The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
11/11/18: Nationalism vs. Imperialism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Historian Sean McMeekin offers a different perspective on Armistice Day in an L.A. Times op-ed:

It was never quiet on the Eastern Front. Still isn’t
By SEAN MCMEEKIN
NOV 11, 2018 | 3:05 AM

… Something has always been missing from our popular understanding of World War I, however. The armistice signed at Compiègne, France, on Nov. 11, 1918, may have put an end to hostilities between the Great Powers fighting on the Western Front, but it did nothing of the kind on the war’s eastern fronts, where the fighting went on and in many areas intensified. In Western Europe, the post-armistice lesson was that nationalism, taken to its extreme, was deadly. In the East, 1918 brought instead the downfall of empires, the dissolution of borders, and a desperate scramble by fragile emergent nations to survive. …

Ukraine, in particular, suffered horribly. Control of Kiev changed hands 16 times between 1918 and 1921. Charts of mortality rates among Ukrainians show World War I as a period of relative calm; the human wages of war, famine, pestilence and anti-Semitic pogroms then soar upward in 1918-1922, with still greater horrors to come in 1930s and 1940s.

… The radically different experiences of Western and Eastern Europe in the years after 1918 explain much about the continent’s political landscape a century later. In the West, the First World War is well and truly over. Its lesson, even if fully absorbed only after 1945, was Robert Graves’ “Goodbye to All That”: No more nationalism or arms races. Down with borders, tariffs and currency controls. Hello, European Union.

… The dissolution of borders appears, to most Eastern Europeans, not a dream but a reminder of past nightmares.

The tragic, pessimistic view of the world propagated by Eastern European nationalists, and their thus-far less successful counterparts in Western Europe and the United States, may not be as inspiring as the “goodbye to all that” post-nationalist cosmopolitanism favored by elites in Brussels and Washington. It is, however, a worldview rooted in hard historical lessons that we would be wise to heed.

Sean McMeekin, a professor of European history at Bard College, is the author of “The Russian Revolution: A New History” and “The Ottoman Endgame.”

 
Hide 304 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. LondonBob says:

    Stop the left’s cultural appropriation of WWI.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-cultural-appropriation-of-the-first-world-war/

    My great grandfather was designated a key worker and was assigned to a munitions factory but his five brothers served on the Western Front, they all enjoyed it

    Peter Jackson’s new film on WWI looks good, most of the time the troops are laughing and joking about, don’t think fellas who wrote poetry, or marxist agitators, were any more representative of people then than they are now.

    • Replies: @vinny
    , @obwandiyag
  2. dearieme says:

    In 1920 Lenin sent the Red Army to invade Germany and take it over for communism. They failed, being defeated by the Poles on the Vistula.

    That was his northern army; his southern army made a feint attack on Poland but was earmarked for attacks on Hungary, Austria, and eventually, it was hoped, Italy.

    It’s enlightening to find out whether any of your friends or family have ever heard of this war.

  3. El Dato says:

    Still need to read

    Norman Stone’s THE EASTERN FRONT: 1914-1917

    and immediately after that

    Adam Zamoyski Warsaw 1920 – Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe

    Meanwhile, reminder of a VERY good overview that I re-watch regularly

    The World at War (Ralph Raico)

    Also, today:

    ‘Europe will be white’: Polish leaders sanction massive far-right march in Warsaw

    POLAND HOPE!

    • Replies: @22pp22
    , @Reg Cæsar
  4. Is the Eastern front of WW1 really over yet in the minds of Max Boot and Victoria Nuland?

  5. Nationalism as a concept is making a comeback. The public needs to be educated on the topic, so I hope the writers and readers of this site will pick up the task.

    • Replies: @Mary M
  6. Jake says:

    Nationalism is always anti-imperialist. Obviously, the nationalist is opposed, violently, to his nation being ruled by another. But more so, the nationalist does not wish to be an imperialist because that always drastically alters the culture of the successful imperialist nation, starting with the political culture and proceeding to the moral and religious cultures.

    Imperialism is not merely antithetical to nationalism; imperialism murders nationalism, strangling the nationalism of the successfully imperialist nation as it achieves imperialist goals.

    Neocons worship imperialism under euphemisms and hate with al their might any hint of nationalism among any white or even strongly identified Christian non-white people.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mary M
  7. IHTG says:

    • Replies: @Lowe
  8. Altai says:

    In fairness, the First World War is often only seen through a Western Front perspective inasmuch as it is seen as ‘senseless’. Whereas for Finland and he Balkans, the First World War was anything but senseless or inconsequential to their history.

  9. Good point!

    Somewhat relatedly, the European (and American?) consensus among goodthinkers is that patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. Macron just said they were opposites.

    But I don’t really get the difference.

    If anything, I would have thought nationalism better, because the nation is a political, not an ethnic concept. Patriotism etymologically refers to fatherland. So isn’t it a doubly problematic question of race and gender?

  10. CK says:

    What one lives through, versus what others talk through.

  11. Anonymous[712] • Disclaimer says:

    Speaking of which, it’s all rather odd that that nasty little punch up in Catalonia the other year has been conveniently memory-holed.

    Certainly, it doesn’t suit treasured much rehearsed narratives.

    Of course, Spain is a fully paid up member of the exclusive western European club-within -a – club.
    Not like those nasty easterners whom we can condescend to and bully to make ourselves look superior.

  12. Because the victors write history and we share the English language with the British there’s incredible confusion about the fundamental causes of the 20th century wars.

    But the cause clearly wasn’t “nationalism” it was “imperialism”. .

    In the Great War, you had a rising Germany rising into a world where vast foreign markets were locked up by British and French imperialism. And then a trigger of the declining Austrian empire, continually scuffling with rising national aspirations within it, and in conflict with the also over-extended Russian imperialism.

    Then in the World War you had the Germans trying for a do-over, by creating their empire. And the Japanese pretty openly aping the European powers, figuring they could boot them (and the US in the Philippines) out of Asia and create their own “Great Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”.

    If the British and French empires did not exist–or had been rolled back–and the situation in 1914 was similar to the post-War American settlement–open world trade–none of these big 20th century bloodbaths would have happened. There would have been inevitable local contention over the breakup of the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the over-extension of Russia into other nations (ex. the Baltics). But there would have been no big wars with millions dead, wounding–it seems now fataly–Western civilization.

    And if Western civilization is to survive, Westerners need to wake the heck up and be honest about what went wrong. It wasn’t having nations nor people in those nations being competitive and “nationalist”. It was people in some nations–not just Germany–lording it over and bossing around people in other nations–i.e. imperalism. People ruling other people will always cause conflict, instability, war.

  13. I remember reading Georg von Trapp’s memoir of being a Austrian UBoat commander during WWI. His diverse crew stopped following orders as the Hapsburg Dynasty began its death spiral in 1918 and began to organize into their Nationalist groups.

    The Poles similarly joined together to advance Poland (primarily into the Ukraine) after being part of the German, Austria-Hungarian, and Russian armies during the War. The Red Army of Lenin was defeated at the gates of Warsaw in 1920. Had Pilsudski lost, WWII would have been totally different as the Soviet Union would have been better able to support the Communists in Germany from across the border of the Polish SSR.

    • Replies: @Altai
  14. unit472 says:

    WW1 ended with an ‘armistice’ not a ‘surrender’. While the terms imposed at Versailles were harsh and consistent with an unconditional surrender that such a surrender never took place left an embittered Germany intact.

    That the Western Allies did not fight the war to a conclusion was understandable given the enormous casualties they had suffered but it did set the stage for the end of the ‘ceasefire’ 20 years later. In contrast the military defeat and occupation of Germany and Japan in 1945 left no doubt as to whom the victors were and allowed the US and UK to do a complete makeover of the defeated nations to include rebuilding them as members of the Western alliance.

  15. Some leaders can do remembrance better than others. Was Trump right to avoid a visit to the battlefields?

    https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cdn.sueddeutsche.de%2Fimage%2Fsz.1.3556959%2F1200x675%3Fv%3D1504251690&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fstil%2Fmomentaufnahmen-im-juni-bilder-des-tages-1.3532332-59&docid=c0jgnqbzLDoYHM&tbnid=wOAn44JsoObEiM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwj8wovFu8zeAhVizoUKHVB8B_YQMwguKAUwBQ..i&w=1200&h=675&itg=1&bih=569&biw=1242&q=putin%20funeral%20rain&ved=0ahUKEwj8wovFu8zeAhVizoUKHVB8B_YQMwguKAUwBQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

    Or then, a 91 year old lady who drove ambulances when the bombs were dropping, some of them had been actually targeted on her. She can get out in the rain.

    https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cdn.sueddeutsche.de%2Fimage%2Fsz.1.3556959%2F1200x675%3Fv%3D1504251690&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fstil%2Fmomentaufnahmen-im-juni-bilder-des-tages-1.3532332-59&docid=c0jgnqbzLDoYHM&tbnid=wOAn44JsoObEiM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwj8wovFu8zeAhVizoUKHVB8B_YQMwguKAUwBQ..i&w=1200&h=675&itg=1&bih=569&biw=1242&q=putin%20funeral%20rain&ved=0ahUKEwj8wovFu8zeAhVizoUKHVB8B_YQMwguKAUwBQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

    MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! Not after this.

  16. bomag says:

    Maybe WWI ended more decisively in the West because England, France, and Germany shared many of the same aspirations and civilizational goals; even though the French were considered dorkier and clueless by the Germans, they would still go on to build nice cathedrals and motor cars in the future, and that resonated with German sensibilities.

    Maybe the European/Slavic divide in the East was more of an existential struggle.

    _________________________

    Also here is the evolution of war: WWI had horrific battlefield casualties; WWII had the battlefield casualties plus civilian losses; our current conflict is conquering by demography, with the burgeoning populations of Africa, the Middle East, Meso Americans, and others waving the flag of Gross Domestic Product while they “fatten greedily on neighboring territory”, which is an allowed loss that would shock WWI ancestors: giving up territory without a fight.

  17. @AnotherDad

    Then in the World War you had the Germans trying for a do-over, by creating their empire.

    You might want to read up on Napoleon III and Bismarck.

  18. I’ve been meaning to ask if there is anyone in the MSM arguing against open borders, and now I know that there’s at least one. Thanks for the link.

  19. Post-nationalist cosmopolitanism has proven in time to be the exact opposite of inspiring. It is literally dispiriting.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_%2776_(sentiment)

  20. Macron just inserted a lecture against nationalism into the Amistice memorial ceremony, right in front of our president.

  21. slumber_j says:

    Yeah, that’s a very good point Prof. McMeekin makes.

    Here’s my perspective on Armistice Day. A photograph of my paternal grandfather hangs over my desk in New York City, and I know that it’s a hundred years old because it’s a portrait taken shortly after he received his commission as a captain of the field artillery in the spring of 1918. He’s in uniform and looking way more mature than his 22 years, as people did before almost the whole world got retarded.

    I’m in my early fifties, and that grandfather was born in 1896. I know the math works out and all, but I still find it barely believable that the grandfather I knew well and loved until his death in my own early adulthood was already a full-grown man so long ago. That’s what long generations get you, I guess: his own father–my great-grandfather–was born before the Civil War. Still, it freaks me out.

    The uniform my grandfather is wearing in that photo hangs in my closet, made by a tailor in his native St. Paul MN. He died on November 8th, 1989–a day shy of his 93rd birthday, and also of the end of the Berlin Wall.

  22. slumber_j says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    If I were DJT, I’d point out that I have the way hotter wife.

  23. TheJester says:
    @AnotherDad

    Excellent summary … and spot on.

    The point of imperialism and empires are to create and control resource, manufacturing, and trade monopolies. In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, global trade routes were seaborne … and the British Navy controlled them.

    In this vein, one might say that WWI and WWII were fought by Germany wanting to expand to the east using internal lines of communication (the Berlin-to-Bagdad Railway, etc.) that neutralized the British Royal Navy and the British monopoly on trade.

    This pressure continues unabated. The tension now is between China/Russia wanting to expand to the west using internal lines of communication (China’s One Belt), neutralizing the US Navy and the American monopoly on trade.

    To get a measure of the United States’ monopoly on trade since WWII, think of the SWIFT international payments system. The recent Russian, Chinese, and now EU efforts to derive alternative international payments systems are measures of how firmly the United States controls world trade and how desperate other countries are to break free of US control over that trade.

    Let’s hope and pray that we do not see WWIII over the same issue … and that is yet another contest between naval and land powers for the control of the trade routes within and around the Eurasian landmass.

    Nationalism is the best chance the United States has to avoid that war: dissolve the Empire and return to our republican roots before it is too late.

  24. Andy says:

    Ukraine in particular had a horrific first half of the 20th century: World War I – Russian Civil War – Holodomor in the late 1920s – Great Purge in the late 1930s – World War II

  25. Kit says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Actually, it wasn’t in front of our President*, because he didn’t attend the ceremony. He stayed in his very expensive hotel suite because it was raining.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  26. Anonymous[805] • Disclaimer says:

    If I were DJT, I’d point out that I have the way hotter wife.

    If you want to insult Macron, I’m not sure that’s the target to aim for. Far as I can tell, he is much more interested in young black men than in old white ladies like his wife.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/macron-popularity-french-caribbean-obscene-gesture-photo-a8563216.html

    Admittedly, it is hard to tell whether he is halfway out of the closet, or just fully French.

  27. Yet another respectable thinker who tells us we may learn from the first half of the 20th century but not the second half. The second half of the 20th century is when our current governing class took charge, so they will tell us what lessons we need to learn from the last seven decades of history when they feel like it.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  28. The rise of national populism in Hungary, Poland and Austria — not to mention in Ukraine and Russia — is a reminder that, in Eastern Europe, history did not end in 1918, 1945 or 1989

    History didn’t end for us either; we just had a ruling managerial class who tried to smother the history out of us with a soft and loving pillow of globalism over our face.

  29. @slumber_j

    If I were DJT, I’d point out that I have the way hotter wife.

    I would too, and the fact that she’s not Twenty-Five Years older than I am.

    • Replies: @anon
  30. Vatisker says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The President who had three maternal uncles serve in the Allies armies of World War I. Malcom MacLeod with the American army. Donald MacLeod, eponymous of the US President, and William MacLeod with the British. William wounded in the Battle of the Somme at 19.

  31. Wilkey says:

    World War I wasn’t started by the idiot 19 y.o. Serb nationalist/Alexander Hamilton wannabe who murdered the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz Ferdinand’s family didn’t even mourn him all that much. Most of them didn’t even attend his wedding of which the Emperor didn’t even approve. Because of that disapproval it was a morganatic marriage and his children would not be entitled to inherit the throne.

    The war started because three of Europe’s five major powers had basically medieval forms of government. Two of them were dying empires grasping at anything to throw their weight around in order to appear strong. Russia wanted to be the defender of the Slavic peoples (and perhaps eventually get a warm water port out of the bargain). The multicultural Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to silence its restive minorities in the Balkans. When multicultural Austria-Hungary went to war, it would prove itself to have by far the worst army of all the five major powers. Even the poor Serbs managed to beat them back.

    But I guess you can say that Germany wanted to exercise its nationalist urges by unifying all of the native German peoples living in…Paris and Lyon and Marseille, so you got me there.

    It also started because the other two great European powers, the UK and France (especially the UK), in a Europe occupied by the three empires mentioned above, didn’t bother to take their defense obligations seriously. France’s army was led by generals who thought that heavy artillery was unnecessary, and that bayonet charges (in the age of the Maxim gun and heavy artillery) would be the proper way to win a war. The UK, despite being in possession of the world’s largest empire (or perhaps because of it), placed no value on a large standing army or even a respectable reserve army it could field in its defense. It’s army was led by officers who had purchased their commissions rather than worked for them, and who spent all day playing pool. When the war began they would have only six divisions to throw into the fight.

    Nationalism may have motivated many of the men of every country to volunteer, but it is not why Europe’s leaders were waging the war, why they waged it so badly, or why Germany and Austria-Hungary refused to give up for so long when it was clear that all was lost.

  32. Whiskey says: • Website

    Macron is the stronger President. His approval rating is half Trumps but his deep state will assure his reelection.

    Voters don’t matter. Deep state does. The future is gays and non Whites ruling us forever.

    • Replies: @Altai
    , @Lowe
  33. The tiny demographic slice of Americans – the wealthy elites whose globalism is no more than a politer euphemism for Empire – don’t consider regular Americans’ interests to be of importance, except for throttling pesky attempts at democratic accountability by those they consider not just deplorables but intolerables.

