The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 88
🔊 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

View from Ostankino Tower.

I am back. Happy 88th OT!

This break from blogging, which was not 100% voluntary, gave me the chance to reflect on my content and how I can improve it going forwards. Though it may not seem like it at this moment, my output has been steadily increasing the past few years. I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date (so I am still just on track to beat last year’s record). Visitorship has been booming. So overall, I think the blog has been a success.

But there’s one problem that increasingly concerns me. I only have so much time and energy for writing every week (amidst other commitments), so this creates a tradeoff between “r-selected” and “K-selected” output. And looking back, I do feel that my output has veered too far towards the former. In terms of such “value added” content, perhaps the one bright spot is my travel reviews. Otherwise, I only produced ~3 articles that qualify as highly K-selected longreads, or “effortposts”, this year (world’s maximum population; animal rights; world scientific production). I want to be producing 1-2 of these per month. Moreover, I only managed to review one book this year out of dozens of deserving candidates. I want to be be doing it at a rate of closer to once per week. Finally, I am rather depressed to have made zero progress on any of my book projects.

Since one can’t get something for nothing, something will have to give. And after mulling over this, I am going to cut out two things that have up till now characterized this blog.

First, there are going to be fewer posts. While that means fewer “shitposts” about memes and autistic drama (it should stay on Twitter), it also means fewer “useful” posts about new scientific articles and topic news stories. At the end of the day, there are at least three other excellent bloggers who offer such coverage in my area of (relative) expertise, intelligence research: James Thompson, Emil Kirkegaard, and Steve Sailer. I will still do the occasional post highlighting some new paper or finding, but only if it is either really groundbreaking (actually Kirkegaard et al.’s latest would qualify) or if I find it inordinately interesting.

As for news, while NNT might be wrong on a lot of things, I consider him to be very correct on the low utility of following the news cycle – 95%+ of it is going to be irrelevant crap that everyone will forget about within a few months. So while I will have something up when the neocons finally consummate their Iran obsession, or even when Americans vote in the next elections, I am no longer going to write something whenever BHL interviews Orban, or Levada releases the latest poll on Russian attitudes towards Jugashvili. Consequently, you may expect my monthly output to go down from my otherwise typical ~30-35 posts to around a dozen. Now there’ll still be an occasional post about some topical news story or important new data/numbers, but I’ll only do them if they personally interest me.

Second, I won’t be participating as much in the discussions. I’ll still keep an eye on them and contribute something from time to time, but I will reduce my participation in debates, and I will no longer conscientiously try to read every last comment (as I have done up till now). However, since a surfeit of enthusiastic and knowledgeable commenters is one of the best features of this community, weekly Open Threads will remain on the menu.

I see several advantages to this rearrangement. First, less frequent but more substantial pieces have a greater chance of becoming influential. Second, this means that visitorship is unlikely to fall; while there’ll be fewer clicks day by day, this should be balanced out whenever an effortpost goes viral. Third, I realized that I don’t really enjoy writing about “newsy” stuff. I would much rather be creating longer content, and since I have the privilege of writing on a website that gives me almost complete editorial freedom, I should take advantage of that.

Anyhow, let me know what you think of this. I am pretty set on this change in tack, but there is still some room for adjustment.

***

Featured

***

Russia

  • *blast from the past* “Well, here’s something: German Foreign Ministry official explaining in March 1991 that NATO “made it clear” to Sovs it wouldn’t expand “beyond the Elbe” and so couldn’t “offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others.”
  • Ben Aris: Which country is the biggest FDI investor into Russia? It’s Cyprus… Not. (It is actually the US).
  • There has been the usual whining and kvetching on a certain anniversary. There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
  • Insomniac Resurrected:
    • Ukraine postpones Census (again). With last one held in 2001, this will fuel even more questions about its real population situation.
    • Ukraine puts the crew of the Crimea-bound passenger airliner that crash-landed into a wheat field onto its “Peacekeeper” hit list.
  • ZoIS: New poll of Donetsk/Lugansk on joining Russia, Ukraine, or autonomy within Ukraine
    • Supporters of direct incorporation into Russia increase relative to the last poll in 2016.
  • Navalny’s daughter is a lesbian (or bi) and went to Stanford to escape her overbearing parents and family drama. Or maybe not and it’s yellow journalism. I don’t really care.
  • Bolton doesn’t want Chinese to acquire Ukraine’s Motor Sich.
  • HK protesters, inspired by the Ukraine, put pans on their heads to own the CPC
  • *powerful take* Bryan MacDonald: Putin losing everything, Putin winning everything

***

World

***

Coffee Salon

***

Culture War

***

Powerful Takes

***

 
• Tags: Admin, Blogging, Open Thread 
Hide 602 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is the current Open Thread, where anything goes – within reason.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    • Replies: @RobRich
    Just keep up the good work, Anatoly.

    Your thinkpieces are always intriguing, well-written, and filled with enlightening factoids.
  2. No problem. These changes are fine by me because while I love reading your articles and twitter and the discussions, it’s honestly quite addicting. I also have a lot of work to look forward to in the future so I need to direct my attention elsewhere. I haven’t made a comment on this site for more than a month anyway. Congrats on the 88th Open Thread if you know what I mean.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    I agree. The changes are fine with me, too, AK.
  3. I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date

    Yes, but as you basically admit yourself, there has been very little substantial content this year. Two thirds of 2019 is over and hardly anything announced for 2019 in this thread
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/11-years-of-blogging/
    has actually been written.
    tbh it’s hard not to get the impression that you’ve lost interest in this blog…not that one can complain, it’s free content after all and your PhD thesis or whatever it is you’re doing is certainly more important than a blog on a fringe website like Unz review which if anything must be something of a career-killer.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.

    That’s kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps. Sure, it’s not entirely inappropriate to warn against false equivalencies and point out that this wasn’t the same as the Nazi racial terror (which was eventually ended not least by Soviet forces). But there’s no equivalence either between Soviet actions and crimes in 1939-1941 and what Britain and France did at Munich.
    That being said, the way how the recent commemorations in Poland were used to link the events of 80 years ago with the current tensions between the West and Russia is certainly very questionable.

    • Disagree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf


    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That’s kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps
     
    This is a clear amalgam in logic - terror in the annex the Baltic states and in "Eastern Poland" is certainly bad thing, but this terror was not the cause of the WWII.

    the unsuccesful war against Finland
     
    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful
    , @anonymous coward

    plus the unsuccesful war against Finland
     
    In what world was it "unsuccesful"??

    Are you mad?
    , @Kent Nationalist
    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs
    , @Mr. XYZ

    The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps.
     
    Would there have been less criticism of the Soviet Union had it still conquered these territories but did not subsequently bring brutality to these territories?
    , @Gerard2

    The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps.
     
    Shut up you dummy. Nobody outside of Finland even cares about the Winter War you cretin.
    Can you even name anything from say, 1952- 1985 that could even classify as "Bolshevik terror" in Poland or the Baltics you idiot? If controlling ( again) the Baltic states( the events there in the Baltics in 1941 basically proving why the Winter War in Finland was justified you cretin) meant the Nazi's not controlling them and seizing control of key ports, railway lines and of course, being on Russia's border so early....it would be idiotoic to not do such a deal.

    Russia saved all these states from extinction, lost far more soldiers liberating them compared to any clowns they may have deported .....rebuilt these cities and countries at great expense , and continued to over-invest in them for decades.to the point that literally from the wests point of view, the only positive impact of the people migrating from these states is something directly related to Communism............plus taking East Poland gave a crucial delay or else the Nazis would have probably taken over Moscow before Winter 1941
  4. I think it is quite salient to point out the vast difference between AK’s views of Andrew Yang, vs. Steve Sailer’s.

    Anatoly Karlin is a fan of Yang, and has done his best to promote him. AK does not think Andrew Yang’s heritage is a huge factor in his candidacy. While Yang’s version of ‘UBI’ is a relatively uncreative idea among the set of ideas out there regarding UBI, Karlin at least recognizes that some form of this idea has merit.

    On the other hand, Steve Sailer, true to his worldview, can only see Andrew Yang as a Chinese person who wants to sneak more Chinese people into the US (that too in the cramped conditions Chinese often come in illegally under) :

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/andrew-yang-should-endorse-this-idea/?highlight=andrew+Yang

    When one sees race in everything, they assume all others do too, and can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t think that way.

    AK has defended Steve Sailer in the past (although those instances had a vibe of ‘I have to defend Sailer’ rather than ‘I want to defend Sailer’).

    But this time, it is instructive to see who is a thinker vs. who is in a relatively lower tier of innate caliber of thought.

    I have often maintained that if one scratches the surface, they see that Steve Sailer is ultimately a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.

    His strength is quantity of output, rather than quality. If just one post out of six is good, doing six posts per day still leads to one good one per day. This episode does not help Steve’s defenders argue otherwise.

    • Disagree: Thorfinnsson
    • Replies: @Realist

    I have often maintained that if one scratches the surface, they see that Steve Sailer is ultimately a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.
     
    He seems to catch your interest.
  5. ZoIS: New poll of Donetsk/Lugansk on joining Russia, Ukraine, or autonomy within Ukraine
    Supporters of direct incorporation into Russia increase relative to the last poll in 2016.

    Yes. It increased from 44.5% to 45.5%.

    However, supporters of integrating these areas back into Ukraine as they were before the war (with no special autonomy) also increased, from 20.6% in 2016 to 23.5% in 2019.

    Support for special autonomy within Ukraine decreased from 35% to 31%.

    Sadly, most of the people living in the Donbas Republics still want to be in Ukraine rather than in Russia (54.5% vs. 45.5%). But they prefer an arrangement that is bad for Ukraine. No thanks.

    Also, the parts of Donbas under Kiev’s control have become more pro-Ukrainian than they were before. 65% of people in those parts want no special autonomy for Donbas.

    So, if all of Donbas were integrated and a vote took place in both the Kiev-controlled parts and the Donbas Republics, incorporation into Ukraine with no special autonomy would win a plurality of the votes.

    • Replies: @Belarusian Anon
    These pollsters are rarely educated properly in how sample sizes work and such. Don't get your hopes up some imaginary great fifth column exists in Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Sadly, most of the people living in the Donbas Republics still want to be in Ukraine rather than in Russia (54.5% vs. 45.5%). But they prefer an arrangement that is bad for Ukraine. No thanks.
     
    Why not have Ukraine offer a South Tyrol-style autonomy to the Donbass rebels? That way, they could have autonomy without having veto power over national decisions.

    So, if all of Donbas were integrated and a vote took place in both the Kiev-controlled parts and the Donbas Republics, incorporation into Ukraine with no special autonomy would win a plurality of the votes.
     
    I wonder if Russophile tendencies in the western Donbass are going to significantly increase in the event that this region will ever be conquered by the Donbass separatists.
  6. I hope this plan works out. Your effort posts are unique, and quantitative blogging has really waned from its 2009-2013 hay day. It’s hard though to find the energy and creativity for this if you’re doing anything approaching a day job. My own personal investigations hit a wall after leaving school. I think there’s a reason those posts tend to be done by students and those not working, and suspect the lower effort posts aren’t eating into your “budget” much.

    If you need energy and a clear mind, maybe do a travel post on an active Russian monastery. Like if you could get a blessing to stay overnight, usually they let you do that. Be keen to read your take and you might be surprised by the medium term effects a monastery stay has on energy and mood.

  7. @German_reader

    I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date
     
    Yes, but as you basically admit yourself, there has been very little substantial content this year. Two thirds of 2019 is over and hardly anything announced for 2019 in this thread
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/11-years-of-blogging/
    has actually been written.
    tbh it's hard not to get the impression that you've lost interest in this blog...not that one can complain, it's free content after all and your PhD thesis or whatever it is you're doing is certainly more important than a blog on a fringe website like Unz review which if anything must be something of a career-killer.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That's kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn't criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps. Sure, it's not entirely inappropriate to warn against false equivalencies and point out that this wasn't the same as the Nazi racial terror (which was eventually ended not least by Soviet forces). But there's no equivalence either between Soviet actions and crimes in 1939-1941 and what Britain and France did at Munich.
    That being said, the way how the recent commemorations in Poland were used to link the events of 80 years ago with the current tensions between the West and Russia is certainly very questionable.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.

    That’s kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps

    This is a clear amalgam in logic – terror in the annex the Baltic states and in “Eastern Poland” is certainly bad thing, but this terror was not the cause of the WWII.

    the unsuccesful war against Finland

    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful

    • Replies: @German_reader

    This is a clear amalgam in logic
     
    The "amalgam in logic" is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery ("But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!") to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don't care much about the issue and the way it's used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin's regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn't convincing imo.
    , @Jaakko Raipala

    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful
     
    You need to get into some pretty ridiculous revisionism over the war goals if you want to pretend that the end result of making Finland a German ally wasn't a strategic own goal. Nothing was gained by Russia in the war for the purposes of the greater conflict as during Operation Barbarossa Finland quickly recaptured the land lost in the Winter War and used all of it in further operations against Russia as an ally of Germany.

    Obviously the only realistic fear Russia has from Finland is whether the territory of Finland is used by some greater power and an alliance with Germany was the least likely of all outcomes considering the pre-war situation where Finland had attempted to gain security guarantees from the West (with no success), attempted to negotiate with Russia and attempted to remain neutral. The alternative outcomes in the case of no Winter War would be

    a) Finland tries to remain neutral. This would be a problem for Germany in the siege of Leningrad and might lead to a German invasion of Finland. How much resistance Finland would produce is a big what if but the potential is there as Germany would have to either stage a landing on the coast or come through roadless Lapland, both of which would be massive defender advantages.

    The military elites of Finland were overwhelmingly Germanic and German-trained and the Finnish civilian government was actually rather worried about their potential pro-German sympathies (that's why they had taken Mannerheim out of retirement - he was the one plausible military leader who wasn't German trained and who would definitely oppose a pro-German military coup). But then, the Reds (and Stalin) were once popular with ethnic Finns so at least communist resistance would be plentiful and highly motivated (and capable) which would massively empower them after a German loss and withdrawal, giving the communists a very high chance of capturing Finland with a coup after the war.

    b) Finland finds an ally in the West. If Finland has security guarantees and Russia invades anyway, that's hard to say and this is the most questionable scenario, but then that is the whole reason why it's extremely unlikely that Britain or France would have given any security guarantees that weren't aimed against Germany. If Russia then decides to skip the invasion, this probably plays out like (a) but with an added chance of Finland in pro-Western hands in the end. Western Allies would at least contribute to anti-German war efforts with air support etc. So this ends up being better for Russia in WWII but not after.

    c) Finnish-Russian negotiations are successful and a land trade is made where Russia gets more land near Leningrad and Finland gets some of the already Finnic-populated land further north in exchange. The willingness was clearly there and Stalin had already proposed this around the time of the revolution ("you can have as much swamp as you like") but the deal should have been made back then as the pre-WWII demands from Russia were too much and Russia did not even gain the unacceptable demands that it had made in the peace that ended the Winter War (no base near Helsinki etc).

    If that deal had been made in 1920, Finland might have almost entirely avoided World War II and ended up genuinely neutral or even pro-Russian during the Cold War (as opposed to swearing "Soviet friendship" while constantly looking for a chance to defect to the Western bloc as happened in the real history).

    There used to be a lot of talk about who screwed up the negotiations with Russia and eg. it used to be a common commie conspiracy theory that the German-sympathizing Swedes and Germans who owned this country intentionally sabotaged the talks so that Russia would attack and then they could then take Finland to the war on the German side and sell the whole thing to the people as recapturing lost territory. However the left has decided that Swedes and Germans are not evil Nazis after all but glorious heroes of multiculturalism so now our academia and media have completely erased all doubt of eternal pure Russian guilt for everything bad that has ever happened.

    The scenario where the Winter War would have been a positive for Russia would be if Finland doesn't resist enough and Russia gets control of the cities before the spring thaw. (There's a bad Western trope of how stupid it is to invade during the winter but it's not - the mud seasons and the swampy roadless terrain mean that winter is the time to move around and whatever gear you commit to an invasion is easily stuck there until the next winter.) Then a communist puppet government could have ensured that Finland doesn't ally with Germany, though if Germany then attacked it would have been the same as in the Baltic states with a lot of people signing up to fight against the communist puppet government and Russia.

    But the actual war is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy - an attempt to make sure that Finland's territories aren't used in an invasion against Russia led to all of those territories being used in a Finnish-German joint invasion of Russia.
  8. On ‘Russian-Jewish mafias helping run the USA’ claims, as, for example, advanced by Gordon Duff (self-disclosed as Jewish) of Veterans Today

    And in fact having their ‘mole’ in charge of the most important branch of the USA Justice Department

    On Medium:
    ‘Donald J. Trump is a longtime money-launderer who remains beholden to the Russian mob’s “boss of bosses” Semion Mogilevich’

    The above article, by John Bernstein, is noteworthy for avoiding saying that Semion (sometimes ‘Simon’) Mogilevich, & some others mentioned, are Jewish

    In that article:
    “Mikhail Fridman — the founder of Russia’s Alfabank, is Semion Mogilevich’s partner”

    Brian Benczkowski is a lawyer who has represented Alfabank (sometimes ‘Alphabank’)

    Brian Benczkowski is now the head of the Trump’s US Justice Department Criminal Division, 700 prosecutors who are in charge of the USA’s most important federal criminal cases, such as organised crime and corruption … the people who should be ‘draining the swamp’ … with US Attorney General William Barr of half-Jewish heritage, supervising
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/brian-benczkowski-worked-for-a-russian-banknow-hes-trumps-man-at-justice

    So apparently the hold-up of the ‘Russian influence in USA’ theme, is that the promoters of this theme – often Jewish – wanted to avoid mentioning that some ‘Russians’ with some links to USA gov, are often ‘Russian-Jewish’ or ‘Ukrainian-Jewish’ etc folks

  9. Bolton doesn’t want Chinese to acquire Ukraine’s Motor Sich.

    We should have bombed this thing years ago! Seriously, why is it still around?

    If we are not going to annex it, it needs to be destroyed – it’s dangerous and plain irresponsible to leave Soviet military technologies in the hands of primitives.

    • Replies: @Swarthy Greek
    Motor Sich, as well as most Soviet era military production facilities (I.e:Kharkov tank factory) are in a deplorable state and on the verge of Bankrupcy. Why bomb it when the whole thing falls apart by itself?
  10. Navalny’s daughter might be a lesbian, but his latest expose of Moscow deputy mayor’s (one of many, this one responsible for housing and communal affairs) extended family is a great microcosm of the late putinism.

    13 luxury apartments in central Moscow (one of the in Moscow’s equivalent of billionaires row). At least 20 luxury cars (none of them are Lada). Huge manor that would put any nineteenth century Russian count to shame.

    p.s. sorry this post might be a duplicate, first one did not come through

  11. @German_reader

    I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date
     
    Yes, but as you basically admit yourself, there has been very little substantial content this year. Two thirds of 2019 is over and hardly anything announced for 2019 in this thread
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/11-years-of-blogging/
    has actually been written.
    tbh it's hard not to get the impression that you've lost interest in this blog...not that one can complain, it's free content after all and your PhD thesis or whatever it is you're doing is certainly more important than a blog on a fringe website like Unz review which if anything must be something of a career-killer.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That's kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn't criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps. Sure, it's not entirely inappropriate to warn against false equivalencies and point out that this wasn't the same as the Nazi racial terror (which was eventually ended not least by Soviet forces). But there's no equivalence either between Soviet actions and crimes in 1939-1941 and what Britain and France did at Munich.
    That being said, the way how the recent commemorations in Poland were used to link the events of 80 years ago with the current tensions between the West and Russia is certainly very questionable.

    plus the unsuccesful war against Finland

    In what world was it “unsuccesful”??

    Are you mad?

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    Oh come on, we all love Georgian Mario here but it's quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
    Finns avoided this fate at tremendous cost, but can comfort themselves knowing they avoided greater terror

    The Winter War was a painfull lesson but it would become useful during the winter campaigns of WW2, so the USSR did end up getting some good out of it
  12. @Felix Keverich

    Bolton doesn’t want Chinese to acquire Ukraine’s Motor Sich.
     
    We should have bombed this thing years ago! Seriously, why is it still around?

    If we are not going to annex it, it needs to be destroyed - it's dangerous and plain irresponsible to leave Soviet military technologies in the hands of primitives.

    Motor Sich, as well as most Soviet era military production facilities (I.e:Kharkov tank factory) are in a deplorable state and on the verge of Bankrupcy. Why bomb it when the whole thing falls apart by itself?

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    The dirty secret about the run up to WW2 is that everyone who wasn't a Jew or a Commie thought Hitler was a pretty cool guy
    , @Felix Keverich
    Are you daft?? China considers it valuable enough to pay real money for it.
  13. US doesn’t let in Palestinian student because his friends posted anti-US comments on Facebook

    Based?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Well, the West makes a huge deal in those very rare instances when their journalists who professionally trash Russia (which they can do just as well from home) are refused visa extensions by Russia. And to a lesser extent, when China does it. And yet the US itself can't even tolerate criticism by someone's extended circle.
  14. @anonymous coward

    plus the unsuccesful war against Finland
     
    In what world was it "unsuccesful"??

    Are you mad?

    Oh come on, we all love Georgian Mario here but it’s quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
    Finns avoided this fate at tremendous cost, but can comfort themselves knowing they avoided greater terror

    The Winter War was a painfull lesson but it would become useful during the winter campaigns of WW2, so the USSR did end up getting some good out of it

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    That means the Finnish campaign was a success for Russia, though.
    , @anonymous coward

    it’s quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
     
    You're nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.

    The Soviets wouldn't have minded if Finland decided to roll over and die, like the Baltic "countries" did, but that certainly wasn't the goal of the war.

    The Soviets got far more the from war then they ever bargained for, anyways.

    The "we won the Winter War" bullshit is crackpot nuttery invented by insane Finnish nationalists to save face and explain away their utter failure and loss of Karelia.

  15. @Swarthy Greek
    Motor Sich, as well as most Soviet era military production facilities (I.e:Kharkov tank factory) are in a deplorable state and on the verge of Bankrupcy. Why bomb it when the whole thing falls apart by itself?

    The dirty secret about the run up to WW2 is that everyone who wasn’t a Jew or a Commie thought Hitler was a pretty cool guy

  16. @Korenchkin
    Oh come on, we all love Georgian Mario here but it's quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
    Finns avoided this fate at tremendous cost, but can comfort themselves knowing they avoided greater terror

    The Winter War was a painfull lesson but it would become useful during the winter campaigns of WW2, so the USSR did end up getting some good out of it

    That means the Finnish campaign was a success for Russia, though.

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    The Finnish campaign of 1940 was a success for the USSR in that it achieved its intended geo-political objective of taking the territories it considered necessary and vital for its national security. Otherwise, it is a limited success because this objective was achieved with unnecessarily high costs in manpower and resources. The same outcome could have been achieved more easily if it wasn't for Stalin's mass murdering, the Sovok system, and so on.

    What's actually interesting about this though, is that the territorial gains made from the Winter War by the USSR were actually secured by 1945 and even survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward. It is un-ironically one of the few things that Stalin, the Sovoks and Liberasts managed to not ruin for Russians in the 20th century. That is, as far as territorial gains that Russians still keep.

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

  17. @Swarthy Greek
    Motor Sich, as well as most Soviet era military production facilities (I.e:Kharkov tank factory) are in a deplorable state and on the verge of Bankrupcy. Why bomb it when the whole thing falls apart by itself?

    Are you daft?? China considers it valuable enough to pay real money for it.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    Because they can potentially revive it, maybe even nick some useful blueprints
  18. @Kent Nationalist

    US doesn’t let in Palestinian student because his friends posted anti-US comments on Facebook

     

    Based?

    Well, the West makes a huge deal in those very rare instances when their journalists who professionally trash Russia (which they can do just as well from home) are refused visa extensions by Russia. And to a lesser extent, when China does it. And yet the US itself can’t even tolerate criticism by someone’s extended circle.

  19. @Mitleser
    That means the Finnish campaign was a success for Russia, though.

    The Finnish campaign of 1940 was a success for the USSR in that it achieved its intended geo-political objective of taking the territories it considered necessary and vital for its national security. Otherwise, it is a limited success because this objective was achieved with unnecessarily high costs in manpower and resources. The same outcome could have been achieved more easily if it wasn’t for Stalin’s mass murdering, the Sovok system, and so on.

    What’s actually interesting about this though, is that the territorial gains made from the Winter War by the USSR were actually secured by 1945 and even survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward. It is un-ironically one of the few things that Stalin, the Sovoks and Liberasts managed to not ruin for Russians in the 20th century. That is, as far as territorial gains that Russians still keep.

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

    • Replies: @Korenchkin

    survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward
     
    I still can't fucking believe that Narva ended up in Estonia
    , @Mitleser
    That is because the Soviets failed to establish a lasting Finnish SSR that would absorb these territorial gains, hence they ended up as part of Russia.

    For a similar reason, most of the former German territory the USSR gained ended up in the RSFSR.
  20. Happy 88th OT!

    I always knew he was a secret Hitler fan, look at his twitter handle if you still don’t believe me.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I guess he was born in 1988.
  21. @neutral

    Happy 88th OT!
     
    I always knew he was a secret Hitler fan, look at his twitter handle if you still don't believe me.

    I guess he was born in 1988.

  22. @Felix Keverich
    Are you daft?? China considers it valuable enough to pay real money for it.

    Because they can potentially revive it, maybe even nick some useful blueprints

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    It is a depository of our military technology, that exists outside of our control, and which apparently everybody can buy for a fair price. Even if Ukrainian regime is not in the position to make use of this stuff, simply allowing this place to exist is irresponsible.
    , @Swarthy Greek
    China is interested to buy all the intellectual property: they use the D-18 engine on their Y-20 military cargo aircraft which is made by Motor sich. The sale of D-18 engines to China is MotorSich's financial lifeline and they won't sell the intellectual property because they would immediately lose all potential orders. Selling the plant will save face and leave some manufacturing orders to Ukraine as well as some capital investments. Overall china is really struggling with advanced Jet engine manufacturing and there are rumors that J-20s use late soviet era designed (and Russian made)AL-31s so getting their hands on production facilities would help them get a hold of Manufacturing processes for 80s era engines.
  23. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    The Finnish campaign of 1940 was a success for the USSR in that it achieved its intended geo-political objective of taking the territories it considered necessary and vital for its national security. Otherwise, it is a limited success because this objective was achieved with unnecessarily high costs in manpower and resources. The same outcome could have been achieved more easily if it wasn't for Stalin's mass murdering, the Sovok system, and so on.

    What's actually interesting about this though, is that the territorial gains made from the Winter War by the USSR were actually secured by 1945 and even survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward. It is un-ironically one of the few things that Stalin, the Sovoks and Liberasts managed to not ruin for Russians in the 20th century. That is, as far as territorial gains that Russians still keep.

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

    survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward

    I still can’t fucking believe that Narva ended up in Estonia

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Narva is traditional Livonian clay.

    https://dom.lndb.lv/data/obj/file/164765.jpg

    https://www.russkije.lv/media/original/m/map-livonian_order_XII-XVIcentury.jpg
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, that's because of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik band breaking Russia, as during the Russian Civil War, the Latvians managed to sneak away with Narva. Of course, Stalin and the Sovoks after him never thought to restore Narva to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Russia, and in general, they did not meddle with the internal borders of SSR's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#20th_century

    Of course, a notable exception is with Krushchev giving Crimea to the Ukranian SSR. If only some Russian Sovok politician/elite decided to be a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were) that could somehow have gathered enough power, maybe the Russians could've sorted out the USSR's internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders. That is, of course, since the dissolution of the USSR was based upon exactly those same Sovok internal borders.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively. One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable ...

  24. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    The Finnish campaign of 1940 was a success for the USSR in that it achieved its intended geo-political objective of taking the territories it considered necessary and vital for its national security. Otherwise, it is a limited success because this objective was achieved with unnecessarily high costs in manpower and resources. The same outcome could have been achieved more easily if it wasn't for Stalin's mass murdering, the Sovok system, and so on.

    What's actually interesting about this though, is that the territorial gains made from the Winter War by the USSR were actually secured by 1945 and even survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward. It is un-ironically one of the few things that Stalin, the Sovoks and Liberasts managed to not ruin for Russians in the 20th century. That is, as far as territorial gains that Russians still keep.

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

    That is because the Soviets failed to establish a lasting Finnish SSR that would absorb these territorial gains, hence they ended up as part of Russia.

    For a similar reason, most of the former German territory the USSR gained ended up in the RSFSR.

  25. @Korenchkin

    survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward
     
    I still can't fucking believe that Narva ended up in Estonia

    Narva is traditional Livonian clay.

  26. Prague should demand foreign journalists begin to referring to the city as Praha. Prague is a Germanism and a remnant of foreign occupation of Bohemia.

    But wait! The Czechs have more self-confidence than Ukrs, the sons of Sumeria…

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  27. @AP

    ZoIS: New poll of Donetsk/Lugansk on joining Russia, Ukraine, or autonomy within Ukraine
    Supporters of direct incorporation into Russia increase relative to the last poll in 2016.
     
    Yes. It increased from 44.5% to 45.5%.

    However, supporters of integrating these areas back into Ukraine as they were before the war (with no special autonomy) also increased, from 20.6% in 2016 to 23.5% in 2019.

    Support for special autonomy within Ukraine decreased from 35% to 31%.

    Sadly, most of the people living in the Donbas Republics still want to be in Ukraine rather than in Russia (54.5% vs. 45.5%). But they prefer an arrangement that is bad for Ukraine. No thanks.

    Also, the parts of Donbas under Kiev's control have become more pro-Ukrainian than they were before. 65% of people in those parts want no special autonomy for Donbas.

    So, if all of Donbas were integrated and a vote took place in both the Kiev-controlled parts and the Donbas Republics, incorporation into Ukraine with no special autonomy would win a plurality of the votes.

    These pollsters are rarely educated properly in how sample sizes work and such. Don’t get your hopes up some imaginary great fifth column exists in Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.

    • Replies: @AP

    Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.
     
    Donbas is now a lot poorer than Ukraine.

    Another for Ukraine not to take it back.
  28. @Korenchkin
    Because they can potentially revive it, maybe even nick some useful blueprints

    It is a depository of our military technology, that exists outside of our control, and which apparently everybody can buy for a fair price. Even if Ukrainian regime is not in the position to make use of this stuff, simply allowing this place to exist is irresponsible.

  29. @melanf


    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That’s kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps
     
    This is a clear amalgam in logic - terror in the annex the Baltic states and in "Eastern Poland" is certainly bad thing, but this terror was not the cause of the WWII.

    the unsuccesful war against Finland
     
    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful

    This is a clear amalgam in logic

    The “amalgam in logic” is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery (“But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!”) to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    You seem to be unaware of the fact that France, UK and Poland made it impossible for USSR to respect their defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia.

    The British and French were clearly happy with Reich’s rise (remilitarization of Rheinland) and expansion (Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). Hitler had nowhere near universal support for Czechoslovakia affair - had Germany come under attack, he would have been deposed by the Army.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way. They would then sweep in, fresh and prepared, descend on the depleted winner and dictate the world order. The French in particular signed and pledged a lot of things in late 1938 and early 1939 regarding Germany.

    The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.

    I can see the Westerners being annoyed with above mentioned facts.

    , @TheTotallyAnonymous

    but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.

     

    Well, this is used as an excuse to hate on Russia by Poles and Balts. Of course Russians are going to perceive it as Russophobia. In fact, it actually is anti-Russian sentiment. Of course, to you as a German, Russian hostility towards Balts and Poles is offensive because you view the Poles and Balts as German pets among a whole collection of other peoples'.

    Anyway, besides the typical things that invading powers and occupying armies do, such as taking away national sovereignty, imposing occupying armies and so on, what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation? The Poles have Khatyn to whine about, which is something that at least can be taken seriously, but what do the Balts have to whine about? The Balts didn't even get Khatyned at all or anything.

