The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
They Really Did Start It
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Massacre of the Serbian royal family, 1903 (Wikicommons). The country became viewed as a rogue state in the hands of Greater Serbia extremists.
Massacre of the Serbian royal family, 1903 (Wikicommons). The country became viewed as a rogue state in the hands of Greater Serbia extremists.

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

Can a small country start a big war? We have the example of the First World War, which was caused by Serbia—or rather by advocates of a Greater Serbia who saw the Austro-Hungarian Empire standing in their way. The empire had to be destroyed, and its destruction could come about only through a major global conflict.

This reasoning was not wrong. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was not about to fall apart on its own, or even through a minor war. Its survival was backed by Germany, which preferred having a stable, undivided neighbor. Within the empire itself, the Austrians were opposed to breakup, knowing they would become a rump state of little importance. The Hungarians were afraid that any breakup would give their own national minorities ideas of secession. The various Slavic peoples—Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians—seemed the most secession-minded but were coming around to “trialism”—the idea that the empire should be reorganized as a federation of Austrians, Hungarians, and Slavs. One proponent was the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir apparent. When he was appointed inspector-general of the armed forces in 1913, this move was seen as paving the way for his accession to the throne. Two years later his father died at the age of 86, at which time the new emperor would have begun putting his plans into effect:

Franz Ferdinand had planned to redraw the map of Austria-Hungary radically, creating a number of ethnically and linguistically dominated semi-autonomous “states” which would all be part of a larger confederation renamed the United States of Greater Austria. Under this plan, language and cultural identification was encouraged, and the disproportionate balance of power would be corrected. (United States of Greater Austria, 2015)

History played out differently. The Archduke’s dream was a nightmare for Serbia’s rulers. Today, few of us know just how much that country was viewed as a rogue state in 1914. About a decade earlier, a group of army officers had staged a coup d’état, killing the king, the queen, her two brothers, the prime minister, and the minister of the army (May Coup, 2015). The coup outraged the international community, with most countries freezing diplomatic relations and imposing sanctions. Great Britain restored relations only three years later, after the senior conspirators had been removed from office. Nonetheless, they and like-minded people continued to exercise much authority through a secret society called The Black Hand. More importantly, nothing was done to change the radical shift in Serbian foreign policy, which was now anti-Austro-Hungary and pro-Greater-Serbia:

After the coup, life in Serbia continued as before, however now with King Peter exerting minimal interference in politics, not wishing to oppose the Black Hand which had become increasingly powerful. The turnaround in the external policy between Serbia and Austria-Hungary led to the Customs or Pig War from which Serbia emerged as the victor. With senior conspirators forced into retirement, Dimitrijevic was the de facto leader of the conspirators. In 1914, the Black Hand would order the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo, carried out by members of Mlada Bosna launching World War I. (May Coup, 2015)

The Archduke was assassinated to provoke a war that would soon escalate into global conflict. When it was all over, the Austro-Hungarian Empire no longer existed, and the dream of Greater Serbia had come true … at a terrible cost, of course.

Other reasons?

The above account may seem too simple. How can we blame a big war on a small country? Surely, there were other reasons.

There were. The Germans feared Russia’s growing military strength and rapprochement with France—a country that had never forgotten or forgiven her loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. A growing consensus was forming in the German high command on the need for a pre-emptive strike against Russia and France. Either that or let those two countries strike at a time of their choosing.

This fear was real but had been stronger earlier, in the decade following the signing of the Franco-Russian alliance in 1894. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) and the Revolution of 1905 made Russia look more and more like an unreliable ally. By 1914, the risk of a pan-European war was in decline, admittedly from a high level. If peace had lasted a few more years, domestic troubles would have overwhelmed some of the major powers, making them less inclined to engage in foreign military adventures.

Russia for one. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was not just due to war weariness. For some time already the country had been sliding into a pre-revolutionary crisis. The abolition of serfdom had made the peasants financially responsible for their own lives at a time when population growth was making their plots smaller and less viable. Masses of peasants roamed the countryside in search of work, creating a ready pool of people for uprisings. Others left for the cities, where they formed a growing working class that could be mobilized for collective action (strikes, street demonstrations and processions, mass meetings, etc.). This was new for the authorities, who responded with the old tactics of repression. Such tactics did work at first, such as during the Revolution of 1905, but nothing could stop the radicalization of urban workers or their linking up with opposition in the countryside.

This situation had parallels in other European countries, but Russia was unique in the speed of her industrialization, proletarianization, and urban radicalization; all this under a government that had been the one most committed to upholding the post-Napoleonic conservative order:

Indeed, it was precisely the government’s ability to maintain order through coercion, while restricting progress and upholding autocratic rule, that allowed so many social and political sores to fester, thereby promoting maximalist visions of social and political change. (Zelnik, 1977, p. 230).

In 1914, Russia was already heading toward revolution—a bigger and better organized one than the Revolution of 1905. The First World War just helped the process along.

And if 1914 had never happened?

There would eventually have been some kind of European conflict, but without the same effect of one country after another joining in. By the late 1910s, this bandwagon effect would have run into several obstacles:

- The Austro-Hungarian Empire would have been tied up with internal problems, specifically the task of reorganizing itself as a trinary state in the face of resistance from Hungary.

- An increasingly strife-torn Russia would have probably sat out any larger European conflict and, in any case, would have been a doubtful ally for a France intent on getting Alsace-Lorraine back from Germany.

- With Russia as a weak ally, France would probably not have risked going to war with Germany. At the very least, she would have waited to assess the strength of her warming relations with Great Britain (The Entente Cordiale).

- The Ottoman Empire would admittedly have been more willing to join Germany in a war against a weak, strife-torn Russia (and thereby win back land formerly lost to that country). On the other hand, if Russia had chosen to sit out any European conflict, the Ottoman Empire would have likewise remained neutral.

By the late teens or early twenties, military planners would have had their eyes on the worsening situation in Russia, eventually organizing joint interventions to assist the Tsarist government and keep revolutionary upheaval from spilling over into other countries. Such interventions actually did take place between 1918 and 1920 but proved ineffective because of divided objectives, war-weariness, and lack of public support at home (Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, 2015).

Conclusion

Can a small country deliberately cause a big war? Yes, in the right context, especially one of relative peace when the major powers have their hands free to engage in war (or think they do). A small country may exploit this potential for global conflict if it sees no other way to achieve its national aims and if the alternatives seem humiliating or intolerable. This mental calculation would also include the costs of global conflict … which are borne overwhelmingly by the citizenries of other countries.

Serbia paid dearly for the First World War, but the payback was considerable. When the spoils were divided up in 1918, Serbia more than doubled in land area, becoming comparable in size to the large states of Western Europe. The dream of Greater Serbia had come true.

References

May Coup (2015). Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Serbia)

Russian intervention in the Russian Civil War (2015) Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

United States of Greater Austria (2015). Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria

Zelnik, R.E. (1997). Revolutionary Russia 1890-1914, in G.L. Freeze. (ed.) Russia. A History, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 
Hide 97 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Maj. Kong says:

    The Home Rule Crisis in Ireland was also halted by the start of the war in 1914.

  2. Bruce says:

    Japan put a lot of money into Russian revolutionaries from at least 1904 to (sometime before) 1919.

    • Replies: @Chiron
    , @annamaria
  3. Sean says:

    Serbians must have been encouraged to precipitate a general European war by the Balkan Wars in which Serbia doubled its territory. I don’t know that the Ottoman empire was all that stable though.