    The Empire is so much bigger than America, in population and finance, and its needs for maintenance and growth dwarf the contrary domestic interests of the Empire’s “homeland.” Therefore the Empire’s priorities, its enormous consumption of national resources, supercede the needs of any native population. That even drives the Empire’s “invade the world, invite the world” dissolution of a national people with a common bond of defending their own interests – regardless of ethnicity.

    To these self interested arrogants, there is no “country” called the United States, even while they wave its flag for purposes of deceiving their own public that Empire is identical to America.

    Particularly of interest, for the cognitive dissonance, on a Veterans’ Day that illogically celebrates overseas military conquests as somehow defending freedom at home.

  34. Deadite says:
    @slumber_j

    Except that Macron’s wife is almost certainly a beard, so the fact that she’s older is a feature and not a bug for Macron. She won’t go leaving him when he has affairs with his bodyguard.

  35. B36 says:
    @slumber_j

    “That’s what long generations get you…” Yes. My father died a few years ago at 94. It used to blow my mind that he knew and had spoken to someone who had served in the Civil War: his grandfather.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    , @ben tillman
  36. BB753 says:
    @Wilkey

    WWI pitted basically the old conservative regimes against the new masonic progressive regimes. The wrong side won and we’re still suffering because of this unfortunate outcome.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  37. Billb says:

    The guy teaches at Bard? He must know a great deal about conflict…

  38. Tulip says:

    I think the sequence is Nationalism -> Chauvinism -> Imperialist Wars of Conquest (if successful)-> International Empire -> Cosmopolitanism -> Anti-Nationalism.

    Empire hates nationalism, and fears separatists and would-be replacement hegemons, because they threaten pax Americana. You could look at the transition from “Manifest Destiny” to “American Exceptionalism”. The new citizenship: pay, obey, and vote the way the Mainstream Media say.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  39. Kit says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Apologies. Trump did actually haul his fat ass out of bed for part of the ceremonies. He couldn’t arse himself to visit the American cemetary because Marine 1, a combat helicopter, can’t fly in drizzle.

  40. Tulip says:
    @Wilkey

    Leadership fights on when the campaign goes against them because they hope if they can turn the tides, they can negotiate for better terms of peace. When that fails, they fight on, because it is the only way they can hold onto power. Hopefully, the troops fight on because they hate the frogs and the limeys and Slavs.

  41. “The tragic, pessimistic view of the world propagated by Eastern European nationalists, and their thus-far less successful counterparts in Western Europe and the United States, may not be as inspiring as the “goodbye to all that” post-nationalist cosmopolitanism favored by elites in Brussels and Washington. It is, however, a worldview rooted in hard historical lessons that we would be wise to heed.”

    The lesson of history is that people don’t remember the lessons of history–Russian proverb

  42. Hank Yobo says:

    “The UK, despite being in possession of the world’s largest empire (or perhaps because of it), placed no value on a large standing army or even a respectable reserve army it could field in its defense. It’s army was led by officers who had purchased their commissions rather than worked for them, and who spent all day playing pool. When the war began they would have only six divisions to throw into the fight.”

    The practise of purchasing commissions in the British army was ended in 1871 by the Cardwell Reforms. A large standing army was deemed a threat to good government and internal cohesion thanks to the antics of the later Stuarts. Moreover, the English/British nation relied primarily upon the Royal Navy for defence since Continental entanglements had generally proven costly.

  43. anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I would too, and the fact that she’s not Twenty-Five Years older than I am.

    Passing some courses is hard. You do what you have to.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  44. istevefan says:

    In the critiquing of nationalism as the villain in WW1, conveniently left out of most discussions is the issue of too many alliances compelling nations to join a fight that they might not otherwise have an interest to do so. Of course anything criticizing nationalism in this day and age is good since it is an attack on the bad whites. But questioning unnecessary alliances? Well that might just bring about a discussion concerning contemporary America that the good whites just don’t want to have.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast, ic1000
  45. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Hmm, I didn’t really get that same drift from GBTAT, i.e. Manchester neoliberal propaganda against nationalism. In most of the book Graves seems rather pro-English culturally, as English classicists seem often, though yeah, not very bellicose for the stated reasons. Perhaps the editorialist is referring to an attitude of feigned knowingness that took hold in reference to the book title during the Contintental age of decline (which started a decade earlier there, in the 50s).

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/28/ww1-anthology-robert-graves-november-11

    Keynes had said the UK/France were basically ensuring another war with their attempt to “Europeanize” the Germans, by the obvious method of ruthlessly plundering the Second Reich’s carcass of course.

  46. Art Deco says:
    @AnotherDad

    where vast foreign markets were locked up by British and French imperialism.

    French ‘imperialism’ in 1914 consisted of some concessions in China (where Germany and the Hapsburgs also had concessions), some coastal cities in India; some islands and coastal settlements in the Caribbean, the South Pacific, and the Indian Ocean (of which just one had a population in excess of 250,000); a bloc of territory in West and Equatorial Africa populated with illiterate subsistence farmers and herdsmen; another bloc of territory in Southeast Asia, and a bloc of territory in the Maghreb (of which French control in the western portion thereof was notional). Their Maghreb dependencies securely held had a population about that of Belgium. That’s not the stuff out of which ‘vast’ markets are made.

    As for Britain, it is true British India in 1914 had ample purchasing power (perhaps just over half-that of North America), as did the ‘white’ dominions. However, Britain after 1850 tended to be a promoter of liberal trade regimes, not ‘locked up’ markets.

  47. @AnotherDad

    I’m repeating much of an earlier posting on another site to make the point that it was not nationalism but the ideological ancestors of the same genocidally insane morons running the world today who were responsible for WW I and WW II:

    It was primarily Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Edward Grey, and First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, who conspired and pushed to get Britain into the War. Absent these two, Asquith’s government could easily have avoided being drawn into the conflict. Without British involvement, the Schlieffen plan would have succeeded and a highly mobile offensive would have captured Paris within weeks and with relatively few casualties. At this point, Russia would have realized that further fighting was useless and arranged peace with Germany and austria-Hungary. The end result would probably have been similar to that following the Franco-Prussian War some forty years earlier. The bloodbath that was WW I would have been avoided, four imperial governments would have survived, and the maps of Europe and the Middle East would not have been redrawn in a way that ensured WW II and genocidal levels of violence that continue to this day, e.g., in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Myanamar, etc., etc.

    Woodrow Wilson bears a good deal of blame for the final outcome of the War. If he had had the moral courage and fortitude required to keep the USA truly neutral, the War would probably have had a different conclusion. Both the Central Powers and the Triple Entente had fought themselves to exhaustion by 1917. If the USA had not entered the War, the politicians of both sides would have eventually been forced to conclude an armistice and treaty that essentially restored the status quo ante. This would likely have led to considerable political instability as the ordinary citizens of all these countries realized how badly they’d been had by their rerspective establishments. But the catastrophic instabilities created by the Treaty of Versaille might have been avoided.

    Churchill was far more of a dangerously fanatic war monger than most historians are quite ready to admit. Besides playing a major role in starting WW I. He played an even more prominent role in starting WW II. Absent the guarantee to go war with Germany should Poland be invaded which Churchill helped promote, Western Europe and Britain might have been spared the horrors of WW II. On multiple occasions Hitler offered an end to the War with France and Britain and a return to the status quo ante in Western Europe and the rest of the non-European world. Churchill refused and the end result was the loss of some forty million lives, the destruction of most of central Europe, the rise of a murderous tyranny in Eastern Europe as bad, if not worse, than anything the Nazis planned, and the bankruptcy and dissolution of the British Empire Churchill thought his machinations and intransigence would save.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. PapayaSF says:

    I honestly do not understand the view that nationalism is somehow inherently dangerous because it leads to war. Yes, nations can go to war, but most of the time, they don’t. What person in their right mind thinks that (e.g.) Brexit means war is more likely between the UK and France? And what person thinks that if the world had no borders, that we wouldn’t have civil and tribal wars (and maybe more of them)?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  49. pirelli says:

    Very interesting take. Not sure about the “no more … arms races” bit (missile gap anyone?), but I’ll have to read more by this guy.

  50. Art Deco says:
    @AnotherDad

    Then in the World War you had the Germans trying for a do-over, by creating their empire.

    By the end of 1938, Germany had acquired without firing a shot every piece of Germanophone territory in Europe it would have been practical to attempt to acquire and hold – with three exceptions (Memelland, Danzig, and the northerly slice of Trentino). Danzig was a de facto German dependency after 1935 and Memelland was seized in March 1939 without causing much of an incident. As for Trentino, the man to see was Hitler’s Italian ally. Other Germanophone territories were the Swiss cantons (difficult to conquer and not infected with any pan-German sentiment), Alsace-Lorraine (loyal to France and never reconciled to Germany when actually held by Germany), and disaggregated bits and pieces in Hungary, Roumania, and the Ukraine. The productive capacity of Austria and the German part of Bohemia and Moravia (neither of which were held by Wilhelmine Germany) may well have exceeded that of the overseas dependencies Germany lost in 1914-17. Problem, Hitler was a nut who actually believed all that rubbish about lebensraum and the Jews.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @nebulafox
  51. Art Deco says:

    And the Japanese pretty openly aping the European powers

    None of the European powers attempted to conquer China or any part of China. One part of the globe acquired by Europe after the end of Japanese isolation was Tropical Africa, which was illiterate, impoverished, and politically disorganized. Britain and France also acquired parts of the Arab world, much of it on a temporary basis. I don’t think the Rape of Nanking was anticipated by any of these acquisitions.

    • Replies: @rufus
  52. “The dissolution of borders appears, to most Eastern Europeans, not a dream but a reminder of past nightmares.”

    Ya think?

    Couldn’t help but notice that the good professor is from Bard College. Is he tenured? He’d better be. If not, he won’t be long for Bard College if he keeps churning out stuff like this.

  53. Art Deco says:

    If the British and French empires did not exist–or had been rolled back–and the situation in 1914 was similar to the post-War American settlement–open world trade–none of these big 20th century bloodbaths would have happened.

    The war was fought in Europe and in adjacent portions of the Near East. Germany’s possessions in the Far East and the Pacific were seized by local powers without much of a fight. In Africa, one of their possessions was seized by a local power and two others had fallen by March 1916.

    • Replies: @fnn
  54. @Art Deco

    Arthur, you may be an obnoxious POS, part of the time. But you do have glimpses of real insight. May the latter continue.

    • Agree: bomag
  55. inertial says:

    In the East, 1918 brought instead the downfall of empires, the dissolution of borders, and a desperate scramble by fragile emergent nations to survive.

    I can’t think of any borders dissolved in the East as a result of WWI. On the contrary, a whole bunch of brand new borders had been created.

  56. rufus says:
    @Art Deco

    Thanks for the detailed corrections. Often overlooked particularly is just how small the non asian populations of the world were in the 18th and 19th centrury. Never mentioned of course is that all of North America including Cananda and Alaska had as few as 1-1.5 million people on European contact. ( This in great contrast to the city states of modern day Mexico City and Andean Peru which first European explorers likened to Paris and Seville, then the largest European population centers. )

  57. @Buzz Mohawk

    Macron’s mother’s – – – I mean his wife’s face lift is holding up pretty well. Her face lift even has a name : it’s call FROZEN IN THE PAST.

  58. In the West, the First World War is well and truly over. Its lesson, even if fully absorbed only after 1945, was Robert Graves’ “Goodbye to All That”: No more nationalism or arms races. Down with borders, tariffs and currency controls. Hello, European Union.

    Actually, there was a massive arms race after 1945 between the West and Russia. Even France and the UK went nuclear, at very considerable cost. The foundation of the EU happened in the second half of the 1950s, with considerable American backing. You must look at this period, not the period immediately after 1945 to understand why this occurred.

  59. rufus says:
    @Art Deco

    Obvious exceptions in Hong Kong, Macao, many others. Britain had tacit control of large areas surrounding their entrepots. Rusiia more or less annexed vast areas of northern China. France was dominant in the south bordering vietnam.

  60. Yngvar says:

    Irish nationalism have to take a lot of blame for the outbreak of World War I.

    When Germany was called upon to fulfill its treaty obligations towards the Austro-Hungarian Empire in that country’s war with Serbia, Germany had to start with neutralizing France before turning around and going after the Russian Empire, because of the Franco-Russian defense and mutual assistance treaty.

    That involved rolling over Belgium, but The United Kingdom and Great Britain had a treaty to protect that nation against all aggression. Irish nationalist was at the time taking pot-shots at British soldiers on the Emerald Isle so the German High Command assumed that Great Britain was involved in a civil war and would be unable to intervene. They assumed wrong. Stupid IRA.

  61. To this day, Hungarian tourists visiting the Trianon Palace sometimes spit on the floor.

  62. fnn says:
    @Wilkey

    …Germany and Austria-Hungary refused to give up for so long when it was clear that all was lost.

    Walter Page, US Ambassador to Britain the early part of WW1, wrote that as early as Oct 1914 the Germans were making peace overtures to the British. Page was outraged- he was kind of a proto-Morgenthau who wanted the equivalent of unconditional surrender and the destruction of Germany. It’s in his memoirs.

  63. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey

    But I guess you can say that Germany wanted to exercise its nationalist urges by unifying all of the native German peoples living in…Paris and Lyon and Marseille, so you got me there.

    It did?

  64. anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    I agree – nations trying to be stable and prosperous aren’t a threat. Empire building causes all the trouble.
    American historians can’t use the E word when talking about the United States. It is inconceivable to them that the United States has an Empire, and that our empire building causes instability and war.
    Globalization and No Borders are just cover words. Old-fashioned empire is what lies underneath.

  65. @slumber_j

    If I were DJT, I’d point out that I have the way hotter wife.

    That may be true now, but 80 years ago Mme. Macron was a real looker!

    • LOL: Joe Walker
  66. fnn says:
    @Art Deco

    But there was Lettow-Vorbeck:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck

    Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (20 March 1870 – 9 March 1964), nicknamed affectionately as the Lion of Africa (German: Löwe von Afrika), was a general in the Prussian Army and the commander of its forces in the German East Africa campaign. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops. Essentially undefeated in the field, Lettow-Vorbeck was the only German commander to successfully invade imperial British soil during the First World War. His exploits in the campaign have been described by Edwin Palmer Hoyt “as the greatest single guerrilla operation in history, and the most successful.”

  67. The radically different experiences of Western and Eastern Europe in the years after 1918 explain much about the continent’s political landscape a century later. In the West, the First World War is well and truly over. Its lesson, even if fully absorbed only after 1945, was Robert Graves’ “Goodbye to All That”: No more nationalism or arms races. Down with borders, tariffs and currency controls. Hello, European Union.

    The European Union, or, before that, some coal and steel bureaucratic contraption, was from the get-go a sovereignty-sapping plot by bankers and plutocrats to concentrate wealth and power.

    Nuclear weapons have kept the peace in Western Europe, not the evil prison house of nations called the EU.

    The ruling classes of Western European nations have also used the EU to hide their sovereignty-sapping designs from their own nations. The evil English ruling class wanted to flood England with foreigners to destroy cultural cohesion and keep wages low and housing costs high, but the English ruling class made it out to be the EU opening the borders to mass immigration.

    Tony Blair’s 1997 push for mass immigration was made in the context of English sovereignty being “shared” or “pooled” with the EU. Tony Blair’s attack on English cultural integrity using mass immigration as a demographic weapon was sold as just part of globalization or EU business as usual.

    Smart people understand that the European Central Bank and the euro currency were designed to create asset bubbles in Europe that would buy off certain voting blocs that would keep their greedy mouths shut about the mass immigration underway in Europe.

    Once again for you high IQ morons from a regular IQ peasant:

    Monetary policy is being used in the United States and Europe to create the debt and asset bubbles needed to buy off greedy voters while mass immigration does its work of destroying cultural cohesion and national sovereignty.

    Salvini in Italy will hopefully destroy the ECB and the EU by precipitating a financial implosion in Europe. Let the greedy bankers and plutocrats choke on the unpayable debt.

  68. syonredux says:

    Ukraine, in particular, suffered horribly. Control of Kiev changed hands 16 times between 1918 and 1921. Charts of mortality rates among Ukrainians show World War I as a period of relative calm; the human wages of war, famine, pestilence and anti-Semitic pogroms then soar upward in 1918-1922,

    Odd. No mention of the Red Terror….Must be a typo…

    At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; in Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”; the Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.[29]

    Executions took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian Civil War. After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver. Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were moved by truck, bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.[30]

    According to Edvard Radzinsky, “it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body”.[3] During Decossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, “on an unheard of scale”. The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a “day of Red Terror” to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander, the Cheka in Kislovodsk, “for lack of a better idea”, killed all the patients in the hospital. In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders “sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the ‘class struggle’”.[31]

    Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice.[32] An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone.[32]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Atrocities

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Anonymous
    , @inertial
  69. That’s funny. I read Graves’ Goodbye To All That, Sergeant Lamb’s America, The Golden Ass, The White Goddess, his works on Claudius (long before they became popularized on TV), The Greek Myths, Hercules My Shipmate and The Crane Bag and I never got the impression that his saying goodbye to all that was a rejection of “nationalism or arms races…..borders, tariffs and currency controls.” and his saying a cheery “Hello”…to “European Union.”