    In fact, the Balts got off extremely lightly with Communism compared to ethnic Russians. They even managed to separate from Russia with Sovok borders and had the privilege of freeloading wealth and industrial investment from the Russian SSR. In fact, as AK has pointed out, especially the Latvians have the least to whine about because they were instrumental in bringing about Communism and founding the USSR to begin with. Ethnic Russians are in fact the biggest losers of Communism compared to other groups like Balts, because literally everyone else could shield themselves as victims of "greater Russian chauvinism" and that sort of thing ...

    , @melanf

    The “amalgam in logic” is with Russians
     
    I think you misunderstood me. If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed, the Soviet terror in the Baltic States and in "Eastern Poland" is completely irrelevant, since this terror had nothing to do with the causes of the WWII. For this (to determine the causes of the WWI) Munich collusion can be compared with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but in other respects. The reference to Soviet terror in this case (in determining the causes of the war) is pure amalgam.
    , @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.
     
    Russophobia certainly motivates some, but the key rationale is annexophobia or conquestophobia.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong. By the 1930s this false doctrine had taken root in Britain, France, and America. The Axis powers and the Soviet Union held the older, and correct, understanding of the Doctrine of Conquest.

    The idea that the Soviet Union did anything wrong at all in gobbling up the Baltic states, Karelia, Bessarabia, etc. is typical liberal Western religious fanaticism. No different than Greta Thunberg.
  30. @Korenchkin

    survived the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 onward
     
    I still can't fucking believe that Narva ended up in Estonia

    Well, that’s because of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik band breaking Russia, as during the Russian Civil War, the Latvians managed to sneak away with Narva. Of course, Stalin and the Sovoks after him never thought to restore Narva to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Russia, and in general, they did not meddle with the internal borders of SSR’s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#20th_century

    Of course, a notable exception is with Krushchev giving Crimea to the Ukranian SSR. If only some Russian Sovok politician/elite decided to be a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were) that could somehow have gathered enough power, maybe the Russians could’ve sorted out the USSR’s internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders. That is, of course, since the dissolution of the USSR was based upon exactly those same Sovok internal borders.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively. One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable …

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Actually, Stalin-era Sovoks did partially reverse some of the actions of the traitorous early Soviets which later caused some butthurt among Balts.

    https://cdn1.img.sputnik-news.ee/images/1625/86/16258641.png

    The orange areas were controlled by the inter-war Estonian state.
    , @Swedish Family

    One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable …
     
    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.
    , @reiner Tor

    a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were)
     
    I’m not sure where you get this. It was true of some Sovoks, both Russians and non-Russians, but for example Hungarian Sovoks were notably non-nationalists.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively.
     
    I’m not sure about Yugoslavia, but in the case of Russia it was certainly true that they promoted the Russian language throughout the country and also managed to get ethnic Russians into all corners of the USSR. The Hungarian minority in Ukraine certainly learned more Russian than Ukrainian until the 1990s, which caused them problems later on.

    maybe the Russians could’ve sorted out the USSR’s internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders
     
    Sovoks never thought their empire would dissolve, nor did they think anything coming after them would be good. So thinking about what would be beneficial for Russians after the dissolution of the USSR was something like thinking about what would be good after losing ww3.

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.
  31. @German_reader

    I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date
     
    Yes, but as you basically admit yourself, there has been very little substantial content this year. Two thirds of 2019 is over and hardly anything announced for 2019 in this thread
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/11-years-of-blogging/
    has actually been written.
    tbh it's hard not to get the impression that you've lost interest in this blog...not that one can complain, it's free content after all and your PhD thesis or whatever it is you're doing is certainly more important than a blog on a fringe website like Unz review which if anything must be something of a career-killer.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That's kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn't criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps. Sure, it's not entirely inappropriate to warn against false equivalencies and point out that this wasn't the same as the Nazi racial terror (which was eventually ended not least by Soviet forces). But there's no equivalence either between Soviet actions and crimes in 1939-1941 and what Britain and France did at Munich.
    That being said, the way how the recent commemorations in Poland were used to link the events of 80 years ago with the current tensions between the West and Russia is certainly very questionable.

    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs

    • Replies: @Epigon

    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs
     
    [citation needed]

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland - western Russia.
    , @German_reader
    One often reads that, but is it actually true? I think Soviet terror was more restricted in scale and intent than Nazi terror (which aimed at the destruction of Poland as a nation, something which was eventually prevented mainly by the Red army, it has to be admitted)...pointing out such differences is legitimate and maybe necessary imo.
    What is however also true, is that before September 1939 Stalin's regime had killed a lot more people than the Nazis. Why the heck should Britain and France actually have trusted a regime of commie fanatics which killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens?
  32. @Kent Nationalist
    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs

    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs

    [citation needed]

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland – western Russia.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    I read it somewhere in the last couple of months but I read a lot of books one after the other so I can't remember exactly where. Maybe David Stahel's book on Operation Barbarossa?

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland – western Russia.

     

    I didn't call it Eastern Poland, but in any case hundreds of thousands of Poles had lived there for hundreds of years and were responsible for what advanced culture existed there, so it's not.
  33. @German_reader

    This is a clear amalgam in logic
     
    The "amalgam in logic" is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery ("But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!") to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don't care much about the issue and the way it's used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin's regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn't convincing imo.

    You seem to be unaware of the fact that France, UK and Poland made it impossible for USSR to respect their defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia.

    The British and French were clearly happy with Reich’s rise (remilitarization of Rheinland) and expansion (Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). Hitler had nowhere near universal support for Czechoslovakia affair – had Germany come under attack, he would have been deposed by the Army.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way. They would then sweep in, fresh and prepared, descend on the depleted winner and dictate the world order. The French in particular signed and pledged a lot of things in late 1938 and early 1939 regarding Germany.

    The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.

    I can see the Westerners being annoyed with above mentioned facts.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf.
     
    If that had been true, they would have put pressure on Poland to accept Germany's demands, become a German satellite and join the anti-Bolshevik crusade (or at least grant German troops right of passage to Soviet territory)...instead of guaranteeing Poland's independence and actually declare war on Germany after the German attack.
    Kind of funny how even right-wing "Russophiles" end up defending every action of Stalin's regime (which, as AK always tells us, was fundamentally anti-Russian).
    , @Beckow

    ...The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way.
     
    That was an irrefutable reality of the 1938-39 period and it was understood by all at that time that was what was going on. Poland naively saw itself as being a part of this attack and dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    We simply can't understand the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that happened without the context of the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win. I will put aside evaluating this, one can understand both class, elite and moral revulsions and a wish to destroy Soviet Union.

    That was the reality of late August 1939 and Stalin pulled a fast one out of his hat and changed the strategic balance (at the same time as Red Army smashed Japanese in the Far East). The M-R pact literally saved Soviet Union and probably prevented most Slavic nations in the area, including the Poles, from being exterminated or assimilated. Given the brutes Soviets were it came with some violence and oppression. But in history one has a choice of what to endure, I strongly suspect that if the original Western plan of encouraging a war between Germany and Russia in 1939 happened, we would be living in a different, but equally bloody history. Without the Pact and the strategic geographic depth it gave Russia, and the 2 years time it bought, WWII would unfold differently.

    Western revisionists are simply angry that they got outplayed by Stalin in 1939. It was a gutsy and unexpected move, but people about to be murdered often surprise with some creativity.

    , @Korenchkin
    Didn't the British also have a plan to bomb the Oil fileds in the Caucasus? Before Barbarossa even started
  34. @German_reader

    This is a clear amalgam in logic
     
    The "amalgam in logic" is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery ("But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!") to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don't care much about the issue and the way it's used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin's regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn't convincing imo.

    but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.

    Well, this is used as an excuse to hate on Russia by Poles and Balts. Of course Russians are going to perceive it as Russophobia. In fact, it actually is anti-Russian sentiment. Of course, to you as a German, Russian hostility towards Balts and Poles is offensive because you view the Poles and Balts as German pets among a whole collection of other peoples’.

    Anyway, besides the typical things that invading powers and occupying armies do, such as taking away national sovereignty, imposing occupying armies and so on, what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation? The Poles have Khatyn to whine about, which is something that at least can be taken seriously, but what do the Balts have to whine about? The Balts didn’t even get Khatyned at all or anything.

    In fact, the Balts got off extremely lightly with Communism compared to ethnic Russians. They even managed to separate from Russia with Sovok borders and had the privilege of freeloading wealth and industrial investment from the Russian SSR. In fact, as AK has pointed out, especially the Latvians have the least to whine about because they were instrumental in bringing about Communism and founding the USSR to begin with. Ethnic Russians are in fact the biggest losers of Communism compared to other groups like Balts, because literally everyone else could shield themselves as victims of “greater Russian chauvinism” and that sort of thing …

    • Replies: @German_reader

    what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation?
     
    I can't be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).
  35. @Kent Nationalist
    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs

    One often reads that, but is it actually true? I think Soviet terror was more restricted in scale and intent than Nazi terror (which aimed at the destruction of Poland as a nation, something which was eventually prevented mainly by the Red army, it has to be admitted)…pointing out such differences is legitimate and maybe necessary imo.
    What is however also true, is that before September 1939 Stalin’s regime had killed a lot more people than the Nazis. Why the heck should Britain and France actually have trusted a regime of commie fanatics which killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens?

  36. Mencius Moldbugman: On Sweden Yes!

    Some obvious inaccuracies in that thread.

    * The price of a beer is nowhere near $15 a pint. Numbeo has it at 7-odd dollars, which seems about right.

    * Opening hours at Systembolaget, the government-owned chain of liquor stores, are not 11-04, but 10-07 (sometimes 08) on weekdays and 10-03 on Saturdays.

    * Speaking of which, the Systembolaget store he went to must have been one of very few without self-service (indeed, the only such store I can think of was that in Stockholm’s Old Town, which closed shop in 2012).

    That said, I agree with most of his observations.

  37. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.

     

    Well, this is used as an excuse to hate on Russia by Poles and Balts. Of course Russians are going to perceive it as Russophobia. In fact, it actually is anti-Russian sentiment. Of course, to you as a German, Russian hostility towards Balts and Poles is offensive because you view the Poles and Balts as German pets among a whole collection of other peoples'.

    Anyway, besides the typical things that invading powers and occupying armies do, such as taking away national sovereignty, imposing occupying armies and so on, what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation? The Poles have Khatyn to whine about, which is something that at least can be taken seriously, but what do the Balts have to whine about? The Balts didn't even get Khatyned at all or anything.

    In fact, the Balts got off extremely lightly with Communism compared to ethnic Russians. They even managed to separate from Russia with Sovok borders and had the privilege of freeloading wealth and industrial investment from the Russian SSR. In fact, as AK has pointed out, especially the Latvians have the least to whine about because they were instrumental in bringing about Communism and founding the USSR to begin with. Ethnic Russians are in fact the biggest losers of Communism compared to other groups like Balts, because literally everyone else could shield themselves as victims of "greater Russian chauvinism" and that sort of thing ...

    what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation?

    I can’t be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I can’t be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).

     

    I bothered to do some brief browsing on the deportations, and yes, it is around a few hundred thousand, no more than 300,000 from all the Baltic countries. The deportations were aimed at political dissidents. Even then, deportations for the Balts were still better than being mass murdered into the millions like ethnic Russians were.

    Still though, what are Russians supposed to do when faced with Svidomy Balts screeching about "muh deportations", even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership? Why should Russians from Russia even care about these deportations when hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians are at the "mercy" of Svidomy Balts? Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?
  38. @Korenchkin
    Because they can potentially revive it, maybe even nick some useful blueprints

    China is interested to buy all the intellectual property: they use the D-18 engine on their Y-20 military cargo aircraft which is made by Motor sich. The sale of D-18 engines to China is MotorSich’s financial lifeline and they won’t sell the intellectual property because they would immediately lose all potential orders. Selling the plant will save face and leave some manufacturing orders to Ukraine as well as some capital investments. Overall china is really struggling with advanced Jet engine manufacturing and there are rumors that J-20s use late soviet era designed (and Russian made)AL-31s so getting their hands on production facilities would help them get a hold of Manufacturing processes for 80s era engines.

  39. @Korenchkin
    Oh come on, we all love Georgian Mario here but it's quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
    Finns avoided this fate at tremendous cost, but can comfort themselves knowing they avoided greater terror

    The Winter War was a painfull lesson but it would become useful during the winter campaigns of WW2, so the USSR did end up getting some good out of it

    it’s quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders

    You’re nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.

    The Soviets wouldn’t have minded if Finland decided to roll over and die, like the Baltic “countries” did, but that certainly wasn’t the goal of the war.

    The Soviets got far more the from war then they ever bargained for, anyways.

    The “we won the Winter War” bullshit is crackpot nuttery invented by insane Finnish nationalists to save face and explain away their utter failure and loss of Karelia.

    • Replies: @Kerubi
    Winter War certainly did not go along Uncle Joe`s plan. The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime headed by Otto V. Kuusinen, one of the few Finnish communists who survived Stalin`s purges. After that Finland would either have "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union as a Soviet republic or it would have become a nominally independent communist vassal state like Mongolia.

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations. There was even the risk of war against France and Great Britain. Soviet Union`s public image also got tarnished. What is more, Leningrad`s security actually got worse. Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.

    Utter failure? I would call surviving as an independent non-communist country as some kind of success. Compared to Estonia, we have been doing pretty well.
    , @Jaakko Raipala

    You’re nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.
     
    And this goal failed utterly as Finland allied with Germany to take back all of that territory. Every inch of territory that had been taken by Russia in the Winter War was used by Finland to passively support the siege of Leningrad by blocking Russian movements to that direction, something that would have been easily avoidable if Russia had offered better terms to Finland before the war (land exchange to move the border would have been fine, military bases next to Helsinki when Russia was training Otto-Wille Kuusinen's communist cabinet to be Finland's future leaders? hell no).

    I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics it requires to claim successful war aims while simultaneously claiming that the war aim was the opposite of what actually happened - if the aim was to gain protection for Leningrad, that failed pretty badly as the territories were used to siege Leningrad instead of protecting it.
  40. Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.

    С января по июль население России уменьшилось на 209,7 тысяч. В основном за счет русских. Такими темпами лет через 30-50…

    Posted by Vladimir Perekrest on Saturday, September 7, 2019

    My comment.

    Problem is (and this article is a symptom) the assumption that population size has to be expanded – which leads to horseshoe:

    1. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants (Merkel).

    2. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants, and also government can boost birthrates (Putin).

    3. Government can boost birthrates and so we do not need to open border (Orban).

    Problems with 1 and 2 (Putin/Merkel) policies, are obvious.

    But 3 is also a joke, which only survives because of people who do not have statistical knowledge trying to infer from badly designed measurements like “total fertility rate”.

    As Governor of Perm territory has said recently, the effect of attempted pro-natalist policies, is that they reduce poverty, but do not stimulate fertility rates.

    Eventual fertility rates are very stubborn.

    If we look in Russia, they are locked around 1,6 for women born since 1965.
    Ironically, in a theoretical world, at this fertility rate, one of the most effective ways to slow population decline would be to raise women’s age of conception – as this would space out generations. (Not that government could have significant effect on that in a real world).

    So what is the solution? It is to reject the false assumption (that population has to expand) which created this horseshoe.

    Correct planning should be:

    1. Stricter border policy, stop unfiltered immigration and flooding by immigrants.

    2. Plan for smaller population size, to emphasize benefits and reduce costs. These benefits such as: higher salaries for workers, higher per capita income, higher employment rate for young people, better teacher to student ratio in schools, more available spaces and treatments in hospitals (to the extent this is possible with an aging population), lower crime rates (with aging population).

    With resource extraction economy – more revenue shared among small population, results higher per capita revenue. (Dependency ratio is less important than for some other types of economy).

    (??? Profit – in terms of immigration/emigration. Less brain drain, and possibility to select higher quality immigrants in the future.)

    • Replies: @Epigon
    No, the path to increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family remaining together pre-requisite, miniscule for 1 kid, solid for 2 kids, very high for 3) until 0% tax for 4+ kids.

    No lump sums, no other benefits. This would benefit people with higher income (often smarter, better educated) in high tax countries and would not fund Gypsy and other minority multiplication.

    It would literally make it cost effective to have more kids, appealing to current materialist mindset.

    This would only be a stopgap, as the true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping. Women are too precious to be spending their fertile, healthy potential motherhood years pursuing useless degrees, crappy meme careers, pushing papers and saturating job market.

    More people, especially more people of same ethnicity in the same country is always a good thing. It is in the long-term interest of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power - especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    The slideback in fertility rates since 2016 is probably temporary, and is significantly explained by birth postponement.
    , @melanf

    Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.
    "From January to July, the population of Russia decreased by 209.7 thousand...."
     
    It's just fake information. Here are the stats https://zemfort1983.livejournal.com/1233033.html

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/zemfort1983/32334102/1010738/1010738_original.jpg
  41. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, that's because of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik band breaking Russia, as during the Russian Civil War, the Latvians managed to sneak away with Narva. Of course, Stalin and the Sovoks after him never thought to restore Narva to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Russia, and in general, they did not meddle with the internal borders of SSR's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#20th_century

    Of course, a notable exception is with Krushchev giving Crimea to the Ukranian SSR. If only some Russian Sovok politician/elite decided to be a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were) that could somehow have gathered enough power, maybe the Russians could've sorted out the USSR's internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders. That is, of course, since the dissolution of the USSR was based upon exactly those same Sovok internal borders.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively. One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable ...

    Actually, Stalin-era Sovoks did partially reverse some of the actions of the traitorous early Soviets which later caused some butthurt among Balts.

    The orange areas were controlled by the inter-war Estonian state.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it's really just a bunch of scraps.
  42. AP has changed its style for the capital of Ukraine to Kyiv. Glorious accomplishment!

    Next up: Kyivan Rus and Chicken Kyiv!

    Joke’s aside, it’s high time Russia began pushing back at this nonsense. A good start is to force all branches of the Russian government, and especially state media (e.g. RT), to use the traditional Russian names of towns and people wherever appropriate. If this proves too little, the same law could be extended to all Russia-based media (e.g. Moscow Times). Businesses should probably be left to their own devices.

  43. The news is not only low in signal and high in repetition, large doses of it are hazardous to one’s mental health. I can’t remember the last time (it is way over one year) the New York Times or the Washington Post informed me I had exceeded my free access limit of 3 articles a month or whatever the number was at the time.

    In the immortal words of Carl Bernstein, it’s like all fake.

    (that is paraphrase not direct quotation)

  44. @Mitleser
    Actually, Stalin-era Sovoks did partially reverse some of the actions of the traitorous early Soviets which later caused some butthurt among Balts.

    https://cdn1.img.sputnik-news.ee/images/1625/86/16258641.png

    The orange areas were controlled by the inter-war Estonian state.

    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it’s really just a bunch of scraps.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it’s really just a bunch of scraps.
     
    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.
    , @Mitleser
    Narva river is the traditional border between Russia and the Baltics.
    It is fine.

    Even when the Baltics were part of the part of the Russian Empire, they were separated from the Russian heartland and autonomous until the last decades.
  45. @Dmitry
    Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.

    https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.perekrest/posts/2779787138732559

    -


    My comment.

    Problem is (and this article is a symptom) the assumption that population size has to be expanded - which leads to horseshoe:

    1. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants (Merkel).

    2. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants, and also government can boost birthrates (Putin).

    3. Government can boost birthrates and so we do not need to open border (Orban).

    -

    Problems with 1 and 2 (Putin/Merkel) policies, are obvious.

    But 3 is also a joke, which only survives because of people who do not have statistical knowledge trying to infer from badly designed measurements like "total fertility rate".

    As Governor of Perm territory has said recently, the effect of attempted pro-natalist policies, is that they reduce poverty, but do not stimulate fertility rates.

    Eventual fertility rates are very stubborn.

    If we look in Russia, they are locked around 1,6 for women born since 1965.
    https://i.imgur.com/AjfZKxw.jpg

    Ironically, in a theoretical world, at this fertility rate, one of the most effective ways to slow population decline would be to raise women's age of conception - as this would space out generations. (Not that government could have significant effect on that in a real world).

    -

    So what is the solution? It is to reject the false assumption (that population has to expand) which created this horseshoe.

    Correct planning should be:

    1. Stricter border policy, stop unfiltered immigration and flooding by immigrants.

    2. Plan for smaller population size, to emphasize benefits and reduce costs. These benefits such as: higher salaries for workers, higher per capita income, higher employment rate for young people, better teacher to student ratio in schools, more available spaces and treatments in hospitals (to the extent this is possible with an aging population), lower crime rates (with aging population).

    With resource extraction economy - more revenue shared among small population, results higher per capita revenue. (Dependency ratio is less important than for some other types of economy).

    (??? Profit - in terms of immigration/emigration. Less brain drain, and possibility to select higher quality immigrants in the future.)

    No, the path to increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family remaining together pre-requisite, miniscule for 1 kid, solid for 2 kids, very high for 3) until 0% tax for 4+ kids.

    No lump sums, no other benefits. This would benefit people with higher income (often smarter, better educated) in high tax countries and would not fund Gypsy and other minority multiplication.

    It would literally make it cost effective to have more kids, appealing to current materialist mindset.

    This would only be a stopgap, as the true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping. Women are too precious to be spending their fertile, healthy potential motherhood years pursuing useless degrees, crappy meme careers, pushing papers and saturating job market.

    More people, especially more people of same ethnicity in the same country is always a good thing. It is in the long-term interest of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family

     

    It's like "increasing dose of Vitamin C will result in higher life expectancy".

    It seems sensible in the mind. But when we look at evidence in the real whether it actually has an effect in the real population - it is lacking that it changes the rates. (Or usually only changes the timing, but with no effect on eventual rates).


    of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.
     
    Most governments of the lowest fertility countries believe this idea. And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).


    true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping.
     
    It will happen with artificial wombs.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn't be.

  46. @Dmitry
    Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.

    https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.perekrest/posts/2779787138732559

    -


    My comment.

    Problem is (and this article is a symptom) the assumption that population size has to be expanded - which leads to horseshoe:

    1. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants (Merkel).

    2. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants, and also government can boost birthrates (Putin).

    3. Government can boost birthrates and so we do not need to open border (Orban).

    -

    Problems with 1 and 2 (Putin/Merkel) policies, are obvious.

    But 3 is also a joke, which only survives because of people who do not have statistical knowledge trying to infer from badly designed measurements like "total fertility rate".

    As Governor of Perm territory has said recently, the effect of attempted pro-natalist policies, is that they reduce poverty, but do not stimulate fertility rates.

    Eventual fertility rates are very stubborn.

    If we look in Russia, they are locked around 1,6 for women born since 1965.
    https://i.imgur.com/AjfZKxw.jpg

    Ironically, in a theoretical world, at this fertility rate, one of the most effective ways to slow population decline would be to raise women's age of conception - as this would space out generations. (Not that government could have significant effect on that in a real world).

    -

    So what is the solution? It is to reject the false assumption (that population has to expand) which created this horseshoe.

    Correct planning should be:

    1. Stricter border policy, stop unfiltered immigration and flooding by immigrants.

    2. Plan for smaller population size, to emphasize benefits and reduce costs. These benefits such as: higher salaries for workers, higher per capita income, higher employment rate for young people, better teacher to student ratio in schools, more available spaces and treatments in hospitals (to the extent this is possible with an aging population), lower crime rates (with aging population).

    With resource extraction economy - more revenue shared among small population, results higher per capita revenue. (Dependency ratio is less important than for some other types of economy).

    (??? Profit - in terms of immigration/emigration. Less brain drain, and possibility to select higher quality immigrants in the future.)

    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power – especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    The slideback in fertility rates since 2016 is probably temporary, and is significantly explained by birth postponement.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    What are your thoughts on blocking women from education, especially university/college education, in order for them to instead focus on giving birth to kids?
    , @Dmitry

    slideback in fertility rates since 2016
     
    In my opinion, likely there isn't slideback in eventual rates - just talking about the statistical noise in the temporary ones.

    Around 1,6 children for women born since 1965 - as it has been at 2011 - should be basis for planning. Eventual fertility rates will be not be far distant from that figure.

    Unless there is some kind of unexpected scientific advance, and artificial wombs are suddenly introduced in the 2030s.

    population is power – especially in the absence of any
     
    For the military, probably. For construction industry, definitely. But for yourself? Well it depends in what industry you work, and what kind of family you are born. (i.e. if the family of your next re-incarnation is randomized - and not influenced by karma - would you prefer to be born in small population Switzerland or large population India?)

    Benefits for average students born after 1992 - they have less competition for better jobs after university, will have fast upward mobility in work, etc, ceteris paribus. For them personally, it is better to be in a smaller cohort, especially at beginning stage of working life.

    Besides, what's the point about stressing about it as if it was a choice. It is reality - until artificial wombs. The danger and current mistake of politicians, is accepting unfiltered immigration, and linkage of the two topics in their mind is part of the cause (which is implied by assumption that population has to expand).

    absence of any carrying capacity constraints

     

    Sure, but Australia has a similar situation, but more extreme - with 3 times less population density than Russia. And yet Australia is quite successful for living . So I see this more as a question of intelligent management, just like on the other extreme, Monaco has 1900 times more population density - and yet (unlike Bangladesh) still is good for living.

    -

    I won't talk about oil revenue like it is permanent, because this might all change after 2030ies.

    But with the current arrangement of the economy (with up to half of the budget from just oil/gas depending on particular year), then less people results in more available budget per capita.

    Or for the most extreme example, simple dilution of resource extraction revenue by population, is likely the difference between Nigeria (GDP per capita PPP $5,927) and Equatorial Guinea ($34,865)
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power – especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).
     
    Agreed, and Russia's goal should be to encourage its best and brightest to have much more children. If costs of living are a problem, Russia can encourage some of its smart people to move to other parts of Russia--assuming, of course, that this will actually succeed in raising their fertility.

    Interestingly enough, I previously read that ex-USSR Jews who moved to Israel subsequently saw a significant increase in their total fertility rate. The better life in Israel (excluding the terrorism, of course) probably helped in regards to this--as did Israel's pro-natal culture. In other words, having more children was no longer viewed as a "Gypsy thing" by many ex-USSR Jews after they moved to Israel.
  47. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, that's because of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik band breaking Russia, as during the Russian Civil War, the Latvians managed to sneak away with Narva. Of course, Stalin and the Sovoks after him never thought to restore Narva to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Russia, and in general, they did not meddle with the internal borders of SSR's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#20th_century

    Of course, a notable exception is with Krushchev giving Crimea to the Ukranian SSR. If only some Russian Sovok politician/elite decided to be a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were) that could somehow have gathered enough power, maybe the Russians could've sorted out the USSR's internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders. That is, of course, since the dissolution of the USSR was based upon exactly those same Sovok internal borders.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively. One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable ...

    One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable …

    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.

     

    True. Still, Europeans do not care about resolving border disputes in good faith through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. This is why it's peak hypocrisy for Europeans to whine how it's "so terrible" that there's war in, say, the Ukraine, when with the USA in the 1990's they were very eager to dissolve the USSR on those same Sovok borders which are a large part of the cause for conflict now and in the future.

    Of course, I mean European elites, because most average Europeans are too busy globo-homoing themselves out of existence to truly care about border disputes in Europe ...

    , @Gerard2
    Contrary to the chaotic borders in the Kavkaz region and Central Asia created by Stalin, most of his borders in Europe have been largely successful - Finland/Russia, Romania/Hungary, Slovakia/Ukraine/Hungary, Ukraine/Poland, Poland/Germany, Poland/Lithuania to the point that there is no large dispute , only occasional ahistorical diplomatic spats
  48. @Epigon
    You seem to be unaware of the fact that France, UK and Poland made it impossible for USSR to respect their defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia.

    The British and French were clearly happy with Reich’s rise (remilitarization of Rheinland) and expansion (Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). Hitler had nowhere near universal support for Czechoslovakia affair - had Germany come under attack, he would have been deposed by the Army.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way. They would then sweep in, fresh and prepared, descend on the depleted winner and dictate the world order. The French in particular signed and pledged a lot of things in late 1938 and early 1939 regarding Germany.

    The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.

    I can see the Westerners being annoyed with above mentioned facts.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf.

    If that had been true, they would have put pressure on Poland to accept Germany’s demands, become a German satellite and join the anti-Bolshevik crusade (or at least grant German troops right of passage to Soviet territory)…instead of guaranteeing Poland’s independence and actually declare war on Germany after the German attack.
    Kind of funny how even right-wing “Russophiles” end up defending every action of Stalin’s regime (which, as AK always tells us, was fundamentally anti-Russian).

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Pardon my ignorance, but could you write down the damage inflicted on German armed forces, German industry from September 1st 1939 to April 1st 1940 by UK and France?

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?

  49. @German_reader

    what was so exceptionally terrible about what the USSR did to the Balts compared to any other people that were invaded, conquered and lived under foreign occupation?
     
    I can't be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).

    I can’t be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).

    I bothered to do some brief browsing on the deportations, and yes, it is around a few hundred thousand, no more than 300,000 from all the Baltic countries. The deportations were aimed at political dissidents. Even then, deportations for the Balts were still better than being mass murdered into the millions like ethnic Russians were.

    Still though, what are Russians supposed to do when faced with Svidomy Balts screeching about “muh deportations”, even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership? Why should Russians from Russia even care about these deportations when hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians are at the “mercy” of Svidomy Balts? Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?

    • Replies: @German_reader

    even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership?
     
    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

    Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?
     
    No, certainly not. My intention was merely to point out the problems with claiming the actions of Britain and France and the Soviet Union were somehow morally equivalent. Anyway, it's mostly a historical matter imo.
  50. @Anatoly Karlin
    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power - especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    The slideback in fertility rates since 2016 is probably temporary, and is significantly explained by birth postponement.

    What are your thoughts on blocking women from education, especially university/college education, in order for them to instead focus on giving birth to kids?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).
  51. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it's really just a bunch of scraps.

    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it’s really just a bunch of scraps.

    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.

     

    Narva is only the most valuable thing on the Russian-Estonian border in that area. I personally don't really care about Narva. Honestly, I'm starting to think that border and territory disputes are pointless to aggressively pursue for any ethno-national/religious group unless their demographic performance is good. That is, if a given group happens to have a birth rate above 2.1 children per women, the replacement rate, of course, only then can they securely push for retaking rightful land or stealing territory from others as only then would they truly have the vital energy needed for such ventures.
  52. In AOMI IV, you quote the following:

    Moreover, according to a 2004 meta-analysis by Van Den Bergh and Rietveld of global carrying capacity estimates, the median of 94 historical estimates was 7.8 billion – that is, virtually exactly equivalent to the world current population of 7.6 billion.

    The problem with nearly all of these historical estimates is they define carrying capacity as simply ” maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely” (meaning their definition of carrying capacity focuses only on resource limitations); they don’t take into account environmental degradation i.e. biodiversity loss and global warming (carbon emissions):

    …indicators of unsustainability such as global warming and biodiversity loss, which have not been taken into account in the primary studies analyzed here.

    (Den Bergh & Rietveld, 2004)

    One notable exception is Paul Ehrlich (referenced as a historical estimate by Den Berg & Rietveld, 2004); note how his studies typically define carrying capacity to include environmental degradation e.g. his book The Population Explosion:

    [Carrying capacity:] When its population can’t be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.

    Ehrlich therefore points out by this definition of carrying capacity, the world is already overpopulated (this is fact):

    By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.

    Note Van Den Bergh and Rietveld go on to recognise this and sympathise with Ehrlich’s estimated carrying capacity (that includes biodiversity loss) at well under 1 billion:

    These indicators suggest that the lower bound prediction of 0.65 billion people in the meta-regression may be as good a guess as is possible for population limits in the current technological circumstances.

    If you compiled an average or median of global carrying capacity estimates that take into account global warming (carbon emissions) and biodiversity loss you would find they agree with Ehrlich’s. I see absolutely no discussion about biodiversity loss in your AOMI IV essay, nor other posts. As an example, as recent as 1970 humans have caused (a further) 60% reduction of all vertebrate wildlife populations. Also because primarily of human activity, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species lists 41% of amphibians, 25% of mammals, 34% of conifers, 13% of birds, 31% of sharks and rays, 33% of reef-building corals, and 27% of crustaceans – threatened with extinction.