    One could argue that Japan detaching Korea from China caused Russian tension with Japan .

    NEITHER Russia or Japan could gain the upper hand in Korea mainly because Japanese policymakers skillfully played the two great powers off against each other so as to avoid being devoured by either one

    In 1903 it came to a head as Russia tried to keep the Japanese out of Korea above the 39th parallel (Britain took advantage of Russian troubles by invading Tibet). The Tzar refused to make concessions or to use force, and said there would be no war; that led to defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, which meant the end of Russia being an effective deterrent to Germany: the key event that made the UK an ally of France and propelled Russia into the orbit of France. Internally, the 1905 disorder was largely spaked by Russia losing the war to Japan, which received considerable asstance from Britain in tactics (sneaky attack without declaration of war) and technical

    IT is sometimes taboo to introduce a hypothetical to history. Nevertheless, if there had been no offer from Admiral Fisher in Malta … there could not have been an overall victory for Japan.

    The Russian, like the French, revolution was initially a response to the country failing to exert its strength against external enemies.

  4. Other reasons for war?

    Reading a history book if Europe leading up to World War one very interesting fact was made to illustrate the popularity of war at the time. Leaders of European nations in 1914, with few exceptions, dressed like a combination of Sargent Pepper and Muammer Gaddafi, only with another ten pounds of medals hanging off their chest. The world was getting ready for war in part because there was a perception that war was noble, brave, and every man’s patriotic duty.

    What happened to glory gained through war? Why don’t we want our nations leaders to look like members of a marching band festooned with shiny colorful medals on every square inch of their puffed up chest?

    ummmm
    trench warfare
    carpet bombing
    17 million dead world war 1
    70 million dead world war 2
    film of the real horror rather than propaganda of the fake glory

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  5. The World Wars have had a profound impact on the European peoples. The first demolished their Empires and the second basically made them multi-continental hubs (the male cohort of the population was depleted so immigrants had to be brought in from the old colonies).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  6. The Russian Revolutions of 1917 needed a mass of armed peasant soldiers in St Petersburg. They were the main force driving the revolution, because they were organized together in their quarters and they didn’t want to go to the front, so had both the incentive and the ability to start a revolution. The Russian government had very few troops able and willing to carry out its orders. The situation would have been different if there were no war. In such a case the Russian Czarist government wouldn’t have had masses of unreliable forces in its capital city, and hence, no revolution. (Or an ineffectual, suppressed revolution.) Most sources I read (like Orlando Figes) think it was mostly the soldiers and not the workers.

  7. @Zachary Latif

    the male cohort of the population was depleted

    In Russia and in Germany, yes. In many other countries (Italy, France, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, just to name a few immigration destinations), not so much.

  8. In Chicago in the early 90s during the Yugoslav wars, I saw a teenage group of Serbian folk dancers. They performed on a college campus and said they were there to show the real Serbian culture, not just the distorted view then current in the media. They were called the Gavrilo Princip dance group.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Proud Srbin
  9. Interesting post, though I doubt revolution in Russia was inevitable.
    Have you read Christopher Clark’s The sleepwalkers recently or is there some other reason for this foray into WW1 history/counterfactual history?

  10. Sean says:

    Correction to 3. ‘Korean policymakers skillfully played the two great powers off against each other so as to avoid being devoured by either one’

  11. Pete says:

    The Austro-Hungarian empire was increasingly aggressive and expansionist whilst at the same time becoming more internally unstable. Germans and Hungarians sat atop millions of Slavs as their rulers as the sense of individual nationhood was becoming more pronounced in the minds of the various subjects. In 1908 A-H annexxed Bosnia-Herzegovina; there were no Germans or Hungarians there so what gave them the right to simply take it by force? Germany gave them a blank check to do whatever they wanted which just emboldened A-H and was probably a mistake on the part of Germany.
    Reading the memoirs of a person who in a fit of patriotism volunteered for an allied army and was wounded, I see where afterwards as a journalist he began researching the origins of the war and how he gradually became disenchanted with it all. All the various sides had been putting out huge orders for war supplies years prior and everyone was getting ready. It wasn’t as spontaneous as it was later portrayed. Insofar as a country being considered a “rogue” state that’s just the hyperbole of those who run exclusive clubs. The establishment, the non-rogue states, had no hesitations about sweeping ten million people off the face of the earth. But those are the ‘legitimate’ rulers as opposed to upstarts.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  12. @Uncle Peregrine

    They performed on a college campus and said they were there to show the real Serbian culture, not just the distorted view then current in the media. They were called the Gavrilo Princip dance group.

    Outsiders view nationalism as an ideology, but nationalists themselves consider their views not as ideological, rather as simply ‘the truth’ and ‘reality.’ They are sincerely dumbfounded when people fail to understand the rightness of their cause. It’s easy for us to scoff at the obvious irony in attempting to demonstrate the presumably peace-loving nature of one’s people while naming one’s dance troupe after the man who sparked WWI, but I’m sure those students didn’t see any contradiction at all. There isn’t anything unique about this to Serbian nationalism.

  13. Luke Lea says:

    Are you thinking of Ukraine?

    • Replies: @Art
  14. Whyvert says: • Website

    The Serbian people paid dearly for the ambitions of their rulers. They suffered the highest death rate (deaths as a % of the population) of any country in WW1. Wikipedia says 16.67% to 27.78% of the population perished. (Compare with France around 4% killed, or UK around 2%.) Around 1 million died out of a population of 4.5 million.

    Even with much lower death rates, the Western nations became highly averse to war thereafter and saw WW1 as a tragic mistake to be avoided at all costs.

    The Serbians, despite what most of us would think of as a catastrophic death rate, did not.

    Curious how different populations are more or less war averse.

  15. It was the raw numbers of dead that turned western Europe off war rather than death rates. The number of men killed in single battles dwarfed anything seen before. Add to that the ‘industrialized’ manner of the slaughter – machine guns, railway guns, tanks, aeroplanes – and you’ve got yourself some serious soul-searching about the values of western civilization.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. Chiron says:
    @Bruce

    Replace ‘Japan’ with jewish bankers like Jacob Schiff and you would be right.

  17. Kiza says:
    @Pete

    Hello Pete, I recently read that Winston Churchill got an excellent hiding when passing through Belgrade on Orient Express as a journalist on the way back from the Boer War.

    The first concentration camp in human history and the first genocide in modern history was what the British did to Boer civilians during this war. The Serbians were very pro Boer, and when the British committed horrible crimes against Boer civilians, this was covered in detail in the Serbian press of the time. Churchill was a very annoying propagandist of the British empire and his lies were unbearable to the Serbians following this war. A Serbian military officer promised that he would give Churchill a good hiding if he could ever reach him and he did: http://www.ebritic.com/?p=309381.

    The reason I mention this anecdote is not to scare Peter Frost for the historical revisionist rubbish he wrote here then to remind readers that the British and the Serbians have long standing issues. My personal belief is that Serbians cannot stand the British/English because they are the sleazy manipulators and skillful liers, whilst the British/English cannot stand the unruly rebels such as the Serbs who they could never fully control. With this in mind, it is easier to understand why the Anglos are leading the World in anti-Russian and anti-Serbian historical revisionism recently: of a global empire now only hate remains. Their intention is to present Serbians as a super-aggressive mini-Russians. If I find a bit of time I will dispute the author’s shallow writing, point by point.

  18. Ichthys says:

    I agree that small countries really can “start it”.