    But I’m not an academic with three initials after my last name. Just a careful reader with a good memory.

    What I heard was the voice of a man who was sickened to death by modernity and all its trappings; one who sought refuge in Majorica, where old ways still prevailed (this was before it had become a modern, touristy, high-rise resort destination). Graves was trying to reestablish contact with the premodern, pre-rational, culturally-healthier consciousness that he described in The White Goddess. Jung would say that he was seeking inspiration from the deep fountain of Europe’s Collective Unconscious–the very thing that will be destroyed by open-borders policy proposed by fanatics such as Sean McMeekin.

  70. @slumber_j

    He already knows. That’s why he took the pathetic pot shot. Plus he knows no way the Free French ever Elect a flaming quisling like him.

  71. This is a strange op-ed for many reasons.

    First of all, did it ever occur to Prof. McMeekin that the main reason there was more fighting in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe after WWI was that Western Europe, by that date, already consisted of nation-states with reasonably well-defined borders, unlike the East? (And it should be noted that the one major exception in the West–the Irish Question–also resulted in a war from 1918 to 1922.)

    Secondly, as the author himself later admits, the First World War didn’t really resolve the fundamental geopolitical questions between the Western powers anyway–that took another world war.

    And then you’ve got this little gem:

    Its lesson, even if fully absorbed only after 1945, was Robert Graves’ “Goodbye to All That”: No more nationalism or arms races. Down with borders, tariffs and currency controls. Hello, European Union.

    No more arms races? So what would McMeekin call that thing that the US and the Soviet Union constantly engaged in after 1945? And as for tariffs, borders and currency controls, those were all still in place for quite some time after the war; it wasn’t until the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in the 90s that they finally disappeared.

    And this guy’s a professor of European History? Figures …

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  72. The historian Peter Frankopan has offered a new perspective on the origins of WW I. He suggests the British wanted to focus Russia away from the Far East and from south Asia and the Persian Gulf. Britain wanted Russia to focus on the Balkans and Constantinople. This would mean war in Europe.
    [quote]Britain desired alliance with Russia in order to get Russia focused in Europe, which meant, ultimately, a war in Europe that would consume Russia.[/quote]
    [quote]Because Britain desired this war, a war designed to both divert and consume Russia.[/quote]

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/rivals-masquerading-as-allies.html

  73. Wilkey says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Macron just inserted a lecture against nationalism into the Amistice memorial ceremony, right in front of our president.

    Elite from today foists the blame for mistakes made by elites of 100 years ago on the masses.

    Nationalism was little more than propaganda by elites to justify a war that had nothing whatsoever to do with preserving ‘the general welfare and the blessings of liberty’ for their people. It was propaganda used to get people to enlist and endure the sacrifices imposed on them by the war. In Germany those sacrifices were immense.

    Macron takes the lies of the elites from 1914 and perpetuates them today, and then blames the horror caused by the elites on the people. The French people can’t have sane immigration policies because Germany invaded Belgium and France and Russia. Nationalism is the giant umbrella term for all the disparate beliefs that elites don’t like; for policies which are all too often completely unrelated to one another.

    It’s propaganda bullshit all the way down. It’s a lie spoken over the graves of 1.4 million dead French soldiers.

  74. Dtbb says:
    @slumber_j

    Wouldn’t he have been 21 in the photo?

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  75. Why aren’t all you Vietnam apologists apologizing for World War I?

    Bah. Hypocrites.

  76. Jake says:
    @syonredux

    And Neocons like Max Boot would vote for Marxism over Trump.

    Even Hillary Clinton is small time evil compared to many Neocons.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  77. Anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    It looks like we are destined to eternally fight the Thirty Years War regardless of the total toll.

  78. @slumber_j

    Thank you for that. Personal reminiscences and reflections of this sort are worth a thousand learned essays.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  79. J.Ross says: • Website

    Its lesson, even if fully absorbed only after 1945, was Robert Graves’ “Goodbye to All That”

    On this planet Goodbeye To All That joins a proscribed library shelf of books, most of them semi-autobiographical tell-alls from repentant propaganda men, that blamed the war, not on abstract concepts that everybody continued to believe in, but on Anglosphere newspapers coordinating campaigns of outright lying. Graves describes a particular instance of this but makes clear that it was constant and very effective. One newspaper flat out lied about German atrocities in Belgium. Other newspapers quoted the first newspaper without investigating the claims, sometimes playing telephone. The first newspaper now repeats the lies in terms of the uncritical chorus, so as to suggest that proper journalistic corroboration has taken place.
    This is what that famous Nazi quote about the “big lie” is really describing, and, like the swastika, it’s hardly original. Everybody was talking about this. Edward Bernays wrote his pamphlet “Propaganda” to defend the business because of this postwar fallout.
    The lesson everybody, even the Nazis, took from WWI was that mass media lies in service to what we would today call the Deep State (although most of it was technically outside government then). The interwar pacifism was very much a conclusion drawn from this widely accepted premise — yes, the horrors of mechanized war were a major factor. But people endure horror given good reason. The thing Graves among many others pointed out was that there is almost never a reason and the folks telling you otherwise are in hindsight obvious liars.
    A cynical person might conclude that that was why WWII was necessary. Of course there were numerous other factors, but the propaganda effect of the world wars was opposite and, considering their order, the one could be said to correct the other.

  80. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Art Deco

    Problem, Hitler was a nut who actually believed all that rubbish about lebensraum and the Jews.
    And the big red dragon marking the far end of the map, which intelligence and ten seconds of reflection told him would attack when it was ready.

    • Replies: @Anon
  81. @Art Deco

    Yeah. Other than Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, North America, and the Caribbean the British and French empires were practically nowhere to be found on the world stage.

    If you could capture the British and French imperial experience in a single phrase, it would surely be “tread lightly.”

    It’s not at all like British and French imperial policy shaped the modern world or anything like two world wars and something called Vietnam. Or divvied up the Middle East in poorly conceived, top-down prescriptions in any way. Whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  82. All those things in play to start war did not and could not sustain a Great War, later to be renamed the First World War, without the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. As Churchill wrote, the war stalemated quickly and would have to be negotiated after six months. But old enmities and new competing interests were financed through money without limit for the first time. On we go.

    • Agree: Futurethirdworlder
  83. JMcG says:
    @istevefan

    Very true. Also, the Russian decision to mobilize, which was tantamount to declaring war, on behalf of Slavs with which they had no formal alliance at all, was the true spark that lit the bonfire.
    The Triple Entente, while not requiring Great Britain, France, and Russia to act as one, did bind them loosely together.
    Germany had zero interest in occupying France, as someone mentioned above, but they definitely wanted to prevent France retaking Alsace and Lorraine while they faced the Russian giant in the east.
    The lamps that Sir Edward Grey famously saw going out all over Europe are now going out all over the west. Not only did he not see them lit again in his lifetime, they may never be relit at all.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  84. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Because there is no name for these anti-Gentile pogroms, it is like they did not exist.

  85. Art Deco says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    All very well, but since it wasn’t Hitler who started the war your little spiel isn’t very enlightening.

    No, you’re unenlightened by choice. He wanted more territory, to which various parties objected. As one would expect.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  86. inertial says:
    @syonredux

    No mention of the Red Terror.

    Also, no mention of White Terror, Blue-and-Yellow Terror, White-and-Red Terror, Black Terror, or Green Terror. Civil war in the Ukraine was a bloody mess.

  87. @Buzz Mohawk

    Just for the record, I didn’t do that when I was there.

  88. During and after the Great War my kin in the Czechoslovak Legion formed a large force in the dissolution of their oppressor overlords’ Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Legion did not battle its way out of Soviet Russia and Siberia until 1920. An excellent book on this is by Kevin J. McNamara, Dreams of a Small Great Nation. For an insider account of the Czechoslovak Legion’s bitter ordeal and ultimate triumph there are many personal memoirs, and a good one to begin with is The Lost Legion: A Czechoslovakian Epic, by Gustav Becvar, M.C.

    In view of the post-Armistice Day history of eastern Europe it is no accident, no fluke, that today, together with Poland and Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia form the redoubtable Visegrad Four.

  89. Art Deco says:
    @Jake

    Even Hillary Clinton is small time evil compared to many Neocons.

    When did Max Boot or Jennifer Rubin hoover up 8-digit sums in pre-paid bribes? The closest you get to that sort of behavior would be the grossly inflated salaries the nonfeasant boards of National Review and Commentary are paying Richard Lowry, Kevin Williamson, and John Podhoretz. (FreedomWorks, Catholic Answers, and Hillsdale College are among the notable NGOs exposed for this sort of thing).

    Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin write opinion pieces for a living. That’s it. They’re both ornaments of the non-profit sector with no real following with the crucial exception of a couple of people who sign the checks. Rubin once had a more consequential position practicing law. No clue whose ox was gored in her years doing that.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  90. @Yngvar

    Or stupid German leadership. They had the best organized government, but still got all sorts of things wrong: Britain wouldn’t fight, proposing an alliance with Mexico would be a good idea, etc. …

  91. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @Yngvar

    Why were the IRA stupid? Their actions led to 26 of Ireland’s 32 counties becoming independent. If anyone was stupid it was the British who always managed to keep Irish nationalism alive in Ireland even when they thought they were suppressing it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  92. I was just thinking of this. My kids were watching an Infographics video (my kids are weird– HBD at work) about the possibility of Putin invading Eastern Europe, and what would be NATO’s, Congresses, and Trump’s reactions.
    I had to consider, just what is Putin? A Russian nationalist, or a Russian imperialist? I assumed the former, the video suggested the latter.

    The two positions are contradictory, not that individual leaders can’t contradict themselves. They do it all the time.

    Nice comment on this: “Russia can’t invade Europe, because Russian tanks don’t comply with European emission standards. That would be illegal…”

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Altai
    , @nebulafox
    , @istevefan
  93. @PapayaSF

    You say this but in parts of Europe where the EU has not yet held sway bullets are flying, authoritarian regimes control the media tightly and dictators strut. The same was true recently in the remnants of Yugoslavia. In another world, it is far from impossible that large west European countries would not be fighting each other. Since countries were invented 500 years ago it has been so.

    • Replies: @PapayaSF
  94. WIlkey says:

    Yes, they were trying to get Great Britain out of the war. Germany occupied large parts of Belgium and France, including the region with much of its most mineral-rich regions, for basically the entire war. They had no intention of making any “peace agreement” that did not allow them to keep those gains until their front lines completely collapsed.

  95. @Joe Walker

    If anyone was stupid it was the British who always managed to keep…

    …Northern Ireland itself, the Puerto Rico of Europe. Dump it on the Republic, and watch the latter go broke. Or beg to Germans.

    But then, the British wanted Ulster; the English don’t.

  96. Jake says:
    @Yngvar

    What are you talking about? WW1 started in 1914. The Easter Monday Rebellion was 1916. The IRA was founded in 1919.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  97. Anon[268] • Disclaimer says:

    I accidently happened to click on Fox News today. They were comparing gas used in WWI to Assad gassing his own people.

    [No commentary needed]

  98. @Jake

    The IRA was less dangerously rebellious in 1914 than the Protestant officer class in Northern Ireland, which was running guns because it didn’t like the Liberal government in Westminster’s plans for Ireland. Going off to war in 1914 solved the Prod problem right quick because the officers loyally went to Flanders.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    , @Podgemex
  99. Anon 2 says:

    A fundamentally important result of World War I was the rebirth of Central
    Europe. Look at the map of Europe circa 1570. In the west the dominant power
    was the Holy Roman Empire (incl. Bohemia). Granted, 200 years later, to quote
    Voltaire, it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire but in 1570 or so
    it was still by a power to be reckoned with. In the east was Muscovy, a rising power
    which later stole (as the Ukrainians claim) the name ‘Russia’ from the defunct
    Kievan Rus’. What about the center? The center was larger than the Holy Roman
    Empire. It consisted of two large states. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, an
    early form of democracy (the Nobles’ Democracy in which the top 10-15% were eligible
    to vote), was a federal republic, like the U.S., culturally and linguistically dominated
    by Poland. It was a vast entity, 815,000 sq km in area, i.e., much larger than the
    German Empire before WW I – the latter’s area was only 541,000 sq km.
    It encompassed central and eastern Poland, today’s Lithuania, today’s Belarus,
    and western Ukraine. The second part of Central Europe was comprised by
    the Kingdom of Hungary, about 283,000 sq km in area. Due to the expulsions
    of the Jews from Western Europe and the Polish policy of religious toleration,
    by 1550 about 80% of the world’s Jews (probably about 90% Ashkenazis)
    established themselves in Poland.

    Central Europe, i.e., basically the area between Germany and Russia, so vast
    in 1570, began to shrink with the First Partition of Poland in 1772, initiated by
    two Germans, Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia, and the Hapsburgs
    of Austria. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth disappeared from the map
    in 1795, greatly destabilizing Europe, and ultimately being one of the causes
    of World War I. Europe needs an independent center, otherwise Russia and
    Western Europe would be permanently at each other’s throats. In fact, to
    claim that there is no such thing as Central Europe today is IMHO equivalent to
    saying that there is no Midwest in the U.S.

    Central Europe was reborn in 1918, due primarily to the rebirth of Poland
    and Czechoslovakia (Hungary lost 2/3 of its territory partly because of the
    emergence of a new country called Slovakia, in 1918 still attached to Czechia).
    One reason why Jews left some bad memories in Poland is because the Jewish
    leadership at the Versailles Peace Conference was vehemently opposed to
    Poland regaining independence. In the 1930s Poland’s population was 15%
    Ukrainian and 10% Jewish (about 3.5 million).

    Finally, after the overthrow of Communism which began in Poland with the
    Solidarity movement of 1980-81, Poland and Hungary quickly returned to their
    informal alliance of the 1500-1600s, and with Czechia and Slovakia, formed
    the Visegrad Group (V4), thus restoring Central Europe to some of its former
    size. The events of the last few years seem to reinforce the claim that geography
    is destiny. Today there may be 2-3 million Ukrainians in Poland, primarily as
    as guest workers and students. Moreover, in the summer of 2017 about
    200,000 Israelis visited Poland (and probably similar numbers of Jews from
    the U.S and W. Europe). Reasons given: food and shopping. It seems that
    just like in the 1600s-1700s the Ukrainians and the Jews just cannot stay away
    from Poland, it’s like Poland has some sort of magical, mystical effect on those
    two groups.

    • Replies: @Anon 2
    , @James N. Kennett
  100. Anon[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    If you haven’t seen this made-for-TV movie it starts with a NATO conflict with “Russia” in East Germany.

  101. @Yngvar

    The IRA did not exist in 1914. And Irish nationalists were not taking any potshots at British troops in Ireland at that time.

    • Agree: JMcG
  102. @Buzz Mohawk

    To this day, Hungarian tourists visiting the Trianon Palace sometimes spit on the floor.

    I saw the window through which the Defenestration of Prague took place. I’m glad the old lady guide didn’t push me out as well.

    There wasn’t a life-saving pile of trash there anymore.

  103. slumber_j says:
    @Dtbb

    I guess that’s right.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
  104. Anon 2 says:
    @Anon 2

    I mentioned that in the 1930s Poland’s population was 15% Ukrainian and
    10% Jewish (with small percentages of the Lithuanians, Belarusians, and
    Germans). Those percentages were typical throughout the last 500 years
    of Poland’s history (except for the post-WW II period) – Poland was almost
    always multicultural. Contrast this with the rest of Europe in the 1930s.
    The Jews who were expelled from Western Europe stayed expelled. E.g.,
    Germany had a tiny percentage of the Jews – only 0.8%. Similarly, in the Soviet
    Union the percentage of Jews was also very small, under 1%. Reason: until
    1917 or so the Jews were forbidden from settling in Russia proper , and were
    confined to the Pale of Settlement, itself largely an inheritor of the
    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

  105. @Reg Cæsar

    “Northern Ireland itself, the Puerto Rico of Europe.”

    Until very very recently, Ulster was more like the Switzerland of the island of Ireland – despite the “Troubles” as 20 years of IRA guerilla war was called.

    Belfast made aircraft and ships, south of the border they made butter and beef.