    To argue the carrying capacity of humans is 100 billion (I believe that is your argument, or you made a similar estimate) is ecologically irresponsible and very disturbing.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    You mean this Paul Ehrlich?

    The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.
     
    I'll give him one thing: He's consistent.

    Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades' https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

    PS. Now that you're here, would you be kind enough to update the RatWiki with my comments on McCain's death? They were good for my brand here.
  53. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it's really just a bunch of scraps.

    Narva river is the traditional border between Russia and the Baltics.
    It is fine.

    Even when the Baltics were part of the part of the Russian Empire, they were separated from the Russian heartland and autonomous until the last decades.

  54. @Epigon
    You seem to be unaware of the fact that France, UK and Poland made it impossible for USSR to respect their defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia.

    The British and French were clearly happy with Reich’s rise (remilitarization of Rheinland) and expansion (Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). Hitler had nowhere near universal support for Czechoslovakia affair - had Germany come under attack, he would have been deposed by the Army.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way. They would then sweep in, fresh and prepared, descend on the depleted winner and dictate the world order. The French in particular signed and pledged a lot of things in late 1938 and early 1939 regarding Germany.

    The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.

    I can see the Westerners being annoyed with above mentioned facts.

    …The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way.

    That was an irrefutable reality of the 1938-39 period and it was understood by all at that time that was what was going on. Poland naively saw itself as being a part of this attack and dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    We simply can’t understand the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that happened without the context of the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win. I will put aside evaluating this, one can understand both class, elite and moral revulsions and a wish to destroy Soviet Union.

    That was the reality of late August 1939 and Stalin pulled a fast one out of his hat and changed the strategic balance (at the same time as Red Army smashed Japanese in the Far East). The M-R pact literally saved Soviet Union and probably prevented most Slavic nations in the area, including the Poles, from being exterminated or assimilated. Given the brutes Soviets were it came with some violence and oppression. But in history one has a choice of what to endure, I strongly suspect that if the original Western plan of encouraging a war between Germany and Russia in 1939 happened, we would be living in a different, but equally bloody history. Without the Pact and the strategic geographic depth it gave Russia, and the 2 years time it bought, WWII would unfold differently.

    Western revisionists are simply angry that they got outplayed by Stalin in 1939. It was a gutsy and unexpected move, but people about to be murdered often surprise with some creativity.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win.
     
    Then why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?

    One would think these actions significantly reduced the chances of a German-Soviet war happening, at least before Hitler destroyed France.
  55. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I can’t be bothered to look for numbers, but a lot of Balts got deported to Gulag labor camps (somewhere in the range of a few hundred thousands iirc).

     

    I bothered to do some brief browsing on the deportations, and yes, it is around a few hundred thousand, no more than 300,000 from all the Baltic countries. The deportations were aimed at political dissidents. Even then, deportations for the Balts were still better than being mass murdered into the millions like ethnic Russians were.

    Still though, what are Russians supposed to do when faced with Svidomy Balts screeching about "muh deportations", even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership? Why should Russians from Russia even care about these deportations when hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians are at the "mercy" of Svidomy Balts? Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?

    even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership?

    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

    Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?

    No, certainly not. My intention was merely to point out the problems with claiming the actions of Britain and France and the Soviet Union were somehow morally equivalent. Anyway, it’s mostly a historical matter imo.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Britain and France were worse, cowardly and unwillingly to support the collective security the USSR proposed.
  56. @Swedish Family

    One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable …
     
    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.

    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.

    True. Still, Europeans do not care about resolving border disputes in good faith through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. This is why it’s peak hypocrisy for Europeans to whine how it’s “so terrible” that there’s war in, say, the Ukraine, when with the USA in the 1990’s they were very eager to dissolve the USSR on those same Sovok borders which are a large part of the cause for conflict now and in the future.

    Of course, I mean European elites, because most average Europeans are too busy globo-homoing themselves out of existence to truly care about border disputes in Europe …

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Still, Europeans do not care about resolving border disputes in good faith through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. This is why it’s peak hypocrisy for Europeans to whine how it’s “so terrible” that there’s war in, say, the Ukraine, when with the USA in the 1990’s they were very eager to dissolve the USSR on those same Sovok borders which are a large part of the cause for conflict now and in the future.
     
    This is the crux of the matter, I think. And part of why that good faith isn't there is that the EU is itself an empire -- just an especially self-deluded one, which makes it sometimes hard to tell the rhetoric from the reality. Michael Anton:

    While traditional empires may have gone out of fashion, globalization has taken its place as the imperialism of our time. Globalization represents an attempt to do through peaceful means—the creation of transnational institutions, the erosion of borders, and the homogenization of intellectual, cultural, and economic products—what the Romans (and Cyrus and others) achieved through arms.

    No surprise, then, that globalization and imperialism suffer from the same flaws. Like the latter, the former is also hubristic and prone to overreach. It also erodes and even subverts and attacks liberty. It requires centralization.

    Globalization also has the same stifling impact on ideas, and for the same reasons, that Machiavelli diagnosed as a problem with imperialism 500 years ago. Globalization reduces differences in thought in any number of ways: through media consolidation, for example, or through the homogenization of the elite—who these days all seem to come from the same background, attend the same schools, and go to the same conferences. The champions of globalization also aren’t above stooping to outright censorship and coercion when threatened. Indeed, this impulse is perhaps the most important root of political correctness.

    Defenders of globalization will respond that whereas imperialism—globalization by conquest—amounts to theft and enslavement and is inherently violent, today’s globalization is voluntary.

    But is it really? It certainly doesn’t feel that way to the people all over the world who have seen their culture, traditions, communities, and economies disappear before their eyes. And this transformation has been voluntary only in the sense that it has been undertaken with the full approval of the elite. As for the common folk, not so much.
     
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/20/the-trump-doctrine-big-think-america-first-nationalism/
  57. AP has changed its style for the capital of Ukraine to Kyiv. Glorious accomplishment!

    I think that it’s high time that our very own AP follow suit. How about it AP, isn’t it high time for you too, to make the switch and come out and endorse the approved spelling of KYIV? 🙂
    (I know that you’re out there reading this).

    Try it, you’ll like it!

    • Replies: @AP
    I think Kiev is easier and the historical (Ukrainian language) word. I'll switch over when everyone other than RT does. The time is getting closer, but we are not there yet.
  58. @Epigon
    You seem to be unaware of the fact that France, UK and Poland made it impossible for USSR to respect their defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia.

    The British and French were clearly happy with Reich’s rise (remilitarization of Rheinland) and expansion (Anschluss, Czechoslovakia). Hitler had nowhere near universal support for Czechoslovakia affair - had Germany come under attack, he would have been deposed by the Army.

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way. They would then sweep in, fresh and prepared, descend on the depleted winner and dictate the world order. The French in particular signed and pledged a lot of things in late 1938 and early 1939 regarding Germany.

    The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.

    I can see the Westerners being annoyed with above mentioned facts.

    Didn’t the British also have a plan to bomb the Oil fileds in the Caucasus? Before Barbarossa even started

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Yes, Ron Unz wrote about this in his endorsement of historical revisionism about WW2. Can't be bothered linking the article to you, unless you really want me to.
  59. @Swedish Family

    Well, those are extremely minimal reversals. Without Narva, it’s really just a bunch of scraps.
     
    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.

    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.

    Narva is only the most valuable thing on the Russian-Estonian border in that area. I personally don’t really care about Narva. Honestly, I’m starting to think that border and territory disputes are pointless to aggressively pursue for any ethno-national/religious group unless their demographic performance is good. That is, if a given group happens to have a birth rate above 2.1 children per women, the replacement rate, of course, only then can they securely push for retaking rightful land or stealing territory from others as only then would they truly have the vital energy needed for such ventures.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    Narva is only the most valuable thing on the Russian-Estonian border in that area. I personally don’t really care about Narva.
     
    Yes, but its only value I can see is its people (some 50,000 ethnic Russians -- cashiers greet you in Russian there even though you are technically in the EU state of Estonia). Soviet artillery basically leveled the old Narva with the ground, so the whole town is one gigantic commieblock.
  60. @Korenchkin
    Didn't the British also have a plan to bomb the Oil fileds in the Caucasus? Before Barbarossa even started

    Yes, Ron Unz wrote about this in his endorsement of historical revisionism about WW2. Can’t be bothered linking the article to you, unless you really want me to.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

    That was in 1940 though, when the Soviet Union delivered oil and other strategically important goods to Germany.
    , @Korenchkin
    I did read it, which is why I posted about it
    I remember hearing about such plans but never thought they were actually intending to do it (operation unthinkable style)

    The plans existance would mean there was no real grand strategy for the British, they were just exploiting whatever opportunity arose with a vague central goal in mind, that ended up getting unfullfilled since their Empire disintegrated and they became a satrap to their former colony
    Fucking hell, India sided against them and partnered up with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way fullfilling their fears all the way back from the Great Game days, and today India remains a Russian partner even as Russia is getting increasingly friendly with China

  61. @German_reader

    The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf.
     
    If that had been true, they would have put pressure on Poland to accept Germany's demands, become a German satellite and join the anti-Bolshevik crusade (or at least grant German troops right of passage to Soviet territory)...instead of guaranteeing Poland's independence and actually declare war on Germany after the German attack.
    Kind of funny how even right-wing "Russophiles" end up defending every action of Stalin's regime (which, as AK always tells us, was fundamentally anti-Russian).

    Pardon my ignorance, but could you write down the damage inflicted on German armed forces, German industry from September 1st 1939 to April 1st 1940 by UK and France?

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @German_reader

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?
     
    As far as I know, there's general agreement among most historians that Hitler's original intent was to turn Poland into a satellite and enlist it as a junior partner in his war against the Soviet Union (maybe like a bigger version of Slovakia). How that would have played out in the longer term and how it could have been reconciled with the anti-Polish traditions of German nationalism, who knows? But it's not like Hitler was incapable of at least tactical concessions regarding German minorities abroad, as is shown by South Tyrol.
    Main reason why it didn't happen was because Poland refused to become a German satellite and wasn't interested in joining a German war on the Soviet Union (contrary to what Stalin in his paranoia may have believed).
    , @reiner Tor
    You and a number of other commenters are endorsing the Sovok view that the West was actively hoping for a German-Soviet war which Germany would win. I guess the first step towards encouraging this outcome would have been just letting Germany do what it likes with Poland - either reduce it to a client state (probably after restoring the 1913 border), or outright conquer it.

    By declaring war on Germany (totally counterproductive if they wished for an eastern German campaign), they ensured to divert significant German resources to the West. (Also made sure that Hitler would destroy France first before attacking east. Either he would be successful, which I don’t see how France could’ve wished for, or not, which would’ve precluded a campaign against the USSR altogether.) They also started a naval blockade against Germany which made maritime trade impossible except for trade with Scandinavia. This also reduced the chances of a Soviet campaign being successful.

    I’m not sure how a rational person could believe that Western actions 1933-40 were consistent with a wish for a German-Soviet war.
  62. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Yes, Ron Unz wrote about this in his endorsement of historical revisionism about WW2. Can't be bothered linking the article to you, unless you really want me to.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

    That was in 1940 though, when the Soviet Union delivered oil and other strategically important goods to Germany.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

     

    Well, ethnic Russians may qualify as collaborators in the decision, but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations. Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations. This is literally what the Balts want to do though, which is obviously why Russians take issue with this sort of thing.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

     

    Thanks for doing the hard work of providing the link for me :)
    , @reiner Tor
    Moreover, it’s the exact opposite of a policy to ensure a German-Soviet war. Actually, it would have pushed them closer to each other.
  63. Don’t say “The Netherlands” you’re legitimizing Spanish Imperialism, it’s just Netherlands now

  64. @German_reader
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

    That was in 1940 though, when the Soviet Union delivered oil and other strategically important goods to Germany.

    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

    Well, ethnic Russians may qualify as collaborators in the decision, but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations. Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations. This is literally what the Balts want to do though, which is obviously why Russians take issue with this sort of thing.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

    Thanks for doing the hard work of providing the link for me 🙂

    • Replies: @German_reader

    but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations.
     
    That guy looks pretty Russian to me:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Serov#Deputy_Commissar_of_the_NKVD
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serov_Instructions

    Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations.
     
    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn't very constructive...but so isn't the "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism seen in this thread.
  65. @Epigon

    Before the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets killed proportionally more of the population in their part of Poland (which was much less Polish anyway) than the Nazis did in theirs
     
    [citation needed]

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland - western Russia.

    I read it somewhere in the last couple of months but I read a lot of books one after the other so I can’t remember exactly where. Maybe David Stahel’s book on Operation Barbarossa?

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland – western Russia.

    I didn’t call it Eastern Poland, but in any case hundreds of thousands of Poles had lived there for hundreds of years and were responsible for what advanced culture existed there, so it’s not.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    I find that claim very suspect because Germans shredded Polish Army and bombed cities, established a military occupation, while Soviets moved in with only light resistance. It would take many Katyn-level atrocities to catch up with German-inflected casualties.

    Rus’ towns and cities had a culture and civilization before Poles and Lithuanians exploited Mongol-Tatar aftermath. The nobility was the first to align with invaders, followed by burghers, while peasants resisted.
  66. @Anatolykarlin
    Think it’s a good idea with the long content posts going forward.
    Just wondering, do you have plans to writ about Putin and the alleged false flag apartment bombings. You mentioned you would before and I always wondered since it is one of those conspiracies endorsed, partially, in the West.

    Another post I’ve wondered about is your view of the deaths under communism. I know you challenged Unz’s reliance on the Black Book of Communism and related sources. A possible topic?

    Keep up the great content

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I find it difficult to summon much passion over very old conspiracy theories (especially when newer, more relevant ones exist).

    But a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.
  67. @Epigon
    Pardon my ignorance, but could you write down the damage inflicted on German armed forces, German industry from September 1st 1939 to April 1st 1940 by UK and France?

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?

    As far as I know, there’s general agreement among most historians that Hitler’s original intent was to turn Poland into a satellite and enlist it as a junior partner in his war against the Soviet Union (maybe like a bigger version of Slovakia). How that would have played out in the longer term and how it could have been reconciled with the anti-Polish traditions of German nationalism, who knows? But it’s not like Hitler was incapable of at least tactical concessions regarding German minorities abroad, as is shown by South Tyrol.
    Main reason why it didn’t happen was because Poland refused to become a German satellite and wasn’t interested in joining a German war on the Soviet Union (contrary to what Stalin in his paranoia may have believed).

    • Replies: @Epigon
    In my studies of Ostfront, I quite distinctly remember a shockingly high claim of Hiwis/Poles participating in the invasion and fighting in the USSR. Was it 600k Poles, or is my memory playing games with me?

    Didn’t Donald Tusk’s ancestors take part? Would explain a lot.

    You have to admit that Phoney War combined with empty guarantees given to Poland might have something to do with Russian malevolence regarding WW2?

  68. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

     

    Well, ethnic Russians may qualify as collaborators in the decision, but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations. Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations. This is literally what the Balts want to do though, which is obviously why Russians take issue with this sort of thing.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

     

    Thanks for doing the hard work of providing the link for me :)

    but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations.

    That guy looks pretty Russian to me:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Serov#Deputy_Commissar_of_the_NKVD
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serov_Instructions

    Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations.

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

     

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven't seen a single example of "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It's also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни - Ivan Grozni - which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

  69. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Yes, Ron Unz wrote about this in his endorsement of historical revisionism about WW2. Can't be bothered linking the article to you, unless you really want me to.

    I did read it, which is why I posted about it
    I remember hearing about such plans but never thought they were actually intending to do it (operation unthinkable style)

    The plans existance would mean there was no real grand strategy for the British, they were just exploiting whatever opportunity arose with a vague central goal in mind, that ended up getting unfullfilled since their Empire disintegrated and they became a satrap to their former colony
    Fucking hell, India sided against them and partnered up with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way fullfilling their fears all the way back from the Great Game days, and today India remains a Russian partner even as Russia is getting increasingly friendly with China

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    The plans existance would mean there was no real grand strategy for the British, they were just exploiting whatever opportunity arose with a vague central goal in mind, that ended up getting unfullfilled since their Empire disintegrated and they became a satrap to their former colony

     

    I would disagree about the British Empire having no grand strategy before and during WW2. I'm sure Epigon would most certainly disagree.

    Fucking hell, India sided against them and partnered up with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way fullfilling their fears all the way back from the Great Game days, and today India remains a Russian partner even as Russia is getting increasingly friendly with China

     

    Yeah lol. Cuckoldry is probably the best word to describe that.

    Still, this doesn't really matter for the Brits. Britain has been basically irrelevant in the world post-1945 as most of their power was transferred to the USA to which they have a Belarus-Russia style relationship. The biggest problem for Brits/Anglos is being demographically pulverized out of existence by the Third World. This demographic replacement actually began around the 1960's time period when it was deliberately enabled by Jews/Liberals. The only person who had the wisdom among them to foresee the disaster that was coming was Enoch Powell. He was completely correct with his "Rivers of Blood" speech about multiculturalism/immigration and his predictions about the EU.

  70. @German_reader

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?
     
    As far as I know, there's general agreement among most historians that Hitler's original intent was to turn Poland into a satellite and enlist it as a junior partner in his war against the Soviet Union (maybe like a bigger version of Slovakia). How that would have played out in the longer term and how it could have been reconciled with the anti-Polish traditions of German nationalism, who knows? But it's not like Hitler was incapable of at least tactical concessions regarding German minorities abroad, as is shown by South Tyrol.
    Main reason why it didn't happen was because Poland refused to become a German satellite and wasn't interested in joining a German war on the Soviet Union (contrary to what Stalin in his paranoia may have believed).

    In my studies of Ostfront, I quite distinctly remember a shockingly high claim of Hiwis/Poles participating in the invasion and fighting in the USSR. Was it 600k Poles, or is my memory playing games with me?

    Didn’t Donald Tusk’s ancestors take part? Would explain a lot.

    You have to admit that Phoney War combined with empty guarantees given to Poland might have something to do with Russian malevolence regarding WW2?

  71. @anonymous coward

    it’s quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
     
    You're nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.

    The Soviets wouldn't have minded if Finland decided to roll over and die, like the Baltic "countries" did, but that certainly wasn't the goal of the war.

    The Soviets got far more the from war then they ever bargained for, anyways.

    The "we won the Winter War" bullshit is crackpot nuttery invented by insane Finnish nationalists to save face and explain away their utter failure and loss of Karelia.

    Winter War certainly did not go along Uncle Joe`s plan. The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime headed by Otto V. Kuusinen, one of the few Finnish communists who survived Stalin`s purges. After that Finland would either have “voluntarily” joined the Soviet Union as a Soviet republic or it would have become a nominally independent communist vassal state like Mongolia.

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations. There was even the risk of war against France and Great Britain. Soviet Union`s public image also got tarnished. What is more, Leningrad`s security actually got worse. Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.

    Utter failure? I would call surviving as an independent non-communist country as some kind of success. Compared to Estonia, we have been doing pretty well.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime
     
    Untrue. The goal was to move the border a bit, not to occupy the whole country.

    The 'couple weeks' business is just Soviet propaganda; the official party line at the time was that the mighty Red Army will kick everyone's ass and win WWII with minimal blood on enemy territory. Don't confuse commie spin with CPSU goals, the CPSU leadership never got high on their own supply. (Unlike the modern-day Western leadership.)

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations.
     
    That's true, but that is just the regular communist incompetence, none of it is Finland's accomplishment.

    Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.
     
    I doubt Finland could go through WWII without picking a side. Even Sweden didn't, despite their nominal "neutrality".
  72. @German_reader

    even though all those deportations were done by an ethnic Georgian (Stalin), Jewish and Sovok Communist leadership?
     
    NKVD was majority ethnic Russian by 1940/41 iirc, Jewish overrepresentation was more of a feature of the earlier period (though Beria was of course Caucasian).

    Would you have Russia pay reparations or something for the 300 gorillion deportations?
     
    No, certainly not. My intention was merely to point out the problems with claiming the actions of Britain and France and the Soviet Union were somehow morally equivalent. Anyway, it's mostly a historical matter imo.

    Britain and France were worse, cowardly and unwillingly to support the collective security the USSR proposed.

  73. @Kent Nationalist
    I read it somewhere in the last couple of months but I read a lot of books one after the other so I can't remember exactly where. Maybe David Stahel's book on Operation Barbarossa?

    Also, calling Belarus and Ukraine “eastern Poland” is the same as calling Poland – western Russia.

     

    I didn't call it Eastern Poland, but in any case hundreds of thousands of Poles had lived there for hundreds of years and were responsible for what advanced culture existed there, so it's not.

    I find that claim very suspect because Germans shredded Polish Army and bombed cities, established a military occupation, while Soviets moved in with only light resistance. It would take many Katyn-level atrocities to catch up with German-inflected casualties.

    Rus’ towns and cities had a culture and civilization before Poles and Lithuanians exploited Mongol-Tatar aftermath. The nobility was the first to align with invaders, followed by burghers, while peasants resisted.

  74. @German_reader

    This is a clear amalgam in logic
     
    The "amalgam in logic" is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery ("But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!") to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don't care much about the issue and the way it's used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin's regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn't convincing imo.

    The “amalgam in logic” is with Russians

    I think you misunderstood me. If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed, the Soviet terror in the Baltic States and in “Eastern Poland” is completely irrelevant, since this terror had nothing to do with the causes of the WWII. For this (to determine the causes of the WWI) Munich collusion can be compared with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but in other respects. The reference to Soviet terror in this case (in determining the causes of the war) is pure amalgam.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed
     
    Yes, but as I wrote in my original comment, Western criticism of Molotov-Ribbentropp isn't because of the mere fact of the pact itself, but because of what the Soviet Union did as a consequence of it, that is invading the territory of other states and bringing communist terror there. Karlin referred to the recent commemorations in Poland, and the Soviet record wasn't attacked there simply because the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Hitler's Germany (it's technically correct that other states, including Poland, had done so before as well), but because of Soviet policies in the annexed territories during 1939-1941.
    It would certainly be extremely inappropriate to cast Russians as a perpetrator nation because of Molotov-Ribbentropp or to forget the Russian role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but I don't see why that should mean one has to defend everything Stalin's regime did, as some of the commenters here seem to believe.
  75. @Dmitry
    Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.

    https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.perekrest/posts/2779787138732559

    -


    My comment.

    Problem is (and this article is a symptom) the assumption that population size has to be expanded - which leads to horseshoe:

    1. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants (Merkel).

    2. Open border and accept more unfiltered immigrants, and also government can boost birthrates (Putin).

    3. Government can boost birthrates and so we do not need to open border (Orban).

    -

    Problems with 1 and 2 (Putin/Merkel) policies, are obvious.

    But 3 is also a joke, which only survives because of people who do not have statistical knowledge trying to infer from badly designed measurements like "total fertility rate".

    As Governor of Perm territory has said recently, the effect of attempted pro-natalist policies, is that they reduce poverty, but do not stimulate fertility rates.

    Eventual fertility rates are very stubborn.

    If we look in Russia, they are locked around 1,6 for women born since 1965.
    https://i.imgur.com/AjfZKxw.jpg

    Ironically, in a theoretical world, at this fertility rate, one of the most effective ways to slow population decline would be to raise women's age of conception - as this would space out generations. (Not that government could have significant effect on that in a real world).

    -

    So what is the solution? It is to reject the false assumption (that population has to expand) which created this horseshoe.

    Correct planning should be:

    1. Stricter border policy, stop unfiltered immigration and flooding by immigrants.

    2. Plan for smaller population size, to emphasize benefits and reduce costs. These benefits such as: higher salaries for workers, higher per capita income, higher employment rate for young people, better teacher to student ratio in schools, more available spaces and treatments in hospitals (to the extent this is possible with an aging population), lower crime rates (with aging population).

    With resource extraction economy - more revenue shared among small population, results higher per capita revenue. (Dependency ratio is less important than for some other types of economy).

    (??? Profit - in terms of immigration/emigration. Less brain drain, and possibility to select higher quality immigrants in the future.)

    Article by Vladimir Perekrest about alleged migrant conquest of Russia.
    “From January to July, the population of Russia decreased by 209.7 thousand….”

    It’s just fake information. Here are the stats https://zemfort1983.livejournal.com/1233033.html

  76. @Anatoly Karlin
    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power - especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    The slideback in fertility rates since 2016 is probably temporary, and is significantly explained by birth postponement.

    slideback in fertility rates since 2016

    In my opinion, likely there isn’t slideback in eventual rates – just talking about the statistical noise in the temporary ones.

    Around 1,6 children for women born since 1965 – as it has been at 2011 – should be basis for planning. Eventual fertility rates will be not be far distant from that figure.

    Unless there is some kind of unexpected scientific advance, and artificial wombs are suddenly introduced in the 2030s.

    population is power – especially in the absence of any

    For the military, probably. For construction industry, definitely. But for yourself? Well it depends in what industry you work, and what kind of family you are born. (i.e. if the family of your next re-incarnation is randomized – and not influenced by karma – would you prefer to be born in small population Switzerland or large population India?)

    Benefits for average students born after 1992 – they have less competition for better jobs after university, will have fast upward mobility in work, etc, ceteris paribus. For them personally, it is better to be in a smaller cohort, especially at beginning stage of working life.

    Besides, what’s the point about stressing about it as if it was a choice. It is reality – until artificial wombs. The danger and current mistake of politicians, is accepting unfiltered immigration, and linkage of the two topics in their mind is part of the cause (which is implied by assumption that population has to expand).

    absence of any carrying capacity constraints

    Sure, but Australia has a similar situation, but more extreme – with 3 times less population density than Russia. And yet Australia is quite successful for living . So I see this more as a question of intelligent management, just like on the other extreme, Monaco has 1900 times more population density – and yet (unlike Bangladesh) still is good for living.

    I won’t talk about oil revenue like it is permanent, because this might all change after 2030ies.

    But with the current arrangement of the economy (with up to half of the budget from just oil/gas depending on particular year), then less people results in more available budget per capita.

    Or for the most extreme example, simple dilution of resource extraction revenue by population, is likely the difference between Nigeria (GDP per capita PPP $5,927) and Equatorial Guinea ($34,865)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    You can't build an Orion nuclear propulsion spaceship to settle Alpha Centauri on the back of Australia's population.
  77. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    What are your thoughts on blocking women from education, especially university/college education, in order for them to instead focus on giving birth to kids?

    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

     

    No offense, but that is an extremely beta male argument to justify women being educated. The white knighting for women is so cringe nowadays.

    Of course, I should clarify that women on a basic level should learn to read, write and do basic math. Still, why do women need education beyond this? Their ultimate purpose is to make children and then raise them while taking care of the home.

    It is with good reason that women used to be the private property of men in the past. In fact, it is the most reliable way to ensure that women do what they are supposed to do. All education does, especially university education, is simply to either block or delay women from fulfilling their natural purpose in life. It is actually immoral to educate women with university and college since it harms society, birth rates, and men.

  78. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In AOMI IV, you quote the following:


    Moreover, according to a 2004 meta-analysis by Van Den Bergh and Rietveld of global carrying capacity estimates, the median of 94 historical estimates was 7.8 billion – that is, virtually exactly equivalent to the world current population of 7.6 billion.
     
    The problem with nearly all of these historical estimates is they define carrying capacity as simply " maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely" (meaning their definition of carrying capacity focuses only on resource limitations); they don't take into account environmental degradation i.e. biodiversity loss and global warming (carbon emissions):

    ...indicators of unsustainability such as global warming and biodiversity loss, which have not been taken into account in the primary studies analyzed here.
     
    (Den Bergh & Rietveld, 2004)

    One notable exception is Paul Ehrlich (referenced as a historical estimate by Den Berg & Rietveld, 2004); note how his studies typically define carrying capacity to include environmental degradation e.g. his book The Population Explosion:


    [Carrying capacity:] When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.
     
    Ehrlich therefore points out by this definition of carrying capacity, the world is already overpopulated (this is fact):

    By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.
     
    Note Van Den Bergh and Rietveld go on to recognise this and sympathise with Ehrlich's estimated carrying capacity (that includes biodiversity loss) at well under 1 billion:

    These indicators suggest that the lower bound prediction of 0.65 billion people in the meta-regression may be as good a guess as is possible for population limits in the current technological circumstances.
     
    If you compiled an average or median of global carrying capacity estimates that take into account global warming (carbon emissions) and biodiversity loss you would find they agree with Ehrlich's. I see absolutely no discussion about biodiversity loss in your AOMI IV essay, nor other posts. As an example, as recent as 1970 humans have caused (a further) 60% reduction of all vertebrate wildlife populations. Also because primarily of human activity, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species lists 41% of amphibians, 25% of mammals, 34% of conifers, 13% of birds, 31% of sharks and rays, 33% of reef-building corals, and 27% of crustaceans - threatened with extinction.

    To argue the carrying capacity of humans is 100 billion (I believe that is your argument, or you made a similar estimate) is ecologically irresponsible and very disturbing.

    You mean this Paul Ehrlich?

    The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

    I’ll give him one thing: He’s consistent.

    Paul Ehrlich: ‘Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades’ https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

    PS. Now that you’re here, would you be kind enough to update the RatWiki with my comments on McCain’s death? They were good for my brand here.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Ehrlich responded to these criticisms in 2009. In response to that prediction he points out:

    But, of course, there were famines, essentially continuously in parts of Africa. Perhaps 300 million people overall have died of hunger and hunger-related diseases since 1968.
     
    So while he wasn't entirely incorrect, he did exaggerate about famines, many of his other predictions were though completely accurate (e.g. the world population rapidly increased from 3.5 billion in late 1960s to over 7 billion in 2010s). However, the main goal of The Population Bomb has been partially achieved:

    Birthrates [and fertility rates] have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government-sponsored programs in education (especially of women), giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible – and to economic factors... Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved.
     
    (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2009)

    The goal of The Population Bomb (1968) was to reduce population fertility rates across the world to 1.0 (Ehrlich supports a global one-child policy and after having one child, he had a vasectomy). This hasn't been achieved yet, but obviously progress has been made if you compare the world total fertility rate in 1960s to 2010s; it has halved from around 5 to 2.5:

    TFR
    1965–1970: 4.92
    2010–2015: 2.52

    And of course in a few countries (Singapore, Spain, Portugal etc.) fertility rates are as low as 1.3.

    People who are 'red-pilled' on overpopulation, start with The Population Bomb. I read it around 12 years back. Most people however who understand its main goal and the ecological issues the world faces, become more radical than Ehrlich because even if there was a global one-child policy, the world population would still *increase* until 2050s (or even 2100) and not drop to under 1 billion until 2200s. See the following paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610


    Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100.
     

    The more draconian fertility reduction to a global one child per woman by 2100 (Scenario 3) resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to ∼7 billion by 2100 (i.e., a return to the 2013 population size) (Fig. 1A). Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 and without improving survival (Scenario 4) resulted in a peak population size of 7.95 billion in 2037, 7.59 billion by 2050, and a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100... Projecting Scenario 3 (worldwide one-child policy by 2100, assuming no further reduction in total fertility thereafter) to 2300, the world population would fall to half of its 2013 size by 2130, and one-quarter by 2158.
     
    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s. Article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

  79. @melanf

    The “amalgam in logic” is with Russians
     
    I think you misunderstood me. If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed, the Soviet terror in the Baltic States and in "Eastern Poland" is completely irrelevant, since this terror had nothing to do with the causes of the WWII. For this (to determine the causes of the WWI) Munich collusion can be compared with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but in other respects. The reference to Soviet terror in this case (in determining the causes of the war) is pure amalgam.

    If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed

    Yes, but as I wrote in my original comment, Western criticism of Molotov-Ribbentropp isn’t because of the mere fact of the pact itself, but because of what the Soviet Union did as a consequence of it, that is invading the territory of other states and bringing communist terror there. Karlin referred to the recent commemorations in Poland, and the Soviet record wasn’t attacked there simply because the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Hitler’s Germany (it’s technically correct that other states, including Poland, had done so before as well), but because of Soviet policies in the annexed territories during 1939-1941.
    It would certainly be extremely inappropriate to cast Russians as a perpetrator nation because of Molotov-Ribbentropp or to forget the Russian role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but I don’t see why that should mean one has to defend everything Stalin’s regime did, as some of the commenters here seem to believe.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Western criticism of Molotov-Ribbentropp isn’t because of the mere fact of the pact itself, but because of what the Soviet Union did as a consequence of it, that is invading the territory of other states and bringing communist terror there.
     