    I’d like to add that “False Flag” operations can be an effective catalyst for a small State with an agenda; pitting nations against one another, while leaving said instigator unscathed. This type of handiwork has occurred with regularity throughout history. Perhaps most notable is WWII’s Gleiwitz Incident.

  19. @Uncle Peregrine

    Gavrilo Princip was, is and will be Serbian Hero!
    1903 will be repeated, Serbs will get rid of vassals and servants.
    1903-1914 golden period of Serbian history, 1918 Anglo satrap Aleksandar, oldest son of King Peter
    lay foundation for destruction of Serbian people that continues to this day.
    God Bless Vladimir Putin, defender of humanity!(imho)

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  20. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Don’t make this more complicated than it really is…..The majority of Western Ukraine’s teenage population does not want to be canon fodder for the narcissistic Kenyan Foriegner WAR CRIMINAL!!!!

    The nonwhite majority Democratic Party and it’s narcissistic Kenyan Foriegner Dear Leader has made a declaration of WAR against Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia…..this is very much a race war.

    I am a Native Born White American Male. …. and I stand with The Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People….I have 0 allegiance to the majority nonwhite Democratic LA RAZA Party…..

  21. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Back in the day….could Germany have evolved into an Anarcho-Syndicalist paradise and inspired the rest of Europa? On the must fundamental level….the various ancien regimes that emerged out of DARK AGE Europe was the fabric which gave rise to WW1+WW2 mass murder of fellow Europeans…. Which is why I hate the Identarian Movement and the Southern Secessionist Movement for as far as I can tell they want to restart the Ancient Regime game again……

    THINK PATH DEPENDENCY…..

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver

    I believe disease killed more than trauma in WWI, but I haven’t looked it up to confirm.

    • Replies: @Sean
  23. Heh, there’s nothing like a sanctimonious Britisher blaming Russia / Germany / France / the US / Serbia (lol) for WW1 / WW2 / the sacking of Rome and all other wars past, present or future.

    All are to blame for war, except the “doughty” little Britishers in their Dear Old Blighty.

    That the British have invaded practically every country in the entire world over just the last 200-300 years, and have not been invaded themselves since about William of Normandy, never seems to register.
    That the British practiced the “balance of power” strategy, which involved pitting the two strongest mainland European nations against each other, is something best left unsaid.
    That the British utterly dominated the world in 1900, and were therefore in the prime position to control and manipulate matters of international diplomacy (as they did indeed), is a fact that is unnecessary to state when one can blame people like the designated whipping boys, the Serbs.

    All are to blame, but the Perfidious Albion.

    A couple of good references for those interested:
    “The Empire of ‘The City’” by E.C. Knuth.
    And Quigley’s “Tragedy & Hope” and “Anglo-American Establishment”.

  24. SFG says:

    My impression of history is that usually *everybody* is to blame, and the smarter thing is to invent an international order that cuts down on war.

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Ummm….isn’t the subtext about a small country causing planetary convulsions really about a certain middle-eastern country that offers refuge to a certain transnational ethnic group that has not inconsiderable influence over a specific major superpower?

  26. Art says:
    @Luke Lea

    “Are you thinking of Ukraine?”

    Exactly – only the small country is Israel.

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
  27. @jimbojones

    That the British have invaded practically every country in the entire world over just the last 200-300 years, and have not been invaded themselves since about William of Normandy, never seems to register.

    What is really most often missed is that they have been invaded, British elites having taken pity on the wretched of the earth and invited them to accomplish demographically what they never could militarily. The spectacle of flamboyant racial self-abnegation accompanying the process obscures the fact that British living space has been invaded and that as long as that invasion carries on the ineluctable result is the erasure of British people from the earth. At this point this seems the most likely result, for as long as the issue remains unaddressed – even lowly Sweden, posterchild of loonie leftism, has demonstrated more resistance (albeit inchoate) to dispossession – the British can do naught but keep speeding manically towards the exit ramp of history.

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kiza

    Modern British genocide predates the Boer War. See the Irish Holocaust:

    http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/02/RIR-150216.php

    He is the author of Ireland 1845-1850: the Perfect Holocaust, and Who Kept it ‘Perfect’ and he is behind irishholocaust.org. Chris joins us to speak about the Irish Holocaust and the cover-up that is accomplished by the same British terrorism and bribery that perpetrated the genocide. He explains the dark time during 1845-1850 when Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia. Chris describes how the British completely took over 95% of Ireland’s territory, extracting all goods and wiping out at least half of the indigenous population. We’ll discuss the lie of Ireland’s “potato famine,” the official story used to explain the deaths of over 5.2 million people, which is propagated to this day – even by the Irish government, academia, and the Catholic Church. Chris gives details of his extensive research into the locations of British food removal regiments and over 170 mass graves across Ireland. He’ll explain the fear of persecution and intimidation that continues to infect Irish society in modern times.

  29. @Proud Srbin

    Ponosni srbine, pozdrav brale.

    Pesmica u srcu svakog balkanskog ratoljupca:

    U zivotu svome ubio sam mnogo,
    Al’ osecam da bih jos toliko mog’o.

    (Translation. Proud Serbian, greetings brother [ironic]. The jingle in the heart of every Balkans warmonger: ‘In this life of mine I’ve left many dead from war/But I can’t quite help but feel I could have many more.’ [My attempt at a literary translation.])

    • Replies: @Proud Srbin
  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Whoever smelt it, dealt it.

  31. conatus says:
    @jimbojones

    Agreed, if you look at it from a ‘time in the sun’ perspective, as in which amoral world dog(otherwise known as’ nations’) gets to be top dog and run things now, then it was the German’s turn. The new adolescent dog on the block, having just recently become a so called nation, this dog was howling for continental power but its older cousin, the Brits, would not let go.
    The Brits were much better at PR, the Germs were waay too honest and immature. And if Woodrow Wilson, the ardent Anglophile, had stayed out of it, this new dog would have won and we would not have Herr Hitler, whose memory nowadays is to be used as a rhetorical Maxim gun to mow down any mention of YT unity.
    Twelve Wars is a book that discusses Wilson and his bias for the Brits, but it also emphasizes the continuation of the food blockade, six months after November 1918, that forced the Germs to sign the Versailles treaty.
    Sign the guilt clause or starve is a pretty bleak choice when 100,000 people die. This gap between November 11 and the treaty signing is not discussed much but it seemed to play a pivotal part in world history.

    http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-American-Wars-Nine-Avoidable/dp/1491730536/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424644713&sr=1-6&keywords=twelve+wars

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. @Whyvert

    Well the Serbians saw tangible gains from the war.

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @conatus

    thx conatus

    see also

    The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 Paperback – July, 1986
    by C. Paul Vincent

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Hunger-Blockade-1915-1919/dp/0821408313

  34. jtgw says:

    LOL @ all the ranting Balkan nationalists. You make “Borat” look like a serious documentary.

  35. rod1963 says:
    @jimbojones

    Agreed.

    The British aristocrats and merchant class were major operators on the world stage for several centuries and had played a truly dirty game of politics pitting nations against each while it stood back or backed the black horse(like the Ottoman Empire vs. Czarist Russia) or trying turn China into a giant opium den.

    Had they let Russia cleanse southern Europe of the despised Turk, Constantinople would be Christian today. But they couldn’t let them do it, because of the trade concessions they had with the Turks.

    Even now their elites are beating the drums for a military spat with Russia. They just can’t help themselves, they are addicted to war. I doubt they’ll stop until London and their great estates are rubble.