    What’s transformed the South is their 12% corporation tax rate, which has made Dublin (and to a lesser extent Cork) into a boom town as UK and global companies move their legal entities there (for example, all the Google ads UK consumers see come from Google Ireland, even though Google have far more UK employees). It’s the sort of thing that the EU aren’t terribly keen on (tilting the tax playing field), and if Ireland stay in it’ll inevitably come under scrutiny and challenge – but not now as Ireland are a useful Brussels ally against Brexit UK.

    • Agree: Matra
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @Podgemex
  106. The radically different experiences of Western and Eastern Europe in the years after 1918 explain much about the continent’s political landscape a century later.

    The received wisdom in the West is that nationalism is the cause of wars, chauvinism, and intolerance. But in Eastern European countries that were occupied by the Nazis and the Soviets, nationalism is the defiance of that occupation, and the resistance to wars and other evils.

    Hello, European Union.

    Two of the EU’s founding myths are that the principal conflict in WWII was between Germany and France; and that the rapprochement between these two EU members has made a similar war impossible in future.

    Of course, it’s nonsense. The principal conflict of WWII in Europe was between Germany and the Soviet Union. The present cycle of poor relations with Russia began when when Poland welcomed a planned US missile defense system on its territory, and (in 2014) the EU and USA assisted a revolution against the elected government of Ukraine. It is worrying that the EU has ambitions towards the same territory that Germany coveted in two world wars; and yet a belief in its own founding myths tells the EU that there is no danger as long as the French and Germans stick together.

    A great deal has been written about the causes of the First World War, much of it not very convincing. The most parsimonious explanation is that, after 100 years of relative peace, both politicians and people were eager to fight. That is a lesson we should heed.

  107. @dearieme

    It’s enlightening to find out whether any of your friends or family have ever heard of this war.

    Also that Lenin was in Switzerland at the time of the February 1917 Revolution. The Austrians and Germans conveyed him to St Petersburg because they realized he would bring about the collapse of Russia.

  108. Hunsdon says:
    @istevefan

    George Washington is not Who We Are!

    • Replies: @istevefan
  109. Altai says:
    @Skyler_the_Weird

    I remember reading about an incident that is alledged to have happened during the Kosovo intervention when Algerians on the French aircraft carrier Foch mutinied. (Though it’s far to say Western powers were generally on the side of the Albanians.)

    http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/06/mutinous-muslims-in-french-military.html

    • And if there was a conflict between France and Algeria ? Aïcha, dressed in army clothes, cannot imagine making war against his own people: “In my head, I am Algerian, I don’t feel French. For me, the army is not about standing up for a nation, it’s about finding a job.”

    • A Defence Ministry report from January 2007 mentions “the intransigent and demanding attitude turning to provocation” of the JFOM (jeunes Français d’origine maghrébine) [Young Frenchmen of North African Origin] and the “super-delinquency even at the heart of their regiment.”

    • A young French parachute officer recounts how, in his unit, the JFOM (jeunes Français d’origine maghrébine) spend their days in the barracks drinking beer while watching porno films and on the slightest remark, they make a complaint to the commanding officer denouncing the racism of the officer who, summoned by the colonel, is obliged to withdraw the disciplinary measure.

    • A Saint-Cyr[French military academy], consideration is being given to putting in place a system inspired by that of Sciences-Po [elite French university for the governing class] and its agreements with schools in priority education zones. “The aim is to one day be be able to call a general Ben Babrouf or a Colonel Mohammed”

    In the navy, the officers will not quickly forget the 1999 mutiny on board the aircraft carrier Foch. Sixty volunteer soldiers, all with North-African parents, took their officer hostage. After being entrenched for 2 days in the aircraft carrier’s cafeteria, they had to be dislodged by a marine commando team. These “North Africans” were reacting to a collective punishment imposed after a rebellion that occurred during a mission off the coast of Yugoslavia during which Super-Etendards had carried out strikes on Kosovo, which the Muslim recruits considered a Muslim sanctuary.

    • The young “Frenchmen” of North African origin are responsible for 3.5 times more desertions, 6 times more refusals to obey an order, 6 times more insults to a superior officer and 8 times more acts of insubordination.

    • The head Muslim chaplain in the French military is organising the next pilgrimage to Mecca for about forty soldiers and a team of chaplains. The project is close to his heart.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  110. 22pp22 says:
    @El Dato

    Save yourself the bother of reading the Zammoyski Book. I will summarise it here.

    The Polish Legion under Pilsudski seized independence for Poland because everyone else was in a state of bewilderment and did not know how to act.

    The Russians sent their Mad Max-inspired horse army to invade Poland. The Poles were outnumbered and outgunned.

    The Russians couldn’t pass through the Pripet Marches and so split their forces into two pincers, one to the north and one to the south of the marshes.

    Pilsudski concentrated all the forces he could just outside Warsaw and struck north cutting off the northern pincer and scoring an unexpected victory.

    That’s basically what the book says. I found it dull. It is a laborious description of military movements.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  111. PapayaSF says:
    @Philip Owen

    War precedes the invention of nations and nationalism. Blaming nationalism for war is like blaming the concept of private property for theft.

  112. Altai says:
    @Whiskey

    Unlikely, the UMP or Socialists could nominate an inanimate carbon rod and it’d have a better shot at victory than Macron. Macron was the last desperate attempt for people who want to believe things will be fine. With his hollowman credentials so beautifully verified, there will be nowhere left to go but the far left or far right.

  113. Altai says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    To be a nationalist in certain countries is also to be imperialist, though they don’t see it that way.

  114. @Art Deco

    You are missing the point.

    “To which various parties objected”. Exactly: the anti-appeasers and the f—–g Jews.

    It was not inevitable that they would win out over the appeasers, God bless them.

    But alas they did, and the Duke’s observation is therefore all too true.

    But you are right about one thing: I am unenlightened by choice.

    The Enlightenment was a dastardly trick, and I’ll have none of it.

  115. Independence day and Armistice day in Poland. Rather than banning the right-wing march, the government agreed to support it if political banners were replaced by Polish flags. So it turned into a national march.

  116. @BB753

    It is we who understand that fact, not only with our minds, but with a shudder of recognition in our very bones, who alone are worthy of the title and estate of “conservative.”

    All others who appropriate the name are frauds.

    • Agree: BB753
  117. @istevefan

    But questioning unnecessary alliances? Well that might just bring about a discussion concerning contemporary America that the good whites just don’t want to have.

    It’s not entirely clear why you think that only goodwhites are chary to engage in debate over “unnecessary alliances”.

    The most obvious problematic alliance is unstinting US* support for the racist enclave in occupied Palestine.

    US political support for that racist enclave is solidly bipartisan, but its absolute key supporting demographic is conservative Evangelical whites – who, far from being goodthinkers, are barely thinkers at all.

    That alliance is the one that is the primary driver for antipathy towards the West by a large group of folks (the world’s billion-ish Muzzies).

    NB: I asterisked US*, because apart from evangelicals and some Red Sea Pedestrians, most nobody gives a fuck about a sandy shithole that is a key geographical backdrop to some stupid old stories. Sadly, both groups are seen as important electoral demographics, so their mental illness infects US foreign policy to a wildly disproportionate extent. (I also do not discount the idea that a bunch of politicians know that their depraved doings have been captured on video: this serves to prevent anybody from kicking against the traces).

  118. @JMcG

    I see a pattern here: only those who understand that the guilt was not Germany’s understand too that that nation’s defeat was the beginning of the end for Europe.

    Germany is Europe’s heart – stop it beating and you get – well, what we’ve got.

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  119. @Anon 2

    Europe needs an independent center, otherwise Russia and Western Europe would be permanently at each other’s throats. In fact, to claim that there is no such thing as Central Europe today is IMHO equivalent to saying that there is no Midwest in the U.S.

    Despite the non-conformity of the Visegrad 4, the map of Europe today looks uncomfortably similar to that of 1914 – with Russia facing one empire (the EU) instead of two (Germany and Austria-Hungary).

    It’s as if Woodrow Wilson’s post-WWI ideas of “self-determination” have been forgotten, and we have gone back to the age of empires.

    Can independent states in Central Europe ever be strong enough to resist the powerful countries on either side? What lessons can we learn from the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

  120. @Old Palo Altan

    I see a pattern here: only those who understand that the guilt was not Germany’s understand too that that nation’s defeat was the beginning of the end for Europe.

    The guilt for WWI was not Germany’s alone. There is a difference.

  121. nebulafox says:
    @Wilkey

    >Franz Ferdinand’s family didn’t even mourn him all that much.

    It’s a shame, because he probably knew the key to the dynasty’s ultimate survival better than they did, aka, the treatment of the Slavs.

    >The war started because three of Europe’s five major powers had basically medieval forms of government.

    Germany’s government during the Second Reich was certainly more authoritarian than its counterparts to the West (as was to be expected, given Germany’s history and culture up to that point), but it was hardly medieval. It had competing political parties, the press was generally free to talk about what it wanted as long as it didn’t go after the wrong people too hard, class mobility was a thing, Germans could travel abroad without any issues, states outside of Prussia had their own rights, etc, etc. Aka: comes off looking *very* good compared to the Tsarist regime next door, let alone the truly totalitarian wackos that would sprout up around the world after WWI. Imperial Germany was a highly modern place, maybe the most modern in Europe… except psychologically.

    The Austrians, too, couldn’t really be described as medieval. Sclerotic and proto-Brezhnevite, certainly, especially in the government bureaucracy, but not medieval. It had a Parliament, press, modern economy, etc. They had managed to progress away from feudalism during the reformist oriented reigns of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. If they hadn’t, the Hapsburgs would have met the same fate that the French royal family, who doubled down during the 1700s.

    (That said, the empire would have really become untenable if they didn’t grant the Slavic peoples the same kind of dignity and deal the Hungarians got: which Franz Ferdinand fully understood, as seen in his plans for a “United States of Austria”. What could have been…)

    >It also started because the other two great European powers, the UK and France (especially the UK), in a Europe occupied by the three empires mentioned above, didn’t bother to take their defense obligations seriously.

    France took defense extremely seriously after what happened in 1870-1871. It had to given the threatening hegemon right next door. It wasn’t their fault that the fighting had to be on their soil.

    >or why Germany and Austria-Hungary refused to give up for so long when it was clear that all was lost.

    Because until the Americans landed in 1918, the war was not at all lost for the Central Powers. I’d argue that the Second Reich stood a far better chance of winning its war than the Third Reich ever did.

    Germany had already won on the Eastern Front, and the Italians were barely hanging from the Austro-German onslaught on the Isonzo only due to direct infusion from the UK after Caporetto. The only real problem for the Germans was getting things on the Western Front over with before a million Yankees landed, which the Germans knew would be the end of it, no matter how ill-trained the American soldiers were in comparison to them or the British/French. They had already been dealing with the deletrious effects of the blockade, they knew what America could industrially do.

    Without American intervention, there would have had to have been some kind of deal made eventually there. The fighting had been static for over 3 years, and everybody involved had been bled absolutely white. Certainly the Austrians were ready to beg for peace on almost any terms, given Karl’s rejected peace feelers earlier, and after Brest-Litovsk gave them more land than they could feasibly manage, I suspect the Germans would have been willing to be flexible in the West.

    Why the French kept fighting: pretty obvious, to clean out the Germans who had wrecked their country. The British: well, the British historical policy was to always be against a potential continent-wide hegemon.

  122. Art Deco says:
    @Cagey Beast

    The second half of the 20th century is when our current governing class took charge,

    I think the median age for people in senior management is somewhat north of 55. They’d have been entry level just prior to the end of the Cold War.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  123. Dtbb says:
    @slumber_j

    I mentioned it because your story is nearly identical to mine. Grandfather born in 1896; check. Became officer at 21 in spring of 1918; check. Difference is Gramps (what he liked to be called) was a veterinarian involved with the supply service.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  124. @Art Deco

    Did you really think I meant to say we’re governed by people who started their careers circa 1950 and who are now in their nineties? Of course I didn’t. I was talking about the founding and guiding myths of the current ruling institutions — such as the EU, NATO — and the people who work for them. These are the people too young to remember the war years but are constantly seeing Hitler in every passing cloud.

    Essentially they use the spectre of 20th century fascism to keep politics for themselves. Letting “populists” or the wrong sort of elitist or tradtionalists near power will let the Hitler genie out of his bottle once again.

  125. rufus says:
    @nebulafox

    The Germans were finished by late spring of 18. Particularly in the northern British sector. This is well trodden territory not worth revisiting.

  126. nebulafox says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Russia is a one-trick oil pony that has insane levels of corruption sucking away at every sector of society. It’s basically Mexico with nukes, hyper-competent intelligence services, and a legacy mathematical educational system that still produces the best programmers, mathematicians, etc.

    It doesn’t come off quite as clear as it should because many European countries… don’t bother having proper armies at all, and Russia does. But Russia can’t project power quite like the old USSR could. The USSR could only be contained by a European-wide alliance from pursuing expansionist aims: aims that were also implicitly dormant in the ruling ideology at the time. Putin’s Russia, by contrast, is only capable of really projecting hard, military power in areas with ethnic Russians or traditionally highly friendly client states like what used to be Syria. It’s a pathetic shadow of what the Soviet Union was capable of.

    I suspect Putin knows this more than anyone else, and his goal in power is to first and foremost stay rich and stay on top. Nothing more, nothing less.

    >I had to consider, just what is Putin? A Russian nationalist, or a Russian imperialist? I assumed the former, the video suggested the latter.

    “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.”

    • Agree: snorlax
  127. nebulafox says:
    @rufus

    Well, the Germans had time: they estimated it would take a year for America to fully mobilize and get across the sea, which roughly turned out to be the case. Enough for them to take a final shot at Paris and watch Russia eat itself from the inside out after smuggling Vladimir Ulyanov back from exile. It wasn’t as if they many other choices with the blockade slowly eating away at the home front and the US being on the side of the Entente in all but name.

    Fun fact: Meuse-Argonne remains to this day the most deadly battle in American military history, worse than anything in the Civil War or WWII or Korea. But it didn’t matter how inexperienced the troops were or how tactically inept the command was: the presence of all those Americans in France meant that Berlin knew they’d taken their chance and missed. It was time to throw in the towel and prevent the war from coming home to Deutschland.

  128. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.

    It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along. But as it got richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.

    Initially, Germans unified to create a nation. But it became the most powerful nation, and power has a way of expanding. So, nationalism can be the base of imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.

    The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, it sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t work, but it moved Westward to take land from Indians and then waged war on Mexico. So, the theme of US is both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spain to grab more territory. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spain collapsed into nationhood. But the horrors and cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough’ and meddling in other places will lead to more headaches. But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, to not further develop them. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State are addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.

    For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political regions were always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of unity with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you never meet in life. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than unite with capitalist Italy or France. West Germans and East Germans shared ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians.

    Imperialism today would be insane, but it had its place in history as a constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world. Most of the world would be ruled by elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades. In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants were beneath them and stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, and that led to the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model where the people would not be subjects but fellow countrymen of the elites.
    Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. So, the Western fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees. The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that called for something new. But because the native elites came to be seen as puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost respect and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people.
    If not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who prevent any change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.

    At any rate, whatever good imperialism did in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by imperialism. So, we have to give imperialism its due.
    Also, globalism would be fine as long as it meant the world trading and communicating with one another. But it has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means smashing of borders by masses of migrants who’ve been given the greenlight to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.

    Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism and nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire can be friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, the European Christendom in WWI is the stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.)
    French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism.
    Though China and Japan are not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation seeks alliance with a great imperial power to gain leverage against the bigger national power. So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear.

    There have been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.

    Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions but if he murders a homeless person, he’s in big trouble. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples.
    European Empire was the biggest the world had seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it and felt it was fundamentally wrong. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind.
    Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers just trampling on subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elites who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this led to death knell of Western Imperialism.

    Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project. But the UN is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity Non-whites valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights. As the non-West was so less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to seek hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message to the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.

    But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The non-West went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.

    It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better. Instead, they are glue to TV beaming false fantasies of US as paradise of Cool and Wealth. Or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
    Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire.

    While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence.

  129. denjae says:
    @dearieme

    It’s enlightening to find out whether any of your friends or family have ever heard of this war.

    My father was a child in Szikszo, Hungary, during the period of the Red Terror.

    He later recalled periodic encampments of Czech’s, Romanians, and Hungarian Reds on the hills around the town.

    Mothers would send their children into the camps to beg for food.

    Dad took his dog along on one such foray, and managed to bag a rifle by attaching it to the dog’s collar and letting the dog steal it home.