    You make that distinction, but not everybody in the West does it. There is an attempt to say that M-R pact made it 'possible' for Germany to attack Poland. Or even that it was a joint attack. That is simply historically not true.

    Regarding consequences, as I wrote above, Soviets were brutal and the way they did things at that time was very brutal. The consequences were built into the agreement. By the way a number of other countries at that time were also habitually brutal in their own way, e.g. Japanese, French or British in their colonies, Turks, and of course the highly cultured Germans anywhere in the east, it was a different era, brutality came with it automatically.

    To expect that after Germany quickly executed their part of M-R Pact, Soviets would sit on their hands and not take over the exposed buffer area between them and larger Germany is unrealistic. Why would they do it? At any point after defeating Poland, Germany could sweep through eastern 'Poland', Baltic states, or place its artillery a few kilometres from St. Petersburg. No military strategist would allow that, so Soviets had to move in.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened for two reasons:
    - Poland refused to even discuss any alliance against Germany that included Russia
    - Moscow was skeptical whether UK-France would fight and suspected that at that time Britain's policy was to trigger a Germany-Russia war and watch from the sidelines.

    All else were natural consequences. You can call that 'paranoid', but that is the way all countries think - they have to plan for the worse possibilities, not hope for the best.

  80. @Sam
    @Anatolykarlin
    Think it’s a good idea with the long content posts going forward.
    Just wondering, do you have plans to writ about Putin and the alleged false flag apartment bombings. You mentioned you would before and I always wondered since it is one of those conspiracies endorsed, partially, in the West.

    Another post I’ve wondered about is your view of the deaths under communism. I know you challenged Unz’s reliance on the Black Book of Communism and related sources. A possible topic?

    Keep up the great content

    I find it difficult to summon much passion over very old conspiracy theories (especially when newer, more relevant ones exist).

    But a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin

    a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.
     
    Oof, that Sikorsky one was very depressing
    But can you please label what % of the people getting killed by Bolsheviks were actual Russians and what were Tatars, Balts, Koreans etc.
    , @reiner Tor
    This is a conspiracy theory which is pretty much believed by many (most?) normies. I very often meet Hungarian liberals who believe that. It’s also often promoted by major online media sites.
  81. @Dmitry

    slideback in fertility rates since 2016
     
    In my opinion, likely there isn't slideback in eventual rates - just talking about the statistical noise in the temporary ones.

    Around 1,6 children for women born since 1965 - as it has been at 2011 - should be basis for planning. Eventual fertility rates will be not be far distant from that figure.

    Unless there is some kind of unexpected scientific advance, and artificial wombs are suddenly introduced in the 2030s.

    population is power – especially in the absence of any
     
    For the military, probably. For construction industry, definitely. But for yourself? Well it depends in what industry you work, and what kind of family you are born. (i.e. if the family of your next re-incarnation is randomized - and not influenced by karma - would you prefer to be born in small population Switzerland or large population India?)

    Benefits for average students born after 1992 - they have less competition for better jobs after university, will have fast upward mobility in work, etc, ceteris paribus. For them personally, it is better to be in a smaller cohort, especially at beginning stage of working life.

    Besides, what's the point about stressing about it as if it was a choice. It is reality - until artificial wombs. The danger and current mistake of politicians, is accepting unfiltered immigration, and linkage of the two topics in their mind is part of the cause (which is implied by assumption that population has to expand).

    absence of any carrying capacity constraints

     

    Sure, but Australia has a similar situation, but more extreme - with 3 times less population density than Russia. And yet Australia is quite successful for living . So I see this more as a question of intelligent management, just like on the other extreme, Monaco has 1900 times more population density - and yet (unlike Bangladesh) still is good for living.

    -

    I won't talk about oil revenue like it is permanent, because this might all change after 2030ies.

    But with the current arrangement of the economy (with up to half of the budget from just oil/gas depending on particular year), then less people results in more available budget per capita.

    Or for the most extreme example, simple dilution of resource extraction revenue by population, is likely the difference between Nigeria (GDP per capita PPP $5,927) and Equatorial Guinea ($34,865)

    You can’t build an Orion nuclear propulsion spaceship to settle Alpha Centauri on the back of Australia’s population.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.
    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems.
     
    The vicious Eurocuck circular logic is:
    "we need less kids, to focus on careers and protecting the enviroment"
    "we have no kids, so we need migrants"
  82. @Anatoly Karlin
    I find it difficult to summon much passion over very old conspiracy theories (especially when newer, more relevant ones exist).

    But a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.

    a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.

    Oof, that Sikorsky one was very depressing
    But can you please label what % of the people getting killed by Bolsheviks were actual Russians and what were Tatars, Balts, Koreans etc.

  83. @Epigon
    No, the path to increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family remaining together pre-requisite, miniscule for 1 kid, solid for 2 kids, very high for 3) until 0% tax for 4+ kids.

    No lump sums, no other benefits. This would benefit people with higher income (often smarter, better educated) in high tax countries and would not fund Gypsy and other minority multiplication.

    It would literally make it cost effective to have more kids, appealing to current materialist mindset.

    This would only be a stopgap, as the true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping. Women are too precious to be spending their fertile, healthy potential motherhood years pursuing useless degrees, crappy meme careers, pushing papers and saturating job market.

    More people, especially more people of same ethnicity in the same country is always a good thing. It is in the long-term interest of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.

    increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family

    It’s like “increasing dose of Vitamin C will result in higher life expectancy”.

    It seems sensible in the mind. But when we look at evidence in the real whether it actually has an effect in the real population – it is lacking that it changes the rates. (Or usually only changes the timing, but with no effect on eventual rates).

    of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.

    Most governments of the lowest fertility countries believe this idea. And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).

    true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping.

    It will happen with artificial wombs.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn’t be.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn’t be.

     

    It's actually being used as an excuse to have a more unfiltered immigration policy.

    And Perekrest's article above symptomatic of the idea the two topics are necessarily connect. .
    , @anonymous coward

    And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.
     
    There's a lot of dumb hay made about this (including attempts to pull in just-so-story explanations with genetics and DNA), but as far as I can tell, fertility is a simple function of living space.

    Give a family an apartment half again as large, and they'll have another kid.
    , @Swedish Family

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).
     
    Swedish birthrates are way overhyped. For one thing, our TFR has only exceeded 2.1 twice since 1967 (in 1990 and 1991), and for another, it's still unclear, as you point out, how far our somewhat higher TFR than the Western average can be put down to ethnic Swedish birthrates. Most figures I have seen would suggest an ethnic Swedish TFR of 0.2-0.3 lower than the total Swedish TFR, which is not very impressive.
    , @Gerard2
    On this issue of fertility:
    Russians aged 0-9 years .....18 million
    Russians aged 10-19 years...14.5 million

    That suggests to me that that the Natalist policies are working. I checked the stats for the United Kingdom - has 6.6 million people aged 0-9 years. If it was in proportion to Russia then the number would need to be 8.1 million.

    Of course Russia needs birth rates significantly higher than this, and the UK birth rate is fine for the UK.......but just as importantly to the actual overall population size is a much higher population redistributed in the Far East district and some other areas........and a larger and more prosperous non-urban or small town population -- Moscow increasing to 30 million population isn't going to rectifiy the problem, if anything - harm it even more, because urban population means lower birth rates
  84. @Anatoly Karlin
    You can't build an Orion nuclear propulsion spaceship to settle Alpha Centauri on the back of Australia's population.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.
    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems.

    The vicious Eurocuck circular logic is:
    “we need less kids, to focus on careers and protecting the enviroment”
    “we have no kids, so we need migrants”

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Yes exactly.

    And Orban - although very good economically as a leader - is symptomatic of the other side of this horseshoe

    Orban discourse: "We can avoid unfiltered immigration if we can somehow boost our fertility rate" (In reality, Hungary has one of the lowest in the world, and it won't change much).

    ^
    No, you can avoid unfiltered immigration even unrelated to what is your country's fertility rate.

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.
    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall. And yet everything was working well in Germany (and I'm sure without importation of Turkish gastarbeiters the country wouldn't collapse or something, but just have even higher wages for the local people).

  85. @Dmitry

    increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family

     

    It's like "increasing dose of Vitamin C will result in higher life expectancy".

    It seems sensible in the mind. But when we look at evidence in the real whether it actually has an effect in the real population - it is lacking that it changes the rates. (Or usually only changes the timing, but with no effect on eventual rates).


    of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.
     
    Most governments of the lowest fertility countries believe this idea. And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).


    true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping.
     
    It will happen with artificial wombs.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn't be.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn’t be.

    It’s actually being used as an excuse to have a more unfiltered immigration policy.

    And Perekrest’s article above symptomatic of the idea the two topics are necessarily connect. .

  86. @Kerubi
    Winter War certainly did not go along Uncle Joe`s plan. The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime headed by Otto V. Kuusinen, one of the few Finnish communists who survived Stalin`s purges. After that Finland would either have "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union as a Soviet republic or it would have become a nominally independent communist vassal state like Mongolia.

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations. There was even the risk of war against France and Great Britain. Soviet Union`s public image also got tarnished. What is more, Leningrad`s security actually got worse. Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.

    Utter failure? I would call surviving as an independent non-communist country as some kind of success. Compared to Estonia, we have been doing pretty well.

    The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime

    Untrue. The goal was to move the border a bit, not to occupy the whole country.

    The ‘couple weeks’ business is just Soviet propaganda; the official party line at the time was that the mighty Red Army will kick everyone’s ass and win WWII with minimal blood on enemy territory. Don’t confuse commie spin with CPSU goals, the CPSU leadership never got high on their own supply. (Unlike the modern-day Western leadership.)

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations.

    That’s true, but that is just the regular communist incompetence, none of it is Finland’s accomplishment.

    Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.

    I doubt Finland could go through WWII without picking a side. Even Sweden didn’t, despite their nominal “neutrality”.

    • Replies: @Kerubi
    When Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30 1939, Red Army was ordered to occupy the whole country, march to the Bothnic Gulf and Swedish border. It was not just some small border skirmish. Do you really think that after installing Kuusinen`s puppet government in Helsinki and making some border adjustments the Red Army would just have gone home? Without a massive Red Army presence, Kuusinen regime would have fallen in a matter of months. It was like Afganistan 1979. Stalin intended to take the whole country under control either directly or through a puppet government.

    Since 1937, Finland was governed by Cajander`s Center-Left government with a strong majority in Finnish parliament. Cajander`s government was committed to neutrality. The idea of conspiring with Nazi Germany to launch a joint invasion against the Soviet Union was very alien to those people. Probably they would have made concessions to Germany like Sweden did (selling iron ore, allowing troop transports etc), but they wouldn`t have actively participated in Barbarossa. Winter War changed Finnish foreign policy dramatically as Finland looked for support against the Soviets wherever it could be found. Stalin pushed Finland into Hitler`s arms.
  87. @Korenchkin

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.
    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems.
     
    The vicious Eurocuck circular logic is:
    "we need less kids, to focus on careers and protecting the enviroment"
    "we have no kids, so we need migrants"

    Yes exactly.

    And Orban – although very good economically as a leader – is symptomatic of the other side of this horseshoe

    Orban discourse: “We can avoid unfiltered immigration if we can somehow boost our fertility rate” (In reality, Hungary has one of the lowest in the world, and it won’t change much).

    ^
    No, you can avoid unfiltered immigration even unrelated to what is your country’s fertility rate.

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.
    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall. And yet everything was working well in Germany (and I’m sure without importation of Turkish gastarbeiters the country wouldn’t collapse or something, but just have even higher wages for the local people).

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.
     
    I googled it, and surprisingly enough, you seem to be not totally wrong about that...apparently fertility rates were apparently as low as 1,8 already as early as 1934 (though I suppose that was at least parly due to the Great Depression). But after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s. Decisive change happened in 1965-1975 when the fertility rate dropped to 1,4 in West Germany where it has stayed since then among ethnic German women.
    The real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.

    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall.
     
    Population is static in numbers only because of massive immigration, well before 2015.
  88. @Dmitry
    Yes exactly.

    And Orban - although very good economically as a leader - is symptomatic of the other side of this horseshoe

    Orban discourse: "We can avoid unfiltered immigration if we can somehow boost our fertility rate" (In reality, Hungary has one of the lowest in the world, and it won't change much).

    ^
    No, you can avoid unfiltered immigration even unrelated to what is your country's fertility rate.

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.
    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall. And yet everything was working well in Germany (and I'm sure without importation of Turkish gastarbeiters the country wouldn't collapse or something, but just have even higher wages for the local people).

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.

    I googled it, and surprisingly enough, you seem to be not totally wrong about that…apparently fertility rates were apparently as low as 1,8 already as early as 1934 (though I suppose that was at least parly due to the Great Depression). But after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s. Decisive change happened in 1965-1975 when the fertility rate dropped to 1,4 in West Germany where it has stayed since then among ethnic German women.
    The real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.

    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall.

    Population is static in numbers only because of massive immigration, well before 2015.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.
     
    Why should it be a disaster? Falling population does not imply the economy has to collapse - potentially it can imply higher quality of life.

    Labour supply will fall (if unfiltered immigration can be prevented), so it will be upward pressure on wages. This is motivate businesses to increase capital intensity of their production.

    Think about agriculture. It used to require large supplies of labour. And yet today, it requires very little.

    You can already see Germany automobile industry - workers only required for final assembly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VreG1iC65Lc

    Whereas in the past, such a factory would need to be full of workers at all stages.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjosy20l_A


    after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s.

     

    Although this was among a smaller cohort, as a result of war losses. So we can already assume below replacement of the previous generation?
  89. @Dmitry

    increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family

     

    It's like "increasing dose of Vitamin C will result in higher life expectancy".

    It seems sensible in the mind. But when we look at evidence in the real whether it actually has an effect in the real population - it is lacking that it changes the rates. (Or usually only changes the timing, but with no effect on eventual rates).


    of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.
     
    Most governments of the lowest fertility countries believe this idea. And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).


    true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping.
     
    It will happen with artificial wombs.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn't be.

    And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    There’s a lot of dumb hay made about this (including attempts to pull in just-so-story explanations with genetics and DNA), but as far as I can tell, fertility is a simple function of living space.

    Give a family an apartment half again as large, and they’ll have another kid.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Living space per person is far higher in the New World European countries, but fertility rates are not much higher than in Europe itself.

    In Victorian Britain families were living in two-room apartments, sometimes even with extended families, and still having large families.

    The fall in fertility rates is due to many factors:

    • Sexual revolution

    • Contraception and abortion

    • Change in markers of social status for women--mothers are made to feel inferior to career women

    • Increase in single motherhood and miscegenation

    • Divorce, child support, alimony, domestic violence laws, marital "rape" laws, etc.

    • Decline in material standards of living and career prospects for the young

    • More time wasted in "education" (especially for women, but it's a problem for men too)

    • Helicopter parenting

    • Deteriorating health and vigor in the population at large

    • Massively increased options for entertainment, amusement, and distraction

    • Change in reported ideal family size from four children to two--this merits more investigation as to why it happened

    And there are probably more I haven't identified. It's not very mysterious why fertility has fallen. What is mysterious is that no one in charge seems to care, especially since it has already been a problem for a long time.
    , @Dmitry
    If living space is determinant, why does Gaza have 4,5 children per women, while in Canada 1,6 children per women?

    Or about apartments - look at demographic transition in the USSR. Collapse continued at the same time, housing supply is greatly improved. There is fall from 1960-1980, from 2,6 to around 1,9. At the same time, the housing situation of the population was improving (across 1960-1980).

  90. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Well, that's because of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik band breaking Russia, as during the Russian Civil War, the Latvians managed to sneak away with Narva. Of course, Stalin and the Sovoks after him never thought to restore Narva to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Russia, and in general, they did not meddle with the internal borders of SSR's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva#20th_century

    Of course, a notable exception is with Krushchev giving Crimea to the Ukranian SSR. If only some Russian Sovok politician/elite decided to be a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were) that could somehow have gathered enough power, maybe the Russians could've sorted out the USSR's internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders. That is, of course, since the dissolution of the USSR was based upon exactly those same Sovok internal borders.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively. One of the greatest hypocrisies in international relations is the fact that even though the former USSR and Yugoslavia are considered archaic and their collapse is celebrated as a good thing, their internal borders are still treated as legitimate international borders which are holy, sacred and inviolable ...

    a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were)

    I’m not sure where you get this. It was true of some Sovoks, both Russians and non-Russians, but for example Hungarian Sovoks were notably non-nationalists.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively.

    I’m not sure about Yugoslavia, but in the case of Russia it was certainly true that they promoted the Russian language throughout the country and also managed to get ethnic Russians into all corners of the USSR. The Hungarian minority in Ukraine certainly learned more Russian than Ukrainian until the 1990s, which caused them problems later on.

    maybe the Russians could’ve sorted out the USSR’s internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders

    Sovoks never thought their empire would dissolve, nor did they think anything coming after them would be good. So thinking about what would be beneficial for Russians after the dissolution of the USSR was something like thinking about what would be good after losing ww3.

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.

    • Replies: @AP

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.
     
    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn't loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland's geopolitical path from 1991. If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus. If "Ukraine" stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.
  91. @melanf


    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That’s kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps
     
    This is a clear amalgam in logic - terror in the annex the Baltic states and in "Eastern Poland" is certainly bad thing, but this terror was not the cause of the WWII.

    the unsuccesful war against Finland
     
    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful

    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful

    You need to get into some pretty ridiculous revisionism over the war goals if you want to pretend that the end result of making Finland a German ally wasn’t a strategic own goal. Nothing was gained by Russia in the war for the purposes of the greater conflict as during Operation Barbarossa Finland quickly recaptured the land lost in the Winter War and used all of it in further operations against Russia as an ally of Germany.

    Obviously the only realistic fear Russia has from Finland is whether the territory of Finland is used by some greater power and an alliance with Germany was the least likely of all outcomes considering the pre-war situation where Finland had attempted to gain security guarantees from the West (with no success), attempted to negotiate with Russia and attempted to remain neutral. The alternative outcomes in the case of no Winter War would be

    a) Finland tries to remain neutral. This would be a problem for Germany in the siege of Leningrad and might lead to a German invasion of Finland. How much resistance Finland would produce is a big what if but the potential is there as Germany would have to either stage a landing on the coast or come through roadless Lapland, both of which would be massive defender advantages.

    The military elites of Finland were overwhelmingly Germanic and German-trained and the Finnish civilian government was actually rather worried about their potential pro-German sympathies (that’s why they had taken Mannerheim out of retirement – he was the one plausible military leader who wasn’t German trained and who would definitely oppose a pro-German military coup). But then, the Reds (and Stalin) were once popular with ethnic Finns so at least communist resistance would be plentiful and highly motivated (and capable) which would massively empower them after a German loss and withdrawal, giving the communists a very high chance of capturing Finland with a coup after the war.

    b) Finland finds an ally in the West. If Finland has security guarantees and Russia invades anyway, that’s hard to say and this is the most questionable scenario, but then that is the whole reason why it’s extremely unlikely that Britain or France would have given any security guarantees that weren’t aimed against Germany. If Russia then decides to skip the invasion, this probably plays out like (a) but with an added chance of Finland in pro-Western hands in the end. Western Allies would at least contribute to anti-German war efforts with air support etc. So this ends up being better for Russia in WWII but not after.

    c) Finnish-Russian negotiations are successful and a land trade is made where Russia gets more land near Leningrad and Finland gets some of the already Finnic-populated land further north in exchange. The willingness was clearly there and Stalin had already proposed this around the time of the revolution (“you can have as much swamp as you like”) but the deal should have been made back then as the pre-WWII demands from Russia were too much and Russia did not even gain the unacceptable demands that it had made in the peace that ended the Winter War (no base near Helsinki etc).

    If that deal had been made in 1920, Finland might have almost entirely avoided World War II and ended up genuinely neutral or even pro-Russian during the Cold War (as opposed to swearing “Soviet friendship” while constantly looking for a chance to defect to the Western bloc as happened in the real history).

    There used to be a lot of talk about who screwed up the negotiations with Russia and eg. it used to be a common commie conspiracy theory that the German-sympathizing Swedes and Germans who owned this country intentionally sabotaged the talks so that Russia would attack and then they could then take Finland to the war on the German side and sell the whole thing to the people as recapturing lost territory. However the left has decided that Swedes and Germans are not evil Nazis after all but glorious heroes of multiculturalism so now our academia and media have completely erased all doubt of eternal pure Russian guilt for everything bad that has ever happened.

    The scenario where the Winter War would have been a positive for Russia would be if Finland doesn’t resist enough and Russia gets control of the cities before the spring thaw. (There’s a bad Western trope of how stupid it is to invade during the winter but it’s not – the mud seasons and the swampy roadless terrain mean that winter is the time to move around and whatever gear you commit to an invasion is easily stuck there until the next winter.) Then a communist puppet government could have ensured that Finland doesn’t ally with Germany, though if Germany then attacked it would have been the same as in the Baltic states with a lot of people signing up to fight against the communist puppet government and Russia.

    But the actual war is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy – an attempt to make sure that Finland’s territories aren’t used in an invasion against Russia led to all of those territories being used in a Finnish-German joint invasion of Russia.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @melanf

    result of making Finland a German ally
     
    I think Finland would be an ally of Germany anyway. There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia. The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Nothing was gained by Russia in the war
     
    Except the Karelian isthmus
  92. @Beckow

    ...The West was counting on Hitler going Drang nach Osten, attacking USSR, as outlined in Mein Kampf. There is absolutely no way of framing it any other way.
     
    That was an irrefutable reality of the 1938-39 period and it was understood by all at that time that was what was going on. Poland naively saw itself as being a part of this attack and dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    We simply can't understand the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that happened without the context of the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win. I will put aside evaluating this, one can understand both class, elite and moral revulsions and a wish to destroy Soviet Union.

    That was the reality of late August 1939 and Stalin pulled a fast one out of his hat and changed the strategic balance (at the same time as Red Army smashed Japanese in the Far East). The M-R pact literally saved Soviet Union and probably prevented most Slavic nations in the area, including the Poles, from being exterminated or assimilated. Given the brutes Soviets were it came with some violence and oppression. But in history one has a choice of what to endure, I strongly suspect that if the original Western plan of encouraging a war between Germany and Russia in 1939 happened, we would be living in a different, but equally bloody history. Without the Pact and the strategic geographic depth it gave Russia, and the 2 years time it bought, WWII would unfold differently.

    Western revisionists are simply angry that they got outplayed by Stalin in 1939. It was a gutsy and unexpected move, but people about to be murdered often surprise with some creativity.

    the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win.

    Then why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?

    One would think these actions significantly reduced the chances of a German-Soviet war happening, at least before Hitler destroyed France.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?
     
    UK-France declared a 'war' and didn't fight it, they sat on their hands. If France-UK invaded into Rhineland in September 1939 - as Poles thought they would - the war would be very different. They didn't for a reason: West wanted to facilitate Germany's war towards the east, if it meant sacrificing Poland, Czechoslovakia, so be it.

    The guarantee to Poland was a piece of paper, issued in April 1939 by UK (France less so, they had contingencies attached). It deceived Poland into thinking they were a part of 'Western world', it amounted to nothing. One can suspect that in a cynical way giving fake guarantees to the hapless Poles was a way to stir it up and make sure that Germany and Poland ended up in a war, Germany ends victorious on Russia's borders and the desired war to death in the east takes place. Except they thought Germany would be all the way deep into Belarus-Ukraine or 'eastern Poland' at that time. So they would a few hundred kilometres from Moscow. That part didn't work because Stalin outplayed them on the last minute.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move, it changed the situation dramatically and it literally saved millions of eastern Europeans (Poles!) from eventual extinction.
  93. @anonymous coward

    it’s quite clear that the goal of the Finnish campaign was to expand the Karelian SSR and/or create a Finnish one that would return the Russian Empire borders
     
    You're nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.

    The Soviets wouldn't have minded if Finland decided to roll over and die, like the Baltic "countries" did, but that certainly wasn't the goal of the war.

    The Soviets got far more the from war then they ever bargained for, anyways.

    The "we won the Winter War" bullshit is crackpot nuttery invented by insane Finnish nationalists to save face and explain away their utter failure and loss of Karelia.

    You’re nuts. The goal of the Finnish campaign was to move the international border away from St. Petersburg on the eve of the coming WWII.

    And this goal failed utterly as Finland allied with Germany to take back all of that territory. Every inch of territory that had been taken by Russia in the Winter War was used by Finland to passively support the siege of Leningrad by blocking Russian movements to that direction, something that would have been easily avoidable if Russia had offered better terms to Finland before the war (land exchange to move the border would have been fine, military bases next to Helsinki when Russia was training Otto-Wille Kuusinen’s communist cabinet to be Finland’s future leaders? hell no).

    I don’t know what kind of mental gymnastics it requires to claim successful war aims while simultaneously claiming that the war aim was the opposite of what actually happened – if the aim was to gain protection for Leningrad, that failed pretty badly as the territories were used to siege Leningrad instead of protecting it.

  94. @Belarusian Anon
    These pollsters are rarely educated properly in how sample sizes work and such. Don't get your hopes up some imaginary great fifth column exists in Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.

    Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.

    Donbas is now a lot poorer than Ukraine.

    Another for Ukraine not to take it back.

    • Replies: @Belarusian Anon
    In mean, certainly. However in median and range you'll find quite a contrast.

    But I'm glad you agree the Ukrainian gov't should just leave the people there alone.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Another rebuilding project for Russia then, no?
  95. @Anatoly Karlin
    You mean this Paul Ehrlich?

    The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.
     
    I'll give him one thing: He's consistent.

    Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades' https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

    PS. Now that you're here, would you be kind enough to update the RatWiki with my comments on McCain's death? They were good for my brand here.

    Ehrlich responded to these criticisms in 2009. In response to that prediction he points out:

    But, of course, there were famines, essentially continuously in parts of Africa. Perhaps 300 million people overall have died of hunger and hunger-related diseases since 1968.

    So while he wasn’t entirely incorrect, he did exaggerate about famines, many of his other predictions were though completely accurate (e.g. the world population rapidly increased from 3.5 billion in late 1960s to over 7 billion in 2010s). However, the main goal of The Population Bomb has been partially achieved:

    Birthrates [and fertility rates] have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government-sponsored programs in education (especially of women), giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible – and to economic factors… Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved.

    (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2009)

    The goal of The Population Bomb (1968) was to reduce population fertility rates across the world to 1.0 (Ehrlich supports a global one-child policy and after having one child, he had a vasectomy). This hasn’t been achieved yet, but obviously progress has been made if you compare the world total fertility rate in 1960s to 2010s; it has halved from around 5 to 2.5:

    TFR
    1965–1970: 4.92
    2010–2015: 2.52

    And of course in a few countries (Singapore, Spain, Portugal etc.) fertility rates are as low as 1.3.

    People who are ‘red-pilled’ on overpopulation, start with The Population Bomb. I read it around 12 years back. Most people however who understand its main goal and the ecological issues the world faces, become more radical than Ehrlich because even if there was a global one-child policy, the world population would still *increase* until 2050s (or even 2100) and not drop to under 1 billion until 2200s. See the following paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610

    Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100.

    The more draconian fertility reduction to a global one child per woman by 2100 (Scenario 3) resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to ∼7 billion by 2100 (i.e., a return to the 2013 population size) (Fig. 1A). Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 and without improving survival (Scenario 4) resulted in a peak population size of 7.95 billion in 2037, 7.59 billion by 2050, and a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100… Projecting Scenario 3 (worldwide one-child policy by 2100, assuming no further reduction in total fertility thereafter) to 2300, the world population would fall to half of its 2013 size by 2130, and one-quarter by 2158.

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s. Article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Great news. I look forward to environmentalists dying out, ridding our descendants of their defective genes.
    , @Kent Nationalist

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s.

     

    How well is that going with women in Niger?
    , @Mr. XYZ

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s.
     
    That might actually be a terrible strategy since it could ensure that the generations of tomorrow are going to be less environmentally conscious than the generation of today. After all, less people might care about the environment if environmentalists did not spread their genes to subsequent generations.
  96. @Epigon
    Pardon my ignorance, but could you write down the damage inflicted on German armed forces, German industry from September 1st 1939 to April 1st 1940 by UK and France?

    And how exactly do Poland and Grossdeutschland, Drang nach Osten/Lebensraum compute?

    You and a number of other commenters are endorsing the Sovok view that the West was actively hoping for a German-Soviet war which Germany would win. I guess the first step towards encouraging this outcome would have been just letting Germany do what it likes with Poland – either reduce it to a client state (probably after restoring the 1913 border), or outright conquer it.

    By declaring war on Germany (totally counterproductive if they wished for an eastern German campaign), they ensured to divert significant German resources to the West. (Also made sure that Hitler would destroy France first before attacking east. Either he would be successful, which I don’t see how France could’ve wished for, or not, which would’ve precluded a campaign against the USSR altogether.) They also started a naval blockade against Germany which made maritime trade impossible except for trade with Scandinavia. This also reduced the chances of a Soviet campaign being successful.

    I’m not sure how a rational person could believe that Western actions 1933-40 were consistent with a wish for a German-Soviet war.

  97. @German_reader
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/ (Operation Pike).

    That was in 1940 though, when the Soviet Union delivered oil and other strategically important goods to Germany.

    Moreover, it’s the exact opposite of a policy to ensure a German-Soviet war. Actually, it would have pushed them closer to each other.

  98. @anonymous coward

    And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.
     
    There's a lot of dumb hay made about this (including attempts to pull in just-so-story explanations with genetics and DNA), but as far as I can tell, fertility is a simple function of living space.

    Give a family an apartment half again as large, and they'll have another kid.

    Living space per person is far higher in the New World European countries, but fertility rates are not much higher than in Europe itself.

    In Victorian Britain families were living in two-room apartments, sometimes even with extended families, and still having large families.

    The fall in fertility rates is due to many factors:

    • Sexual revolution

    • Contraception and abortion

    • Change in markers of social status for women–mothers are made to feel inferior to career women

    • Increase in single motherhood and miscegenation

    • Divorce, child support, alimony, domestic violence laws, marital “rape” laws, etc.

    • Decline in material standards of living and career prospects for the young

    • More time wasted in “education” (especially for women, but it’s a problem for men too)

    • Helicopter parenting

    • Deteriorating health and vigor in the population at large

    • Massively increased options for entertainment, amusement, and distraction

    • Change in reported ideal family size from four children to two–this merits more investigation as to why it happened

    And there are probably more I haven’t identified. It’s not very mysterious why fertility has fallen. What is mysterious is that no one in charge seems to care, especially since it has already been a problem for a long time.

  99. @Anatoly Karlin
    I find it difficult to summon much passion over very old conspiracy theories (especially when newer, more relevant ones exist).

    But a post quantifying the death toll under Bolshevism is very much on the cards.

    This is a conspiracy theory which is pretty much believed by many (most?) normies. I very often meet Hungarian liberals who believe that. It’s also often promoted by major online media sites.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    There must be an age factor here though, I doubt it's that well known among those of up to 30 years of age who have no real personal memories of politics 20 years ago.
    I agree though that it's an interesting issue, since it's very hard for those of us without intimate knowledge of Russia to evaluate it.
  100. @Oliver D. Smith
    Ehrlich responded to these criticisms in 2009. In response to that prediction he points out:

    But, of course, there were famines, essentially continuously in parts of Africa. Perhaps 300 million people overall have died of hunger and hunger-related diseases since 1968.
     
    So while he wasn't entirely incorrect, he did exaggerate about famines, many of his other predictions were though completely accurate (e.g. the world population rapidly increased from 3.5 billion in late 1960s to over 7 billion in 2010s). However, the main goal of The Population Bomb has been partially achieved:

    Birthrates [and fertility rates] have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government-sponsored programs in education (especially of women), giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible – and to economic factors... Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved.
     