    As for WWI, they thought beating Gerry would be a piece of cake and would be home within a year. Instead the fools wiped out the flower of manhood of their country, bankrupted their empire and set the stage for Hitler.

  36. J1234 says:
    @Kiza

    Yes, the British continue to get a free pass with regards to the causes of WW1. The British likely saw themselves in the rising tide that was Germany – the Kaiser was related to Queen Victoria, and England’s seed was planted by immigrants-turned-invaders Hengist and Horsa 1500 years earlier. And that was competition that would be hard to reconcile.

    Britain controlled one fourth of the world’s land mass and one fifth of the world’s population before the war, but Germany’s educational system and industry had surpassed that of Britain by 1914, so the British convinced themselves they were looking at the next Napoleonic France or the next Spanish Armada. Professor Frost’s essay is wonderful and enlightening, but British paranoia still has to be part of the equation. A major part.

  37. annamaria says:
    @Bruce

    Actually, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/1905 was financed, almost in half, by an American banker Jakob Schiff. He was also successful in organizing revolutionary propaganda among Russian POW: http://strangeside.com/russo-japanese-war-financed-by-jacob-schiff/
    “Schiff provided approximately $20,000,000.00USD (non-adjusted) for the Russian Revolution,” and “At the celebration of the 1917 triumph of Jewry, at Carnegie Hall in New York (N.Y. Times, 3/24/17), it was proudly told how Jacob Schiff had financed Communist propaganda spread among 50,000 Russian war prisoners.”
    The same Mr. Schiff personally helped Leon Trotsky to return back to Russia from NYC and he was involved in arranging a safe passage for Lenin from Switzerland to Russia via German territories: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html

    • Replies: @Art
  38. Fake Name says:

    Headline: The Froot Loops toucan swings in Maldives with two reams of card stock and a tub of Metamucil.

    Commenter at Unz.com: Those damned Jews are at it again!

  39. @Art

    America has no troops protecting Israel and they aren’t needed, internet conspiracies aside. There’s little risk of a world war breaking out around the Holy Land because Israel’s military can defeat anything the Muslims can throw at it before America could send reinforcements.

    If you’re worried about a small nation where a fight could spark a major war, worry about Taiwan. China’s military power would be much more dangerous to confront than anything the Arabs can stitch together.

    • Replies: @Art
  40. He was also successful in organizing revolutionary propaganda among Russian POW

    According to Solzhenitsyn, the main leader of Communist Revolution was Shlyapnikov:

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

    Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (2002-08-14) [June 30, 1975, Washington, DC: AFL‐CIO], Words of Warning to the Western World, RU: Lib, retrieved 2014-02-04, “Among the leadership, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, at the beginning of the Revolution, all were émigré intellectuals who had returned, after the uprisings had already broken out in Russia, in order to carry through the Communist Revolution. One of them was a genuine worker, a highly skilled lathe operator until the last day of his life. This was Alexander Shliapnikov. Who knows that name today? Precisely because he expressed the true interests of the workers within the Communist leadership. In the years before the Revolution it was Shliapnikov who ran the whole Communist Party in Russia – not Lenin, who was an émigré. “

  41. Art says:
    @annamaria

    “Actually, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/1905 was financed, almost in half, by an American banker Jakob Schiff. “

    How many wars and subsequent deaths are Jewish bankers responsible for?

  42. Art says:
    @The Undiscovered Jew

    “America has no troops protecting Israel and they aren’t needed, internet conspiracies aside. There’s little risk of a world war breaking out around the Holy Land because Israel’s military can defeat anything the Muslims can throw at it before America could send reinforcements. “

    One has to be very naive or very dishonest to believe the “plucky little Israel” story.

    There is no Western or Middle Eastern government that does not feel the lash of Zionism – end of story.

  43. Soon Britain will fall to the hordes of immigrants it welcomes to its shores with open arms. My country South Africa has suffered 300 years of injustice at the hands of the British. During the Anglo Boer War 1899 -1901 more than 24000 women and children died under barbarous conditions in England’s concentration camps. This equates to 2,4% of the total white population in 1900 (http://www.thetruthaboutsouthafrica.com/p/overview-of-south-africa-international.html). Today, 115 years later, the Boers still suffer from this loss of its rightful population growth potential in its own country.

    Our farms in the ZAR republics were burned to the ground, our livestock destroyed or stolen by the British for their scorched earth policy. And still the British continue their onslaught against us by aiding the Communistic and parasitic black ANC government against against fellow Europeans, the Boers.

    British arrogance and pride will soon suffer its natural fate when Muslims complete their conquest of the Mud Island. And all this thanks to the welcoming arms of a British government who value foreigners (in every sense of the word) above their own people.

  44. 881328

    edit:

    to sixth-from-last paragraph add:

    Americans have been too systematically misinformed, and lied to, to appropriately respond. That is changing.

    In “The Way of the World,” Ron Suskind traced the ways that the Bush administration lied to the American people and to its soldiers to engage in war in Iraq. Suskind concluded:

    The men fighting and dying deserved to know why. Lie to them and those soldiers might well turn on the castle, with a few ambitious generals in the lead.

    It has happened before.

  45. @Peter Frost

    I’m getting whiplash from your policies.

    I like conservatives because they value personal responsibility, but this thread is instead filled with nonsense promoting divisions based on the old grievances. Meanwhile, China will win because they have the most high-IQ people who can be convinced to assimilate as one people.

    The fault for WW1 doesn’t lie with Serbia, but rather with the masters of the universe running the major powers. They made the peace of their nations be dependent on nothing unexpected happening.

    The world needed better intellectuals than Europe had at the time.

  46. David says:

    Is there a kind of paper that turns red or blue depending on how likely war is to break out? If you drip, in a carefully measured way, peaceful thoughts or distracting problems into a region, will the paper change color to indicate the effect? Can we recreate the experiment to confirm our results? If this can’t be done today, if the magic paper doesn’t exist, what are the chances it can be done for 1914 and spoken about with confidence in 2015?

  47. Sean says:

    The people in charge of states have to act within geopolitical constraints that are there whatever the ideology. WW1 and 2 had almost the exact same alliances on either side despite the leadership of Germany and Russia having undergone a total revolution. States act to preserve themselves, and the best way to do that is to get more powerful. Which may mean starting a war.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  48. @Sean

    The Chinese have a different way of “preserving themselves.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPB3BIlN-ss#t=74

    The Chinese are shifting markets to Asia; building high speed railways across Africa; forming alliances with the people that the US gov insists we think of as “enemies” whose economies we must try to destroy.

    US sees enemies, China sees markets & customers.

    China is trading with them, selling to them, forming financing and banking relationships with them.

    US is stuck in what it thinks of as its “glory days” WWI and WWII.

    Stay stuck, USA.
    Keep thinking the way to engage with nations is by threatening to destroy them, first economically, then militarily, then following up on the threats.

    How’s that workin’ out for ya USA?

  49. Karl says:
    880631

    >> Israel is a small entity — hard to call it a state since it has no declared borders

    Israel has four borders on its government published map, and theIsrael Border Police patrol them.

    Two of those: with Egypt, and with Jordan – are recognized by the other side, and are safer and less violent than Washington DC on a Saturday night.

    The other two – Lebanon and Syria – are recognized and patrolled by the UN in the no-man’s-land portion. And appear on Israeli-government maps as borders.

    We aren’t so quick to give away our heartlands – Judea & Samaria to a new, never-previously-in-history-existing ethnic nationality as you would like?