    He passed through Ellis Island in 1921, age 10, with the rifle on one shoulder and the family Bible in a backpack on the other. His father had by then been to and from Europe over the prior nine years and was working as a facilities manager at a small MidWestern University

    The Bible (with family history) and the rifle went lost. A ceramic cup engraved with images of the heads of State of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires — received by his mother as a delegate to one or another State conclave in Budapest — is the only remaining memento.

  130. @nebulafox

    But Russia can’t project power quite like the old USSR could.

    And how much could the USSR really project power?

  131. @22pp22

    Pilsudski was a politician and not much of a soldier, so it came as a big surprise to practically everybody when he won a huge victory over the Soviets outside of Warsaw.

  132. @European-American

    In their mind, patriotism has to do with how one feels about one’s countrymen (in the preferred nomenclature, fellow citizens), while nationalism is about how one feels about someone else’s.

  133. vinny says:
    @LondonBob

    Sixteen million people dying for no reason, what a larf!

  134. Mr. Anon says:
    @istevefan

    In the critiquing of nationalism as the villain in WW1, conveniently left out of most discussions is the issue of too many alliances compelling nations to join a fight that they might not otherwise have an interest to do so.

    Indeed, it was the internationalism of the Triple Entente and Central Powers alliances that turned a small war into a World War.

  135. vinny says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Putin can’t even dream of getting his tanks into Prague.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  136. @vinny

    The Soviets had 53,000 tanks in 1985. How many do the Russians have today?

    • Replies: @vinny
    , @Svigor
    , @Sean
  137. snorlax says:
    @Steve Sailer

    As BlueGov’s bad cop, they (seemingly) punched above their weight.

  138. istevefan says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The only countries were the Russians could invade and hold on to territory are the ones with a significant Russian population. Latvia and Estonia have about a quarter of their population being Russian ethnics. How Lithuania only has about 5% is a puzzle to me. But other than parts of Ukraine, like Crimea, or those two Baltic states, I doubt there are places where they could invade and hold territory. They just don’t have the demographics right now.

    • Replies: @rufus
    , @Reg Cæsar
  139. slumber_j says:
    @Dtbb

    Wow, that’s quite a coincidence. I think, or maybe not? Anyway, it does seem that way to me.

    My grandfather had just graduated from college with a degree in civil engineering, so he went into artillery. Never got overseas though. I think he was teaching other people to shoot the big guns at maybe Ft. Sill before shipping out, which never happened.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  140. vinny says:
    @Steve Sailer

    That’s the point, right? Russia today doesn’t have much ability to project power, whereas Brezhnev with many tens of thousands of tanks, and Eastern Europe full of allied (or subject) governments could at least change things in Prague. What can Put in do even in Riga?

    • Replies: @rufus
  141. istevefan says:
    @Hunsdon

    George Washington is not Who We Are!

    The sad thing about your comment is that it is true. We are still 58 years away from the 300th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Well before that milestone is reached, over half of the nation will have become unrecognizable to Washington and his cohorts.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  142. rufus says:
    @istevefan

    Thanks general dumkov…

    You’re gonna be on the front line presumably ?

  143. rufus says:
    @vinny

    They voluntarily withdrew less than 20 years ago. Im surprised at your seeming gap in knowledge, for of course we venerate you..uhh hum, regarding the archival research of the soviet period. ( well beyond falsification ) There was never an intent, after the war, to attack western Europe. Virtually immediately reverted to a defense in depth posture as has existed in Russia since the 18th centtury modernization.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  144. slumber_j says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Thanks for that. My grandfather was a wonderful guy.

  145. slumber_j says:
    @B36

    My father-in-law who is one of the last people to have the upscale Concord WASP accent tells this of his great-grandfather: he knew someone who sat in the lap of a man who fought on our side in the Battle of Concord.

  146. 1918. My Uncle, 15 years old at the time, took a German prisoner at the Battle of Argonne Forest. I have a photocopy of the American newspaper telling the story.

  147. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j

    I once spoke with Percival Spencer, son (not grandson) of Christopher Spencer, who invented the Spencer repeating rifle, and showed up at the White House with one to show the President, Abraham Lincoln, who inspected, fired and agreed to buy it. This would be a very unwise thing to try today.

    He was astonished to learn that I not only knew what a Spencer rifle was but that I’d actually shot one (a real one, not a replica). As opencer rimfire ammo had not been made in a hundred years back then, he disbelieved me. I explained that since spare breech blocks were still available surplus, the rifle could be converted to center fire and cartridges made: the procedure was detailed in Guns & Ammo magazine in the late seventies.

    Percival had made a lot of money with his patented toy ornithopter which Wham-O sold, and made payments on, for decades: he had also been involved in the design of the Republic Seabee amphibian aircraft.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  148. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j

    My father-in-law who is one of the last people to have the upscale Concord WASP accent

    Are there any recordings of this kind of accent?

    • Replies: @PIltdownMan
    , @slumber_j
  149. @Louis Renault

    You might want to read up on Napoleon III and Bismarck.

    You might want to read up on Napoleon Dynamite and Bismarck, North Dakota.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  150. Coemgen says:
    @slumber_j

    So, would he have said (phonetically): Baddil a Kawnkid?

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  151. @Art Deco

    So, no ‘French Indochina?’ And if not imperialists, why didn’t they give it to Ho Chi Mien in 1945?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  152. Robert Gerwarth’s “The Vainquished” is very good on the post-WWI struggles in Central and Eastern Europe.

  153. @Digital Samizdat

    You don’t know how to read.

    How to shoot your mouth off, though, you know.

  154. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Especially since he’s running for President in 2020.

  155. @Altai

    Hurray for the mutinous Frenchmen. Those are the best kind.

  156. @slumber_j

    My grandmother was born in 1879. She was alive and, for 85 years lived, in her own home, until 1980, when I was in graduate school. I still have an audio file of her reminiscing about life in the 19th century, thanks to my siblings playing around with the new family tape recorder in the early 1960s, and asking grandma questions about her life.

    The tenth President, John Tyler, was born in 1790, in the first year of George Washington’s presidency. He was a schoolboy when he got news of Washington’s death. John Tyler’s grandsons are still alive.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-two-of-president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive/

    That is, there are two people around who’ve talked to a man who may have heard, first-hand, an anecdote from his father about the news of George Washington’s death.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  157. @nebulafox

    Get yer current events news from TV, eh?

    I can tell by your scintillating brilliance.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  158. @rufus

    Thank god. A voice of reason crying in this wilderness of bobbleheads.

  159. Lowe says:
    @IHTG

    We are so lucky that man is president. His expressions alone are worth the price of admission. That’s exactly the face I would make.

  160. Lowe says:
    @Whiskey

    The gays won’t rule anything in France once the Muslims take over that pathetic country.

  161. @Anonymous

    Not that I could find, but there are recordings of William McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, and both sound, not just mid-Atlantic, but pretty British to the modern American ear.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
  162. slumber_j says:

    Yes, my father-in-law would sound pretty British to Americans now. But it’s not like any actual British accent, despite its being non-rhotic.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
  163. slumber_j says:
    @Anonymous

    Katherine Hepburn’s accent was different, but not too far off.

  164. slumber_j says:
    @Coemgen

    No, that would be one of the working-class Boston accents. His isn’t that: more like Katherine Hepburn e.g.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  165. slumber_j says:
    @PIltdownMan

    McKinley is probably closer than Roosevelt, but they both indicate it.

  166. inertial says:
    @Steve Sailer

    “Projecting power” is a uniquely American concept. Russians think in terms of defending perimeter.

  167. nebulafox says:
    @obwandiyag

    I don’t watch TV. Any other profound insights?

  168. nebulafox says:
    @Art Deco

    >Problem, Hitler was a nut who actually believed all that rubbish about lebensraum and the Jews.

    This was the point of my earlier argument with Jack D. If Hitler didn’t actually take his ideology seriously and was just some cynical opportunist, then Operation Barbarossa-not just the invasion itself, but the way it was carried out and the assumptions behind it-do not make sense at all.

    I don’t think Adolf Hitler was *capable* of not taking it seriously. On a fundamental, base personality level. Contempt for empiricism as well as pathological militancy was hardwired in the man’s brain. If reality didn’t meet his conception, he’d fight to alter it rather than accommodate himself to it: and thanks to an unholy cocktail of factors over the course of the 1920s and 1930s, he was able to.

    • Replies: @ZeroDay
    , @Wally
  169. @Anonymous

    Wow. How old was Mr. Spencer?

    People in Chicago can actually see a Spencer repeater rifle at the Chicago Historical Society along with some other antique firearms. They were once part of a collection that used to be displayed at the Chicago Public Library main branch on Michigan & Randolph until the Harold Washington Library was created downtown.

  170. Mary M says:
    @RichardTaylor

    So true! Nationalism is patriotism, someone needs to shame Macaron on his idiotic attempt at redefining patriotism as being the antithesis of nationalism.

  171. Black nationalism good, White nationalism bad.
    African nationalism good, European nationalism bad.
    Four legs good, two legs bad.

  172. Mary M says:
    @Jake

    I totally agree, for all the claims the nazis were nationalists, I don’t believe it. Hitler and the nazis were socialists and all socialists like all communists are internationalists irregardless of what they say , they opposed the Soviet communists who sought to seize power in Germany, but the nazis sought to spread and take over Europe. All Marxism is parasitic and requires new territories to subsume and bleed dry.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
  173. @YetAnotherAnon

    So the continentals are using the Irish against the Brits again? And the Irish wonder where the idea “The Irish are stupid” comes from.

  174. @El Dato

    The Polish police are on strike? Where’s Calvin Coolidge when you need him?

  175. @dearieme

    In 1920 Lenin sent the Red Army to invade Germany and take it over for communism. They failed, being defeated by the Poles on the Vistula.

    Eh, that’s what Adam Zamoyski thinks, but it’s a minority opinion. Lenin was too busy with civil war on his own soil to try anything so ambitious as a drive on Germany. The campaign you mention, that ended with that Russian defeat on the Vistula (i.e. at Warsaw) started as a defensive war against Poland’s opportunistic invasion of Russia.

    I’m no fan of Lenin and have no dog in the Polish/Russian fight, but facts are facts.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @J.Ross
  176. @European-American

    Patriotism etymologically refers to fatherland. So isn’t it a doubly problematic question of race and gender?

    Yes! I’ve been waiting for someone to say that. Time then for “matriotism”? “Xerism”?

    And I’m still waiting for National Review and The Nation to change their names to something less offensive.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  177. @Yngvar

    Yngvar wrote:

    Irish nationalism have to take a lot of blame for the outbreak of World War I.

    Of course, one theory is that Britain went to war largely to unify the nation and push aside various divisive issues such as “Irish Home Rule.” As I recall, that is part of the thesis of George Dangerfield’s The Stange Death of Liberal England.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to maintain that all foreign-policy decisions are merely a reflection of domestic political tensions. But, few foreign-policy decisions are completely independent of domestic political issues.

    This is one of the reasons that democraices can be much more dangerous geopolitically than autocracies: an autocracy led by a Bismarck may be free to make coolly calculating decisions. But democratic leaders must always take into account the passions of the mob.

    (N.B.: I am no fan of Bismarck! But it is worth trying to understand how different regimes, inclduing democracies, actually function, as opposed to the convenient fairy tales taught to the masses.)

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  178. @Redneck farmer

    “And the Irish wonder where the idea “The Irish are stupid” comes from.”

    Alas the UK voted for Tony Blair in three elections, so I have absolutely no right to throw stones at the Irish.

    Ireland seems to be going through its Tony Blair years themselves, first Alan Shatter playing the Barbara Roche role of opening the borders, then Leo Varadker.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
  179. Art Deco says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I’m not sure what you think the phrase ‘another bloc of territory in Southeast Asia’ was meant to refer to other than Indochina.

  180. Although this is a better take than 90% of what’s out there, I don’t really buy McMeekin’s thesis either. All of those events still happened ages ago, and have zero relevance or impact on ordinary East Europeans today. Furthermore, nationalism from Poland to Russia is strongest precisely amongst the youngest generations, i.e. those who are precisely furthest removed from those deep 20th century events. The far more plausible explanation is that exposure to the American sphere of influence, with its globalist ideology, broke down traditional attitudes to the nation-state in the West, while Soviet communism acted as a sort of freezer that ironically “conserved” those values.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    , @Desiderius
    , @snorlax
  181. Art Deco says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    It’s not at all like British and French imperial policy shaped the modern world or anything like two world wars and something called Vietnam. Or divvied up the Middle East in poorly conceived, top-down prescriptions in any way. Whatsoever.

    I think you mean ‘divvied up the Fertile Crescent’. Iraq and Lebanon have suffered insurrection and civil war because of ethnic and confessional cleavages. OTOH, Syria’s a broken down wreck even though the population is almost entire Arab, is predominantly Sunni and is predominantly composed of people who speak Levantine vernaculars; the minority confessions in Syria aren’t concentrated geographically, so there was no pathway to better boundaries. Jordan to date has been a passably successful endeavour even though its Arab population is derived from three distinct streams (one indigenous, two migratory), one of which has a history of being quite disruptive in the other countries where they’ve settled.

    I answered your other points before you made them.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  182. @dearieme

    In 1919 Poland invaded Russia, which was in the midst of brutal civil war. Poland tried to reclaim its medieval borders, which at one time included most of Belarus and the Ukraine. The invasion went terribly wrong for Poland, and only “miracle on Visla” saved hapless Poles from a Soviet takeover.

    Russia was able to recover all of its territorial losses in September 1939.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Curmudgeon
  183. @Kit

    You are wrong. What I am describing happened Sunday at the Arc de Triomphe, on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. President and Mrs. Trump were sitting right there.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  184. @Buzz Mohawk

    I see you corrected your comment, so there is no need for my reply. My apologies.

  185. RVBlake says:
    @slumber_j

    The actor Daniel Day-Lewis listened to voiced recordings of various 19th Century Americans in order to prepare for his role in “There Will Be Blood.” FDR had a very Mid-Atlantic accent.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  186. @Philip Owen

    You fired off before the day was even over. I didn’t see Macron at Suresnes when Trump was speaking:

    • Agree: Hibernian
  187. JMcG says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Well, someone knows his history. Irish nationalists were closing in on home rule before the events of Summer 1914. The Curragh mutiny was a preemptive refusal by British Army officers to take up arms against the Unionists in Ulster. The Unionists were relatively well armed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  188. ZeroDay says:
    @nebulafox

    The only candid audio recording of Hitler is him discussing the Eastern Front in sober and empirical terms.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @nebulafox
  189. JMcG says:
    @nebulafox

    The French were the threatening hegemon in 1870. They declared war on the pre-unification German states. And then had their backsides handed to them.

  190. Svigor says:
    @Steve Sailer

    It’s an interesting question, how much of a loss of military power occurred. But who am I going to trust to answer it? The bash-Russia crowd in charge on “our” side? The Russia-uber-alles crowd on the other side?

  191. JMcG says:
    @slumber_j

    Amazing, forty odd years before that they were finishing off the pacification of the Comanches out of Fort Sill. A similar span of years separates us from the war in Vietnam.

  192. Hibernian says:
    @Philip Owen

    The President was out in the rain at another cemetery. He avoided a hijacking of the memories of the fallen for globalist purposes,

  193. Art Deco says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The far more plausible explanation is that exposure to the American sphere of influence, with its globalist ideology, broke down traditional attitudes to the nation-state in the West,

    Remember Olof Palme, virtue signalling twerp extraordinaire? That’s on them, and, I’ll submit to you, a more likely source of bad memes than Washington (given the disdain for all things American the Eurotrash chatterati is wont to express).

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  194. Hibernian says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Three cheers for Russian imperialism!

    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski
  195. @International Jew

    If Lenin saw himself as a second Napoleon, that would be a distinction without a difference.

    The best defense is…

  196. @International Jew

    No, they just avoid talking about patriotism at all, except when it’s needed to slag on nationalism. It’s like the mainline churches have purged all mention of God the Father.

  197. @Art Deco

    Washington outsourced it to Cambridge, New Haven, the Grey Lady, and Madison Avenue, but don’t kid yourself about the driving force behind those memes. There is a battle in Washington about whether that globalism will be Pax Americana flavored or post-American (leading from behind to establish poast-Nationalism for all – this is what Macron was quisling about), but it has been an American endeavor from the outset and continues to be.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  198. @Anatoly Karlin

    They were more than conserved, they were exercised in defiance of active, overt, and hard Communist imperialism. The furtive, covert, and soft version from the (post-)American pole in the fullness of time had the greater effect on her sphere of influence.

  199. @nebulafox

    I don’t know. Putin doesn’t strike me as a mob boss or a big-man dictator. I don’t know what he is, but I think he has a real interest in Russia, whether as a nation or an imperial power.