    (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2009)

    The goal of The Population Bomb (1968) was to reduce population fertility rates across the world to 1.0 (Ehrlich supports a global one-child policy and after having one child, he had a vasectomy). This hasn't been achieved yet, but obviously progress has been made if you compare the world total fertility rate in 1960s to 2010s; it has halved from around 5 to 2.5:

    TFR
    1965–1970: 4.92
    2010–2015: 2.52

    And of course in a few countries (Singapore, Spain, Portugal etc.) fertility rates are as low as 1.3.

    People who are 'red-pilled' on overpopulation, start with The Population Bomb. I read it around 12 years back. Most people however who understand its main goal and the ecological issues the world faces, become more radical than Ehrlich because even if there was a global one-child policy, the world population would still *increase* until 2050s (or even 2100) and not drop to under 1 billion until 2200s. See the following paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610


    Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100.
     

    The more draconian fertility reduction to a global one child per woman by 2100 (Scenario 3) resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to ∼7 billion by 2100 (i.e., a return to the 2013 population size) (Fig. 1A). Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 and without improving survival (Scenario 4) resulted in a peak population size of 7.95 billion in 2037, 7.59 billion by 2050, and a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100... Projecting Scenario 3 (worldwide one-child policy by 2100, assuming no further reduction in total fertility thereafter) to 2300, the world population would fall to half of its 2013 size by 2130, and one-quarter by 2158.
     
    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s. Article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

    Great news. I look forward to environmentalists dying out, ridding our descendants of their defective genes.

  101. @reiner Tor
    This is a conspiracy theory which is pretty much believed by many (most?) normies. I very often meet Hungarian liberals who believe that. It’s also often promoted by major online media sites.

    There must be an age factor here though, I doubt it’s that well known among those of up to 30 years of age who have no real personal memories of politics 20 years ago.
    I agree though that it’s an interesting issue, since it’s very hard for those of us without intimate knowledge of Russia to evaluate it.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    A major Hungarian liberal site ran an article on it. I’m pretty sure most people who read it and hate Putin believe it. It was a very convincing article.

    Similarly, around the death of Litvinenko I read several articles about it, since Litvinenko promoted this particular theory.
  102. @Oliver D. Smith
    Ehrlich responded to these criticisms in 2009. In response to that prediction he points out:

    But, of course, there were famines, essentially continuously in parts of Africa. Perhaps 300 million people overall have died of hunger and hunger-related diseases since 1968.
     
    So while he wasn't entirely incorrect, he did exaggerate about famines, many of his other predictions were though completely accurate (e.g. the world population rapidly increased from 3.5 billion in late 1960s to over 7 billion in 2010s). However, the main goal of The Population Bomb has been partially achieved:

    Birthrates [and fertility rates] have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government-sponsored programs in education (especially of women), giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible – and to economic factors... Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved.
     
    (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2009)

    The goal of The Population Bomb (1968) was to reduce population fertility rates across the world to 1.0 (Ehrlich supports a global one-child policy and after having one child, he had a vasectomy). This hasn't been achieved yet, but obviously progress has been made if you compare the world total fertility rate in 1960s to 2010s; it has halved from around 5 to 2.5:

    TFR
    1965–1970: 4.92
    2010–2015: 2.52

    And of course in a few countries (Singapore, Spain, Portugal etc.) fertility rates are as low as 1.3.

    People who are 'red-pilled' on overpopulation, start with The Population Bomb. I read it around 12 years back. Most people however who understand its main goal and the ecological issues the world faces, become more radical than Ehrlich because even if there was a global one-child policy, the world population would still *increase* until 2050s (or even 2100) and not drop to under 1 billion until 2200s. See the following paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610


    Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100.
     

    The more draconian fertility reduction to a global one child per woman by 2100 (Scenario 3) resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to ∼7 billion by 2100 (i.e., a return to the 2013 population size) (Fig. 1A). Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 and without improving survival (Scenario 4) resulted in a peak population size of 7.95 billion in 2037, 7.59 billion by 2050, and a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100... Projecting Scenario 3 (worldwide one-child policy by 2100, assuming no further reduction in total fertility thereafter) to 2300, the world population would fall to half of its 2013 size by 2130, and one-quarter by 2158.
     
    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s. Article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s.

    How well is that going with women in Niger?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    The carbon footprint of one American today is equivalent to that of 150 people in Niger (World Bank, 2014) and a person in the UK produces 70 times the CO2 of someone living in Niger.

    Of course, I support drastically reducing fertility rates in Niger as any other country (including my own, UK), however, it's clear that a person living in Niger is far less ecologically destructive than someone in the Western world i.e. fewer people being born in US/UK has the most immediate and positive impact on our environment ---> so priority should obviously be to focus on reducing birth/fertility rates in the West (but also China, India and Brazil that also have high carbon emissions) rather than Niger.

    Concerning Niger, although it still has a high TFR, note it has fallen from a peak of 7.89 (1983) to 7.24 (2016) and continues to decline. Fertility rates are lower in every single Sub-Saharan African country compared to decades ago (same for globe); there has been a world-wide decrease in TFRs. The problem is these have not decreased as much as in SSA than most other parts of the globe, this is explained by several factors, although I won't bother getting into them.

  103. @German_reader

    This is a clear amalgam in logic
     
    The "amalgam in logic" is with Russians who come up with this revisionist whataboutery ("But Britain and France also made a deal with Hitler, and Poland had also signed a non-aggression pact!") to justify Molotov-Ribbentropp and everything it led to.
    I don't care much about the issue and the way it's used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin's regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn't convincing imo.

    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.

    Russophobia certainly motivates some, but the key rationale is annexophobia or conquestophobia.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong. By the 1930s this false doctrine had taken root in Britain, France, and America. The Axis powers and the Soviet Union held the older, and correct, understanding of the Doctrine of Conquest.

    The idea that the Soviet Union did anything wrong at all in gobbling up the Baltic states, Karelia, Bessarabia, etc. is typical liberal Western religious fanaticism. No different than Greta Thunberg.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The issue is of course that in our little conversation all people agree that conquest (or even foreign influence) of their own land was morally wrong. So those commenters who think Stalin did nothing wrong will tell you how wrong it was that the US managed to get Estonia into NATO, and might even be bitching about Narva being part of Estonia.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    But if you're looking at things from a purely Machiavellian perspective America is doing the perfectly logical thing by promoting the idea that conquest is unethical. Once you've reached the top of the food chain through conquest and become a superpower with a wide gap to your rivals, there are big diminishing returns to conquest and increasing your power through territorial acquisition becomes less of a priority than preventing the emergence of any rival by preventing anyone else from acquiring land, population and resources through conquest.

    Similarly, communists glorified rebellion and revolution until they were in power and then rebellion immediately became an unacceptable form of "counter-revolution". Once you're on top the first priority always is to ensure that no one else can use the same method of climbing to the top.

    Despite all of your idolization of pure rational Machiavellian calculus without moral qualms, it seems like the American elites that you deride are actually simply better than you at it, Mr Thorfinnson.
    , @Kent Nationalist

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong.
     
    Civilised people always believed that naked, unjustified aggression was wrong. They just had a different and more expansive definition of when conquest was justified.
    Roman, Greek and medieval writers will condemn acts of perceived unjustified aggression (obviously in a way that often seems biased to us) and offer justifications for wars based on past wrongs.
  104. @German_reader
    There must be an age factor here though, I doubt it's that well known among those of up to 30 years of age who have no real personal memories of politics 20 years ago.
    I agree though that it's an interesting issue, since it's very hard for those of us without intimate knowledge of Russia to evaluate it.

    A major Hungarian liberal site ran an article on it. I’m pretty sure most people who read it and hate Putin believe it. It was a very convincing article.

    Similarly, around the death of Litvinenko I read several articles about it, since Litvinenko promoted this particular theory.

  105. @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.
     
    Russophobia certainly motivates some, but the key rationale is annexophobia or conquestophobia.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong. By the 1930s this false doctrine had taken root in Britain, France, and America. The Axis powers and the Soviet Union held the older, and correct, understanding of the Doctrine of Conquest.

    The idea that the Soviet Union did anything wrong at all in gobbling up the Baltic states, Karelia, Bessarabia, etc. is typical liberal Western religious fanaticism. No different than Greta Thunberg.

    The issue is of course that in our little conversation all people agree that conquest (or even foreign influence) of their own land was morally wrong. So those commenters who think Stalin did nothing wrong will tell you how wrong it was that the US managed to get Estonia into NATO, and might even be bitching about Narva being part of Estonia.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Anything that harms me is deeply immoral, that much is true.
  106. @Jaakko Raipala

    The war showed poor quality of the red Army, but by the results of the war, this war was definitely successful
     
    You need to get into some pretty ridiculous revisionism over the war goals if you want to pretend that the end result of making Finland a German ally wasn't a strategic own goal. Nothing was gained by Russia in the war for the purposes of the greater conflict as during Operation Barbarossa Finland quickly recaptured the land lost in the Winter War and used all of it in further operations against Russia as an ally of Germany.

    Obviously the only realistic fear Russia has from Finland is whether the territory of Finland is used by some greater power and an alliance with Germany was the least likely of all outcomes considering the pre-war situation where Finland had attempted to gain security guarantees from the West (with no success), attempted to negotiate with Russia and attempted to remain neutral. The alternative outcomes in the case of no Winter War would be

    a) Finland tries to remain neutral. This would be a problem for Germany in the siege of Leningrad and might lead to a German invasion of Finland. How much resistance Finland would produce is a big what if but the potential is there as Germany would have to either stage a landing on the coast or come through roadless Lapland, both of which would be massive defender advantages.

    The military elites of Finland were overwhelmingly Germanic and German-trained and the Finnish civilian government was actually rather worried about their potential pro-German sympathies (that's why they had taken Mannerheim out of retirement - he was the one plausible military leader who wasn't German trained and who would definitely oppose a pro-German military coup). But then, the Reds (and Stalin) were once popular with ethnic Finns so at least communist resistance would be plentiful and highly motivated (and capable) which would massively empower them after a German loss and withdrawal, giving the communists a very high chance of capturing Finland with a coup after the war.

    b) Finland finds an ally in the West. If Finland has security guarantees and Russia invades anyway, that's hard to say and this is the most questionable scenario, but then that is the whole reason why it's extremely unlikely that Britain or France would have given any security guarantees that weren't aimed against Germany. If Russia then decides to skip the invasion, this probably plays out like (a) but with an added chance of Finland in pro-Western hands in the end. Western Allies would at least contribute to anti-German war efforts with air support etc. So this ends up being better for Russia in WWII but not after.

    c) Finnish-Russian negotiations are successful and a land trade is made where Russia gets more land near Leningrad and Finland gets some of the already Finnic-populated land further north in exchange. The willingness was clearly there and Stalin had already proposed this around the time of the revolution ("you can have as much swamp as you like") but the deal should have been made back then as the pre-WWII demands from Russia were too much and Russia did not even gain the unacceptable demands that it had made in the peace that ended the Winter War (no base near Helsinki etc).

    If that deal had been made in 1920, Finland might have almost entirely avoided World War II and ended up genuinely neutral or even pro-Russian during the Cold War (as opposed to swearing "Soviet friendship" while constantly looking for a chance to defect to the Western bloc as happened in the real history).

    There used to be a lot of talk about who screwed up the negotiations with Russia and eg. it used to be a common commie conspiracy theory that the German-sympathizing Swedes and Germans who owned this country intentionally sabotaged the talks so that Russia would attack and then they could then take Finland to the war on the German side and sell the whole thing to the people as recapturing lost territory. However the left has decided that Swedes and Germans are not evil Nazis after all but glorious heroes of multiculturalism so now our academia and media have completely erased all doubt of eternal pure Russian guilt for everything bad that has ever happened.

    The scenario where the Winter War would have been a positive for Russia would be if Finland doesn't resist enough and Russia gets control of the cities before the spring thaw. (There's a bad Western trope of how stupid it is to invade during the winter but it's not - the mud seasons and the swampy roadless terrain mean that winter is the time to move around and whatever gear you commit to an invasion is easily stuck there until the next winter.) Then a communist puppet government could have ensured that Finland doesn't ally with Germany, though if Germany then attacked it would have been the same as in the Baltic states with a lot of people signing up to fight against the communist puppet government and Russia.

    But the actual war is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy - an attempt to make sure that Finland's territories aren't used in an invasion against Russia led to all of those territories being used in a Finnish-German joint invasion of Russia.

    result of making Finland a German ally

    I think Finland would be an ally of Germany anyway. There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia. The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Nothing was gained by Russia in the war

    Except the Karelian isthmus

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.
     
    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.
    , @Jaakko Raipala

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.
     
    By these standards there is also "no doubt" that the Soviet war aim was full ethnic cleansing of Finland. People were shown supposed leaks of Soviet government plans to deport the whole Finnish ethnic group to Siberia, many ethnic Russian dissidents who had formerly worked for Stalin and had defected to the West showed up in Finland to testify about Russia's genocidal plans, Finnish leftists who had returned from the Soviet Union were testifying about (actually real) mass executions of Finns etc.

    People mock Finns who believe Finland to have won the war but a big part of that is that rather many Finns believe the worst about Russia's aims. If you believe that the Russian aim was the elimination of Finns as a national group and you note that Finns still exist after the war, well, then you're going to believe that Finns won and that Russians lost.

    You may think it's ridiculous but it's no more ridiculous than your beliefs of nefarious Finnish grand plans which are very likely based on claims that something published by some random fringe nationalist somewhere were "government policy" or even just the word of Finnish communist exiles who of course made all sorts of made up claims.

    In any case, we have an extremely likely comparison with the Baltic states. Baltic nations weren't wiped out but there was communist mass terror and I think there's approximately zero chance that my landowning ancestors wouldn't have been shot or put in some cattle wagon if Finland had accepted the communist puppet government. Most Finns would have faced less persecution, though Finland would have been turned into a backwards shithole.

    We don't have a similar comparison for what would have happened if Finland won and it's actually tough to say precisely because Finland didn't have any grand plan and offensive war aims had never been widely discussed since most people considered invading Russia a ridiculous idea. Finland's behavior was inconsistent and ineffective in offense due to lack of clear and consistent war aims beyond recapturing lost territories.

    One pretty good bit of evidence that Finland had not expected the war was that the government had made very little investment in military and Finland had essentially no offensive capabilities. This was another reason why the Winter War pushed Finland into German arms - the popular feeling was that since we had done so well when fighting with hunting rifles and no real military, imagine what we could do if we had proper fighters, tanks, artillery?

    The Winter War had everyone convinced that with German gear it would be a quick victory. Russia would surrender and we'd be at a negotiation table and that's when we'd talk about which lands to claim and what is to be done with the populations.

    The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.
     
    Finland did not allow the Germans to use the territory even in real history so what would be different in this scenario? Finland's deal with the Germans was to take the positions that it had had before the Winter War, sit there and do nothing else. No German offensive was allowed to start from that position towards Leningrad so why would it be allowed in some alternative scenario When the siege didn't go as planned the Germans asked for more but Finland refused.

    Finland reached the old border well in time to wait for Germany to show up so Russia gaining the Karelian isthmus in Winter War did not delay the siege of Leningrad.

    Of course, if Germany had some regime that was trusted more than Hitler's, Finland might have allowed them more use of its territory, but then we'd need to have a hypothetical nicer German regime that still wants to start Operation Barbarossa.

    Personally I think it was a foolish decision not to push further on Leningrad and if we had actively co-operated with the Germans we would have properly closed the siege. Since Russia is eternally going to use "defense of St Petersburg" as a supposed reason, we really should have taken the one chance to get rid of that reason. But with hindsight I doubt it would have made the difference to the war - I don't see how Germany would have won even if a meteorite had destroyed Leningrad in early 1941.
  107. @reiner Tor
    The issue is of course that in our little conversation all people agree that conquest (or even foreign influence) of their own land was morally wrong. So those commenters who think Stalin did nothing wrong will tell you how wrong it was that the US managed to get Estonia into NATO, and might even be bitching about Narva being part of Estonia.

    Anything that harms me is deeply immoral, that much is true.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    btw, what's your take on the Mencius Moldbugman thread about Sweden? Sounds like a nightmare in parts, how much of it is true?
  108. @Thorfinnsson
    Anything that harms me is deeply immoral, that much is true.

    btw, what’s your take on the Mencius Moldbugman thread about Sweden? Sounds like a nightmare in parts, how much of it is true?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    It's mostly true, though some of his complaints are typical of Northern Europe (high price levels) or even simply apartment blocks in general (communal laundry). It won't surprise you that wealthier urban dwellers, like my cousins, have in-unit laundry.

    Stifling egalitarianism is more distinctly Scandinavian, though weaker today than it was in the past.

    , @reiner Tor
    I highly doubt that people are taking days off only to do the laundry.

    I’ve seen such communal laundry elsewhere, and it’s nowhere near as nightmarish as is depicted in this thread.

  109. @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.
     
    Russophobia certainly motivates some, but the key rationale is annexophobia or conquestophobia.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong. By the 1930s this false doctrine had taken root in Britain, France, and America. The Axis powers and the Soviet Union held the older, and correct, understanding of the Doctrine of Conquest.

    The idea that the Soviet Union did anything wrong at all in gobbling up the Baltic states, Karelia, Bessarabia, etc. is typical liberal Western religious fanaticism. No different than Greta Thunberg.

    But if you’re looking at things from a purely Machiavellian perspective America is doing the perfectly logical thing by promoting the idea that conquest is unethical. Once you’ve reached the top of the food chain through conquest and become a superpower with a wide gap to your rivals, there are big diminishing returns to conquest and increasing your power through territorial acquisition becomes less of a priority than preventing the emergence of any rival by preventing anyone else from acquiring land, population and resources through conquest.

    Similarly, communists glorified rebellion and revolution until they were in power and then rebellion immediately became an unacceptable form of “counter-revolution”. Once you’re on top the first priority always is to ensure that no one else can use the same method of climbing to the top.

    Despite all of your idolization of pure rational Machiavellian calculus without moral qualms, it seems like the American elites that you deride are actually simply better than you at it, Mr Thorfinnson.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Something can be simultaneously useful and untrue. This was understood at the time and featured heavily in Axis rhetoric against the British.

    I find the ability of most people, elite or not, to sincerely believe in falsehoods to be extremely irritating.

    And it's even more irritating when those falsehoods are against their own self-interest (in this case not, of course, Americans).

    As for my own nation's elites, they've done well at securing their own positions. They're not particularly good at handling the affairs of state.
  110. @German_reader
    btw, what's your take on the Mencius Moldbugman thread about Sweden? Sounds like a nightmare in parts, how much of it is true?

    It’s mostly true, though some of his complaints are typical of Northern Europe (high price levels) or even simply apartment blocks in general (communal laundry). It won’t surprise you that wealthier urban dwellers, like my cousins, have in-unit laundry.

    Stifling egalitarianism is more distinctly Scandinavian, though weaker today than it was in the past.

  111. @Jaakko Raipala
    But if you're looking at things from a purely Machiavellian perspective America is doing the perfectly logical thing by promoting the idea that conquest is unethical. Once you've reached the top of the food chain through conquest and become a superpower with a wide gap to your rivals, there are big diminishing returns to conquest and increasing your power through territorial acquisition becomes less of a priority than preventing the emergence of any rival by preventing anyone else from acquiring land, population and resources through conquest.

    Similarly, communists glorified rebellion and revolution until they were in power and then rebellion immediately became an unacceptable form of "counter-revolution". Once you're on top the first priority always is to ensure that no one else can use the same method of climbing to the top.

    Despite all of your idolization of pure rational Machiavellian calculus without moral qualms, it seems like the American elites that you deride are actually simply better than you at it, Mr Thorfinnson.

    Something can be simultaneously useful and untrue. This was understood at the time and featured heavily in Axis rhetoric against the British.

    I find the ability of most people, elite or not, to sincerely believe in falsehoods to be extremely irritating.

    And it’s even more irritating when those falsehoods are against their own self-interest (in this case not, of course, Americans).

    As for my own nation’s elites, they’ve done well at securing their own positions. They’re not particularly good at handling the affairs of state.

  112. @German_reader
    btw, what's your take on the Mencius Moldbugman thread about Sweden? Sounds like a nightmare in parts, how much of it is true?

    I highly doubt that people are taking days off only to do the laundry.

    I’ve seen such communal laundry elsewhere, and it’s nowhere near as nightmarish as is depicted in this thread.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    German_reader probably has communal laundry based on what he's said of himself.

    Communal laundry is nightmarish when one isn't used to it. Just like any other reduction in convenience--and social status.
  113. @melanf

    result of making Finland a German ally
     
    I think Finland would be an ally of Germany anyway. There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia. The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Nothing was gained by Russia in the war
     
    Except the Karelian isthmus

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.

    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.

    • Replies: @melanf


    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.
     
    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.
     
    In this case, there is no room for doubt, because a huge chunk of northwestern Russia was captured by Finland in 1941 and officially declared part of Finland. The Russian population in these areas ( adults, children, women, men, all without exception) were sent to concentration camps.
    These conquests were the result of plans that existed in Finland long before 41 (and long before the Winter war)
  114. @AP

    ZoIS: New poll of Donetsk/Lugansk on joining Russia, Ukraine, or autonomy within Ukraine
    Supporters of direct incorporation into Russia increase relative to the last poll in 2016.
     
    Yes. It increased from 44.5% to 45.5%.

    However, supporters of integrating these areas back into Ukraine as they were before the war (with no special autonomy) also increased, from 20.6% in 2016 to 23.5% in 2019.

    Support for special autonomy within Ukraine decreased from 35% to 31%.

    Sadly, most of the people living in the Donbas Republics still want to be in Ukraine rather than in Russia (54.5% vs. 45.5%). But they prefer an arrangement that is bad for Ukraine. No thanks.

    Also, the parts of Donbas under Kiev's control have become more pro-Ukrainian than they were before. 65% of people in those parts want no special autonomy for Donbas.

    So, if all of Donbas were integrated and a vote took place in both the Kiev-controlled parts and the Donbas Republics, incorporation into Ukraine with no special autonomy would win a plurality of the votes.

    Sadly, most of the people living in the Donbas Republics still want to be in Ukraine rather than in Russia (54.5% vs. 45.5%). But they prefer an arrangement that is bad for Ukraine. No thanks.

    Why not have Ukraine offer a South Tyrol-style autonomy to the Donbass rebels? That way, they could have autonomy without having veto power over national decisions.

    So, if all of Donbas were integrated and a vote took place in both the Kiev-controlled parts and the Donbas Republics, incorporation into Ukraine with no special autonomy would win a plurality of the votes.

    I wonder if Russophile tendencies in the western Donbass are going to significantly increase in the event that this region will ever be conquered by the Donbass separatists.

  115. @German_reader

    Germany was below replacement fertility already (if I recall) before the 1920s or something like that.
     
    I googled it, and surprisingly enough, you seem to be not totally wrong about that...apparently fertility rates were apparently as low as 1,8 already as early as 1934 (though I suppose that was at least parly due to the Great Depression). But after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s. Decisive change happened in 1965-1975 when the fertility rate dropped to 1,4 in West Germany where it has stayed since then among ethnic German women.
    The real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.

    And West Germany had static population for decades, after a massive fall.
     
    Population is static in numbers only because of massive immigration, well before 2015.

    real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.

    Why should it be a disaster? Falling population does not imply the economy has to collapse – potentially it can imply higher quality of life.

    Labour supply will fall (if unfiltered immigration can be prevented), so it will be upward pressure on wages. This is motivate businesses to increase capital intensity of their production.

    Think about agriculture. It used to require large supplies of labour. And yet today, it requires very little.

    You can already see Germany automobile industry – workers only required for final assembly:

    Whereas in the past, such a factory would need to be full of workers at all stages.

    after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s.

    Although this was among a smaller cohort, as a result of war losses. So we can already assume below replacement of the previous generation?

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Why should it be a disaster?
     
    Do you understand how the German pensions system works? It's based on the working population paying for pensioners. Looked sustainable in the 1950s, with above replacement birth rates (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer - "People will always have children", it was apparently inconceivable for him that birth rates could drop like they eventually did), when pensioners died a few years after entering retirement. Nowadays, given very low birth rates and high life expectancies, not so much.
    The younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers. On top of that, our completely irresponsible government is importing millions of parasitic foreigners who immediately enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc. The likely result is clear: tax burden will increase, if anything, it will be harder for productive younger Germans to have children, and an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.
  116. @Oliver D. Smith
    Ehrlich responded to these criticisms in 2009. In response to that prediction he points out:

    But, of course, there were famines, essentially continuously in parts of Africa. Perhaps 300 million people overall have died of hunger and hunger-related diseases since 1968.
     
    So while he wasn't entirely incorrect, he did exaggerate about famines, many of his other predictions were though completely accurate (e.g. the world population rapidly increased from 3.5 billion in late 1960s to over 7 billion in 2010s). However, the main goal of The Population Bomb has been partially achieved:

    Birthrates [and fertility rates] have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government-sponsored programs in education (especially of women), giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible – and to economic factors... Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved.
     
    (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2009)

    The goal of The Population Bomb (1968) was to reduce population fertility rates across the world to 1.0 (Ehrlich supports a global one-child policy and after having one child, he had a vasectomy). This hasn't been achieved yet, but obviously progress has been made if you compare the world total fertility rate in 1960s to 2010s; it has halved from around 5 to 2.5:

    TFR
    1965–1970: 4.92
    2010–2015: 2.52

    And of course in a few countries (Singapore, Spain, Portugal etc.) fertility rates are as low as 1.3.

    People who are 'red-pilled' on overpopulation, start with The Population Bomb. I read it around 12 years back. Most people however who understand its main goal and the ecological issues the world faces, become more radical than Ehrlich because even if there was a global one-child policy, the world population would still *increase* until 2050s (or even 2100) and not drop to under 1 billion until 2200s. See the following paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610


    Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100.
     

    The more draconian fertility reduction to a global one child per woman by 2100 (Scenario 3) resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to ∼7 billion by 2100 (i.e., a return to the 2013 population size) (Fig. 1A). Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 and without improving survival (Scenario 4) resulted in a peak population size of 7.95 billion in 2037, 7.59 billion by 2050, and a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100... Projecting Scenario 3 (worldwide one-child policy by 2100, assuming no further reduction in total fertility thereafter) to 2300, the world population would fall to half of its 2013 size by 2130, and one-quarter by 2158.
     
    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s. Article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s.

    That might actually be a terrible strategy since it could ensure that the generations of tomorrow are going to be less environmentally conscious than the generation of today. After all, less people might care about the environment if environmentalists did not spread their genes to subsequent generations.

  117. @reiner Tor
    I highly doubt that people are taking days off only to do the laundry.

    I’ve seen such communal laundry elsewhere, and it’s nowhere near as nightmarish as is depicted in this thread.

    German_reader probably has communal laundry based on what he’s said of himself.

    Communal laundry is nightmarish when one isn’t used to it. Just like any other reduction in convenience–and social status.

    • Replies: @Anonymoose
    I read that Moldbugman thread. Is it rue that there are fights over there in communal laundries?
  118. @Mr. Hack

    AP has changed its style for the capital of Ukraine to Kyiv. Glorious accomplishment!

     

    I think that it's high time that our very own AP follow suit. How about it AP, isn't it high time for you too, to make the switch and come out and endorse the approved spelling of KYIV? :-)
    (I know that you're out there reading this).

    Try it, you'll like it!

    I think Kiev is easier and the historical (Ukrainian language) word. I’ll switch over when everyone other than RT does. The time is getting closer, but we are not there yet.

  119. @German_reader

    I went up from ~130 blog posts in 2015/2016, to 262 in 2017, 341 in 2018, and 244 this year to date
     
    Yes, but as you basically admit yourself, there has been very little substantial content this year. Two thirds of 2019 is over and hardly anything announced for 2019 in this thread
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/11-years-of-blogging/
    has actually been written.
    tbh it's hard not to get the impression that you've lost interest in this blog...not that one can complain, it's free content after all and your PhD thesis or whatever it is you're doing is certainly more important than a blog on a fringe website like Unz review which if anything must be something of a career-killer.

    There’s basically two versions of telling the lead up to WW2 centering on either Munich (pro-Russians) or the Non Aggression Pact (pro-Westerners), and the one you favor is ideologically, not historically, determined.
     
    That's kind of missing the point. The Soviet Union isn't criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps. Sure, it's not entirely inappropriate to warn against false equivalencies and point out that this wasn't the same as the Nazi racial terror (which was eventually ended not least by Soviet forces). But there's no equivalence either between Soviet actions and crimes in 1939-1941 and what Britain and France did at Munich.
    That being said, the way how the recent commemorations in Poland were used to link the events of 80 years ago with the current tensions between the West and Russia is certainly very questionable.

    The Soviet Union isn’t criticized so much for the pact itself, but because it proceeded to annex the Baltic states and Eastern Poland (plus the unsuccesful war against Finland) and brought the full range of Bolshevik terror there, with tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands deported to labor camps.

    Would there have been less criticism of the Soviet Union had it still conquered these territories but did not subsequently bring brutality to these territories?

  120. @reiner Tor

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.
     
    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.

    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.

    In this case, there is no room for doubt, because a huge chunk of northwestern Russia was captured by Finland in 1941 and officially declared part of Finland. The Russian population in these areas ( adults, children, women, men, all without exception) were sent to concentration camps.
    These conquests were the result of plans that existed in Finland long before 41 (and long before the Winter war)

    • Replies: @Kerubi
    What plans? What is your evidence? In the 1930s only extreme right wing people had such dreams. But in the late 1930s right wing did not have much influence in Finnish politics. That conquest in 1941 was an improvised opportunistic move based on security concerns. Even leftist historians have not found evidence of some secret planning before 1941.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    Both of my grandfathers were in Petrozavodsk during the war, in rather different duties, and a lot of relatives who could speak Russian worked there with the civilian population. I rather trust their stories, photographs and the documents that they brought back rather than later government propaganda (whether Finnish or Russian).

    In this case, there is no room for doubt, because a huge chunk of northwestern Russia was captured by Finland in 1941 and officially declared part of Finland. The Russian population in these areas ( adults, children, women, men, all without exception) were sent to concentration camps.
     
    Not all Russians. All governments in this war interred ethnic groups related to the enemy to concentration camps as they captured territory and some like America and Russia put even those who had been citizens before the war in camps. Ethnic Finns in Russia were put in concentration camps if they didn't have communist party credentials. Ethnic Russians in Finland were treated just the same as other citizens and were not imprisoned (unless they refused to fight) and Finland is actually rather exceptional in that, though I would say it was mostly because Russians who had sympathies for the Reds had been expelled or killed in the Civil War so the remaining ones were trusted more.

    What these "concentration camps" were in practice was often just a fence built around houses so a lot of Russians spending the war in a "concentration camp" just meant living in the house where they had always lived, the difference is that some Finns had come to build a fence around the group of houses and added some tents, hastily constructed houses etc. People would walk out of the camp in morning to go to work and the guard would check for weapons, propaganda material etc and the same when returning. It was anti-partisan control that was always to be temporary for the duration of the war.

    However there were some bizarre "supremacist" aspects of the military government, like rules that Karelians and Vepsians were paid more for the same job than an ethnic Russian laborer. This was apparently supposed to convince the locals that joining the Finnish cause would be a way out of oppression and a chance to be masters over Russians instead, however according to my grandfather this mostly left the locals baffled. Atheist Bolsheviks were hated by many and a lot of locals joined Finnish forces out of anti-communism but local Karelians did not feel oppressed by their Russian neighbor.

    After Petrozavodsk had been taken (not a major fight) regular military was moved out and a selected set of soldiers with language skills was left in charge. My grandfather was assigned for this as he was an easterner who could understand the locals better, spoke Russian, were familiar with eastern culture and passed the background checks for a solidly right-wing family. This was a privileged position where you could go to dances with local women instead of sitting in trenches and seeing friends blown up and my grandfather very much liked talking about this part of the war...

    The locals had been given lots of scare propaganda about Finnish soldiers so they hid in fear at first but the plan of using soldiers with language and cultural knowledge worked to get things working smoothly and many aspects of the military government like no more repression of religion were viewed positively. One of those horrible "concentration camps" which was actually just a fence around a part of Petrozavodsk was set aside for suspected partisans and no, not all Russians were immediately put in there as there were enough people with language skills so that people could be interviewed and investigated.