    You are welcome to join Hamas. We’ll prepare a grave for you, right next to Rachel Corry’s.

    You will be beloved in history-books written in Berkeley and Islamabad. So go for it!

  50. Karl says:
    881328

    >> Jews would be well advised to pursue a strategy different from the ones they have pursued for millennia. They might start by reflecting that their strategies have not worked, in the long run.

    Raise your hand if you agree that the Jewish survival strategy hasn’t been working very well.

    Now raised your other hand if you think that solantoCroesus’s great-great grandchildren will speak the same language he does, and carry a majority of his tribe’s genes.

    Cookoo birds don’t get good press. But they haven’t disappeared from the gene pool.

    PS: raise your third hand if you can show the class, an eco-system where predators and parasites never evolved.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Karl

    You should teach your ecology lessons to your fellow co-ethnics. They’re the ones who seem to need it.

  52. @silviosilver

    Time will tell how much longer arrogance, ignorance and lusting for domination will continue to serve supremacist and racist anglos .
    The time of bows and arrows is long gone.
    In Bulava we trust!

  53. In a biography of Gravilo Princip, the person who assassinated the Archduke, the author mentions the fact that many Young Bosnians went to Switzerland and visited Trotsky. Trotsky inflamed their passions and encouraged revolutionary and nationalist fever in them. Was not the Young Bosnian group a communist front? Trotsky was like a Saul Alinsky, an ideological mentor to revolutionary groups. The whole purpose of the assassination was to bring about World War in order to end the Old Order of Monarchy. It succeeded wonderfully! The furtherization of globalization. Who benefited?

  54. The comments section for this post is pretty depressing, 90% of the comments sound like the ravings of asylum inmates…and some people around here have a truly unhealthy obsession with Jews (who once again weren’t even mentioned in the original blog entry). Would be sad if this blog is ruined by this nonsense.

    • Replies: @Sean
  55. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Florence Nightingale showed that disease killed more soldiers at the front than combat. The western front in WW1 was the first campaign in which combat killed more soldiers at the front than disease. I have read that up until D day the British and Americans had lost more men in vehicle accidents than combat.

  56. Sean says:
    882160

    Italian unification broke the Congress of Vienna’s freeze on the Slavs (slaves) in the Balkans freeing themselves from the Turks. This was opposed because the other powers such as Austria Hungary and especially the British feared Russia would become too strong if it carved up the Ottoman empire. . The Russians then went east and they leased Port Arthur and tried to keep the Japanese influence in Korea below the 39th parallel, The Japanese got vital assistance from the ethnically Japanese British navy Admiral, Fisher. And thrashed Russia. Crushed in the east, Russia turned back west and began to support the slavs in the Balkans like Serbia.

    Encyclopædia Britannica: The Balkan League was formed under Russian auspices in the spring of 1912 to take Macedonia away from Turkey, which was already involved in a war with Italy.[...]

    The Turkish collapse was so complete that all parties were willing to conclude an armistice on Dec. 3, 1912. A peace conference was begun in London, but after a coup d’état by the Young Turks in Constantinople in January 1913, war with the Ottomans was resumed. Again the allies were victorious: Ioánnina fell to the Greeks and Adrianople to the Bulgarians. Under a peace treaty signed in London on May 30, 1913, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its remaining European territory, including all of Macedonia and Albania. Albanian independence was insisted upon by the European powers, and Macedonia was to be divided among the Balkan allies. [...]
    Serbia, which had been forced by Austria to give up its Albanian conquests, regarded Vienna with greater hostility than ever. The heightened tensions in the Balkans reached their climax in World War I, which was sparked by the assassination of the Austrian heir-apparent by a Serb in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June 28, 1914.

    The popular Italian movement by defeating Austria (the Risorgimento) unifying the country and then getting into a war with the Ottoman Empire was important to the events that made it possible for Serbia to start WW1. If history is any guide, Italy is the one to watch.

  57. Sean says:
    882268

    Protection of minorities is a traditional way for states to keep other nations or states weak and divided and not unifiable under nationalism. The treaty of Westphalia was supposedly the beginning of state sovereignty but it guaranteed the right of religious (Protestant) minorities in various German states and hence:-

    Review of Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy, from 1453 to the Present.
    [It] “has been seen by generations of international lawyers and international relations theorists as the breakthrough for the modern concepts of sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. [but] the whole purpose of the treaty was to guard against German princes exercising an untrammeled sovereignty…the Westphalian treaties were nothing less than a charter for intervention.”

    Russia practiced the same strategy, it kept Poland weak by prevention of a hereditary monarchy (supposedly to maintain the Polish nobles ‘liberties’), and claiming a role as protector of minorities.

    Similarly, when Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire and in 1878 detached a huge swath of territory which was to be a principality called Bulgaria, the Congress of Berlin, called by the other great powers, forced the reduction of this greater Bulgaria. Bosnia-Hercegovina was to be administered by Austria-Hungary, while Serbia and Romania became independent. The rights of Jews in Serbia (and Romania) were made an issue to give leverage over those states. See here

  58. @solontoCroesus

    “Every other participant in the war lost and lost big.”

    Well, the Serbs (the subject of the original blog entry) did achieve their goals and got a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia as a result of the 1st world war…admittedly at the price of very high losses among both army and civilians…but still, the Serbian ultra-nationalists behind the Sarajevo assassination basically “won” and achieved their aims.
    And that was the subject Mr Frost was writing about…your wish to change the subject to Jews, Jews, Jews comes across as pretty obsessive and narcisstic.

  59. 882160

    [Ron Unz - my comment had an url that broke the comment display here, although not on the user comments page. (I'm on a device that can't edit comments.)]

    My genes trace back to Cicero and Virgil, Dante and Michelangelo.

    Ashkenazi have the same genes, since 50% of their genes derive from ancient Rome. Greg Cochran:

    From the history we know, they look to be a mix of merchants, artisans, and POWs from Israel (the fathers) and local Italian girls, about 2000 years ago. … Their mtDNA is unambiguously Italian. … Yet they seem paler than you would expect as a 50-50 mix of Italians and Middle Easterners… There may well have been significant selection for those traits, just as there seems to have been in the general European population.

    re: “Zionism’s core dynamic is Rome-envy.”
    Jews earn the U.S. 40% of its science Nobel prizes. Likewise, Israel is #1 in the world per capita for scientific papers and number of startups,[1] being second in total startups only to the United States, despite Israel only having 8 million people, and only 3 million Ashkenazi. With such low modern contributions to the world, combined with the low contributions of their ancient Roman ancestors to Western civilization, no wonder Jews envy other countries!

    If we’re going to judge groups by only the debit side of their ledger, then Italians have a lot to answer for for their crimes against the British and Germanics 2000 years ago. Likewise, Germanics have a lot to answer for for sacking Rome 1500 years ago. If Jews had done those things, these websites would never stop talking about it.

    I want Jews on my team, as well as the British, Germans, Italians, Russians, and everybody else who adds to civilization. We’re generous enough of spirit that there’s room for the heroism of all those groups, despite (amazingly) none of them being perfect. If European leaders had felt that way and were a little smarter, then Europe could have avoided WW1 and WW2. Imagine how much larger European populations and economies today would be.

    [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140925022720/http://www.jfns.org/page.aspx?id=43769

    • Replies: @peterike
  60. ” If European leaders had felt that way and were a little smarter, then Europe could have avoided WW1 and WW2.”