  200. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @Redneck farmer

    Actually you are the stupid one. The EU are the allies of Ireland which is why Ireland has done so well economically since it joined back in the ’70s. The Brits believe that by cutting themselves off from the EU that this will somehow bring back their empire. All it will do is hasten Britain’s economic decline.

  201. @YetAnotherAnon

    Actually Varadkar has been good for Ireland. He is smart and doesn’t allow the Brits to push him around. I think secretly that most intelligent Brits wish that he was their prime minister.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @JMcG
  202. Art Deco says:
    @Desiderius

    Washington outsourced it to Cambridge, New Haven, the Grey Lady, and Madison Avenue, but don’t kid yourself about the driving force behind those memes.

    Not Buying.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  203. Romanian says: • Website

    What the hell! I can’t view the site because of GDPR, the EU data protection legislation. The LA Times must not be compliant.

    Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

  204. @Art Deco

    Which is sorta the whole point: the retreating British and French set up Westphalian structures designed for classical nation-states where nothing of the sort existed. Where the tribal areas frayed into desert, they just got out their rulers. So ever since there’s been conflict over maintenance of inorganic structures.

    If you recall the high ambitions the ideologues in the USG had for Afghanistan and Iraq this should be sounding familiar.

    The British and French empires left large, reverberating footprints. Extruded parsing of economic stats doesn’t prove anything.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  205. snorlax says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    That’s hardly surprising, nationalism is always strongest with the younger generations (one of the ways W Europe and the Anglosphere are WEIRD is that the nationalism age pyramid is reversed, probably an artifact of the simultaneous trends of increasing educational attainment and increasingly propagandized education). And decades of Communist indoctrination of the older generations is never going to be entirely reversed, especially among those who perceive themselves as the losers of the transition to capitalism.

  206. Sean says:

    The edgiest parts of Tragedy are when Mearsheimer presents full-bore rationales for the aggression of Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and imperial Japan.

    The German decision to push for war in 1914 was not a case of wacky strategic ideas pushing a state to start a war it was sure to lose. It was … a calculated risk motivated in large part by Germany’s desire to break its encirclement by the Triple Entente, prevent the growth of Russian power, and become Europe’s hegemon.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ww1-books/#comment-2618990

    As gone int0 with the above comment, I happen to believe that WW1 was far from accidental, all the major powers wanted to fight it for their own reasons and in 1911 the head of the British navy predicted almost to the day when it would start. Serbia deliberately provoked WW1 and achieved massive territorial expansion as a result of the war. East European countries now see themselves as underthreat because they have to few people through low birthrates partially but the main reason is their best people are leaving for the West. These countries are becoming more nationalistic because their very existence is in doubt through depopulation. And why would they want to win more territory when what they already have is become embarrassingly empty?

    Anyone who thinks war irrational should ponder that both John von Neumann and Bertrand Russell (two logic and highly intelligent men) advocated a nuclear strike, or the threat of one, to prevent the Soviets acquiring the atomic bomb. Absolutely logical solutions are often counter-intuitive and in conflict with the aversion to risk that individual humans have evolved.

    A nation state is not going to act differently whoever is in charge; it’s a data processing system that acts so as to survive, a black box if you will that does whatever it takes. There have not been any easy pickings to be had for rising great rising powers of late.

    Yuval Noah Harari: ‘Homo sapiens as we know them will disappear in a century or so’

    In the past, the main economic assets were material – things like wheat fields and gold mines and slaves. So war made good sense because you could enrich yourself by waging war against your neighbours. Now the main economic asset is knowledge, and it’s very difficult to conquer knowledge through violence.

    China may be in a bubble right now but can probably count on growing slowly but surely over the long term. A war would require the aggressor to posses a decisive strategic advantage, or need to stop a rival obtaining one.

    I think WW3 is likely to be over (or possibly even by) something like Google’s AI project AlphaZero, which has already taken a steps on the path to general intelligence by teaching itself to beat specialized human-aided chess and world champion Go players. If an AI seems to be on the brink of a giant leap, the facilities may be destroyed as a potential decisive strategic advantage by a rival power. On the other hand, and as Eliezer Yudkowsky said, maybe something like AlphaZero is the kind of technological blip that happens on planets all over the Universe–a few years before those worlds end.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @J.Ross
    , @Kinez
  207. Wally says:
    @nebulafox

    Except that Germany had no choice but to attack the USSR, that fact is rather old news.
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    Introduction to HITLER’S WAR: http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/
    Then you childishly recite what you are simply mandated to say about Hitler with no facts in hand whatsoever. A shame.
    Recall the Britain & France declared war on Germany but not the USSR, who invaded Poland from the east.
    - USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    - Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    - The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
    - Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
    - France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    - France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch “neutrality” with impunity by flying aircraft over the lowlands.
    - It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.
    Responsibility for WW2: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
    Did Britain initiate both world wars?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10458
    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  208. @B36

    President Tyler, born 1790, still has two living grandsons.

  209. JMcG says:
    @Joe Walker

    Varadkar has been good for the Ireland that is not Irish and that has no wish to be Irish. He is of a piece with the execrable Alan Shatter and the disgusting Katherine Zappone.
    You might as well take down that faux antique copy of An Phoblacht that you have hanging in your basement bar, because no one in Ireland will be able to, nor care to, read it in fifty years time.
    My grandfathers fought for a country they wouldn’t spit on now. One where an Irish farmer doesn’t even get the back of a hand while “refugees” from everywhere are at the top of the list for every service. There are dozens of people lying on gurneys in hospitals in the countryside for want of beds while immigrants in Dublin are whisked right in to Beaumont.
    In short, you don’t know what you are talking about. You are an apologist for those who are busy destroying what you profess to love.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
  210. @istevefan

    How Lithuania only has about 5% is a puzzle to me.

    It’s next to the Kaliningrad Oblast. The real question is why Estonia and Latvia are so high. Latvia used to be heavily German, as was Königsberg. The Baltic languages make Russian look easy, as well.

    It was basically Soviet plantation policy. Similar to Ulster.

  211. @slumber_j

    Bob Hope spoke of an old lady he knew in London before emigrating to Cleveland at age six. She was born a few years before Darwin and Lincoln.

  212. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Emmanuel Micron said nationalism is bad because it’s petty, self-centered, and un-involved with the world. Well, thank Todd that that the caring West intervened in Libya to turn that nation into a paradise. And what wonders have been done to Syria thanks to the caring globalism of the West that rejects petty nationalism.

  213. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @ZeroDay

    The only candid audio recording of Hitler is him discussing the Eastern Front in sober and empirical terms.

    This alleged audio recording is very intriguing, but it may not be authentic.

    The alleged back story sounds too convenient: from memory, a Finnish sound engineer recorded the meeting without permission, was caught by German security, but was ALLOWED TO KEEP THE RECORDING AS A MEMENTO.

    A detailed analysis of the alleged speaker’s pronunciation and other vocal characteristics could probably settle the matter with a high degree of confidence.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Jaakko Raipala
  214. @nebulafox

    An excellent resume, and I particularly appreciate your sympathetic understanding of Franz Ferdinand, the greatest emperor the Austrians never had.

  215. Art Deco says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I think if you expect a political order to emerge in something other than a territorial state, you’re bound to be disappointed. You’ll have a territorial state with congenial politics or uncongenial politics, but you will have a territorial state. The Ottoman Empire was not some sort of non-territorial body. There were provincial administrations in the Fertile Crescent.

    If you recall the high ambitions the ideologues in the USG had for Afghanistan and Iraq this should be sounding familiar.

    I know of no ‘high sounding ideologues’ in the State Department, the Defense Department, or the CIA, then or now. They may be there. I couldn’t name them. I suppose you could reprint George Bush’s speeches. Treating ceremonial public addresses as if they were inter-office memoranda is a bit of inanity Andrew Bacevich favors. Not my deal and shouldn’t be yours.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  216. Art Deco says:
    @Wally

    Except that Germany had no choice but to attack the USSR,

    That’s a fantasy.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  217. @Felix Keverich

    Marshall Józef Piłsudski had been battling Russia for Polish independence for years. It is true that he led the Poles into previous Polish territory, but it was to prevent the Soviet invasion of Germany. He believed the only way to Polish independence was a German victory over Russia and a French victory over Germany. That is pretty much what played out at Versailles.

  218. @slumber_j

    Is he a Harvard or otherwise Ivy man? I would love to think that his voice is more the product of his family environment than his schooling (as you do in fact suggest by calling it a Concord WASP accent).

    And I speak as a descendant of the Hoars, Concord’s pre-eminent family historically.

  219. @Art Deco

    Not according to former Soviet Military Intelligence Officer Vladimir Rezun (aka Viktor Suvorov) who searched the Soviet archives before writing his book.

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf

  220. @Steve Sailer

    Enough to sell weapons to the bad guys all over the planet.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  221. @RVBlake

    More precisely, a Groton accent. Joseph Clark Grew was there too, and you can hear him on Youtube talking about the Japanese.

    “St Grotlesex” had more to do with how these men and their cohorts spoke than did either Harvard or Yale.

    Just as once in England, it is the schools attended that mark out the real upper-class people, not the university.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  222. Art Deco says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    This trade association here

    https://boardingschools.us/

    identifies 350-odd boarding schools in the United States, constituting 1% of all private schools to be found. If their mean enrollment is similar to what is typical of private schools, their total enrollment would be about 60,000. I think the ‘real upper class’ is a tad larger than that.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  223. @Art Deco

    You are correct that the British Empire practiced free trade. The Japanese textile industry was greatly assisted by unhindered access to the Indian market.

    There was a furious debate about tariff reform in the UK before WW1. The driving force was cheap imports from Germany. Toys were a particular example. Free trade continued. Germany did not need to go to war with Belgium and France to secure access to British markets.

  224. anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The recording was given to Finnish state censors and was returned to the engineer two decades later. It has undergone some testing and is believed to be authentic.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  225. @Art Deco

    Do you?

    I don’t.

    But then again I am thinking of something rather like Paul Fussell’s “top out of sight” class.

    Read his excellent book on the topic if you don’t know what I am referring to. Insightful and, better still, very funny.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  226. @Art Deco

    (FreedomWorks, Catholic Answers, and Hillsdale College are among the notable NGOs exposed for this sort of thing).

    The president of Catholic Answers is Christopher Check, who spent 20 years as VP of the paleocon Rockford Institute. So this assertion looks rather strange. Can you back it up?

    Is CC just a figurehead, and some big donor is using CA to funnel funds? Or do he, Fr. Hugh, and the others think they can buy their way back in and take over?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  227. @stillCARealist

    Enough to sell weapons to the bad guys all over the planet.

    The Soviets sold weapons to Lyndon Johnson?

    The only one that comes to mind is Lee Harvey Oswald.

  228. J.Ross says: • Website
    @International Jew

    Why do people think you’re a shameless liar? Is it because they all stupid and jealous of your accomplishments?

  229. @Art Deco

    That Washington is behind it, or that Academia, the Media, and the global corporations are not pushing it with all their might?

  230. @Sean

    The universe isn’t that big.

    • Replies: @Sean
  231. Art Deco says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I had a look at his book when it came out. Some inventive observation. However, he was a literary critic, not a sociologist. And, as was noted by reviewers, he didn’t have the same ironic detachment from his own class that he did from everyone else’s. One of his wives sliced him up in a memoir. Good for her.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  232. Art Deco says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It was his predecessor Karl Keating who was exposed four years ago (IIRC) by Michael Voris. Not sure if Keating voluntarily retired or if the board decided he was tainted. I had no clue Christopher Check was associated with Catholic Answers.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  233. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @JMcG

    So you deny that the Irish economy has gotten better since Ireland joined the European Union? Most of my relatives in Ireland think that Varadkar is the best Taoiseach that Fine Gael has ever put forward and miles better than the likes of Fitzgerald, Bruton or Kenny.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    , @Podgemex
  234. ATBOTL says:

    The establishment media sometimes use “nationalist” to mean openly imperialist. John Bolton and Dick Cheney become “nationalists” in that sense.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  235. JMcG says:
    @Joe Walker

    Ireland joined the EU in 1973. Their economy was stagnant until Charlie McCreevey came in as Finance Minister in 1997. He was instrumental in cutting the Irish Corporate tax rate to 11%, the lowest in the developed world. Now you no longer have to wonder why Apple and Google have a presence in Ireland.
    I have no doubt that your relatives think that Varadkar is the best Fine Gael Taoiseach ever, there have been precious few. The party of the working man and farmer in Ireland has been Fianna Fáil since forever. Fine Gael is the party of the cosmopolitans, the New Labour of Ireland if you will.
    Look, I was harsh in my previous comment to you. I apologize for that. I have stated here before that Ireland has the worst, most corrupt political class in the world. I hate to see a place I love being destroyed.
    Charlie McCreevey, by the way, was Fianna Fáil.

  236. Joe Walker says: • Website

    Actually various Irish governments have been pursuing low tax policies since 1956. Fianna Fail is more the party of crooks like Haughey than it is of the working people.

  237. Anonymous[416] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    The recording … has undergone some testing and is believed to be authentic.

    The testing that needs to be done is detailed linguistic analysis known authentic speech samples.

    Secret services at the time and long afterwards had every motivation to concoct a fake interview tape, if only to show off their skills.

  238. J.Ross says: • Website
    @ATBOTL

    >sometimes
    It’s a rubric for them to conflate nationalism and imperialism. That’s why they expect that weakening national governments will obviate war. Notice that the few countries that are allowed to be nationalist in word or deed — Israel, China, Mexico — are never called nationalist, because that would confuse people. To avoid the convenience of calling a Zionist a nationalist they have victim shtick.

  239. In reality, of course, the “ideals” of nationalism and democracy were the ingredients of the ideology of US financial and commercial empire which was the calculated result of US policy in WW1. Too bad people took them seriously.

  240. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Sean

    David Irving, JH Hatfield, Mordecai Vanunu, Seth Rich, Aaron Shwartz, Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, Norman Finkelstein and three thousand Chinese dissidents stood together in a field and yelled at the top of their lungs: “Now the main economic asset is knowledge, and it’s very difficult to conquer knowledge through violence.”
    Oh no wait, it was a media-adored mainstream pseudo-intellectual with Israeli citizenship who said that.

    • Replies: @Sean
  241. Anonymous[879] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    The Germans had nationalistic rationales and justifications in mind for their actions during WW2:

    https://www.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/hitlers_argumen.html

    What was Hitler’s argument for attacking other countries? You might think he didn’t have one, but he did. His argument is frankly Malthusian: Our population is growing, and we will run out of food unless we get more land.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  242. Anon[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross

    Wouldn’t something like, I don’t know, not divvying up the countries in between with the big red dragon have helped avoid that?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Anonymous
  243. Kinez says:
    @Sean

    The Serbian government desperately tried to avoid the war, even accepting the humiliating Austrian ultimatum. Austria was looking to expand into the Balkans – it had formally annexed Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 (which had a 43-45% Serb plurality). There was a large Serb population in Dalmatia, Slavonia, Croatia and Vojvodina. Austria unsurprisingly viewed the two neighbouring Serb states’ independence (the Kingdom of Montenegro and the Kingdom of Serbia) as a geopolitical threat.

    Austria had planned to “intervene” in Serbia during the period leading up to the war. The Austro-Hungarian chief of the general staff von Hötzendorf called for years for an attack on Serbia. The assassination was merely a pretext for a war certain circles in Vienna had been trying to start for years.

    Serbia didn’t gain much from the war. 58% of the male population died and Serbia ended up diluting its sovereignty in a common state with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the neighbourhood, falling for the false promise of Yugoslavism – an idea that originated among the Croats of Austria-Hungary (the Illyrian movement).

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Anon
  244. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    WN on Fuku.

  245. @Art Deco

    I just found Fussell’s Wartime in the closet. That, and John Costello’s more erotic take, is handy when faced with someone who touts “the Good War”.

  246. @Art Deco

    I had no clue Christopher Check was associated with Catholic Answers.

    When he’s not selling puppies. Keating-to-Check sounds like a doubling-down of sorts. Keating’s feud with convert apologist Gerry Matatics was quite incendiary.

    From 2008-16, Check’s brother headed Courage, the ministry for those with same-sex attraction. The Checks are not a family that shies from controversy.

  247. @Mary M

    This is a silly argument that is often used by libertarians who wish to argue that the true right is classically liberal. The only way to objectively define the Nazis is that they were radical centrists who combined right and left ideas in new and extreme ways.

    If you take any ideology or political hybrid to its extreme you can end up with absurd and ironic results. Extreme nationalism is just as stupid as extreme liberalism or extreme socialism.