    Finnish intellectuals, teachers, doctors etc with progressive views were brought in with ideas of improving the conditions of the locals. Their ideology was more "colonialist" than "nationalist" in that while Orthodox Karelians, Vepsians and Russians were of course seen to be at a lower level of development it was to be our "white man's burden" to bring civilized government to these people and build up health care, education and industry. Finns were to be a European people and of course a European people needs a colonial project.

    However things ended up going sour as the expected quick German victory did not materialize and it turned into a long war that drained resources to the point where it was getting hard to feed soldiers. Fancy projects were canceled and there were not enough men with language skills to keep investigating suspected partisans so the policy just ended up becoming the internment of ethnic Russians. Partisan attacks succeeded in creating the cycle of soldiers on edge and looking out for partisans creating more partisans, creating the need for more harsh measures, creating more partisans etc. In the end conditions got nasty.

    At withdrawal, surprisingly many people begged to be taken to Finland as even those evil Finnish camps had seemed like a more promising life to many than Stalinist Russia. (Those Karelians and Vepsians who fought on the Finnish side of course wanted to come rather than face punishments but Finland immediately betrayed them, definitely the most embarrassing part of the history.) This was not officially supported but it was a mess where orders weren't followed and soldiers often did random things, some bad, some good, assuming of course that you agree that helping Russian families escape Stalinist Russia was a good thing (maybe you don't).

    There is a whole class of people of Russian roots who mysteriously gained Finnish papers in the 1940s - people from those horrible camps who managed to escape to Finland in the wake of the withdrawal and somehow avoided radar as Finland started collaborating with Stalin and hunting down Soviet citizens to be sent back. Perhaps the biggest anti-Russian policy of the Finnish government was forcing many Russians to return to Russia at the end of the war...
  121. @Dmitry

    real disaster will happen in a few years when the baby boomers retire.
     
    Why should it be a disaster? Falling population does not imply the economy has to collapse - potentially it can imply higher quality of life.

    Labour supply will fall (if unfiltered immigration can be prevented), so it will be upward pressure on wages. This is motivate businesses to increase capital intensity of their production.

    Think about agriculture. It used to require large supplies of labour. And yet today, it requires very little.

    You can already see Germany automobile industry - workers only required for final assembly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VreG1iC65Lc

    Whereas in the past, such a factory would need to be full of workers at all stages.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjosy20l_A


    after WW2 they rose to 2,5 in West Germany until the mid-1960s.

     

    Although this was among a smaller cohort, as a result of war losses. So we can already assume below replacement of the previous generation?

    Why should it be a disaster?

    Do you understand how the German pensions system works? It’s based on the working population paying for pensioners. Looked sustainable in the 1950s, with above replacement birth rates (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer – “People will always have children”, it was apparently inconceivable for him that birth rates could drop like they eventually did), when pensioners died a few years after entering retirement. Nowadays, given very low birth rates and high life expectancies, not so much.
    The younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers. On top of that, our completely irresponsible government is importing millions of parasitic foreigners who immediately enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc. The likely result is clear: tax burden will increase, if anything, it will be harder for productive younger Germans to have children, and an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer – “People will always have children”
     
    People will always have children. But not necessarily 2 children (very often 1 child). Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s, so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway - actual birthrates were not high).

    https://i.imgur.com/SjwdJNr.jpg


    younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers.

     

    Sure, this is the problem of increasing dependency ratio.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany, I don't see why they cannot manage a higher dependency ratio.


    enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc.

     

    Well here is the problem.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies. There should be rejection of the assumption that population has expand by any means necessary.


    an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.
     
    What kind of countries do you think they would emigrate to? I guess UK, Austria or Switzerland?
  122. @Thorfinnsson

    I don’t care much about the issue and the way it’s used by the current Polish government and American hegemonists like Pence to bash contemporary Russia is certainly dubious, but insinuating that a negative view of what Stalin’s regime did in 1939-1941 is somehow merely due to Russophobia isn’t convincing imo.
     
    Russophobia certainly motivates some, but the key rationale is annexophobia or conquestophobia.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong. By the 1930s this false doctrine had taken root in Britain, France, and America. The Axis powers and the Soviet Union held the older, and correct, understanding of the Doctrine of Conquest.

    The idea that the Soviet Union did anything wrong at all in gobbling up the Baltic states, Karelia, Bessarabia, etc. is typical liberal Western religious fanaticism. No different than Greta Thunberg.

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong.

    Civilised people always believed that naked, unjustified aggression was wrong. They just had a different and more expansive definition of when conquest was justified.
    Roman, Greek and medieval writers will condemn acts of perceived unjustified aggression (obviously in a way that often seems biased to us) and offer justifications for wars based on past wrongs.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I find it amusing that even the Nazis felt it necessary to stage a false flag attack to justify their invasion of Poland (though there were also real anti-German atrocities in Poland).

    As for justifying wars based on past wrongs, amusingly the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 16th century was justified on the basis that the Koreans had assisted the failed Mongol assault on Japan--more than three centuries prior.

    My take is that humans are tribal and compete for resources and that's that.

    The position that war in cases other than self-defense is always wrong is a respectable one, but clearly not believed by today's cruise missile left. Instead they suggest we go to war because the Assman is allegedly a really bad dude.

    As a result is we get the costs of war without the benefits.
  123. @reiner Tor

    a crypto-ethnonationalist (which is what really all the Sovoks of every other non Russian ethno-racial/religious group were)
     
    I’m not sure where you get this. It was true of some Sovoks, both Russians and non-Russians, but for example Hungarian Sovoks were notably non-nationalists.

    The internal borders of the former USSR, like the former Yugoslavia, were complete garbage rigged against ethnic Russians and Serbs respectively.
     
    I’m not sure about Yugoslavia, but in the case of Russia it was certainly true that they promoted the Russian language throughout the country and also managed to get ethnic Russians into all corners of the USSR. The Hungarian minority in Ukraine certainly learned more Russian than Ukrainian until the 1990s, which caused them problems later on.

    maybe the Russians could’ve sorted out the USSR’s internal borders much more favorably and then dissolved the USSR with those better borders
     
    Sovoks never thought their empire would dissolve, nor did they think anything coming after them would be good. So thinking about what would be beneficial for Russians after the dissolution of the USSR was something like thinking about what would be good after losing ww3.

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.

    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991. If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus. If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991.
     
    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland--though I completely agree that pro-Russian forces had no chance to actually come to power in Ukraine without Crimea and the Donbass--especially in the 21st century.

    If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus.
     
    Yep.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.
     
    I'm not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they're told to, no? Plus, Ukraine's elite would have still wanted to loot the country, would it not have?

    I do agree that another Belarus is likely here as well, though.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.
     
    They should have also aimed to encourage more Russian migration into the other SSRs.
    , @Mikel

    If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus.
     
    Not really. Belarus is a very homogeneous country, there are hardly any East-West or North-South differences. And perhaps more importantly, its population has a remarkably pragmatic and down to earth attitude, especially compared to their neighbor to the South.

    I have never met any Belarusian who expressed much sympathy for their leader Lukashenko but none of them seemed to hate him too much either and some even declared that he's done some good things. People just can't be bothered to go to the streets and try to change a regime that is not so bad after all. They have more practical things to do with their lives.

    On the other hand, everybody seems to understand Belarusian but nobody speaks it in daily life situations. I was even told that the few who try to do that are mocked and laughed at.

    So, basically, a day-and-night comparison with Ukraine. It is not very surprising that Belarusians have enjoyed a much more peaceful transition to post-Communism while achieving more than twice the Ukrainian per-capita GDP without joining the EU and all that comes with it.
    , @Gerard2

    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991
     
    .

    HAHAHAHAHA!!..You do know that in that idiotic scenario, ALL the major industries in Ukraine would still be in the Russian cities of Ukraine? Kiev in the culture scene would still be looking Moscow, UK and America for everything in this regard you idiot.

    That is why , even now, all the main faces in business, the judiciary, sport, entertainment and of course...politics are from Novorossiya/Kiev you dumb maggot. A gazillion people not from Donbass/Crimea have moved from Ukropia to Russia after 1991 you stupid dipshit. What's most loaded is the retarded maggot term "loaded" when the only source of Khokholism is State Department, Soros, OUN scum from Canada.......and the actually "loaded" on Galicia and other parts of the west..which have no real claim to the already fake idea of "Ukraine". Even now, there have probably been more people from western Ukraine who have been successful in RUSSIAN politics/business than in Banderastan at all!! What a pathetic farce

    Ukraine without the Soros funded Galicia and liberasts in Kiev , is & was and will be a complete extension of Russia.


    Poland’s geopolitical path
     
    FFS Polands "geopolitical path" is just an inept useless state or average income , being neighbors with wealthy Germany, having the luck of the Soviet Union that gifted it intercompatible industries/business with the former GDR area that was also getting heavily subsidisied from the west at the same time. On it's own it is just an exporter of human trafficking and violent crime into western Europe you dumb POS (with the occasional communist educated doctor and female tennis player)........inept useless state that it is . It can't even provide any meaningful boost to the struggling Catholic Priesthood in the Western European states...but drug dealing lowlifes this "Catholic " country can
  124. @anonymous coward

    And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.
     
    There's a lot of dumb hay made about this (including attempts to pull in just-so-story explanations with genetics and DNA), but as far as I can tell, fertility is a simple function of living space.

    Give a family an apartment half again as large, and they'll have another kid.

    If living space is determinant, why does Gaza have 4,5 children per women, while in Canada 1,6 children per women?

    Or about apartments – look at demographic transition in the USSR. Collapse continued at the same time, housing supply is greatly improved. There is fall from 1960-1980, from 2,6 to around 1,9. At the same time, the housing situation of the population was improving (across 1960-1980).

    • Replies: @AP
    You do realize he is wrong about 99% of the time?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    IMHO, Gaza should be allowed to expand into the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. After all, it's not like Egypt is actually making good use of this territory right now.

    In the US, we say "California Dreaming!"; in Gaza, they should say "Sinai Dreaming!"
  125. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Very true, but much of this is just that border disputes give Europeans the jitters since they have a history of leading to war.

     

    True. Still, Europeans do not care about resolving border disputes in good faith through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. This is why it's peak hypocrisy for Europeans to whine how it's "so terrible" that there's war in, say, the Ukraine, when with the USA in the 1990's they were very eager to dissolve the USSR on those same Sovok borders which are a large part of the cause for conflict now and in the future.

    Of course, I mean European elites, because most average Europeans are too busy globo-homoing themselves out of existence to truly care about border disputes in Europe ...

    Still, Europeans do not care about resolving border disputes in good faith through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. This is why it’s peak hypocrisy for Europeans to whine how it’s “so terrible” that there’s war in, say, the Ukraine, when with the USA in the 1990’s they were very eager to dissolve the USSR on those same Sovok borders which are a large part of the cause for conflict now and in the future.

    This is the crux of the matter, I think. And part of why that good faith isn’t there is that the EU is itself an empire — just an especially self-deluded one, which makes it sometimes hard to tell the rhetoric from the reality. Michael Anton:

    While traditional empires may have gone out of fashion, globalization has taken its place as the imperialism of our time. Globalization represents an attempt to do through peaceful means—the creation of transnational institutions, the erosion of borders, and the homogenization of intellectual, cultural, and economic products—what the Romans (and Cyrus and others) achieved through arms.

    No surprise, then, that globalization and imperialism suffer from the same flaws. Like the latter, the former is also hubristic and prone to overreach. It also erodes and even subverts and attacks liberty. It requires centralization.

    Globalization also has the same stifling impact on ideas, and for the same reasons, that Machiavelli diagnosed as a problem with imperialism 500 years ago. Globalization reduces differences in thought in any number of ways: through media consolidation, for example, or through the homogenization of the elite—who these days all seem to come from the same background, attend the same schools, and go to the same conferences. The champions of globalization also aren’t above stooping to outright censorship and coercion when threatened. Indeed, this impulse is perhaps the most important root of political correctness.

    Defenders of globalization will respond that whereas imperialism—globalization by conquest—amounts to theft and enslavement and is inherently violent, today’s globalization is voluntary.

    But is it really? It certainly doesn’t feel that way to the people all over the world who have seen their culture, traditions, communities, and economies disappear before their eyes. And this transformation has been voluntary only in the sense that it has been undertaken with the full approval of the elite. As for the common folk, not so much.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/20/the-trump-doctrine-big-think-america-first-nationalism/

  126. @Kent Nationalist

    For some strange reason, around a century ago people developed the incorrect idea that conquest was somehow morally wrong.
     
    Civilised people always believed that naked, unjustified aggression was wrong. They just had a different and more expansive definition of when conquest was justified.
    Roman, Greek and medieval writers will condemn acts of perceived unjustified aggression (obviously in a way that often seems biased to us) and offer justifications for wars based on past wrongs.

    I find it amusing that even the Nazis felt it necessary to stage a false flag attack to justify their invasion of Poland (though there were also real anti-German atrocities in Poland).

    As for justifying wars based on past wrongs, amusingly the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 16th century was justified on the basis that the Koreans had assisted the failed Mongol assault on Japan–more than three centuries prior.

    My take is that humans are tribal and compete for resources and that’s that.

    The position that war in cases other than self-defense is always wrong is a respectable one, but clearly not believed by today’s cruise missile left. Instead they suggest we go to war because the Assman is allegedly a really bad dude.

    As a result is we get the costs of war without the benefits.

  127. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Why this obsession with Narva? The place is a total hellhole.

     

    Narva is only the most valuable thing on the Russian-Estonian border in that area. I personally don't really care about Narva. Honestly, I'm starting to think that border and territory disputes are pointless to aggressively pursue for any ethno-national/religious group unless their demographic performance is good. That is, if a given group happens to have a birth rate above 2.1 children per women, the replacement rate, of course, only then can they securely push for retaking rightful land or stealing territory from others as only then would they truly have the vital energy needed for such ventures.

    Narva is only the most valuable thing on the Russian-Estonian border in that area. I personally don’t really care about Narva.

    Yes, but its only value I can see is its people (some 50,000 ethnic Russians — cashiers greet you in Russian there even though you are technically in the EU state of Estonia). Soviet artillery basically leveled the old Narva with the ground, so the whole town is one gigantic commieblock.

  128. @German_reader

    Why should it be a disaster?
     
    Do you understand how the German pensions system works? It's based on the working population paying for pensioners. Looked sustainable in the 1950s, with above replacement birth rates (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer - "People will always have children", it was apparently inconceivable for him that birth rates could drop like they eventually did), when pensioners died a few years after entering retirement. Nowadays, given very low birth rates and high life expectancies, not so much.
    The younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers. On top of that, our completely irresponsible government is importing millions of parasitic foreigners who immediately enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc. The likely result is clear: tax burden will increase, if anything, it will be harder for productive younger Germans to have children, and an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.

    (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer – “People will always have children”

    People will always have children. But not necessarily 2 children (very often 1 child). Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s, so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway – actual birthrates were not high).

    younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers.

    Sure, this is the problem of increasing dependency ratio.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany, I don’t see why they cannot manage a higher dependency ratio.

    enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc.

    Well here is the problem.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies. There should be rejection of the assumption that population has expand by any means necessary.

    an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.

    What kind of countries do you think they would emigrate to? I guess UK, Austria or Switzerland?

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    , so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway – actual birthrates were not high).

     

    Here - even with a higher fertility rate in the 1950s, the birthrate in West Germany only has slight and temporary recovery.

    https://i.imgur.com/0why7Ha.jpg

    , @German_reader

    Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s
     
    I'm not sure the graph you've provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks like the world wars or the Great Depression...of course there's a long-term downwards trend, but the change to permanently below replacement levels only comes after the mid-1960s.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany
     
    Question is how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties, in their quest to take up the Greens' agenda, seem likely to promote policies which will wreck the German car industry. Once that has been accomplished, German economic strength will be irrevocerably gone.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies.
     
    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we're next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won't be a happy ending to this.
  129. @reiner Tor

    the West desperately wishing for a German-Soviet war. Most in the West also expected and wanted Germany to win.
     
    Then why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?

    One would think these actions significantly reduced the chances of a German-Soviet war happening, at least before Hitler destroyed France.

    …why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?

    UK-France declared a ‘war’ and didn’t fight it, they sat on their hands. If France-UK invaded into Rhineland in September 1939 – as Poles thought they would – the war would be very different. They didn’t for a reason: West wanted to facilitate Germany’s war towards the east, if it meant sacrificing Poland, Czechoslovakia, so be it.

    The guarantee to Poland was a piece of paper, issued in April 1939 by UK (France less so, they had contingencies attached). It deceived Poland into thinking they were a part of ‘Western world’, it amounted to nothing. One can suspect that in a cynical way giving fake guarantees to the hapless Poles was a way to stir it up and make sure that Germany and Poland ended up in a war, Germany ends victorious on Russia’s borders and the desired war to death in the east takes place. Except they thought Germany would be all the way deep into Belarus-Ukraine or ‘eastern Poland’ at that time. So they would a few hundred kilometres from Moscow. That part didn’t work because Stalin outplayed them on the last minute.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move, it changed the situation dramatically and it literally saved millions of eastern Europeans (Poles!) from eventual extinction.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    What exactly would have been the British and French interest in Germany conquering the Soviet Union? That would have made German autarky against any attempts of blockade possible and all but ensured German hegemony in Europe...and Britain and France had fought a horrible war just 20 years before to prevent exactly that.
    From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn't come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.
    , @Kent Nationalist

    They didn’t for a reason
     
    Or they were just bluffing and expected Hitler to be put off, just as Hitler expected them not to follow through
    , @Thorfinnsson
    While it is true that the Entente made false promises to the Poles, the idea that the intent was to facilitate a German-Soviet war is ridiculous. If that was the case Britain could've joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could've gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).

    The Entente believed, not entirely without reason, that the German armed forces were stronger than their own in the fall of 1939. The Germans had been successfully exaggerating their military strength for years.

    Entente leadership had been scarred by the Great War, and they were determined to avoid another Passchendaele or Verdun. British officers display reticence in the offensive for the entire war as a result, and unlike in 1914 no one in the French Army was keen to go on the offensive.

    What the Entente was confident of was its economic superiority, and therefore planned to use this economic superiority to build up sufficient forces to go on the offensive in 1941. Much as in the Great War, there were also the usual Entente plans to strike Germany's economic power by attacking the periphery. Seizing the Swedish iron mines, bombing the Soviet oil fields, exerting British financial and political influence in the Balkans, and so forth.

    Poland, incidentally, was expected by Entente military planners to hold out for at least three months. This sounds ridiculous to us today, but was reasonably based on the experience of cracking small countries in the Great War. Serbia and Rumania were both tough nuts to crack in that war.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move...for Germany.

  130. @Thorfinnsson
    German_reader probably has communal laundry based on what he's said of himself.

    Communal laundry is nightmarish when one isn't used to it. Just like any other reduction in convenience--and social status.

    I read that Moldbugman thread. Is it rue that there are fights over there in communal laundries?

  131. @Dmitry

    (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer – “People will always have children”
     
    People will always have children. But not necessarily 2 children (very often 1 child). Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s, so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway - actual birthrates were not high).

    https://i.imgur.com/SjwdJNr.jpg


    younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers.

     

    Sure, this is the problem of increasing dependency ratio.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany, I don't see why they cannot manage a higher dependency ratio.


    enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc.

     

    Well here is the problem.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies. There should be rejection of the assumption that population has expand by any means necessary.


    an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.
     
    What kind of countries do you think they would emigrate to? I guess UK, Austria or Switzerland?

    , so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway – actual birthrates were not high).

    Here – even with a higher fertility rate in the 1950s, the birthrate in West Germany only has slight and temporary recovery.

  132. @Dmitry
    If living space is determinant, why does Gaza have 4,5 children per women, while in Canada 1,6 children per women?

    Or about apartments - look at demographic transition in the USSR. Collapse continued at the same time, housing supply is greatly improved. There is fall from 1960-1980, from 2,6 to around 1,9. At the same time, the housing situation of the population was improving (across 1960-1980).

    You do realize he is wrong about 99% of the time?

  133. @Dmitry

    (Adenauer is alleged to have said Kinder kriegen die Leute immer – “People will always have children”
     
    People will always have children. But not necessarily 2 children (very often 1 child). Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s, so his comments were not reasonable even for the 1950s (when the higher fertility rate was for a smaller cohort anyway - actual birthrates were not high).

    https://i.imgur.com/SjwdJNr.jpg


    younger generations of productive Germans will be crushed by the financial burden of having to provide for the boomers.

     

    Sure, this is the problem of increasing dependency ratio.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany, I don't see why they cannot manage a higher dependency ratio.


    enter the welfare system and destroy all the potential benefits of an ageing society like increased availability of housing, less crime etc.

     

    Well here is the problem.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies. There should be rejection of the assumption that population has expand by any means necessary.


    an increasing number will flee the country for greener pastures.
     
    What kind of countries do you think they would emigrate to? I guess UK, Austria or Switzerland?

    Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s

    I’m not sure the graph you’ve provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks like the world wars or the Great Depression…of course there’s a long-term downwards trend, but the change to permanently below replacement levels only comes after the mid-1960s.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany

    Question is how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties, in their quest to take up the Greens’ agenda, seem likely to promote policies which will wreck the German car industry. Once that has been accomplished, German economic strength will be irrevocerably gone.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies.

    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we’re next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won’t be a happy ending to this.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I’m not sure the graph you’ve provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks

     

    Total period fertility rate is not very clear. But if look at cohort fertility rate.

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1920s, were already below replacement rate.

    Biological "fertility window" for a woman born around in 1900-1910, was from around 1915-1940.

    So there was a generation of women who were just below replacement fertility in Germany whose "fertile window" was the 1920s-1930s

    Young women of 1920s and 1930s Germany, were slightly below replacement fertility.

    https://i.imgur.com/e7JHMIS.jpg


    how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic
     
    I'm not an economist. But it is believed that some indicators like economic complexity can predict how resilient and diversified an economy is.

    So if we look at economic complexity - Germany is supposedly the third highest country in terms of economic complexity, after Japan and Switzerland.

    https://i.imgur.com/NqLyULj.jpg


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


    because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties,
     
    To stop coal is sensible IMO - it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.

    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we’re next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won’t be a happy ending to this.
     
    But look at Germany's geography, for example.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.

    In order to reach Germany, every immigrant has to cross other countries, in which they were already safe.

    Yet according to 1951 Refugee Convention, the refugee has to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

    So in theory, Germany has no legal obligation to accept immigrants on that basis. It's a question of voluntarily how many immigrants the government wants to accept.

  134. @Dmitry

    increased fertility is to stimulate it first through tax reduction to BOTH parents (family

     

    It's like "increasing dose of Vitamin C will result in higher life expectancy".

    It seems sensible in the mind. But when we look at evidence in the real whether it actually has an effect in the real population - it is lacking that it changes the rates. (Or usually only changes the timing, but with no effect on eventual rates).


    of the state to promote as high as possible fertility rates.
     
    Most governments of the lowest fertility countries believe this idea. And pro-natalist policies are mainstream in many countries. But state incentives do not seem to have much effect.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).


    true path to high fertility is through ideological and cultural reshaping.
     
    It will happen with artificial wombs.

    But problem in Europe is not low fertility.

    Problem is an issue with unfiltered immigration, together with various other problems. Two topics can be related to some extent, but they shouldn't be.

    I know people say France, Norway or Sweden are an example of successful government increase of birthrates. But I have read mixed things about this claim (some people say a lot of their higher birthrates in those countries are from recent immigrants).

    Swedish birthrates are way overhyped. For one thing, our TFR has only exceeded 2.1 twice since 1967 (in 1990 and 1991), and for another, it’s still unclear, as you point out, how far our somewhat higher TFR than the Western average can be put down to ethnic Swedish birthrates. Most figures I have seen would suggest an ethnic Swedish TFR of 0.2-0.3 lower than the total Swedish TFR, which is not very impressive.

  135. @Beckow

    ...why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?
     
    UK-France declared a 'war' and didn't fight it, they sat on their hands. If France-UK invaded into Rhineland in September 1939 - as Poles thought they would - the war would be very different. They didn't for a reason: West wanted to facilitate Germany's war towards the east, if it meant sacrificing Poland, Czechoslovakia, so be it.

    The guarantee to Poland was a piece of paper, issued in April 1939 by UK (France less so, they had contingencies attached). It deceived Poland into thinking they were a part of 'Western world', it amounted to nothing. One can suspect that in a cynical way giving fake guarantees to the hapless Poles was a way to stir it up and make sure that Germany and Poland ended up in a war, Germany ends victorious on Russia's borders and the desired war to death in the east takes place. Except they thought Germany would be all the way deep into Belarus-Ukraine or 'eastern Poland' at that time. So they would a few hundred kilometres from Moscow. That part didn't work because Stalin outplayed them on the last minute.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move, it changed the situation dramatically and it literally saved millions of eastern Europeans (Poles!) from eventual extinction.

    What exactly would have been the British and French interest in Germany conquering the Soviet Union? That would have made German autarky against any attempts of blockade possible and all but ensured German hegemony in Europe…and Britain and France had fought a horrible war just 20 years before to prevent exactly that.
    From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn’t come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    UK-France interest was in a war between Germany and Russia to exhaust both. Secondary interest was in directing German post-WWI revanche towards the east - go east Nazis and find your lebensraum, just leave the West alone.

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany. London saw Nazis as an aberration that could be corrected, but Germany as an ok ally. Russia is a permanent, eternal enemy of Britain - at least that's the way British elite sees it. I doubt that will ever change.

    ...From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn’t come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.
     
    Britain believed that with American help they can sneak in a few months before the end of the war, have Germans basically give up on the Western front, and take over most of Europe since Russia was too exhausted and too far to the east. Actually, it kind of worked that way.
  136. @Beckow

    ...why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?
     
    UK-France declared a 'war' and didn't fight it, they sat on their hands. If France-UK invaded into Rhineland in September 1939 - as Poles thought they would - the war would be very different. They didn't for a reason: West wanted to facilitate Germany's war towards the east, if it meant sacrificing Poland, Czechoslovakia, so be it.

    The guarantee to Poland was a piece of paper, issued in April 1939 by UK (France less so, they had contingencies attached). It deceived Poland into thinking they were a part of 'Western world', it amounted to nothing. One can suspect that in a cynical way giving fake guarantees to the hapless Poles was a way to stir it up and make sure that Germany and Poland ended up in a war, Germany ends victorious on Russia's borders and the desired war to death in the east takes place. Except they thought Germany would be all the way deep into Belarus-Ukraine or 'eastern Poland' at that time. So they would a few hundred kilometres from Moscow. That part didn't work because Stalin outplayed them on the last minute.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move, it changed the situation dramatically and it literally saved millions of eastern Europeans (Poles!) from eventual extinction.

    They didn’t for a reason

    Or they were just bluffing and expected Hitler to be put off, just as Hitler expected them not to follow through

  137. @Beckow

    ...why did they issue a unilateral guarantee to Poland, and why did they declare war on Germany after it attacked Poland?
     
    UK-France declared a 'war' and didn't fight it, they sat on their hands. If France-UK invaded into Rhineland in September 1939 - as Poles thought they would - the war would be very different. They didn't for a reason: West wanted to facilitate Germany's war towards the east, if it meant sacrificing Poland, Czechoslovakia, so be it.

    The guarantee to Poland was a piece of paper, issued in April 1939 by UK (France less so, they had contingencies attached). It deceived Poland into thinking they were a part of 'Western world', it amounted to nothing. One can suspect that in a cynical way giving fake guarantees to the hapless Poles was a way to stir it up and make sure that Germany and Poland ended up in a war, Germany ends victorious on Russia's borders and the desired war to death in the east takes place. Except they thought Germany would be all the way deep into Belarus-Ukraine or 'eastern Poland' at that time. So they would a few hundred kilometres from Moscow. That part didn't work because Stalin outplayed them on the last minute.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move, it changed the situation dramatically and it literally saved millions of eastern Europeans (Poles!) from eventual extinction.

    While it is true that the Entente made false promises to the Poles, the idea that the intent was to facilitate a German-Soviet war is ridiculous. If that was the case Britain could’ve joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could’ve gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).

    The Entente believed, not entirely without reason, that the German armed forces were stronger than their own in the fall of 1939. The Germans had been successfully exaggerating their military strength for years.

    Entente leadership had been scarred by the Great War, and they were determined to avoid another Passchendaele or Verdun. British officers display reticence in the offensive for the entire war as a result, and unlike in 1914 no one in the French Army was keen to go on the offensive.

    What the Entente was confident of was its economic superiority, and therefore planned to use this economic superiority to build up sufficient forces to go on the offensive in 1941. Much as in the Great War, there were also the usual Entente plans to strike Germany’s economic power by attacking the periphery. Seizing the Swedish iron mines, bombing the Soviet oil fields, exerting British financial and political influence in the Balkans, and so forth.

    Poland, incidentally, was expected by Entente military planners to hold out for at least three months. This sounds ridiculous to us today, but was reasonably based on the experience of cracking small countries in the Great War. Serbia and Rumania were both tough nuts to crack in that war.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move…for Germany.

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    If that was the case Britain could’ve joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could’ve gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).
     
    Brits wanted both sides to lose, Germany and the Soviet Union, hence no joining of ACP or what the USSR proposed.
    Of course, the unexpectedly weak military performance of certain countries after M-R made them change their plans.
    , @Beckow

    ...Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move…for Germany.
     
    Well, no, after all Germany lost the war in a rather catastrophic way and they have never recovered from it. It is hard to argue that Germany made great moves when they ended up losing so badly. Winning matters.

    Here is the list of losses for Germany from R-M Pact:
    - Russia got enormous strategic depth that resulted in Barbarossa running out of steam before they reached Moscow/St. Petersburg
    - Germany burned bridges with their Anglo sympathisers
    - Japan was betrayed by Germany - they were in the middle of a war in Mongolia with Russia that they lost. This led directly to Japan unwilling to join Germany in 1941 - and that was catastrophic for German chances, no second front for Russia in the east.

    If there was no M-R Pact and Germany attacked Poland, they would still win decisively and also take over eastern Poland (or most of it). They would be at the top of the world and a few hundred kilometres from Moscow, Kiev, St. Petersburg. Russia would be surrounded by enemies - from Finland to Romania all potential allies of Germany. UK-France would sit on the sidelines and find some ethnic excuse to justify Germany liberating somebody in the east, maybe Ukrainians. Germany would most likely prevail. M-R Pact turned that around - Hitler got played because he was unsure of himself and couldn't quite trust that UK-France will only declare a phoney war and do nothing. They did and I am pretty sure by the end of 1939 Hitler knew that he made a mistake. M-R decided the war, it was brilliant on part of Stalin to shift the chess game so dramatically.

    Britain is always deceptive, that's the only way they do anything - in other words, their geo-politics is based on lying and they are rather proud of it. The other idea that Britain would openly show its aims by joinig Nazi Germany in an Anti-Comintern pact is naive. There was the Jewish issue (bad publicity), there was the left in Western Europe issue (not eager to fight the first 'socialist' country).

    No matter how you cut it, Stalin was a savvy (or lucky) player in WWII. That's why Russia won.
  138. @German_reader

    Germany was already below replacement level of fertility in the 1930s
     
    I'm not sure the graph you've provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks like the world wars or the Great Depression...of course there's a long-term downwards trend, but the change to permanently below replacement levels only comes after the mid-1960s.

    But with an economy as deeply strong as Germany
     
    Question is how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties, in their quest to take up the Greens' agenda, seem likely to promote policies which will wreck the German car industry. Once that has been accomplished, German economic strength will be irrevocerably gone.

    Falling or static population, should not have implied open immigration policies.
     
    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we're next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won't be a happy ending to this.

    I’m not sure the graph you’ve provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks

    Total period fertility rate is not very clear. But if look at cohort fertility rate.

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1920s, were already below replacement rate.

    Biological “fertility window” for a woman born around in 1900-1910, was from around 1915-1940.