    How true…I’m currently reading Christopher Clark’s The sleepwalkers (had it on my book shelf for quite some time, this blog post finally pushed me to start reading it). It’s profoundly depressing to read about the delusions harboured by European elites prior to WW1…their absurd national rivalries, the idiotic quest to acquire colonies (which mostly proved to be economically unproductive anyway), the arms races…all for nought. And now European countries are steadily fading into insignificance and even demographic exstinction. Simply depressing.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  61. peterike says:
    @Southfarthing

    I want Jews on my team, as well as the British, Germans, Italians, Russians, and everybody else who adds to civilization.

    But Jews aren’t on your team, no matter how much you want them on it.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Kiza

    the first genocide in modern history was what the British did to Boer civilians during this war

    So the Boers no longer exist? I did not know that, thank you for the information.

  63. Sean says:
    @German_reader

    Yes, every post subject is being displaced and fading into insignificance; as is the inevitable fate of a person (or state) that tries to exercise forbearance.

  64. Dutch Boy says:
    @dave chamberlin

    Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: “Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.”

    • Replies: @Sean
  65. @peterike

    Yes, some hyper- Jews are really into the Jewish identity thing and will always be on Jews’ team.

    But we can test the revealed preference / revealed self-conception of most Jews by looking at Jewish-Americans intermarriage rate with other groups. It’s not 10%, 20% or 30%. It’s 71%. It’s the dominant trend in the Jewish community. So the religion will continue, but Jewish-Americans as a “co-ethnicity” are being absorbed into the White melting pot.

    I’m glad we have people with Jewish ancestry like Arthur Jensen, Larry Auster, Eric Zemmour, and all the Jews who support Amren on our team. I’ve dated Jewish women who have the Mila Kunis or Allison Brie thing going on, and whom would certainly be on our team if they married the right man.

    I’m glad that Jews are on our team in terms of creating people like Richard Feynman, helping create civilizational advances like the Manhattan Project, chemotherapy, and the cure for polio, and creating “Western-philic” cultural properties like Superman, Conan the Barbarian, 300, and Red Dawn.

    I’m glad that most Jews are quite directly on our team in terms ofopposing immigration, voting right-of-center in France, and supporting Arizona’s immigration laws[1].

    That’s much better performance than most elites like Bill Gates and John Boehner.

    [1] (Hat tip to The Undiscovered Jew.)

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @silviosilver
  66. Peter Frost says: • Website

    The World Wars have had a profound impact on the European peoples. The first demolished their Empires and the second basically made them multi-continental hubs (the male cohort of the population was depleted so immigrants had to be brought in from the old colonies).

    The country that lost the most men — the Soviet Union — did not open its borders to immigration. In any case, it’s been 70 years since 1945, so that reason hardly applies today.

    The Austro-Hungarian empire was increasingly aggressive and expansionist whilst at the same time becoming more internally unstable. Germans and Hungarians sat atop millions of Slavs as their rulers as the sense of individual nationhood was becoming more pronounced in the minds of the various subjects. In 1908 A-H annexxed Bosnia-Herzegovina; there were no Germans or Hungarians there so what gave them the right to simply take it by force?

    Uh, the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed most of its Slavic territories during the wars against the Ottoman Empire or the partitions of Poland — back in the 18th century. In any case, it did not originally define itself as a nation-state. It primarily defined itself as a Catholic Christian empire at war with the Muslim Turks. It’s true that the various Slavic subject peoples saw themselves as having second-class status when the Empire was redefined as an Austrian-Hungarian federation in the mid-19th century. That was the whole point of trialism, which the heir apparent Franz Ferdinand espoused. The Slavic peoples would become a third part in a tripartite state.

    Bosnia-Herzegovina was annexed from the Ottoman Empire, which wasn’t a nation-state either. Previously, it was simply under Austro-Hungarian occupation. When the Young Turks wanted to give Bosnia seats in the new Ottoman parliament, the Austro-Hungarians felt they had to annex the territory or let it drift back into the Ottoman Empire.

    On another note, “When the cat’s away, the mice will play.” I will have to delete several posts that were posted in my absence.

  67. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Jews (who once again weren’t even mentioned in the original blog entry)

    That’s a critical failure of the original blog entry, German reader.

    No, the critical failure is yours, keyboard Nazi.

  68. Sean says:
    @Dutch Boy

    That is about the level of the ‘a man called Archie Duke shot an ostrich’ explanation of how WW1 started

    Spencer was a philosopher, not a scientist. And he was a proponent of economic competition see here. The problem in Europe after 1870 was the German nation, no longer a gaggle of princely states that could be manipulated, but too big and strong. That is why the other powers became so keen to acquire colonies after that date; to match Germany. And so Germany became the target of a an alliance of Britain France and Russia. Admiral Fisher head of the British navy wanted a pre-emptive strike on the German navy. Joffre wanted France to go on the offensive through Belgium as soon as war was declared. Russia may have been in on the plot, or at least aware that something was going to happen to the archduke. Germany tried to destroy the British empire through a Muslim Jihad and the Russian empire with a Bolshevik revolution. None of these states had any choice, if they wanted to survive, as shown by the fact that in WW2 Russia under the Bolsheviks (Stalin) tried to stay out until the capitalist powers had exhausted themselves, but was forced to fight on the side of the same capitalist powers Russia was with in WW1.

  69. Sean says:
    @Southfarthing

    As Erving Goffman said

    When an individual becomes over-involved in a topic of conversation, others are drawn from the talk to the talker. One man’s eagerness is another’s alienation, readiness to become over-involved is a form of tyranny practiced by children prima donna and lords, placing feelings of all kinds above moral rules that should have made society safe for conversation

  70. @Southfarthing

    But we can test the revealed preference / revealed self-conception of most Jews by looking at Jewish-Americans intermarriage rate with other groups. It’s not 10%, 20% or 30%. It’s 71%.

    And yet, strangely enough, you expect to be taken seriously.

    I’m glad that most Jews are quite directly on our team in terms of opposing immigration, voting right-of-center in France, and supporting Arizona’s immigration laws[1].

    It’s almost as though you’re trying to prove you’re a troll. There’s no fun in that.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  71. @German_reader

    The sleepwalkers also seems to be an apt term for how our generation will be viewed in the future. It’s highly visible where things are leading, but nobody seems able to change the course.

    The French and English are projected to become a minority of births in their own countries in the 2030s. Nobody could make an argument that that’s what should happen, but it’s happening nonetheless.

    Already in Berlin, one of my favorite cities, 45% of residents under age 18 are foreigners. The composition of the cities has an enlarged impact on policy because rural people tend to get shut out of cultural influence.

  72. @silviosilver

    [BTW, Peter Frost, comment #59 is a duplicate with broken formatting if you want to delete it. #60 is the corrected version.]

    I’m glad that most Jews are quite directly on our team in terms of opposing immigration, voting right-of-center in France, and supporting Arizona’s immigration laws. >> It’s almost as though you’re trying to prove you’re a troll.

    The links in that paragraph discuss the statistics in more detail. 2 of the links are to Steve Sailer articles. The data seems strange if we’re used to sites that craft a narrative out of only the debit side of the ledger.

    Regarding the Jewish intermarriage rate, I haven’t seen rigorous arguments against it. It’s consistent with other lines of evidence, as I discuss here. The only argument against it seems to be “gut feeling.”