    • Replies: @anon
  248. anon[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @unpc downunder

    If you want to define the extreme Right of Politics as visceral, and the extreme Left as intellectual, then the Nazis were a Party of the Extreme Right.
    Anyway, Hitler was a genius politician, he was funded by Big Business, and hindsight suggests he played the role of Pied Piper for German Big Business, which has done exceptionally well over the last 85 years.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  249. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anon

    Firstly, they tried that, secondly, Chamberlain tried a version of that for the Germans, and thirdly, the Native Americans tried that, and it turns out that getting conquered does not prevent getting conquered.

    https://postimg.cc/WdqZfDf8

  250. @JMcG

    ” Their economy was stagnant until Charlie McCreevey came in as Finance Minister in 1997″. Not true. The economy began to boom in 1994. The cause seems to have been a devaluation of the Irish Punt coinciding with an upturn in the global economy. The end of the northern Ireland conflict also coincided which led to more investment from abroad and more tourism.

  251. Podgemex says:

    The Brits keep telling the Irish , you would be bankrupt without us. Ireland is an underpopulated island. Britain knows if it lets the island of Ireland go its own way , the Irish are free to form alliances with britains competitors. The British have one of their owe installed as prime minister in the 26 counties, a British Indian from Slough. Plus the British only have 60% of Ulster, the rest is in the 26 counties. Imagine a United Ireland with the population going to work in Germany, in the 19th century the mayority of the population changed from Gaelic speaking to English speaking in a generation. In a generation you could have a German speaking population on britains western borders, haha.it must be the reason Britain is flooding Ireland with British Asians. Britain knows that the loyalists in the north eastern part of Ireland, their time is up so has gone in plan B . Most of the high street shops have being bought over by Britain, government contracts in Ireland British companies, Dublin , cork etc are becoming the same as Birmingham or Manchester. Sky is showing Gaelic games when there is no audience for it ? Premiership football is everywhere as if they were local teams . Ireland has become more British in the last 20 years than in the last 800.

    • Agree: JMcG
  252. Podgemex says:
    @JMcG

    Fianna Fáil are gangsters , Charlie mccreavey one of the worse. He could con the Clintons . He d sell out anyone or thing for money and a pat on the head.

  253. Podgemex says:
    @Joe Walker

    You’re relatives are thick as shit, he was a failure at every position he held, but as fine geal sold the country out, it looks better to have a multicultural leader ,haha . Ireland will NEVER achieve anything as long as it’s people have their heads up their ass. Irish people are very good at selling out the country to the cheapest bidder.

  254. Sean says:
    @Kinez

    The assassination of the peace-loving moderate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was carried out by the Serbian Gavrilo Princip on orders of the Black Hand and on the the anniversary of the Battle Of Kosavo, because the highest officials in the Serbian government wanted war to regain Serbian lands lost following that calamitous 1389 defeat.

    Scotland had comparable losses to Serbia in WW1. It would come as a surprise to the “Union or Death” secret society of Serbian officers, AKA the Black Hand, that the unification of all Serbs within a huge Serbian-dominated country was not a victory.

    In 1903 the Black Hand Serbian officers, led by Dragutin Dimitrijević,, assassinated the Serbian royal family, Disemboweling the queen and cutting of a piece of one of her breasts as a souvenir. A new prime minister was appointed as a result of the assassination , and the Black Hand leader was appointed Professor of Tactics at the military university, and was in effect head of the Serbian secret service with massive prestige and influence on foreign policy. What followed was a series of wars and domestic and foreign assassinations by the Serbian regieme the Black Hand had brought to power , and the aim was territorial aggrandizement.

    WHEN Serbia, along with the Balkan alliance of Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria attacked the Ottoman Empire in autumn 1912, members of the Black Hand took part in the general military mobilization for war and fought in both the first and second Balkan wars. The aftermath of the war victories saw an acrimonious dispute between the ruling government of Nikola Pašić (1845-1926) and the leaders of the Black Hand (who had joined forces with the parliamentary opposition to Pašić), involving the question of whether the newly won territories should be under military or civilian control. This dispute spoke to the long-term tensions between the leaders of the Black Hand and civilian politicians dating back to the May Coup. In the wake of the Balkan wars, civilian politicians and the crown wanted to consolidate the gains of 1912-1913 and replenish the country’s exhausted military and economic forces. But Black Hand members were ready to strike out again should the opportunity arise. With the Ottomans all but expelled from the Balkans, the most coveted remaining irredenta now lay in Habsburg Bosnia. [...]

    Dimitrijević and his Black Hand mounted the assassination of the Archduke without a determined attempt to restrain them by the the official government of Serbia, which found out about the plot in time to have have demanded Dimitrijević halt the operation and bring back the assassination team (armed with guns from the national armory). The government of Serbia gave no such orders, and one can only draw the inference that they hoped to benefit from the ensuing war. They, or rather the Serbian nation achieved Greater Serbia as a result of WW1.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  255. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Even by the 1980s, Western Europe was probably a bit built up for a big tank drive.

  256. Sean says:
    @J.Ross

    The average 16 years’ old has a smartphone and spends hours a day on it.

  257. Sean says:
    @Desiderius

    Enrico Fermi thought it was too small and old for no sign of an expanding alien civilization by this time. Nuclear war is an unlikely explanation given that even humans have manged to avoid it. Fermi said that an atomic chain reaction was 50 years away, two years before he created one.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  258. @Anonymous

    Obviously the story is a cover up and the Finnish government or some faction within Finland was spying on these two gentlemen. A spy got caught but the governments decided to keep their relations so the issue was swept under the rug and everyone pretended that the man was just some lone guy acting on his own.

    The right-wing in Finland was pretty thoroughly infiltrated by German spies since WWI and the Civil War, in fact a lot of the wealthy and powerful in Finland were ethnic German families who of course often had very pro-German opinions. The Finnish “deep state” from the revolution to WWII was in an internal Cold War between germanophiles (well-funded and supplied by ethnic Germans and Germany) and former Tsarists who tended to be russophile, anglophile and germanophobic as a WWI legacy.

    Gustav Mannerheim was the big hate target for the radical pro-German factions – friend and loyalist of the hated Tsar who refused to renounce him, good friend of arch-anglo Winston Churchill and so on. One plausible scenario here is that this sound engineer was spying for the Germans and he was actually targeting Mannerheim (who was suspected of secret desire to drop out of the war); the Germans caught the guy and only then realized that they had caught one of their own agents and then the whole thing was swept under the rug.

    The Finnish government wouldn’t reveal this full story even today because it would be an embarrassing reminder of how many elite families were pro-Hitler and plotting to ensure that Finland takes the German side of the war.

    • Replies: @Sean
  259. Art Deco says:
    @JMcG

    The World Bank has it that rapid growth in per capita income has been the mode since 1987, with rates in excess of 4% per year about 3 years out of 5. During the 15 year period running from 1971 to 1986, they had year-over-year growth at that pace about 20% of the time. The mean growth rate in real per capita income has been about 4.3% per year since 1990.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  260. Sean says:
    @Jaakko Raipala

    Finland was supposed to fight on the side of the Imperialist Russians who had just stolen a chunk of their country.

    War is the Health of the State (1918)
    The end of the Cold War meant the health of Globalism.

  261. JMcG says:
    @Art Deco

    Thank you Art. I’m surprised at those figures. They don’t comport with what I’ve seen there over the years. Ireland in 1983 was the same as Ireland in 1970. It’s a far different place now than it was 25 years ago.

  262. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Without British involvement, the Schlieffen plan would have succeeded and a highly mobile offensive would have captured Paris within weeks and with relatively few casualties.

    No British government was going to allow the Germans to annex Belgium. Wake up.

    The Germans did the pro-war party in Britain a huge favor there.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  263. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @JMcG

    Patrick Pearse in 1913:

    It is symptomatic of the attitude of the Irish Nationalist that when he ridicules the Orangeman he ridicules him not for his numerous foolish beliefs, but for his readiness to fight in defence of those beliefs. But this is exactly wrong. The Orangeman is ridiculous in so far as he believes incredible things; he is estimable in so far as he is willing and able to fight in defence of what he believes. It is foolish of an Orangeman to believe that his personal liberty is threatened by Home Rule; but, granting that he believes that, it is not only in the highest degree common sense but it is his clear duty to arm in defence of his threatened liberty. Personally, I think the Orangeman with a rifle a much less ridiculous figure than the Nationalist without a rifle; and the Orangeman who can fire a gun will certainly count for more in the end than the Nationalist who can do nothing cleverer than make a pun. The superseded Italian rifles which the Orangemen have imported may not be very dangerous weapons; but at least they are more dangerous than epigrams.

    • Replies: @Podgemex
  264. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Hitler wanted Germany to be self-sufficient in food, because of the ‘starvation blockade’ of WWI.

  265. L Woods says:
    @anon

    …but I don’t want to define them that way. Why would I?

  266. Podgemex says:
    @Steve Sailer

    There was no IRA in 1914. The British officer class in Ireland was mainly Anglo Irish and based all over Ireland. West cork was a bastion of loyalism. The British settlers in the north east corner of Ireland know their time is up, the British are making the brexit border the Irish Sea. Everything comes to an end , just like California was Spanish,Mexican, American and now looking more like northern Mexico.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  267. Podgemex says:
    @Anonymous

    But the so called Irish nationalists didn’t want nationalist Irishmen having weapons because these so called nationalists are truly west British at heart. The 26 counties have being run by a corrupt cabal who have never cared about ordinary people. In fact a large percentage of the people in the 26 counties still look across to Britain than care about their own country. At the moment Ireland is switching to an American colony. It seems instead of having a first class Ireland , our political and business class are desperate to be a 2 nd class Britain or as is now America.

  268. @Anonymous

    The situation was not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. In 1914 many Britons still regarded as a pariah country as a result of the well-publicized atrocities which the Belgians committed in the Belgian Congo. (See the history King Leopold’s Ghosts or the journo-novel Heart of Darkness for the appalling details.) The 100 year old Treaty of Vienna was all that might have obligated Britain to defend the neutrality of Belgium. However, the language of the Treaty of Vienna was deliberately unclear on the responsibility of signatory countries were Belgium’s neutrality to be violated. There was a major debate in Asquith’s cabinet over whether the German violation of Belgian neutrality required a British response. It took significant politicking on the part of Grey, Churchill, and other Germanophobes to convince the cabinet that the UK was obliged to respond to the German violation of Belgian neutrality.

  269. Podgemex says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    In the 19th century until partition the only part of Ireland that received investment from Britain was the north east corner of Ireland , basically greater Belfast area . For some reason people outside Ireland think the greater Belfast area is Ulster instead of a small part of Ulster.. Britain sucked the wealth out of Ireland and refused and actively blocked investment in the other parts of Ireland outside the greater Belfast area as it wanted to keep Ireland poor and depending on Britain. It is very difficult to explain to people especially British people but Ireland does not need Britain. Brexiters keep saying that Britain doesn’t need to trade with the EU as there are other countries in the world, it’s the same for Ireland. We can trade with each other but on an equal footing.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  270. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kinez

    Game of thrones among imperial ambitions.

    In the end, true nationalism is defined by Core Nationalism. National identity, interests, and territory become confused and muddled with imperialism. As a people gain dominance of other peoples and their lands, their sense of national destiny becomes entwined with that of other peoples. Thus, distinctions between the National and Imperial become unsure and contradictory. As Amy Chua discussed in her concept of hyper-powers, the conquering/ruling people must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘diverse’ in order to maintain a great empire. While a determined people can use brute force to conquer weaker peoples, it is nearly impossible to rule over, with brute force alone, such vast lands inhabited by different peoples. In the case of American History, white people could just remove the relatively small number of native folks and create a White empire-nation. But most empires were about one people ruling over others who vastly outnumbered the ruling/conquering people. Also, even though the conquered peoples were relatively lacking in technology and organization, they were not hopeless primitives like the American Indians who had no chance against whites. So, to have an empire, the ruling people must be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and pro-’diversity’ over the conquered peoples. Empires are inherently diverse since they are about a people conquering and ruling over other peoples of different races, cultures, and religions. Also, in order to win over collaborators(or, better yet, converts at least in religion or ideology), the ruling people must be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and offer carrots along with the sticks. Nazi Empire was doomed in the East because its plan was extermination/enslavement. But in a sick way, even Hitler understood historical truths. An empire can survive in only two ways: Via ‘diversity’ & ‘tolerance’ OR eradication & homogeneity. He understood that while D&T method was useful and effective, it was ultimately doomed. All D&T empires eventually faded from history. The only kind of permanently successful empire is where one people take over, effectively exterminate or crush the natives, and become the ruling majority. Anglos could achieve this in North America & Australia and Russians could accomplish this in Siberia because they were met with only sparsely populated primitive opposition. But it was a tall order for Germans to pull off such a campaign against the Soviet Union that, in 1941, had 170 million people and advanced civilization. Easier to kill a gopher than a bear. So, if the German Empire were to become permanent and last a 1000 yrs(in Hitler’s prophetic dream), the German Empire had to effectively be a Big German Nation. Not so much Germans ruling over others but Germans as both rulers and ruled in the vast Eastern territories. D&T method, while effective, usually led to the conquerors being either expelled or absorbed by the larger native populations. Mongols were absorbed into non-Mongol peoples or, in time, driven out by native folks. Alexander’s Macedonian and Greek rulers eventually faded into the local domains that they conquered. The Aryan Conquerors in India may have used an extreme and elaborate system of race-separation ideology to perpetuate rule over the natives permanently. But despite DNA studies showing lingering differences among the various castes, lots of Brahmins in India look dark like the natives. Over 1000 yrs, they’ve been absorbed far more than they’d like to admit. Libido will do that over time.

    Anyway, under the policy of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, an empire can grow and flourish. Initially, the ruling people nevertheless maintain a sense of ‘us’ over ‘them’. While the conquered ‘them’ are offered carrots, they are still in an inferior position vis-a-vis the conquering ‘us’. But as time passes, the conquerors come to rely more on the conquered for materials and manpower. Also, among the conquered, some perform their duties so loyally that they are accepted into the conquering tribe. There have been some cases where, over time, the conquerors and conquered merged into one people. This was especially true IF the either the conquering people or conquered people(or both) had weak cultural identity. Mongols were fierce and aggressive but had a barbarian culture. As such, they could be absorbed into more complex cultures. Or when an elaborate culture conquers a weak/primitive culture, the latter joins the former. Christendom and Islamic World converted and absorbed many peoples. And long ago, a few gentile tribes were absorbed into the Jewish Tribe with a most powerful sense of culture rooted in the Covenant. The merge is usually doable IF the conquerors and conquered are of the same race despite cultural differences. Plenty of Germanic and Slavic barbarians became ‘Romans’ or ‘Greeks’.
    But when a powerful culture conquers powerful cultures, neither side is willing to be fully absorbed into the other culture. This is even truer if the peoples differ in race as well as in culture. Latin America is an interesting case. Because the natives mostly had weak cultures, they were absorbed into the conquering Latin Culture. They took on Spanish names and language. And they accepted Christianity. Now, if the natives of Central and South America were white, they might have just become ONE with the Spanish. But as they were brown, strong distinctions and separations remain between the conquerors and conquered despite the effective cultural ‘latinization’ of the whole continent.
    At any rate, empire eventually confuses the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered. This confusion is a double-edged sword. In some ways, it facilitates further integration between conquerors and conquered. If the conquerors come to identify more with imperial glory than with the national core, then they are bound to feel a closer bond with the conquered folks who’ve come to serve the empire. And if the conquered folks come to share in the pride of imperial glory, they are bound to look to conquerors not so much as foreign tyrants but rightful rulers. But this confusion also leads to all kinds of anxieties, paranoia, tensions, distrust, and resentment. Also, both sides realize that there has to be a limit to the merging of the two realms because there is the real danger of losing one’s identity and culture forever. Then, it is hardly surprising that most empires faded in time. Latin America is in a strange kind of limbo state. In one way, it seems like a successful and permanent merging of conquerors and conquered. In other ways, it looks like an ongoing imperial project where something BIG might happen with drastic transformations in power politics.

    Where nationalism becomes most vital and vivid is when empires fall apart. Such collapse finally decides what is Core Nationalism and Expansive Imperialism. It’s like separating wheat from the chaff, the gold from the sand. Core Nationalism is muscular and lean, Expansive Imperialism is fat and round. An empire is like a person with excessive fat. He has eaten too much, and it has made him bigger. He carries a lot of weight, and can push others around. BUT, all that fat also serves as a burden. There are advantages to be sure. After all, a sumo wrestler gets a lot of leverage with the fat. But, he tires easily and has to keep eating and eating to maintain his size. Now, when a fatso decides to exercise and lose weight, does he shrink to nothingness? No, he will lose the fat, but he will reach a point where he is mostly lean muscle. That is the Core Person. Without all the fat, he may look diminished and won’t win something like sumo matches, but he will feel healthier and lighter. So, if one wants to know what a fatso really looks like, the fatso must lose the weight. All the flab makes the fatso look like other fatsos. They are defined by fat that covers their body. But with exercise and healthy eating, a fatso will lose weight, and then he will really look like his true self.