    So there was a generation of women who were just below replacement fertility in Germany whose “fertile window” was the 1920s-1930s

    Young women of 1920s and 1930s Germany, were slightly below replacement fertility.

    how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic

    I’m not an economist. But it is believed that some indicators like economic complexity can predict how resilient and diversified an economy is.

    So if we look at economic complexity – Germany is supposedly the third highest country in terms of economic complexity, after Japan and Switzerland.

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

    because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties,

    To stop coal is sensible IMO – it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.

    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we’re next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won’t be a happy ending to this.

    But look at Germany’s geography, for example.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.

    In order to reach Germany, every immigrant has to cross other countries, in which they were already safe.

    Yet according to 1951 Refugee Convention, the refugee has to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

    So in theory, Germany has no legal obligation to accept immigrants on that basis. It’s a question of voluntarily how many immigrants the government wants to accept.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    To stop coal is sensible IMO – it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.
     
    The cost of electricity generated by natural gas is cheaper than coal in North America and the former Soviet Union. This is only a recent development here (~12 years) by the way. Traditionally coal was always cheaper.

    Is it true in Germany? Does anyone know?

    Additionally, even if the cost of natural gas is cheaper than coal per kilowatt hour in Germany, one would have to consider the social costs of winding down the coal industry. In the UK the social wreckage from the decision to abandon coal mining was substantial.
    , @German_reader

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1915, were already below replacement rate.
     
    Thanks, interesting data. But it seems to have been only slightly below replacement level (and stable at that level), and I think one would have to consider the effects of the world wars and the Great Depression. imo this isn't quite the same as the situation since the 1970s.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO
     
    Yes, but you can't run an industrial economy just with renewables in Germany, that's an absurd illusion. imo atomic power would be necessary if one wants to end reliance on coal-based power plants, but unfortunately atomic power has been demonized by decades of Green propaganda.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.
     
    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.
  139. @Dmitry

    I’m not sure the graph you’ve provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks

     

    Total period fertility rate is not very clear. But if look at cohort fertility rate.

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1920s, were already below replacement rate.

    Biological "fertility window" for a woman born around in 1900-1910, was from around 1915-1940.

    So there was a generation of women who were just below replacement fertility in Germany whose "fertile window" was the 1920s-1930s

    Young women of 1920s and 1930s Germany, were slightly below replacement fertility.

    https://i.imgur.com/e7JHMIS.jpg


    how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic
     
    I'm not an economist. But it is believed that some indicators like economic complexity can predict how resilient and diversified an economy is.

    So if we look at economic complexity - Germany is supposedly the third highest country in terms of economic complexity, after Japan and Switzerland.

    https://i.imgur.com/NqLyULj.jpg


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


    because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties,
     
    To stop coal is sensible IMO - it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.

    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we’re next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won’t be a happy ending to this.
     
    But look at Germany's geography, for example.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.

    In order to reach Germany, every immigrant has to cross other countries, in which they were already safe.

    Yet according to 1951 Refugee Convention, the refugee has to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

    So in theory, Germany has no legal obligation to accept immigrants on that basis. It's a question of voluntarily how many immigrants the government wants to accept.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO – it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.

    The cost of electricity generated by natural gas is cheaper than coal in North America and the former Soviet Union. This is only a recent development here (~12 years) by the way. Traditionally coal was always cheaper.

    Is it true in Germany? Does anyone know?

    Additionally, even if the cost of natural gas is cheaper than coal per kilowatt hour in Germany, one would have to consider the social costs of winding down the coal industry. In the UK the social wreckage from the decision to abandon coal mining was substantial.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    recent development here (~12 years) by the way. Traditionally coal was always cheaper.

     

    Coal is usually cheaper than gas in terms of the cost of the chemical energy inside the material itself, although price of gas is quite volatile, and sometimes might go cheaper.

    But conversion of chemical to electrical energy can be more efficient today in the combined cycle gas turbine plants, and this has allowed the cost of electricity generated by gas to fall below coal. .


    -
    Here Siemens now claims over 61% efficiency (this is the turbine imported now in some of the latest projects in Russia).

    https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt5-8000h.html
  140. @Kent Nationalist

    This is why environmentalists of today tend to be voluntarily childfree, rather than supporting small families which Ehrlich popularised in 1960s.

     

    How well is that going with women in Niger?

    The carbon footprint of one American today is equivalent to that of 150 people in Niger (World Bank, 2014) and a person in the UK produces 70 times the CO2 of someone living in Niger.

    Of course, I support drastically reducing fertility rates in Niger as any other country (including my own, UK), however, it’s clear that a person living in Niger is far less ecologically destructive than someone in the Western world i.e. fewer people being born in US/UK has the most immediate and positive impact on our environment —> so priority should obviously be to focus on reducing birth/fertility rates in the West (but also China, India and Brazil that also have high carbon emissions) rather than Niger.

    Concerning Niger, although it still has a high TFR, note it has fallen from a peak of 7.89 (1983) to 7.24 (2016) and continues to decline. Fertility rates are lower in every single Sub-Saharan African country compared to decades ago (same for globe); there has been a world-wide decrease in TFRs. The problem is these have not decreased as much as in SSA than most other parts of the globe, this is explained by several factors, although I won’t bother getting into them.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Are you a fanboy of Schopenhauer or something? You read Supplements to the Book 4
    of Volume 2 of World as Will and Representation and became highly cynical? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40868/40868-h/40868-h.html#toc53
  141. @Dmitry

    I’m not sure the graph you’ve provided (thanks btw, very interesting!) actually shows that, the drops below replacement rate look more like temporary reactions to shocks

     

    Total period fertility rate is not very clear. But if look at cohort fertility rate.

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1920s, were already below replacement rate.

    Biological "fertility window" for a woman born around in 1900-1910, was from around 1915-1940.

    So there was a generation of women who were just below replacement fertility in Germany whose "fertile window" was the 1920s-1930s

    Young women of 1920s and 1930s Germany, were slightly below replacement fertility.

    https://i.imgur.com/e7JHMIS.jpg


    how long it will remain strong, energy supply/costs will become problematic
     
    I'm not an economist. But it is believed that some indicators like economic complexity can predict how resilient and diversified an economy is.

    So if we look at economic complexity - Germany is supposedly the third highest country in terms of economic complexity, after Japan and Switzerland.

    https://i.imgur.com/NqLyULj.jpg


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


    because of the insane decision to give up both atomic and coal power, and the established parties,
     
    To stop coal is sensible IMO - it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.

    If Europe were isolated, that might be true, but we’re next to demographically expanding regions.
    I just read this:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/european-demographics-and-migration
    There won’t be a happy ending to this.
     
    But look at Germany's geography, for example.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.

    In order to reach Germany, every immigrant has to cross other countries, in which they were already safe.

    Yet according to 1951 Refugee Convention, the refugee has to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

    So in theory, Germany has no legal obligation to accept immigrants on that basis. It's a question of voluntarily how many immigrants the government wants to accept.

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1915, were already below replacement rate.

    Thanks, interesting data. But it seems to have been only slightly below replacement level (and stable at that level), and I think one would have to consider the effects of the world wars and the Great Depression. imo this isn’t quite the same as the situation since the 1970s.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO

    Yes, but you can’t run an industrial economy just with renewables in Germany, that’s an absurd illusion. imo atomic power would be necessary if one wants to end reliance on coal-based power plants, but unfortunately atomic power has been demonized by decades of Green propaganda.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.

    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Atomic power, while highly desirable, isn't strictly necessary for a coal phaseout because natural gas can be imported from Russia. Of course that reduces energy security.

    The ideal energy mix for Germany is atomic power for baseload with hydro for peak demand. Solar really doesn't make sense anywhere in Germany, and wind mills appear to be a bust. That said solar could perhaps be imported cheaply from the Mediterranean, depending on availability and transmission costs. Germany already imports hydro from Scandinavia.

    If environmentalists were serious they'd demand we look into atomic energy for industrial process heat. For instance a lot of carbon is emitted in the production of cement, refine fuels, and chemicals.

    The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design is supposed to be able to reach outlet temperatures of 1000 C, which would be useful for those industries.
    , @Oliver D. Smith

    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.
     
    Immigration restrictionist policies are now adopted by mainstream parties though, or at least are being spoken about.

    Labour (UK):


    Speaking to Sky News, he added: “There’s got to be tough controls on immigration, and you’ve got to know the people who come here contribute before they get any benefits.

    “It’s a pledge from us, it’s on the mug and I’m hoping after the general election I can do a toast in that mug as we get on and change Britain for the better.”

    The mugs have been branded with the party’s five election pledges, including tighter controls on immigration.
     

    https://www.channel4.com/news/labour-mug-immigration-controls

    Conservative Party (UK):


    Theresa May has indicated that the Conservatives will again promise to cut net migration to the "tens of thousands" in their election manifesto.
     
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39840503

    This was quite the opposite as recent as the 2000s when both Labour and Conservative Party didn't talk openly about reducing the number of immigrants and tried to brush under the carpet the issue of immigration altogether. What changed? Well, since the mainstream parties ignored this issue, it led to the electoral rise of the far-right British National Party-


    It is not for nothing that the BNP received 800,000 votes in the recent [2oo4] elections and the UK Independence Party — which also has a strong policy on immigration — did remarkably well. Unless the major parties get a grip on this problem and do so soon, the extremists of the BNP will make hay and the tranquillity of our society will be placed at serious risk. The time for decisive action has arrived.
     
    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/54/let-everyone-in-is-a-dangerous-immigration-policy

    Similarly, in Denmark since the mainstream parties ignored immigration, the 2000s and early 2010s saw the rise of the far-right Danish People's Party.

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration (as if it was no longer a taboo and acceptable), the BNP and Danish People's Party - collapsed electorally. The latter in the fairly recent 2019 Danish general election did almost as poorly as they first started out in 1998. We will most likely see the same thing happen in the next decade in Sweden, Germany etc.

    The "political elites" really are no longer ignoring ordinary people's concerns about immigration and there seems to be no need for the far-right anymore.

    , @Dmitry

    atomic power has been demonized by decades
     
    One practical problem of establishing nuclear power plants, is lack of nimbleness.

    From planning process to placing the power plant online, will often be around 15 years.

    If Germany decides to build nuclear power stations at the political level now, they will be going online maybe in the mid-2030s.

    And obviously, there will probably be many delays from local politicians and NIMBY, which will slow it down.

    So is likely planning to produce for electricity demand of the second half of the 2030s, in the case of nuclear plant decisions now. And by then, there might be cheaper possibilities.


    -

    By comparison, converting a coal power station to gas, can be in 1-2 years. However, securing supply of gas might have less nimbleness.

  142. @German_reader

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1915, were already below replacement rate.
     
    Thanks, interesting data. But it seems to have been only slightly below replacement level (and stable at that level), and I think one would have to consider the effects of the world wars and the Great Depression. imo this isn't quite the same as the situation since the 1970s.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO
     
    Yes, but you can't run an industrial economy just with renewables in Germany, that's an absurd illusion. imo atomic power would be necessary if one wants to end reliance on coal-based power plants, but unfortunately atomic power has been demonized by decades of Green propaganda.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.
     
    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.

    Atomic power, while highly desirable, isn’t strictly necessary for a coal phaseout because natural gas can be imported from Russia. Of course that reduces energy security.

    The ideal energy mix for Germany is atomic power for baseload with hydro for peak demand. Solar really doesn’t make sense anywhere in Germany, and wind mills appear to be a bust. That said solar could perhaps be imported cheaply from the Mediterranean, depending on availability and transmission costs. Germany already imports hydro from Scandinavia.

    If environmentalists were serious they’d demand we look into atomic energy for industrial process heat. For instance a lot of carbon is emitted in the production of cement, refine fuels, and chemicals.

    The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design is supposed to be able to reach outlet temperatures of 1000 C, which would be useful for those industries.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    England seems to be successfully transitioning to a lot of offshore wind electricity generation, which is already 1/4 of their mix.

    They are building them larger and larger every year. Perhaps Germany does not have areas with a sufficiency powerful supply of wind, however.

    It is also not explained if it is steady enough to be suitable for baseload (I assume not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgRPjCQn7Tw

  143. @Thorfinnsson


    To stop coal is sensible IMO – it will improve public health and also of electricity produced by gas is now below cost for coal a lot of the time.
     
    The cost of electricity generated by natural gas is cheaper than coal in North America and the former Soviet Union. This is only a recent development here (~12 years) by the way. Traditionally coal was always cheaper.

    Is it true in Germany? Does anyone know?

    Additionally, even if the cost of natural gas is cheaper than coal per kilowatt hour in Germany, one would have to consider the social costs of winding down the coal industry. In the UK the social wreckage from the decision to abandon coal mining was substantial.

    recent development here (~12 years) by the way. Traditionally coal was always cheaper.

    Coal is usually cheaper than gas in terms of the cost of the chemical energy inside the material itself, although price of gas is quite volatile, and sometimes might go cheaper.

    But conversion of chemical to electrical energy can be more efficient today in the combined cycle gas turbine plants, and this has allowed the cost of electricity generated by gas to fall below coal. .


    Here Siemens now claims over 61% efficiency (this is the turbine imported now in some of the latest projects in Russia).

    https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt5-8000h.html

  144. @Thorfinnsson
    Atomic power, while highly desirable, isn't strictly necessary for a coal phaseout because natural gas can be imported from Russia. Of course that reduces energy security.

    The ideal energy mix for Germany is atomic power for baseload with hydro for peak demand. Solar really doesn't make sense anywhere in Germany, and wind mills appear to be a bust. That said solar could perhaps be imported cheaply from the Mediterranean, depending on availability and transmission costs. Germany already imports hydro from Scandinavia.

    If environmentalists were serious they'd demand we look into atomic energy for industrial process heat. For instance a lot of carbon is emitted in the production of cement, refine fuels, and chemicals.

    The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design is supposed to be able to reach outlet temperatures of 1000 C, which would be useful for those industries.

    England seems to be successfully transitioning to a lot of offshore wind electricity generation, which is already 1/4 of their mix.

    They are building them larger and larger every year. Perhaps Germany does not have areas with a sufficiency powerful supply of wind, however.

    It is also not explained if it is steady enough to be suitable for baseload (I assume not).

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Offshore wind power is probably the most EROEI-inefficient energy sources on the planet after biofuels. Huge sink of resources.

    But if they want to waste their money on it more power to them.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The shift to wind is not driven by economic considerations, but by atomophobia and the gaia religion. It was (re)invented in Denmark after local voters hysterically rejected atom.

    Wind power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I've seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh. That's terrible.

    Then, as AK noted, there is the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

    That said unlike onshore wind, offshore megawind is at least pretty cool.
  145. @AP

    Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.
     
    Donbas is now a lot poorer than Ukraine.

    Another for Ukraine not to take it back.

    In mean, certainly. However in median and range you’ll find quite a contrast.

    But I’m glad you agree the Ukrainian gov’t should just leave the people there alone.

  146. @AP

    The borders “rigged against Russians” meant huge Russian population in the other republics, which was supposed to make separatism more difficult for them.
     
    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn't loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland's geopolitical path from 1991. If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus. If "Ukraine" stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.

    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991.

    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland–though I completely agree that pro-Russian forces had no chance to actually come to power in Ukraine without Crimea and the Donbass–especially in the 21st century.

    If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus.

    Yep.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    I’m not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they’re told to, no? Plus, Ukraine’s elite would have still wanted to loot the country, would it not have?

    I do agree that another Belarus is likely here as well, though.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.

    They should have also aimed to encourage more Russian migration into the other SSRs.

    • Replies: @AP

    "Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991."

    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland
     
    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    I’m not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they’re told to, no?
     
    I don't think they would have gone that far, however.
  147. @AP

    Donbas the people there left Ukraine because they want nothing to do with the third world.
     
    Donbas is now a lot poorer than Ukraine.

    Another for Ukraine not to take it back.

    Another rebuilding project for Russia then, no?

  148. @Dmitry
    If living space is determinant, why does Gaza have 4,5 children per women, while in Canada 1,6 children per women?

    Or about apartments - look at demographic transition in the USSR. Collapse continued at the same time, housing supply is greatly improved. There is fall from 1960-1980, from 2,6 to around 1,9. At the same time, the housing situation of the population was improving (across 1960-1980).

    IMHO, Gaza should be allowed to expand into the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. After all, it’s not like Egypt is actually making good use of this territory right now.

    In the US, we say “California Dreaming!”; in Gaza, they should say “Sinai Dreaming!”

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There is almost a larger war in the Sinai, between Egypt and rebels, than there is between Israel and Palestinians.

    Look at the casualties on both sides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency


    -

    It's strange how Western liberals are not interested about all the deaths in the Sinai, and there are not articles about the "oppression" there.

  149. @Dmitry
    England seems to be successfully transitioning to a lot of offshore wind electricity generation, which is already 1/4 of their mix.

    They are building them larger and larger every year. Perhaps Germany does not have areas with a sufficiency powerful supply of wind, however.

    It is also not explained if it is steady enough to be suitable for baseload (I assume not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgRPjCQn7Tw

    Offshore wind power is probably the most EROEI-inefficient energy sources on the planet after biofuels. Huge sink of resources.

    But if they want to waste their money on it more power to them.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The English are reducing the price of offshore wind electricity through increasing the size of the project. So the price is rapidly becoming competitive.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-auction-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-new-gas


    They are matching what China succeeded with PV.

    -


    If you look at Hornsea Project One.

    Each wind turbine is 190 metres tall (the famous Gherkin skyscraper of London is only 180 metres tall).

    Each wind turbine is 40% taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. Or 500% taller than Colossus of Rhodes.

    And they have installed 100 of these turbines on the single project already this year. (There's only about 50 skyscrapers as tall as these in Europe).


    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2342/production/_105662090_gerkinrgb.jpg


    https://i2.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/04/25/23/4B8E606000000578-0-image-a-42_1524694404819.jpg?zoom=2

  150. @Anatoly Karlin
    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power - especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    The slideback in fertility rates since 2016 is probably temporary, and is significantly explained by birth postponement.

    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power – especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).

    Agreed, and Russia’s goal should be to encourage its best and brightest to have much more children. If costs of living are a problem, Russia can encourage some of its smart people to move to other parts of Russia–assuming, of course, that this will actually succeed in raising their fertility.

    Interestingly enough, I previously read that ex-USSR Jews who moved to Israel subsequently saw a significant increase in their total fertility rate. The better life in Israel (excluding the terrorism, of course) probably helped in regards to this–as did Israel’s pro-natal culture. In other words, having more children was no longer viewed as a “Gypsy thing” by many ex-USSR Jews after they moved to Israel.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    previously read that ex-USSR Jews who moved to Israel subsequently saw a significant increase
     
    They have the lowest fertility rate of any population in Israel, which shows how strongly low fertility behavior continues, even in a high fertility country. (Although it can be remembered that Jews were one of the lowest fertility, if not the lowest fertility, nationality in the USSR).

    https://i.imgur.com/Fgs2NGb.jpg
    , @Dmitry

    better life in Israel (excluding the terrorism, of course)
     
    Israel has a worse life in this perspective - although salaries are higher, housing costs are impossible for most immigrants from former Soviet Union countries, who do not inherit apartments from their parents. They rent small apartments which are not suitable for more than 1-2 child.

    other words, having more children was no longer viewed as a “Gypsy thing” by many ex-USSR Jews
     
    It is not common at all, as most of them are completely secular.

    But there is the case of infamous Israeli politician Anastasia Michaeli, who attacked Arab politicians in the parliament. She had 8 children while working as a politician in the parliament.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv089bDNk8A

  151. @Thorfinnsson
    While it is true that the Entente made false promises to the Poles, the idea that the intent was to facilitate a German-Soviet war is ridiculous. If that was the case Britain could've joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could've gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).

    The Entente believed, not entirely without reason, that the German armed forces were stronger than their own in the fall of 1939. The Germans had been successfully exaggerating their military strength for years.

    Entente leadership had been scarred by the Great War, and they were determined to avoid another Passchendaele or Verdun. British officers display reticence in the offensive for the entire war as a result, and unlike in 1914 no one in the French Army was keen to go on the offensive.

    What the Entente was confident of was its economic superiority, and therefore planned to use this economic superiority to build up sufficient forces to go on the offensive in 1941. Much as in the Great War, there were also the usual Entente plans to strike Germany's economic power by attacking the periphery. Seizing the Swedish iron mines, bombing the Soviet oil fields, exerting British financial and political influence in the Balkans, and so forth.

    Poland, incidentally, was expected by Entente military planners to hold out for at least three months. This sounds ridiculous to us today, but was reasonably based on the experience of cracking small countries in the Great War. Serbia and Rumania were both tough nuts to crack in that war.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move...for Germany.

    If that was the case Britain could’ve joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could’ve gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).

    Brits wanted both sides to lose, Germany and the Soviet Union, hence no joining of ACP or what the USSR proposed.
    Of course, the unexpectedly weak military performance of certain countries after M-R made them change their plans.

  152. @Mr. XYZ

    Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991.
     
    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland--though I completely agree that pro-Russian forces had no chance to actually come to power in Ukraine without Crimea and the Donbass--especially in the 21st century.

    If the Soviets had added, say, Stavropol, Kursk, and some other regions to Ukraine, it would have been another Belarus.
     
    Yep.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.
     
    I'm not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they're told to, no? Plus, Ukraine's elite would have still wanted to loot the country, would it not have?

    I do agree that another Belarus is likely here as well, though.

    The Soviet strategy of adding Russian areas was not anti-Russian. They merely blundered by underestimating the strength of the local nationalists, so they added too few Russians into the mix.
     
    They should have also aimed to encourage more Russian migration into the other SSRs.

    “Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991.”

    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    I’m not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they’re told to, no?

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.
     
    Were Ukraine's 2005-2010 governments and 2014-present governments much less corrupt than Yanukovych's government was?

    Also, unless Ukraine was much wealthier than it was in real life in 2007, I just don't see a quick EU entry for Ukraine in this scenario. I mean, a huge part of the Balkans is still outside of the EU even right now in spite of them being wealthier per capita than Ukraine is.

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.
     
    Why not?
  153. @Thorfinnsson
    While it is true that the Entente made false promises to the Poles, the idea that the intent was to facilitate a German-Soviet war is ridiculous. If that was the case Britain could've joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and encouraged Poland to sincerely negotiate with Germany. Then they could've gone on to dismember the USSR together, which was the dream of some Nazis (but not many British).

    The Entente believed, not entirely without reason, that the German armed forces were stronger than their own in the fall of 1939. The Germans had been successfully exaggerating their military strength for years.

    Entente leadership had been scarred by the Great War, and they were determined to avoid another Passchendaele or Verdun. British officers display reticence in the offensive for the entire war as a result, and unlike in 1914 no one in the French Army was keen to go on the offensive.

    What the Entente was confident of was its economic superiority, and therefore planned to use this economic superiority to build up sufficient forces to go on the offensive in 1941. Much as in the Great War, there were also the usual Entente plans to strike Germany's economic power by attacking the periphery. Seizing the Swedish iron mines, bombing the Soviet oil fields, exerting British financial and political influence in the Balkans, and so forth.

    Poland, incidentally, was expected by Entente military planners to hold out for at least three months. This sounds ridiculous to us today, but was reasonably based on the experience of cracking small countries in the Great War. Serbia and Rumania were both tough nuts to crack in that war.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move...for Germany.

    …Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move…for Germany.

    Well, no, after all Germany lost the war in a rather catastrophic way and they have never recovered from it. It is hard to argue that Germany made great moves when they ended up losing so badly. Winning matters.

    Here is the list of losses for Germany from R-M Pact:
    – Russia got enormous strategic depth that resulted in Barbarossa running out of steam before they reached Moscow/St. Petersburg
    – Germany burned bridges with their Anglo sympathisers
    – Japan was betrayed by Germany – they were in the middle of a war in Mongolia with Russia that they lost. This led directly to Japan unwilling to join Germany in 1941 – and that was catastrophic for German chances, no second front for Russia in the east.

    If there was no M-R Pact and Germany attacked Poland, they would still win decisively and also take over eastern Poland (or most of it). They would be at the top of the world and a few hundred kilometres from Moscow, Kiev, St. Petersburg. Russia would be surrounded by enemies – from Finland to Romania all potential allies of Germany. UK-France would sit on the sidelines and find some ethnic excuse to justify Germany liberating somebody in the east, maybe Ukrainians. Germany would most likely prevail. M-R Pact turned that around – Hitler got played because he was unsure of himself and couldn’t quite trust that UK-France will only declare a phoney war and do nothing. They did and I am pretty sure by the end of 1939 Hitler knew that he made a mistake. M-R decided the war, it was brilliant on part of Stalin to shift the chess game so dramatically.

    Britain is always deceptive, that’s the only way they do anything – in other words, their geo-politics is based on lying and they are rather proud of it. The other idea that Britain would openly show its aims by joinig Nazi Germany in an Anti-Comintern pact is naive. There was the Jewish issue (bad publicity), there was the left in Western Europe issue (not eager to fight the first ‘socialist’ country).

    No matter how you cut it, Stalin was a savvy (or lucky) player in WWII. That’s why Russia won.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Germany lost the war after they devoured rump Czechoslovakia and created a global Anglo-American war machine determined to destroy it. To even have a shot at winning, it had to do everything right and make no mistakes.

    Its initial efforts were focused on creating an alliance with Italy and Japan in order to face the Western powers with global war and dilute their naval assets. But neither were willing to bite. Next up was Germany's effort to form an alliance with Poland, allowing an immediate strike to the West. The Poles, either unable to read a map or willing to wait 60 years for things to get better, refused.

    That left the Soviet Union, which allowed Germany to quickly liquidate the Polish stooges with facing simultaneous war against Russia and France.

    The strategic depth gained by the USSR must be offset by the fact that it also resulted in Finland and Rumania joining the German invasion two years later.

    True enough that Japan was very unhappy with the M-R Pact, but as it was proving itself inferior to the Soviet army in any case and its strategic needs dictated expansion to the south.

    Ignored in my previous post, and yours, is also the economic benefits of the M-R Pact to Germany. The German-Soviet commercial agreements that arose out of the Pact provided vast resources to Germany and were very helpful in light of the Entente blockade. In fact the Entente's entire strategy for defeating Germany was short circuited by German-Soviet trade.

    Of course, who's to say that negotiating economic agreements required the Pact, especially after the German Army demonstrated its power?
    , @Gerard2

    – Japan was betrayed by Germany – they were in the middle of a war in Mongolia with Russia that they lost. This led directly to Japan unwilling to join Germany in 1941 – and that was catastrophic for German chances, no second front for Russia in the east.
     
    Every single nation in the war , US, Germany, Poland, USSR, Japan, France seem to have either been unsure or not trusted what the 0fficial British position was. This may well have influenced the Japanese not to invade USSR with the Nazis.

    A successful invasion of Vladivostok would have accelerated even more instant interest in the Far East from the British Navy .

    Japan invading China, Korea and then the Soviet Union successfully would inevitably lead to the British to be proactive in reducing the threat of Japan invading their territories in South-East Asia.Japan wouldn't have wanted a high level of British military deployment , particularly at a time when the British were not actually much fighting anybody else

    Absolutely noway of the Japanese knowing what the possibilities would of a Labour Government winning power in the UK - high possibility they would be pro-Soviet. Neither would they know even exactly how anti-Communist the FDR regime was in America ( first US admin to recognise USSR in 1933) compared to how anti-Japanese Empire they were

    Japan's invasion of British territories as Burma, Singpaore etc only started after the British Navy were heavily engaged in the Atlantic and Mediterranean...and their army fighting in North Africa.
    Though Thorfinsson's argument are also very sound , I think these are the reasons Japan did not invade USSR
  154. @German_reader

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1915, were already below replacement rate.
     
    Thanks, interesting data. But it seems to have been only slightly below replacement level (and stable at that level), and I think one would have to consider the effects of the world wars and the Great Depression. imo this isn't quite the same as the situation since the 1970s.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO
     
    Yes, but you can't run an industrial economy just with renewables in Germany, that's an absurd illusion. imo atomic power would be necessary if one wants to end reliance on coal-based power plants, but unfortunately atomic power has been demonized by decades of Green propaganda.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.
     
    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.

    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.

    Immigration restrictionist policies are now adopted by mainstream parties though, or at least are being spoken about.

    Labour (UK):

    Speaking to Sky News, he added: “There’s got to be tough controls on immigration, and you’ve got to know the people who come here contribute before they get any benefits.

    “It’s a pledge from us, it’s on the mug and I’m hoping after the general election I can do a toast in that mug as we get on and change Britain for the better.”

    The mugs have been branded with the party’s five election pledges, including tighter controls on immigration.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/labour-mug-immigration-controls

    Conservative Party (UK):

    Theresa May has indicated that the Conservatives will again promise to cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” in their election manifesto.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39840503

    This was quite the opposite as recent as the 2000s when both Labour and Conservative Party didn’t talk openly about reducing the number of immigrants and tried to brush under the carpet the issue of immigration altogether. What changed? Well, since the mainstream parties ignored this issue, it led to the electoral rise of the far-right British National Party-

    It is not for nothing that the BNP received 800,000 votes in the recent [2oo4] elections and the UK Independence Party — which also has a strong policy on immigration — did remarkably well. Unless the major parties get a grip on this problem and do so soon, the extremists of the BNP will make hay and the tranquillity of our society will be placed at serious risk. The time for decisive action has arrived.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/54/let-everyone-in-is-a-dangerous-immigration-policy

    Similarly, in Denmark since the mainstream parties ignored immigration, the 2000s and early 2010s saw the rise of the far-right Danish People’s Party.

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration (as if it was no longer a taboo and acceptable), the BNP and Danish People’s Party – collapsed electorally. The latter in the fairly recent 2019 Danish general election did almost as poorly as they first started out in 1998. We will most likely see the same thing happen in the next decade in Sweden, Germany etc.

    The “political elites” really are no longer ignoring ordinary people’s concerns about immigration and there seems to be no need for the far-right anymore.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration
     
    Problem is it's mostly limited to talk...one could also say that mainstream politicans try to placate the public with vague "We have understood" statements, without any intention of really doing anything. Net immigration to Britain is still at extremely high levels by pre-1997 standards, and the Danish Social Democrats already seem to have softened their immigration skepticism...apparently was only necessary before the election.
  155. @German_reader
    What exactly would have been the British and French interest in Germany conquering the Soviet Union? That would have made German autarky against any attempts of blockade possible and all but ensured German hegemony in Europe...and Britain and France had fought a horrible war just 20 years before to prevent exactly that.
    From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn't come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.

    UK-France interest was in a war between Germany and Russia to exhaust both. Secondary interest was in directing German post-WWI revanche towards the east – go east Nazis and find your lebensraum, just leave the West alone.

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany. London saw Nazis as an aberration that could be corrected, but Germany as an ok ally. Russia is a permanent, eternal enemy of Britain – at least that’s the way British elite sees it. I doubt that will ever change.

    …From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn’t come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.

    Britain believed that with American help they can sneak in a few months before the end of the war, have Germans basically give up on the Western front, and take over most of Europe since Russia was too exhausted and too far to the east. Actually, it kind of worked that way.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany.
     
    German bombing killed about 40 000 British civilians in 1940...it's pretty deranged to claim that the British public wanted Germany to win under such circumstances. Whether rightly or wrongly, the war against Germany after the fall of France was seen as a struggle for national existence by the British.
    People here often complain about irrational Western hostility towards Russia, but imo your comments show that the reverse also still exists among people whose formative experiences were in Eastern Bloc educational systems.
  156. @Beckow
    UK-France interest was in a war between Germany and Russia to exhaust both. Secondary interest was in directing German post-WWI revanche towards the east - go east Nazis and find your lebensraum, just leave the West alone.

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany. London saw Nazis as an aberration that could be corrected, but Germany as an ok ally. Russia is a permanent, eternal enemy of Britain - at least that's the way British elite sees it. I doubt that will ever change.

    ...From a British and French point of view it was far preferable if it didn’t come to a German-Soviet war which would inevitably end with either the Germans or the Soviets in control of much of Europe.
     
    Britain believed that with American help they can sneak in a few months before the end of the war, have Germans basically give up on the Western front, and take over most of Europe since Russia was too exhausted and too far to the east. Actually, it kind of worked that way.

