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 Reply
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 532 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

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

    Read More
    • LOL: byrresheim
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    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.
    , @Marcus
    Most sanctimonious, e.g. portraying it's "balance of power" policy with regards to the continent as motivated by moral concerns, sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vojkan
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    , @Seraphim
    Again paraphrasing Basil Fawlty (John Cleese): 'Don't mention the Jews'.
    The 'Russian' revolution 'only occurred by a fluke of weather'.
    , @George
    -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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    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.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    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).

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Felix Keverich
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous


    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).
    , @Rye

    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.
    , @Felix Keverich

    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.
    , @Jef
    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?

    , @Rurik

    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7M503Ngif4

    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!
    , @Dagon Shield
    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...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

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

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @German_reader

    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.
    , @neutral
    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.
    , @Vendetta
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

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

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Thorfinnsson
    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).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/China%27s_Progress_%281912-1936%29.gif

    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/germany-fertility.jpg

    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.
    , @gwynedd1
    That technology has been in existence for some time.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PHw3mENUMxs/T4YtUzivwsI/AAAAAAAAC4s/uj8GicnAV1g/s400/sized-soviet-anti-drinking-posters-0.jpg
    , @Matthew
    " 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."

    Jesus Christ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  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?

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @Thorfinnsson

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @German_reader

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Thanks, that's informative.
    , @Jan
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    Thanks, that’s informative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. neutral says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    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).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/China%27s_Progress_%281912-1936%29.gif

    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    , @DFH
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @German_reader

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    [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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    , @Dmitry
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Anonymous


    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).

    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????

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    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?
    , @Anonymous
    AK: Thorfinnsson is correct. I don't delete low quality comments, I collapse them. Like this, LOL.



    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.
    , @Duke of Qin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Anonymous
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    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.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    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?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson
    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????

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    He's a smart guy with many interesting observations, but has a demented hatred of Karlin whom he calls a "neocon cockroach".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @neutral
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    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.

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

    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?

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    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/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    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????

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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].
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/germany-fertility.jpg

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson
    He's a smart guy with many interesting observations, but has a demented hatred of Karlin whom he calls a "neocon cockroach".

    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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Anonymous
    AK: Thorfinnsson is correct. I don't delete low quality comments, I collapse them. Like this, LOL.



    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.

    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].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 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? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    To be honest, it's fun to speculate about a more populous Ukraine--including one which still has its Jewish population intact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Jon0815

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Thorfinnsson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Jon0815

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    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.
    , @German_reader

    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.
    , @Jon0815

    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/

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/germany-fertility.jpg

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Mr. Hack
    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? :-)

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Go on, speculate. I'm all ears...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. 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.

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

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    , @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. 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.

    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.

    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 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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. 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?

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

    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.

    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!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anatoly Karlin
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    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.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Negativity signaling isn't always useless for drumming up enthusiasm; it can inspire efforts in others to prove the reverse to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @German_reader

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    After the war HUAC became aggressively anticommunist and also acted against Hollywood.
     
    No, it acted together with Hollywood against certain low level Hollywood employees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    , @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Rye says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Mr. XYZ
    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).

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Mr. XYZ
    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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:

    http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/malcolm.gif

    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.
    , @DFH


    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.
    , @dfordoom

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @German_reader

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Mr. XYZ
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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?
    , @for-the-record
    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.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Jon0815

    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/

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Rye

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rye
    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.
    , @inertial

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.
    , @German_reader

    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).
    , @LondonBob
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @German_reader
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    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.

    , @German_reader
    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.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    , @Anon

    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".
    , @Seraphim
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    To be honest, it's fun to speculate about a more populous Ukraine--including one which still has its Jewish population intact.

    Go on, speculate. I’m all ears…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    To start, imagine Britain and the U.S. remaining neutral in WWI and thus having Germany win this war and create an independent Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    I strongly doubt that France would have actually been willing to remain neutral in World War I.
    , @Vendetta
    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, thanks, that's a good counterpoint.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @refl
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Mr. XYZ says:
    @German_reader

    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).

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Go on, speculate. I'm all ears...

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    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.
    , @Philip Owen
    A much bigger independent Ukraine at that. Essentially the whole Black Earth west of the Volga plus the Kuban to boot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    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.

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

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

    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).

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Mr. XYZ says:

    Also, out of curiosity–: 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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @Thorfinnsson
    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????