    And it’s consistent with the world around us. Some of the most famous People with Jewish Ancestry today:

    Jon Stewart: Married a Catholic.
    Kevin Rose: Married a Christian.
    Mark Cuban: Married a Christian.
    Mark Zuckerberg: Married an Asian.
    Larry Page: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Dustin Moskovitz: Married a Turk.
    Larry Ellison: Married a Christian.
    Steve Ballmer: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Ben Horowitz: Married an African-American.
    Steven Spielberg: Married Kate Capshaw.
    Jared Kushner: Married Ivanka Trump.
    Wesley Clark: Half-Jewish.
    Neil Gaiman: Married a Christian
    David Cameron: 3/32 Jewish.
    Boris Johnson: 1/8 Jewish.
    George Soros: Married a Japanese-American

    Jennifer Connelly: Half-Jewish, married Paul Bettany.
    Gwenyth Paltrow: Half-Jewish, married Chris Martin.
    Natalie Portman: Married Benjamin Millepied.
    Rachel Weisz: Married Daniel Craig.
    Scarlett Johansson: Half-Jewish, married Ryan Reynolds, then Romain Dauriac.
    Mila Kunis: Married Ashton Kutcher.
    Rachel Bilson: Half-Jewish, has a kid with Hayden Christensen.
    Dianna Agron: Half-Jewish.
    Allison Brie: Half-Jewish.
    Winona Ryder: Half-Jewish.
    Yasmine Bleeth: Half-Jewish.
    Lily Collins: 1/8 Jewish.
    Rosie Huntington-Whiteley: 37.5% Jewish.
    Helena Bonham Carter: 37.5% Jewish.
    Alicia Silverstone: 1/2 Jewish.
    Olivia Newton-John: 37.5% Jewish.
    Jessica Biel: 1/8 Jewish.
    Olivia Wilde: Distant Jewish.
    Neve Campbell: Distant Jewish.
    Jessica Alba: Distant Jewish.

    Harrison Ford: Half-Jewish, married Calista Flockhart.
    Armie Hammer: 1/2 Jewish, married a Christian.
    Daniel Day-Lewis: Half-Jewish, married a half-Jew-raised-Christian, neither are religious.
    Paul Newman: Half-Jewish, married a Christian.
    Sacha Baron Cohen: Married Isla Fisher.
    Liev Schreiber: Half-Jewish, married Naomi Watts.
    Michael Douglas: Half-Jewish, married Catherine Zeta-Jones.
    Jake Gyllenhaal: Half-Jewish.
    Chris Pine: 1/4 Jewish.
    Noah Wyle: 1/2 Jewish.
    Ed Skrein (Game of Thrones): 1/2 Jewish.
    Adam Levine: 3/4 Jewish, married Behati Prinsloo.
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Married a Christian.
    Sylvester Stallone: 1/4 Jewish.
    Daniel Radcliffe: 1/2 Jewish.
    Mark-Paul Gosselaar: 1/4 Jewish.
    River Phoenix: 1/2 Jewish.
    Sean Austin: 1/2 Jewish.
    Ansel Elgort: 1/2 Jewish.
    Lewis C.K.: 1/8 Jewish.
    Topher Grace: 1/8 Jewish.
    Will Wheaton: 1/8 Jewish.
    Cary Elwes: 1/8 Jewish.
    Robert Downey Jr: 1/8 Jewish.
    Lars Ulrich: 1/4 Jewish.
    Yul Brynner: 1/4 Jewish.
    David Beckham: 1/4 Jewish by ancestry, 1/2 Jewish by identity.
    Tom Hanks’ children: 1/8 Jewish.

    Sources: ethnicelebs.com/tag/jewish/

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Hibernian
  73. Peter Frost says: • Website

    It’s almost as though you’re trying to prove you’re a troll.

    Silvio,

    Wiki gives the following definition of “troll”:

    In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    I was out of town for several days and unable to moderate comments. An anonymous keyboard warrior began posting lengthy anti-Jewish posts even though there was no mention of Jews in the original entry. I’m not politically correct, and I have written about the role of Jewish scholars in reviving and radicalizing antiracism from the 1930s onward, but I’m not going to tolerate a situation where certain commenters try to turn every column of mine into a tirade against jews, jews, jews.

    It may be that some of these commenters are, in fact, trolls.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  74. @Southfarthing

    I honor you by calling you a troll. The only alternative is a complete dolt. The idea that those silly lists of names prove anything is positively insulting. Do you seriously mean to argue that Jews in mixed marriages cannot continue to support the anti-white status quo? As for citing a French-Jewish tilt to the centre-right as evidence of “direct” support for white interests, at the very best it reeks of the most pathetic kind of desperation; at worst – well, I don’t really need to explain it, do I.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  75. @Peter Frost

    Peter, thank you for that explanation. I must say I was surprised to see what was being posted after a couple of my vastly milder posts on the issue were earlier rejected. I’m more than happy to abide by whatever rules you set and in this thread have only responded to what I think are distortions of reality so obvious that they amount to trolling.

  76. Zemrock says:

    Dear Mr. Frost:

    If the mice are the Evil Nazis, you’re not following the script. Remember, the Jews are the mice, and the Evil Nazis are the cats, according to Art Spiegelman.

    Don’t get angry with me. It’s just a humorous comment. Besides, I enjoy your contributions to this journal.

  77. @silviosilver

    You’re not tracking the discussion:

    1. The review of People with Jewish Ancestry is an additional line of evidence that’s consistent with the high intermarriage rate, which was questioned above.

    2. The reason the high intermarriage rate is relevant is because it’s the most direct way to get data on Jews’ revealed self-conception. Do Jews conceive of themselves as being on the team of a separate ethnicity? The answer for most Jews is clearly “no,” because their high intermarriage rate is causing that ethnicity to mix into the White melting pot. There are anti-White Jews like Tim Wise, but they’re a minority.

    The links I posted are 3 mutually consistent sources of data showing that most Jews oppose immigration and the de-Whitening of the US and Europe. Unless that data can be countered with other data, that means that most Jews not only don’t conceive of themselves as separate from other Whites, but are on the correct side of the most important issue by far for White interests: immigration.

    As an advocate of science, my opinions must be based on data, rather than narratives.

    The reason for this discussion is that saving the West will be far easier if we have on our side People with Jewish Ancestry and people who like them (most of the White race). Promoting old divisions makes us look like sleepwalkers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  78. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Southfarthing

    So Obama’s dad conceived of himself as being white?

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
  79. Hibernian says:
    @Southfarthing

    “Jon Stewart: Married a Catholic.
    Kevin Rose: Married a Christian.”

    This reminds me of a story my Mother told about a Southern girl who was selling magazine subscriptions in Fredericksburg VA (where Mom and Dad and 6 mo. old me lived in an apartment) when my Father was serving in the Marines at Quantico VA. The girl asked Mom, “Are you a Catholic, or a Christian?”

  80. @Anonymous

    When Jews don’t particularly identify as Jews, society regards them as Whites. But there’s no equivalent of that for Blacks.

    Other differences include that half-Black children are ethnically Black, expanding the pool of Blacks, whereas half-Jewish children are ethnically part of the White melting pot, subtracting from the pool of ethnic Jews. That’s true even for the minority of half-Jews who remain religiously Jewish, like Dianna Agron.

    If Blacks are playing for their “ethnic team,” then they should marry Whites to expand their team. If Jews are playing for their “ethnic team,” then they should do the opposite and marry Jews to avoid reducing their team.

    Because of the social premium on IQ, whoever marries Jews benefits. But Jews are mostly marrying Gentiles, and producing Gentile babies. That’s a strong indicator that their revealed self-identification is not as a separate group.

