

    Jews were never treated as harshly as pagans or heretics. They were never read the riot act: convert or die. Anti-Jewish riots and pogroms were always condemned by Church. And yes, “The dominant Christian view of Jews for most of the last 2000 years has been negative” so you should ask a question why the Church did not say B if it had already said A? Why Jews were not exterminated or expelled beyond Christendom? Why they were not treated like Muslims?

    In this equation one must look at the other side, i.e., how Judaism responded to Christianity and to what extent it got transformed by it? What new strategies were adopted? Where Jews would have been if they did not ‘enjoy’ a special status given them by the Church? What has become of Jews in China? Where are they now? Or how would Jews fare if the anti-Jewish wars were not waged by Romans and Greeks and kept squashing their aggressive wars and uprisings? During the Kitos War Jews massacred 240,000 Greeks on Cyprus but they were defeated by pagan forces of Rome. It was the Pagan World that destroyed Jewish civilization and ended their ambitions of expansion and proselytism. It forced them to look inward. But the Church halted that process and did not push further to the point of complete destruction of the Judaic meme. It could not because it depended on it. The bottom line is that It was the Pagan World that almost succeeded in total destruction of Jewish culture.

    That sounds a bit like the anti-Christian arguments made by some white nationalists, I’m surprised