    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.

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

    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).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    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.
    , @ThreeCranes
    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.
    , @Vendetta
    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).
    , @Chuck
    Stop LARPing as a Chinaman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Duke of Qin
    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    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.
    , @DFH

    you missed an -or- (ultimus Americanorum).
     
    I believe that just the '-um' genitive plural ending is an acceptable poetic variant
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    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.

    http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gdp-pc-russia-usa-history.png

    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:

    http://demographer.com/blog-2009/02-time-plotting-life-cycle-events/china-1982-literacy-time-plot.png

    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).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. 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.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. inertial says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    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.

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

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

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

    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gmachine1729
    As an FYI, I advertised you on my blog: https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/duke-of-qin-unz-review/.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Rye 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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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?
    , @LondonBob
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Rye
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    That might depend on how Russia previously treated them.
    , @Rye

    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

    , @Dmitry
    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).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    To start, imagine Britain and the U.S. remaining neutral in WWI and thus having Germany win this war and create an independent Ukraine.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Duke of Qin
    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.

    That might depend on how Russia previously treated them.

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

    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)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    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.

    , @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. 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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    One wonders how many Eastern Jews emigrated to Germany post WW1.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Rye says:
    @Duke of Qin
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Dmitry says:
    @Duke of Qin
    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.

    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).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Duke of Qin
    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.

    As an FYI, I advertised you on my blog: https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/duke-of-qin-unz-review/.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    You missed one of the most powerful takes on the history of this blog.

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/951136476225589248
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Dmitry says:
    @Anonymous
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Seraphim says:
    @Felix Keverich
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @gmachine1729
    As an FYI, I advertised you on my blog: https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/duke-of-qin-unz-review/.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gmachine1729
    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.)

    , @gmachine1729
    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. ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Your BS generator is out of tune.
    , @Duke of Qin
    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. 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.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. 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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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. 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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @DFH

    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    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)?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    I don't think that other powers would have been very eager to attack Germany for a very long time after World War I (assuming that Germany would not have lost this war, of course), though.

    Also, in the unlikely event that this would have indeed occurred, Austria-Hungary might have had to fight Russia over Ukraine and possibly over Poland as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    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).

    you missed an -or- (ultimus Americanorum).

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. DFH says:
    @reiner Tor
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    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.
    , @reiner Tor

    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.
    , @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. utu says:
    @Polish Perspective
    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.

    Your BS generator is out of tune.

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @inertial

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    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.
    , @Mikhail

    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:



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTcAXiJAFBE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbDw_W-_n7g

    Kuban Cossacks rock.
    , @gmachine1729
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Polish Perspective
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @Polish Perspective

    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elucubrations
    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 .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    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.
    , @Philip Owen
    Why did Russia have to go anywhere?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    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.
    , @Philip Owen
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Duke of Qin
    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.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    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.
    , @Bliss

    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.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Seraphim
    Again paraphrasing Basil Fawlty (John Cleese): 'Don't mention the Jews'.
    The 'Russian' revolution 'only occurred by a fluke of weather'.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. LondonBob says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    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.
    , @DFH
    My great grandfather liked Salonika because the Bulgarians didn't shoot at them and they didn't shoot at the Bulgarians
    , @Bomb
    change your nick to London Bomb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. dfordoom 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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. dfordoom says: • Website
    @LondonBob
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Sounds like you and your family have deeper issues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. LondonBob says:
    @Felix Keverich

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. LondonBob says:
    @dfordoom

    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.

    Sounds like you and your family have deeper issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @LondonBob
    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.

    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.

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. “… 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. 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 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. Bliss says:
    @Felix Keverich

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Seraphim says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Bomb says:
    @LondonBob
    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.

    change your nick to London Bomb

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    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.
    , @Mikhail
    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/
    , @Logan
    The Japanese were also surprisingly popular in Formosa/Taiwan. Certainly more so than the Chinese Nationalists who eventually replaced them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. 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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. DFH says:
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    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.
    , @Anon
    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.