  81. Sean says:

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/Southfarthing/

    Yesterday I checked and there were 57o or so user uses of the word ‘jew’ by Southfarthing. Today there are 621. Posts on Parsis or south Koreans have got lists of jews copied and pasted into them. I am sick of wading through it so I’l be hiding the threads in which Southfarthing and the nutzis are effectively acting as each other’s sockpuppets

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    , @Ron Unz
  82. @Sean

    Jews are almost always brought up by anti-Jewish commenters, who discuss the subject far more frequently.

    In 2015, “Jew” has appeared 203times (across 30 comments) on my comments list, whereas on Svigor’s comments list it’s appeared 273 times (197 on page 1 + 76 on page 2). We could add that 273 to the many other anti-Jewish commenters, like Pizza with Hot Pepper, but they regularly adopt new pseudonyms. (I support their right to their privacy.)

    There’s clearly an imbalance. What you’re arguing for in effect is for that imbalance to become even more one-sided. But I recognize your point.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Southfarthing

    Not sure I understand your point. If there’s no difference between Jews and gentiles, why would half-Jews subtract from Jews?

    Even non religious half-Jews identify as Jewish:

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/the_ticket/item/girls_writer_lays_bare_womens_insecurities_20120425/

    Dunham said that Hannah shares her Jewish sensibility. “I went to Hebrew school for, like, two weeks, and then didn’t get the part I wanted in the play and quit,” she said. “But I’ve always had a great love of all the holidays that we celebrate together as a family: Passover, Chanukah. I’ve spent a good amount of time in temple, and I definitely feel very culturally Jewish, although that’s the biggest cliché for a Jewish woman to say.”

    Jews have different paternal lines from the dominant European paternal lines of R1b and R1a. Taking gentile wives expands Jewish paternal lines.

  84. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Everybody,

    I believe everyone has exhausted the topic of jews, jews, jews. Can we please move on folks? The obsessiveness of some people is beyond belief.

  85. Not sure I buy the idea that revolution was inevitable in Russia. Had Tiananmen Square overthrown CCP everyone would be saying it was inevitable. But it didn’t, and over 25 years on China is very stable, growing very rapidly and still has an authoritarian government.

    I fail to see why the Imperial system in Russia could not have achieved the same. Industrial growth was considerable in improving the lot of life of the average citizen. Witte/Stolypin economic reforms were driving growth that would rival Stalin’s forced industrialization later (without the millions in dead bodies cost).

    It’s very conceivable that the empire could have handled it and kept the system going for quite some time without the incredible shock to the system that was (de facto) losing the war.

  86. Ron Unz says:
    @Sean

    Actually, since lots of commenters here irritate lots of other commenters, I added a feature a week or two ago to help alleviate this problem.

    At the top of the comment threads there’s a button called “Commenters to Skip.” When you press it, you can create or edit a permanent list of individuals whose comments should be hidden on all thread you read, though these comments may still be unhidden individually if you wish.

  87. george says:

    “If peace had lasted a few more years, domestic troubles would have overwhelmed some of the major powers, making them less inclined to engage in foreign military adventures.”

    I thought it worked the other way around. In the face of domestic troubles nations go to war externally so as not to alter the domestic status quo.

  88. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Franz Ferdinand was not Franz Joseph’s son.

  89. Roma says:

    Your references from Wikipedia are just not reliable source for this kind of accusation. Serbia did not cause the Great War and you should look into A.J.P Taylor as well as the documents from the July Crisis 1914. Even Wilhelm said that “there is no reason for war any more” and Gray said if any country would accept those kind of terms would cease to exist. Moreover, Germany had Schlieffen plan since 1905, so it was obvious it was preparing for war on two fronts. The time table for the beginning of the war is off, because Germany crossed the border and attacked first even though Russia did partially mobilize because it was huge country and it would take few weeks for Russia to mobilize completely. Moreover, Serbia was democratic country and Alexander became autocratic ruler, under the influence of his wife Draga, so it was obvious that something had to be done. The murder was not planned. Steed states that they the king was supposed to be overthrown but in the heat of the moment (when everything was not unfolding like it was planned) officers lost their temper and both king and queen were killed.
    Finally coup in Serbia did not lead to the Great War. However, Serbia as well as Russia felt that Austria used the momentum and annexed Bosnia in 1908, and Russia clearly stated back than that they will support their Slavic brothers ( pan Slavism) and that it will not back off. It has been underlined that the killer Gavrilo Princip is Serb, but he was also from Bosnia not from Serbia. Also, Pasic tried to worn Potjorek in Sarajevo and told him it is not the best time for Ferdinand to visit ( remember June 28 is Serbian National holyday). And just to mention, it took Austria almost 30 days to send the Ultimatum to Serbia. Why? Because they wanted to make sure that Germany would support them unconditionally ( this is when they got the Blank Check ). Fischer clearly states that Germany is to blame for the World War I, because they had a choice not to back up Austria and settle things diplomatically. Also Wilhelm was known as Wilhelm the sudden, so in one moment he would bring decision in the other he would say there is no reason for the war and from primary documents read, it was all huge political game, where Germany was actually trying to establish new order ( they made their fleet to challenge British in 1912). Overall, the whole situation cannot be viewed from only one perspective. Bottom line, how come German Unification and German nationalism was OK in 19 ct, but unification of South Slavs was not OK? If subjects in Bosnia had more freedom and if Austria was taking care of Bosnia “Young Bosna” organization would never be made, but when people are unhappy, poor, and when the whole country suffers turmoil happens. As for Serbia, they are uncivilized because they killed Alexander and Draga, but French are civilized after killing their kings and queen and executing another 40 000 + Frenchmen in so called “Reign of Terror?” To conclude, Serbia did not cause the Great War, because Serbia was exhausted after Balkan Wars and Serbia did not want another war. Austria with its great ally caused the war, because Austria was deteriorating, and they were well aware that their kingdom will fall a part because it was created from multiple different nationalities and Germany was pursuing “expansion” policy since Bismarck.

  90. Kat Grey says:

    Wasn’t the Serbian Black Hand backed by Russian Military Intelligence? It was already in existance as far back as 1903 when Dragutin Dimitrijevic and a group of officers under his command assassinated King Alexander and his consort Draga in the May Overthrow.

    • Replies: @Roma
  91. Roma says:
    @Kat Grey

    Not really, because Russians were not sure about what was going on, but looks like Austrians did (Memoars, Steed volume I). Dragutin Dimitrijevic- Apis was not so influential he was not even a senior officer in 1903, he became important later when the Black Hand reunited again in 1911.

  92. @Kiza

    No, it’s genetic anglos are germanic christian al quaedas slavs are danavas along with Irish.

    First modern genocide would be the 100smillions starved post 1857 ‘India’

  93. Forgot to say, took it from 30% world trade to 2% (as well as gdp) by 1950s..

    So much for ‘benefit’ it all went to them..

    As they say:

    ‘trust what an anglo says, but only in the OPPOSITE’

  94. @Peter Frost

    You are misled, Britain was behind all of it cleverly manipulating everybody. Paying money in roundabout ways to make it seem there were only russian sponsors.
    The amazon source below is an excellent and true account and the sequel is for reading at their website firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com

    60 @German_reader

    The sleep walkers is a totally misleading propaganda piece. The following also available in german is the source to focus on. Second to none.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Verborgene-Geschichte-geheime-Menschheit-Weltkrieg/dp/3864451604

    23 @jimbojones

    You’ve got it!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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 Peter Frost Comments via RSS