    This also goes for empire. Empire confuses the identity of a people. The conquering people may come to identify so much with the empire that they forget what they really are at the ethnic, cultural, and territorial core. Indeed, because they’ve come to covet the empire so much, they may feel that loss of empire will be the end of the world, the end of everything. But not so. Losing the empire finally reveals the Core Essence of the People and Culture. It is not total loss but loss of Imperial fat in exchange of re-emergence of the National musculature.
    So, when the British lost their empire, they had their core in Great Britain. It still remained. After the French lost their empire, they had Core France, the land to which the French colonialists returned. When the Turks lost the Ottoman Empire, they no longer ruled over Arabs and Balkan folks, but they had the National Core in what is now Turkey. When the Japanese Empire collapsed in Continental Asia, there was still Core Japan. Austrians lost the empire, but they still had the Austrian Core. Russians lost the Soviet Empire but still have Core National Russia.

    So, true nationalism is Core Nationalism, and it reappears when a people lose the empire. They may be frightened that the loss of empire is loss of everything, but it’s actually a realization of and a re-connection with the National Core. In the end, was it so tragic that the French in Indochina returned to France or the British in Kenya returned to Great Britain? Even with loss of Imperial Glory, there was National Integrity.

    What is truly ominous and tragic about globalism is it is an attack on the Core itself. Apparently, it wasn’t enough for the Brits and the French to lose their far-flung empires. They must lose their national cores as well. And not just them. According to PC, George Soros, and the UN, the attack on the Core must be universal. Even though Swedes and Poles didn’t have overseas empires, they too must lose their cores. According to this article, even though Polish Conservatives mouth patriotic platitudes, they are collaborating with globo-homo capitalists to import tons of non-whites and spread Homomania everywhere. https://www.amren.com/features/2018/11/a-frank-assessment-of-nationalism-in-poland/ Also, rise of deracinating Pop Culture, anti-ethno-PC, and anti-life feminism have led to Child Dearth all over the Modern World. Women take jobs from men and then wonder why there aren’t enough marriageable men around. It’s because women took their jobs. Feminism is narrowly focused on female careerist empowerment while overlooking the fact that this leads to overall weakening of a people. While relative freedom for women was an advantage to the West, the West’s greatest rise came when there was a balance between the ideal of equality and the reality of biology. Thus, Western women enjoyed more freedom and rights than women in other cultures, BUT they still performed their crucial biological functions as wives and mothers. This led to the triumph of the West. (If modern feminism had hit the West in the 18th century, there would have been no Rise of the West.) There was a sense of All-Empowerment for the entire society, and this required a complementary relationship between men and women. But materialistic feminism led to women seeing themselves as a separate and independent group apart from men. Instead of working with men to create a powerful society for all, women opted for the narrowest goals of personal/sexual entitlement. Of course, most women lost out in this order as only a handful women are going to succeed in the most glamorous fields coveted by most women addicted to celebrity and vanity. But the toxic mindset infected most women, and they lost all sense of what is GOOD FOR ALL or Mutual Empowerment. They just opted for the narrow empowerment of themselves as a separate group.

    There was a time when even the loss of empire meant that a people would not lose all. Fall of empire meant that the conquered peoples regained(or conceived of) their own nationhood while the conquering peoples withdrew into their national core. Both sides got something. Liberation for the conquered, Re-connection for the conquerors. Imperialists returned home and reconnected with nation and kin… like Lawrence(of Arabia) who had enough of imperial ventures and returns home to Britain. Or the guys in THE DEER HUNTER who want to say goodbye to all that(imperialism) and return home where family and friends are. Fall of empire was like declaring bankruptcy. You lost lots of stuff, but you got to keep your core house and property. So, if you speculated in lots of bad real estate deals and got burned, you needn’t lose your core home. But globalism says even the Core possession of a people/culture must be placed on the auction block or turned into something like a brothel. The culture and ideology of current UK is a whorehouse or a house-party. It is not a home where anyone would feel safe. In DUNKIRK, we see how the soldiers feel safe ‘at home’ as they make it across the channel. Today, London has been colonized by the Other. British Police looked the other way when girls were turned into sex slaves in Rotherham(or Brothelham). And yet, this is the the New Centrism, and anyone who calls for Core Nationalism is ‘far right’… unless he happens to be an Israeli.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  271. @Sean

    The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a pretty massive conspiracy, but it never seems to come up in discussions of conspiracy theories, either pro or con. Other big conspiracy assassinations include Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Art Deco
  272. Hibernian says:
    @Podgemex

    There was something like the IRA going back to the time of Cromwell. It was very weak in the early and mid 19th Century.

  273. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Can anyone doubt that John Brown’s conspiracy had more than a little effect ?

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

    Thomas Laqueur reviews The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark

    Tuchman says nothing about Austria-Hungary and Serbia on the eve of the war, and nothing about the Russo-Austrian and Serbo-Austrian fronts once it began. ‘The inexhaustible problem of the Balkans divides itself naturally from the rest of the war,’ she thinks, and in any case nothing much happened there in the period she covers. More surprising is that in the first third of the book there isn’t a word about Serbia. The assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 goes by in two sentences, one of which, a quotation from the oracular Bismarck, may be all she needs: ‘some damn foolish thing in the Balkans’ would ignite the next war.

    Why was this story so compelling in the 1960s? I think because at the height of the Cold War the world needed and embraced a morality tale of the sort Tuchman offered. It goes like this. In 1914, two opposing power blocs, each in the process of a massive and historically unprecedented military build-up, came to feel that it was more dangerous not to respond militarily to a relatively minor incident at the periphery of Europe than it was to do so. The precise nature of each stage of the July Crisis, or of earlier crises, is less important to Tuchman’s cautionary tale than the dénouement: the failure of the great power blocs to negotiate their differences and the catastrophe that this failure unleashed. For the generation immediately following the Second World War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the hydrogen bomb that the Russians exploded in 1961, little was left to the imagination about what could happen if a mistake on the order of 1914 were made again. [...]

    Lyndon Johnson was less impressed by Tuchman. But when Kennedy was assassinated he too had the First World War in mind, arguing that what happened in Dallas could plausibly be as badly misconstrued as the murder in Sarajevo had been fifty years earlier. A comparable mistake today, Johnson believed, could leave twenty million dead instantly.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lbj-thought-cuba-had-kennedy-killed-1235502.html

    Did Fidel Castro have anything to do with the assassination of John F Kennedy? JFK’s successor, Lyndon B Johnson, was convinced he did, but feared that if he blamed the Cuban president, the outraged US public would demand retaliation…

    https://www.history.com/news/final-jfk-files-assassination-documents-release
    Trump Holds Some JFK Assassination Files Back, Sets New 3-Year Deadline
    Despite a promise to release everything on April 26, 2018, the Trump administration is withholding certain material in the JFK Assassination archive for extra review.

    Most of the stuff held back is believed to concern Oswald’s trip to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico. There are archives within archives within archives, and just as with the current uncertainty about what actually was revealed at the Salonica trial of Dragutin Dimitrijević, the full truth is probably not known to anyone by now.

  274. Anonymous[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    That reminds me of Napoleon III, who was angry at the political settlement of 1815, and who did everything he could to tear it down. What he didn’t realise (until it was too late) is that in addition to protecting Europe from France, it also protected France from Germany.

  275. nebulafox says:
    @ZeroDay

    Hitler was the quintessential chameleon. That’s part of why he ran rings around nearly every opponent he faced during the first couple of decades of his political career. Hitler’s well-demonstrated qualities of endlessly flexible tactical acumen were the reason behind his success, political and early military, though ultimately the decision to go to war underlined Hitler’s abandonment of politics and going his back to basics.

    These skills that Hitler had had taken a hit the previous winter when the Germans were decimated at the gates of Moscow, but in early 1942, Hitler still had the ability to assume the masks he needed to-and the ability to creatively think. But for multiple reasons, this ended around the time of Stalingrad: and the person that Hitler always was and had been came to the forefront, staying there until his suicide. The vicious, pathologically destructive nature had resurfaced when Barbarossa kicked off, of course.

    I don’t think it helped that he’d forced himself into the life of a detail-oriented bureaucrat locked in an office. That was completely antithetical to his personality. He knew it, everybody around him knew it, and yet it happened. And it showed in the quality of his decisions nosediving in the second half of 1942.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  276. Art Deco says:
    @Podgemex

    See the Maddison Project’s latest release. Per capita product in Ireland in 1870 was 62% of the British mean by their reckoning. The same distance separated Britain and Ireland in 1980, after two generations of formal sovereignty. (The same distance separates Wales and the London commuter belt today, while we’re at it).

    N.B. in re 1870, Britain, the Low Countries, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain had significantly higher standards of living than did Ireland, as did North America, the Antipodes, and the Southern Cone of South America. However, Ireland as a whole was at least even with each part of the rest of Europe by their reckoning.

    • Replies: @Anon
  277. Art Deco says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I think the Lincoln assassination involved about six people. That’s ‘big’?

  278. nebulafox says:
    @PhysicistDave

    >I wouldn’t go so far as to maintain that all foreign-policy decisions are merely a reflection of domestic political tensions. *But, few foreign-policy decisions are completely independent of domestic political issues.*

    This is often ignored in foreign policy. Way too ignored. Even among realists (and I’m a pretty hardcore member of the realist school, or at least as far as you can be as an American), there’s a focus on some nebulous “national interest” that exists as if in some higher Platonic realm.

    If I had the ability to press “AGREE”…

    >This is one of the reasons that democraices can be much more dangerous geopolitically than autocracies: an autocracy led by a Bismarck may be free to make coolly calculating decisions. But democratic leaders must always take into account the passions of the mob.

    True, but the cost is that the more autocratic a system is, the more important it becomes to have a really fit apex and ruling class. If they are the only ones making decisions, then they’d better be good ones. Otto von Bismarck made the system such that only the emperor had power over him, in part because the rest of the royal family detested him: which worked out fine as long as Wilhelm I lived, but when he and the Crown Prince died in the same year, the far and away most dynamic and powerful nation in Europe fell under the direct control of a rather unstable young man who wished to rule personally…

    To use a more ancient example, Diocletian’s reforms ended up being one of the myriad reasons the Western Empire fell when cloistered, other-world focused buffoons-who weren’t even adults-took power. As long as there were competent emperors in charge of the new, quasi-divine monarchical structure, the Dominate worked out fine. If not? The generals and the ministers fought over who’d take power. Sometimes, you’d get lucky and the right one would be in charge for a bit. Sometimes, they weren’t. Rome, or at least the Western half of it, couldn’t afford the “sometimes” outcome by the 5th Century: and certainly not the infighting it took to get there.

    (I’m repeating myself, but there’s an interesting parallel between Diocletian and Bismarck: both men set up systems that worked flawlessly when they were alive, but couldn’t accommodate men without their political gifts, and thus collapsed after them.)

  279. Art Deco says:
    @nebulafox

    That’s part of why he ran rings around nearly every opponent he faced during the first couple of decades of his political career.

    He was a person of no consequence prior to 1923 and of only small consequence prior to 1930. Had the Bruening ministry devalued the currency in the Spring of 1930, Hitler might have continued to be a figure of modest consequence. Had a more vigorous military professional like Gen. Groener replaced Hindenburg in the presidency in 1932, his movement might have imploded or been suppressed before he could do any severe damage.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  280. Podgemex says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Brits divided Ireland, brexit will divide Britain, karma is a wonderful thing .

  281. @Sean

    Too small for intelligent life to have arisen elsewhere by the purported processes.

    • Replies: @Sean
  282. @Anon

    the conquering/ruling people must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘diverse’ in order to maintain a great empire

    The root cause of the poz.

  283. nebulafox says:
    @Art Deco

    >He was a person of no consequence prior to 1923 and of only small consequence prior to 1930.

    Well, yeah. Without the circumstances of the times, he would have lived out his life on the fringes of society, misanthropic and taking over nothing more consequential than his current tenement block.

    But that didn’t mean he didn’t consistently outfox his political opponents on his current scale at every turn throughout the 1920s: whether it was taking control of the Nazi Party in the first place, being the only far-right leader to not back the resistance in the Ruhr in 1923, his manoeuvring to get on top of the party and enforce his new strategy of legalistic veneers and sham compromises, creating an organized dual track shadow government within the party, or outpacing his rivals in the leadup to Bad Harzburg, among other things.

    >Had a more vigorous military professional like Gen. Groener replaced Hindenburg in the presidency in 1932, his movement might have imploded or been suppressed before he could do any severe damage.

    And had the Munich police and courts not been full of far-right sympathizers, the troublesome demagogue could have been deported well before the Beer Hall Putsch, not even being a German citizen. The point is clear enough.

    It probably would have anyway if it weren’t for the series of-you could call it comedic if one didn’t remember what happened-errors his enemies made in late 1932 and January of 1933. As late as December of 1932, Hitler was contemplating suicide should the party fall apart.

  284. Anon[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    But the distribution of caputs in the per capita would have been quite different.

    N.B. in re 1870, Britain, the Low Countries, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain had significantly higher standards of living than did Ireland, as did North America, the Antipodes, and the Southern Cone of South America. However, Ireland as a whole was at least even with each part of the rest of Europe by their reckoning.

    It must be my tired brain, but can you explain this? What is “the rest of Europe”? It must be some sort of average, right? I can’t reasonably imagine Spain had a much higher “standard of living” in 1870 than did France.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  285. Sean says:
    @Desiderius

    We know we are here so it is just a matter of how long the Universe would take to produce us on average. If life is incredibly improbable and usually takes a few trillion years instead of the few billion it took to produce us from a from a standing start and get us to our level in intelligence, then life on Earth took a tremendous short cut and the universe is not old enough for another such fluke to and anyone else to evolved yet. I understand there is a cosmological anthropooglical principle and observer effect, but it seems to me us being unique is less likely that us being nothing very special.

    We know there is no technological civilization we can see that has been spreading through the observable universe. That is a long way from knowing that there have not been many technological civilizations at our current level, even in our galaxy, since the universe got started.

  286. it seems to me us being unique is less likely that us being nothing very special

    You and pretty much 99.9999% of intelligent men of our time.

    Something’s fishy about that sort of unanimity on a question that speculative.

    I’ll go short on that take, and with a fair bit of enthusiasm.

  287. Sean says:

    If we are not unique in the history of the universe (or galaxy), then hundreds or thousands of predecessor alien civilisations who got to our technological stage– then disappeared–were aware of these arguments, but thought of the ideas as you do: a kind of 0.00001% Pascal’s wager . Consequently, they did not act in a determined enough fashion to solve the problem. Cynical shorting of an AIpocalipse is a universal and venerable sucker bet. Only human irrationality (credulous belief and fanatical devotion to a ideas as yet ethereal) can save us from the fate of the 99.9999 plus 0.00001% so far.

    Every country sees itself as under threat from others’ imperialist intentions and will act to forestall future aggression against itself. Poor little Poland had no sooner achieved freedom after WW1 than it invaded Russia, which had been weakened by the civil war. Every country sees itself as a nation state, and is seen by others as a potential imperialist predator because group selection or social identity over-against others is a situation humans have evolved with. It is a threat from something else than a entity like a nation or group that we can be expected to not recognize at its actual level of significance.

  288. Art Deco says:
    @Anon

    “The rest of Europe” would be each of the other countries in Europe for which the Maddison project has produced an estimate.

    • Replies: @Anon
  289. Art Deco says:

    But that didn’t mean he didn’t consistently outfox his political opponents on his current scale at every turn throughout the 1920s: whether it was taking control of the Nazi Party in the first place, being the only far-right leader to not back the resistance in the Ruhr in 1923, his manoeuvring to get on top of the party and enforce his new strategy of legalistic veneers and sham compromises, creating an organized dual track shadow government within the party, or outpacing his rivals in the leadup to Bad Harzburg, among other things.

    Chancellor Bruening did not adopt injurious fiscal and monetary policy because he was ‘outfoxed’ by Hitler. The financial crisis the Nazis and the Communists were able to exploit wasn’t derived from any outfoxing either. The refractory behavior of various parties during 1932 wasn’t some Jedi-mind trick Hitler played on them all. It was derived from their own stupidity, which worked to his advantage.

  290. Anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    If by “each” you mean “an average of all (weighted by population)”, okay; pulling out “Britain, the Low Countries, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain” seems interesting.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.