    , @AP

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


    what a joke , english are pirates ,
    , @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Japan will rise again. I am sure that they are making Gundams in secret facilities as we speak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Hyperborean
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Annatar
    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I think you are underestimating the achievement of the Chinese Communists. Look at China's disastrous century before the Communists came to power, starting with the Tai Ping rebellion/civil war through the warlord period and ending with the savage depredations of the Japanese invaders. For all the disasters of the Great Leap Forward etc. there are far worse events to point to in the pre-Communist years. You write off the basic gains in population growth and mortality that happened under Mao while ignoring the horrendous demographic record of pre-Mao China. You can't just write off these advances as "stuff that would have happened anyway", they weren't happening before.

    When the Chinese Communists came to power China was not a coherent state with the capacity to keep internal order, provide basic services, and defend its borders. By the time Mao died, it was. Without that work of statebuilding the post-Mao Chinese government would not have had the capacity to make the needed economic reforms it did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @euroreich
    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 .
    , @jacques sheete

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Rye
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    , @Rye

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Typical retarded anti-anglo rambling
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @gmachine1729
    As an FYI, I advertised you on my blog: https://gmachine1729.com/quotes/duke-of-qin-unz-review/.

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

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

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    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.

    , @Philip Owen

    - 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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @inertial

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @German_reader

    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.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Duke of Qin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. DFH says:
    @anonymous coward

    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.

    Typical retarded anti-anglo rambling

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. LondonBob says:
    @Rye
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Felix Keverich

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    , @Felix Keverich

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Bucky says:
    @Doug
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Miro23 says:
    @Spisarevski
    Japan will rise again. I am sure that they are making Gundams in secret facilities as we speak.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spisarevski
    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".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Miro23

    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.

    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”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Polish Perspective
    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.

    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?

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. AP says:
    @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    LOL
    , @jilles dykstra
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Bucky
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    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?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. euroreich says:
    @Hans Vogel
    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.

    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 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    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;
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. LondonBob says:
    @AP

    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.

    LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rye

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Seraphim
    One wonders how many Eastern Jews emigrated to Germany post WW1.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. 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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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?

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Bucky
    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?

    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;

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
    , @jacques sheete

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

    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.

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

    what a joke , english are pirates ,

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. 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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Jef says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Mr. XYZ
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    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.
    , @bj
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Miro23 says:
    @Spisarevski
    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".

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @for-the-record
    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.
     

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    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.).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Bucky says:
    @Hans Vogel
    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;

    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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    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,
    , @Anon
    Dignity is worth more than life

    You've forgotten this so that your own mothers don't even shed tears on your destruction
    , @dfordoom

    Allying with the Ottomans was bad
     
    Why?
    , @Seraphim
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    wat
    , @jacques sheete

    Germany 1871-1945 was a one trick pony (unparalleled military tradition)
     
    Citation please or it's a BS claim. Ridiculous, too.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. 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. 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.

    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.

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

    http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/malcolm.gif

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Doug
    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.

    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/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. LOL. History is what happened. What could have possibly happened is fantasy, a different literary genre.

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Marcus
    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
    , @DFH

    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.
    , @RadicalCenter
    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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    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)?

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    "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.

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

    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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    NW Europeans have a strong moral element to our make up, it is to our credit, and something to be jealous of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Marcus says:
    @German_reader

    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Even the link you provide says Q ships were a reaction to U Boats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. 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. 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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    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! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail
    "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.

    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! :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    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/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @DFH

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Have the Irish ever achieved anything of note?
    , @DFH

    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.
    , @dfordoom


    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.
    , @dfordoom

    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.
    , @utu
    If I remember correctly he is Wasserpolnisch. This may explain his Uber-British pride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. LondonBob says:
    @Marcus
    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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    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
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack
    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! :-)

    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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. LondonBob says:
    @Marcus
    Most sanctimonious, e.g. portraying it's "balance of power" policy with regards to the continent as motivated by moral concerns, sure.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    More Anglo deceit, trying to lump yourselves in with more respectable neighbors.
    , @Anon
    Yup church enforced inter caste marriage created the sort of whorish prolish cuck population that one would expect
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @DFH


    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.

    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.).

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

    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.

    Have the Irish ever achieved anything of note?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Marcus says:
    @LondonBob
    Even the link you provide says Q ships were a reaction to U Boats.

    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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Marcus says:
    @LondonBob
    NW Europeans have a strong moral element to our make up, it is to our credit, and something to be jealous of.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I am guessing you aren't a Kevin MacDonald fan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. DFH says:
    @German_reader

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    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
    , @German_reader

    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail
    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/

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    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