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany.

    German bombing killed about 40 000 British civilians in 1940…it’s pretty deranged to claim that the British public wanted Germany to win under such circumstances. Whether rightly or wrongly, the war against Germany after the fall of France was seen as a struggle for national existence by the British.
    People here often complain about irrational Western hostility towards Russia, but imo your comments show that the reverse also still exists among people whose formative experiences were in Eastern Bloc educational systems.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    Ok, change it to 1939-40, the British elite (not the public) were more sympathetic to Germany than to Russia. In Munich in 1938, and then with the phoney war in 1939, the British elite wanted a German-Russian war. And if they had a preference for who should win, it was more for Germany.

    That is not 'irrational hostility', it is simply describing it as it was. I also don't see anything irrational about British elite anti-Russian attitudes. It is something that fits quite well into their worldview and self-interest. British elite understands that when Russia does well, Britain will do less well. It is a bit of either-or, the wealth, assets, influence, historical narratives and national myths are at cross-purposes between the Anglo and the Russian world. When one does better, the other loses ground and Anglo world elites understand this very well. It is quite rational to want to protect one's standing.

    I, by the way, don't apply any of this to the British public. They are in just for a ride, too often they are willing to swallow their elites' attitudes toward Russia (and the east in general) without much objection. But that's true in most societies so one can't really object too much.
  157. @Oliver D. Smith

    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.
     
    Immigration restrictionist policies are now adopted by mainstream parties though, or at least are being spoken about.

    Labour (UK):


    Speaking to Sky News, he added: “There’s got to be tough controls on immigration, and you’ve got to know the people who come here contribute before they get any benefits.

    “It’s a pledge from us, it’s on the mug and I’m hoping after the general election I can do a toast in that mug as we get on and change Britain for the better.”

    The mugs have been branded with the party’s five election pledges, including tighter controls on immigration.
     

    https://www.channel4.com/news/labour-mug-immigration-controls

    Conservative Party (UK):


    Theresa May has indicated that the Conservatives will again promise to cut net migration to the "tens of thousands" in their election manifesto.
     
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39840503

    This was quite the opposite as recent as the 2000s when both Labour and Conservative Party didn't talk openly about reducing the number of immigrants and tried to brush under the carpet the issue of immigration altogether. What changed? Well, since the mainstream parties ignored this issue, it led to the electoral rise of the far-right British National Party-


    It is not for nothing that the BNP received 800,000 votes in the recent [2oo4] elections and the UK Independence Party — which also has a strong policy on immigration — did remarkably well. Unless the major parties get a grip on this problem and do so soon, the extremists of the BNP will make hay and the tranquillity of our society will be placed at serious risk. The time for decisive action has arrived.
     
    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/54/let-everyone-in-is-a-dangerous-immigration-policy

    Similarly, in Denmark since the mainstream parties ignored immigration, the 2000s and early 2010s saw the rise of the far-right Danish People's Party.

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration (as if it was no longer a taboo and acceptable), the BNP and Danish People's Party - collapsed electorally. The latter in the fairly recent 2019 Danish general election did almost as poorly as they first started out in 1998. We will most likely see the same thing happen in the next decade in Sweden, Germany etc.

    The "political elites" really are no longer ignoring ordinary people's concerns about immigration and there seems to be no need for the far-right anymore.

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration

    Problem is it’s mostly limited to talk…one could also say that mainstream politicans try to placate the public with vague “We have understood” statements, without any intention of really doing anything. Net immigration to Britain is still at extremely high levels by pre-1997 standards, and the Danish Social Democrats already seem to have softened their immigration skepticism…apparently was only necessary before the election.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    When the Danish People's Party cooperated with the Conservative-Liberal coalition government (2001-2011) which gave them control over immigration policy, they actually did very little to decrease immigration, in fact, there was an increase in net-migration for most years; based on the following graph, net-migration increased from around 50,000 in 2004, 80,000 by 2006, to 100,000 by 2010. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/denmark/population-and-urbanization-statistics/dk-net-migration

    The same happened with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), i.e. during the OVP-FPO government (200o-2005), net-migration increased. Something similar happened with the True Finn Party.

    I'm familiar with the BNP in UK a decade back. They were nowhere in terms of support like the Danish People's Party or FPO, but did well in local council elections in the 2000s, including taking 12 seats on a London borough council and forming the opposition (Barking and Dagenham). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Barking_and_Dagenham_London_Borough_Council_election They achieved though absolutely nothing when elected despite having some control.

    So far-right & right-wing populists appear to achieve nothing when elected, same for Trump. They're as incompetent as the mainstream parties on immigration. I think though it's futile to try to lower immigration without looking at its causes and taking direct action. The far-right & Trump though don't want to discuss or tackle issues such as anthropogenic climate change and unsustainable population growth/overpopulation.

    Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe
    https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

    Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlooked-driver-central-american-migration

    Five Ways Immigration-Driven Population Growth Impacts Our Environment
    https://cis.org/Sussis/Five-Ways-ImmigrationDriven-Population-Growth-Impacts-Our-Environment

  158. @Anatoly Karlin
    Offshore wind power is probably the most EROEI-inefficient energy sources on the planet after biofuels. Huge sink of resources.

    But if they want to waste their money on it more power to them.

    The English are reducing the price of offshore wind electricity through increasing the size of the project. So the price is rapidly becoming competitive.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-auction-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-new-gas

    They are matching what China succeeded with PV.

    If you look at Hornsea Project One.

    Each wind turbine is 190 metres tall (the famous Gherkin skyscraper of London is only 180 metres tall).

    Each wind turbine is 40% taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. Or 500% taller than Colossus of Rhodes.

    And they have installed 100 of these turbines on the single project already this year. (There’s only about 50 skyscrapers as tall as these in Europe).


  159. @Mr. XYZ

    Russia needs a much bigger population, because population is power – especially in the absence of any carrying capacity constraints (totally inapplicable in this case, of course).
     
    Agreed, and Russia's goal should be to encourage its best and brightest to have much more children. If costs of living are a problem, Russia can encourage some of its smart people to move to other parts of Russia--assuming, of course, that this will actually succeed in raising their fertility.

    Interestingly enough, I previously read that ex-USSR Jews who moved to Israel subsequently saw a significant increase in their total fertility rate. The better life in Israel (excluding the terrorism, of course) probably helped in regards to this--as did Israel's pro-natal culture. In other words, having more children was no longer viewed as a "Gypsy thing" by many ex-USSR Jews after they moved to Israel.

    previously read that ex-USSR Jews who moved to Israel subsequently saw a significant increase

    They have the lowest fertility rate of any population in Israel, which shows how strongly low fertility behavior continues, even in a high fertility country. (Although it can be remembered that Jews were one of the lowest fertility, if not the lowest fertility, nationality in the USSR).

  160. @Mr. XYZ
    IMHO, Gaza should be allowed to expand into the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. After all, it's not like Egypt is actually making good use of this territory right now.

    In the US, we say "California Dreaming!"; in Gaza, they should say "Sinai Dreaming!"

    There is almost a larger war in the Sinai, between Egypt and rebels, than there is between Israel and Palestinians.

    Look at the casualties on both sides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

    It’s strange how Western liberals are not interested about all the deaths in the Sinai, and there are not articles about the “oppression” there.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    and there are not articles about the “oppression” there.
     
    One sometimes reads articles though about the local bedouins who capture African migrants and torture them to extort ransom from their relatives.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    I think that a part of the elevated criticism towards Israel might be that it claims to be a democratic country to a greater extent than Egypt does.

    As for the Sinai rebels, Hamas can go in and crush them for all I care.
  161. @Oliver D. Smith
    The carbon footprint of one American today is equivalent to that of 150 people in Niger (World Bank, 2014) and a person in the UK produces 70 times the CO2 of someone living in Niger.

    Of course, I support drastically reducing fertility rates in Niger as any other country (including my own, UK), however, it's clear that a person living in Niger is far less ecologically destructive than someone in the Western world i.e. fewer people being born in US/UK has the most immediate and positive impact on our environment ---> so priority should obviously be to focus on reducing birth/fertility rates in the West (but also China, India and Brazil that also have high carbon emissions) rather than Niger.

    Concerning Niger, although it still has a high TFR, note it has fallen from a peak of 7.89 (1983) to 7.24 (2016) and continues to decline. Fertility rates are lower in every single Sub-Saharan African country compared to decades ago (same for globe); there has been a world-wide decrease in TFRs. The problem is these have not decreased as much as in SSA than most other parts of the globe, this is explained by several factors, although I won't bother getting into them.

    Are you a fanboy of Schopenhauer or something? You read Supplements to the Book 4
    of Volume 2 of World as Will and Representation and became highly cynical? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40868/40868-h/40868-h.html#toc53

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Never heard of him.

    I simply discuss and tackle (evidence-based) taboo topics.

    A decade back the taboo was immigration; no longer the case, since mainstream politicians now talk openly about it and most mainstream political parties have immigration-restrictionist policies.

    The current taboo is overpopulation. Unlike immigration, even the far-right don't want to tackle it. It's basically an elephant in the room for the entire political spectrum, even including most left-wing environmentalists.

    https://www.degrowth.info/en/catalogue-entry/an-elephant-in-the-room-called-overpopulation/

    Human population growth is the elephant in the room in the climate change debate
    https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1938/rr-2


    As a long-standing supporter of various environmental and conservation charities since the late 1980s, I have noticed that human population growth is very much a taboo subject for the “green” environmental movement. It is almost never mentioned.
     
  162. @German_reader

    Women born in Germany from 1900-1915, were already below replacement rate.
     
    Thanks, interesting data. But it seems to have been only slightly below replacement level (and stable at that level), and I think one would have to consider the effects of the world wars and the Great Depression. imo this isn't quite the same as the situation since the 1970s.

    To stop coal is sensible IMO
     
    Yes, but you can't run an industrial economy just with renewables in Germany, that's an absurd illusion. imo atomic power would be necessary if one wants to end reliance on coal-based power plants, but unfortunately atomic power has been demonized by decades of Green propaganda.

    It is not next to any third-world or asylum needing population.
     
    Europe is next to Africa and the Mideast though, and for various reasons, there is no political will to stop immigration, instead the political establishment does everything in its power to expand it. It will be very difficult to change this dynamic without a change of political elites.

    atomic power has been demonized by decades

    One practical problem of establishing nuclear power plants, is lack of nimbleness.

    From planning process to placing the power plant online, will often be around 15 years.

    If Germany decides to build nuclear power stations at the political level now, they will be going online maybe in the mid-2030s.

    And obviously, there will probably be many delays from local politicians and NIMBY, which will slow it down.

    So is likely planning to produce for electricity demand of the second half of the 2030s, in the case of nuclear plant decisions now. And by then, there might be cheaper possibilities.

    By comparison, converting a coal power station to gas, can be in 1-2 years. However, securing supply of gas might have less nimbleness.

  163. @Dmitry
    There is almost a larger war in the Sinai, between Egypt and rebels, than there is between Israel and Palestinians.

    Look at the casualties on both sides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency


    -

    It's strange how Western liberals are not interested about all the deaths in the Sinai, and there are not articles about the "oppression" there.

    and there are not articles about the “oppression” there.

    One sometimes reads articles though about the local bedouins who capture African migrants and torture them to extort ransom from their relatives.

  164. @German_reader

    If there was any sympathy in Britain for one side to win in 1939-41 it was definitely on the side of Germany.
     
    German bombing killed about 40 000 British civilians in 1940...it's pretty deranged to claim that the British public wanted Germany to win under such circumstances. Whether rightly or wrongly, the war against Germany after the fall of France was seen as a struggle for national existence by the British.
    People here often complain about irrational Western hostility towards Russia, but imo your comments show that the reverse also still exists among people whose formative experiences were in Eastern Bloc educational systems.

    Ok, change it to 1939-40, the British elite (not the public) were more sympathetic to Germany than to Russia. In Munich in 1938, and then with the phoney war in 1939, the British elite wanted a German-Russian war. And if they had a preference for who should win, it was more for Germany.

    That is not ‘irrational hostility’, it is simply describing it as it was. I also don’t see anything irrational about British elite anti-Russian attitudes. It is something that fits quite well into their worldview and self-interest. British elite understands that when Russia does well, Britain will do less well. It is a bit of either-or, the wealth, assets, influence, historical narratives and national myths are at cross-purposes between the Anglo and the Russian world. When one does better, the other loses ground and Anglo world elites understand this very well. It is quite rational to want to protect one’s standing.

    I, by the way, don’t apply any of this to the British public. They are in just for a ride, too often they are willing to swallow their elites’ attitudes toward Russia (and the east in general) without much objection. But that’s true in most societies so one can’t really object too much.

  165. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

    No offense, but that is an extremely beta male argument to justify women being educated. The white knighting for women is so cringe nowadays.

    Of course, I should clarify that women on a basic level should learn to read, write and do basic math. Still, why do women need education beyond this? Their ultimate purpose is to make children and then raise them while taking care of the home.

    It is with good reason that women used to be the private property of men in the past. In fact, it is the most reliable way to ensure that women do what they are supposed to do. All education does, especially university education, is simply to either block or delay women from fulfilling their natural purpose in life. It is actually immoral to educate women with university and college since it harms society, birth rates, and men.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Good luck with that political program.
    , @Kent Nationalist
    Non-Anglosphere countries should also ban the learning of English except after extensive vetting
  166. @German_reader

    but they certainly do not qualify as the planners and ultimate perpetrators of the deportations.
     
    That guy looks pretty Russian to me:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Serov#Deputy_Commissar_of_the_NKVD
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serov_Instructions

    Collective responsibility certainly cannot be assigned onto Russia and all ethnic Russians as a collective for the deportations.
     
    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn't very constructive...but so isn't the "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism seen in this thread.

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven’t seen a single example of “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It’s also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Besides Beckow, I haven’t seen a single example of “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism here in this thread.
     
    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp ("The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.")...and you agreed with it :-)
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong
     
    I don't know much about Ivan. iirc AK actually wanted to do a post about him, let's hope he'll get around to doing that (or at least review that book about medieval Russia he was reading recently).
    , @anon

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.
     
    The only defense of Ivan the Awesome from Russian patriotic sources I read was that he was no more brutal and terrible than contemporary Western kings (Henry VIII, Marie de Medici, Charles V, Philip II. etc... ).
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Agreed on Stalin. Disagree on Ivan IV - while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:

    Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
     
    , @Hyperborean

    That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.
     
    From Wikipedia:


    Sobriquet

    The English word terrible is usually used to translate the Russian word grozny in Ivan's nickname, but this is a somewhat archaic translation. The Russian word grozny reflects the older English usage of terrible as in "inspiring fear or terror; dangerous; powerful; formidable". It does not convey the more modern connotations of English terrible, such as "defective" or "evil". Vladimir Dal defines grozny specifically in archaic usage and as an epithet for tsars: "courageous, magnificent, magisterial and keeping enemies in fear, but people in obedience". Other translations have also been suggested by modern scholars.
     
  167. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

     

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven't seen a single example of "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It's also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни - Ivan Grozni - which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    Besides Beckow, I haven’t seen a single example of “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism here in this thread.

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it 🙂
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong

    I don’t know much about Ivan. iirc AK actually wanted to do a post about him, let’s hope he’ll get around to doing that (or at least review that book about medieval Russia he was reading recently).

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it 🙂
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

     

    You misinterpreted Epigon's comment and my agreement with it as an endorsement of "Stalin did nothing wrong". It was nothing of the sort. Epigon only correctly pointed to the wisdom of Stalin's decision to make the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the hypocrisy of the UK/France and the Western Allies in their dealings with Germany and the USSR. It is not a comment about Stalin's actions and policies within the USSR.

    With the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it should actually be clarified that it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around, in order to sign the pact and agree on partitioning Poland and the Baltics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations

    Note that it was German diplomats who traveled to Moscow to start negotiating the pact, not the other way around. It's often forgotten that the Germans themselves in 1939 did not want the USSR to instantly come to the defense of Poland where Germany would have to fight both, hence why it was of high importance for them to come to a territorial arrangement with the USSR.

    , @melanf

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it
     
    I also agree that "The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive". As far as I know this is an undoubted historical fact.
    This statement does not contradict the fact that the Stalinist terror, deportations, etc. were a very bad thing
  168. @Korenchkin
    I did read it, which is why I posted about it
    I remember hearing about such plans but never thought they were actually intending to do it (operation unthinkable style)

    The plans existance would mean there was no real grand strategy for the British, they were just exploiting whatever opportunity arose with a vague central goal in mind, that ended up getting unfullfilled since their Empire disintegrated and they became a satrap to their former colony
    Fucking hell, India sided against them and partnered up with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way fullfilling their fears all the way back from the Great Game days, and today India remains a Russian partner even as Russia is getting increasingly friendly with China

    The plans existance would mean there was no real grand strategy for the British, they were just exploiting whatever opportunity arose with a vague central goal in mind, that ended up getting unfullfilled since their Empire disintegrated and they became a satrap to their former colony

    I would disagree about the British Empire having no grand strategy before and during WW2. I’m sure Epigon would most certainly disagree.

    Fucking hell, India sided against them and partnered up with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way fullfilling their fears all the way back from the Great Game days, and today India remains a Russian partner even as Russia is getting increasingly friendly with China

    Yeah lol. Cuckoldry is probably the best word to describe that.

    Still, this doesn’t really matter for the Brits. Britain has been basically irrelevant in the world post-1945 as most of their power was transferred to the USA to which they have a Belarus-Russia style relationship. The biggest problem for Brits/Anglos is being demographically pulverized out of existence by the Third World. This demographic replacement actually began around the 1960’s time period when it was deliberately enabled by Jews/Liberals. The only person who had the wisdom among them to foresee the disaster that was coming was Enoch Powell. He was completely correct with his “Rivers of Blood” speech about multiculturalism/immigration and his predictions about the EU.

  169. @German_reader

    Besides Beckow, I haven’t seen a single example of “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism here in this thread.
     
    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp ("The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.")...and you agreed with it :-)
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong
     
    I don't know much about Ivan. iirc AK actually wanted to do a post about him, let's hope he'll get around to doing that (or at least review that book about medieval Russia he was reading recently).

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it 🙂
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

    You misinterpreted Epigon’s comment and my agreement with it as an endorsement of “Stalin did nothing wrong”. It was nothing of the sort. Epigon only correctly pointed to the wisdom of Stalin’s decision to make the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the hypocrisy of the UK/France and the Western Allies in their dealings with Germany and the USSR. It is not a comment about Stalin’s actions and policies within the USSR.

    With the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it should actually be clarified that it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around, in order to sign the pact and agree on partitioning Poland and the Baltics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations

    Note that it was German diplomats who traveled to Moscow to start negotiating the pact, not the other way around. It’s often forgotten that the Germans themselves in 1939 did not want the USSR to instantly come to the defense of Poland where Germany would have to fight both, hence why it was of high importance for them to come to a territorial arrangement with the USSR.

    • Replies: @utu
    "it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
    On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov. [...]. The replacement of Litvinov with Molotov significantly increased Stalin's freedom to maneuver in foreign policy.[25] The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[26] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews."[23][27] Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented, "Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good.

    Given Litvinov's prior attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition, association with the doctrine of collective security with France and Britain, and pro-Western orientation by Kremlin standards, his dismissal indicated the existence of a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany.[28] Likewise, Molotov's appointment was a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers.[28] The dismissal also signaled to France and Britain the existence of a potential negotiation option with Germany. One British official wrote that Litvinov's disappearance also meant the loss of an admirable technician or shock-absorber, while Molotov's "modus operandi" was "more truly Bolshevik than diplomatic or cosmopolitan."

    With regard to the signing of a German-Soviet nonaggression pact with secret protocols dividing eastern Europe three months later, Hitler remarked to military commanders that "Litvinov's replacement was decisive."[26] A German official told the Soviet Ambassador that Hitler was also pleased that Litvinov's replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish.[30] Hitler also wrote to Mussolini that Litvinov's dismissal demonstrated the Kremlin's readiness to alter relations with Berlin, which led to "the most extensive nonaggression pact in existence."[31] When Litvinov was later asked about the reasons for his dismissal, he replied by asking, "Do you really think that I was the right person to sign a treaty with Hitler?"
     
  170. @AP

    "Exactly. If the Soviets hadn’t loaded Crimea and Donbas into Ukraine, Ukraine would have followed Poland’s geopolitical path from 1991."

    Perhaps much more corruption and stealing than in Poland, though. That would have probably meant a longer EU path for Ukraine in comparison to Poland
     
    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    If “Ukraine” stretched to the Volga, it would never have become independent.

    I’m not so sure about that. After all, Sovoks do whatever they’re told to, no?
     
    I don't think they would have gone that far, however.

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    Were Ukraine’s 2005-2010 governments and 2014-present governments much less corrupt than Yanukovych’s government was?

    Also, unless Ukraine was much wealthier than it was in real life in 2007, I just don’t see a quick EU entry for Ukraine in this scenario. I mean, a huge part of the Balkans is still outside of the EU even right now in spite of them being wealthier per capita than Ukraine is.

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.

    Why not?

    • Replies: @AP

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    Were Ukraine’s 2005-2010 governments and 2014-present governments much less corrupt than Yanukovych’s government was?
     
    With respect to CPI (what matters in terms of Euro-integration) they have been a little bit better IIRC.

    Also, unless Ukraine was much wealthier than it was in real life in 2007, I just don’t see a quick EU entry for Ukraine in this scenario.
     
    Ukraine was slightly richer per capita than Bulgaria and Romania in 1991, had higher level of human capital, and was closer to Western supply chains. If Ukraine had aggressively pursued Eurointegration from 1991 (which would have been the case if it didn't have Crimea and Donbas looking to Russia) it would have been better off by 2007 than were Romania and Bulgaria. Having Crimea and Donbas, whose population served as an anchor holding Ukraine back, cost Ukraine dearly. 25 lost years.

    There's a reason why Putin isn't taking Donbas and wants to shove it back to Ukraine. It's not Ukraine's best interest (nor that of Donbas' people), it's Russia's.

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.

    Why not?
     
    No region with a majority Russian ethnic population sought independence from Moscow.

    A "Ukraine" stretching to Volgograd wouldn't have become independent. And I suspect that this would have had a chilling effect on the others: Belarus would not have left if "Ukraine" hadn't. Only the Baltics and Georgia. And there would have been Galician separatism from "Ukraine."
  171. @Dmitry
    There is almost a larger war in the Sinai, between Egypt and rebels, than there is between Israel and Palestinians.

    Look at the casualties on both sides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency


    -

    It's strange how Western liberals are not interested about all the deaths in the Sinai, and there are not articles about the "oppression" there.

    I think that a part of the elevated criticism towards Israel might be that it claims to be a democratic country to a greater extent than Egypt does.

    As for the Sinai rebels, Hamas can go in and crush them for all I care.

  172. @melanf


    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.
     
    Highly doubtful in light of the fact that they even stopped their troops despite Hitler’s repeated requests to resume the offensive.
     
    In this case, there is no room for doubt, because a huge chunk of northwestern Russia was captured by Finland in 1941 and officially declared part of Finland. The Russian population in these areas ( adults, children, women, men, all without exception) were sent to concentration camps.
    These conquests were the result of plans that existed in Finland long before 41 (and long before the Winter war)

    What plans? What is your evidence? In the 1930s only extreme right wing people had such dreams. But in the late 1930s right wing did not have much influence in Finnish politics. That conquest in 1941 was an improvised opportunistic move based on security concerns. Even leftist historians have not found evidence of some secret planning before 1941.

  173. @anonymous coward

    The original goal was to occupy the whole country in a couple of weeks and install a communist puppet regime
     
    Untrue. The goal was to move the border a bit, not to occupy the whole country.

    The 'couple weeks' business is just Soviet propaganda; the official party line at the time was that the mighty Red Army will kick everyone's ass and win WWII with minimal blood on enemy territory. Don't confuse commie spin with CPSU goals, the CPSU leadership never got high on their own supply. (Unlike the modern-day Western leadership.)

    Soviets did not only suffer heavy military losses but also the diplomatic humiliation of getting kicked out of the League of Nations.
     
    That's true, but that is just the regular communist incompetence, none of it is Finland's accomplishment.

    Without Winter War, Finland would not have got involved in Operation Barbarossa.
     
    I doubt Finland could go through WWII without picking a side. Even Sweden didn't, despite their nominal "neutrality".

    When Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30 1939, Red Army was ordered to occupy the whole country, march to the Bothnic Gulf and Swedish border. It was not just some small border skirmish. Do you really think that after installing Kuusinen`s puppet government in Helsinki and making some border adjustments the Red Army would just have gone home? Without a massive Red Army presence, Kuusinen regime would have fallen in a matter of months. It was like Afganistan 1979. Stalin intended to take the whole country under control either directly or through a puppet government.

    Since 1937, Finland was governed by Cajander`s Center-Left government with a strong majority in Finnish parliament. Cajander`s government was committed to neutrality. The idea of conspiring with Nazi Germany to launch a joint invasion against the Soviet Union was very alien to those people. Probably they would have made concessions to Germany like Sweden did (selling iron ore, allowing troop transports etc), but they wouldn`t have actively participated in Barbarossa. Winter War changed Finnish foreign policy dramatically as Finland looked for support against the Soviets wherever it could be found. Stalin pushed Finland into Hitler`s arms.

  174. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it 🙂
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

     

    You misinterpreted Epigon's comment and my agreement with it as an endorsement of "Stalin did nothing wrong". It was nothing of the sort. Epigon only correctly pointed to the wisdom of Stalin's decision to make the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the hypocrisy of the UK/France and the Western Allies in their dealings with Germany and the USSR. It is not a comment about Stalin's actions and policies within the USSR.

    With the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it should actually be clarified that it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around, in order to sign the pact and agree on partitioning Poland and the Baltics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations

    Note that it was German diplomats who traveled to Moscow to start negotiating the pact, not the other way around. It's often forgotten that the Germans themselves in 1939 did not want the USSR to instantly come to the defense of Poland where Germany would have to fight both, hence why it was of high importance for them to come to a territorial arrangement with the USSR.

    “it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
    On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov. […]. The replacement of Litvinov with Molotov significantly increased Stalin’s freedom to maneuver in foreign policy.[25] The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[26] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews.”[23][27] Recalling Stalin’s order, Molotov commented, “Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn’t good.

    Given Litvinov’s prior attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition, association with the doctrine of collective security with France and Britain, and pro-Western orientation by Kremlin standards, his dismissal indicated the existence of a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany.[28] Likewise, Molotov’s appointment was a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers.[28] The dismissal also signaled to France and Britain the existence of a potential negotiation option with Germany. One British official wrote that Litvinov’s disappearance also meant the loss of an admirable technician or shock-absorber, while Molotov’s “modus operandi” was “more truly Bolshevik than diplomatic or cosmopolitan.”

    With regard to the signing of a German-Soviet nonaggression pact with secret protocols dividing eastern Europe three months later, Hitler remarked to military commanders that “Litvinov’s replacement was decisive.”[26] A German official told the Soviet Ambassador that Hitler was also pleased that Litvinov’s replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish.[30] Hitler also wrote to Mussolini that Litvinov’s dismissal demonstrated the Kremlin’s readiness to alter relations with Berlin, which led to “the most extensive nonaggression pact in existence.”[31] When Litvinov was later asked about the reasons for his dismissal, he replied by asking, “Do you really think that I was the right person to sign a treaty with Hitler?”

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Oy vey! Those evil anti-semites!

    How dare the goyim conspire against the chosen people!?!?
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous
    On a more serious note, even in your link utu, it explains that it was the Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov to be dismissed. Stalin and the Soviets merely accepted the subtle offers that were coming from the Germans.

    Even English academic, Richard Overy, in his book about these events, Russia's War, explains that the Germans were the ones who approached the Soviets first for a deal on partitioning East Europe, not the other way around.

    https://www.amazon.com/Russias-War-History-Soviet-1941-1945/dp/0140271694

  175. @utu
    "it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
    On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov. [...]. The replacement of Litvinov with Molotov significantly increased Stalin's freedom to maneuver in foreign policy.[25] The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[26] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews."[23][27] Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented, "Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good.

    Given Litvinov's prior attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition, association with the doctrine of collective security with France and Britain, and pro-Western orientation by Kremlin standards, his dismissal indicated the existence of a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany.[28] Likewise, Molotov's appointment was a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers.[28] The dismissal also signaled to France and Britain the existence of a potential negotiation option with Germany. One British official wrote that Litvinov's disappearance also meant the loss of an admirable technician or shock-absorber, while Molotov's "modus operandi" was "more truly Bolshevik than diplomatic or cosmopolitan."

    With regard to the signing of a German-Soviet nonaggression pact with secret protocols dividing eastern Europe three months later, Hitler remarked to military commanders that "Litvinov's replacement was decisive."[26] A German official told the Soviet Ambassador that Hitler was also pleased that Litvinov's replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish.[30] Hitler also wrote to Mussolini that Litvinov's dismissal demonstrated the Kremlin's readiness to alter relations with Berlin, which led to "the most extensive nonaggression pact in existence."[31] When Litvinov was later asked about the reasons for his dismissal, he replied by asking, "Do you really think that I was the right person to sign a treaty with Hitler?"
     

    Oy vey! Those evil anti-semites!

    How dare the goyim conspire against the chosen people!?!?

  176. @German_reader

    Besides Beckow, I haven’t seen a single example of “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism here in this thread.
     
    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp ("The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.")...and you agreed with it :-)
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3435735

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong
     
    I don't know much about Ivan. iirc AK actually wanted to do a post about him, let's hope he'll get around to doing that (or at least review that book about medieval Russia he was reading recently).

    Epigon made much the same argument in favour of Molotov-Ribbentropp (“The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive the initial Axis onslaught, and win the war in the end.”)…and you agreed with it

    I also agree that “The territory gained by USSR through Molotov-Ribbentrop gave USSR the strategic depth to survive”. As far as I know this is an undoubted historical fact.
    This statement does not contradict the fact that the Stalinist terror, deportations, etc. were a very bad thing

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  177. @utu
    "it was the Germans who approached Stalin and the Soviets first, not the other way around"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
    On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov. [...]. The replacement of Litvinov with Molotov significantly increased Stalin's freedom to maneuver in foreign policy.[25] The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[26] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews."[23][27] Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented, "Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good.

    Given Litvinov's prior attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition, association with the doctrine of collective security with France and Britain, and pro-Western orientation by Kremlin standards, his dismissal indicated the existence of a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany.[28] Likewise, Molotov's appointment was a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers.[28] The dismissal also signaled to France and Britain the existence of a potential negotiation option with Germany. One British official wrote that Litvinov's disappearance also meant the loss of an admirable technician or shock-absorber, while Molotov's "modus operandi" was "more truly Bolshevik than diplomatic or cosmopolitan."

    With regard to the signing of a German-Soviet nonaggression pact with secret protocols dividing eastern Europe three months later, Hitler remarked to military commanders that "Litvinov's replacement was decisive."[26] A German official told the Soviet Ambassador that Hitler was also pleased that Litvinov's replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish.[30] Hitler also wrote to Mussolini that Litvinov's dismissal demonstrated the Kremlin's readiness to alter relations with Berlin, which led to "the most extensive nonaggression pact in existence."[31] When Litvinov was later asked about the reasons for his dismissal, he replied by asking, "Do you really think that I was the right person to sign a treaty with Hitler?"
     

    On a more serious note, even in your link utu, it explains that it was the Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov to be dismissed. Stalin and the Soviets merely accepted the subtle offers that were coming from the Germans.

    Even English academic, Richard Overy, in his book about these events, Russia’s War, explains that the Germans were the ones who approached the Soviets first for a deal on partitioning East Europe, not the other way around.

    • Replies: @utu
    "Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov" - Another sovok BS! If Germans were really so keen on making a deal with Soviets (as you suggested) they would not care about ethnicity of Litvinov. They did not replace Ribbentrop with a communist to please Stalin. It was other way around. Litvinov's dismissal was Stalin's signal that he wanted to deal with Hitler. All the gestures were done by Stalin not by Hitler meaning that it was Stalin not Hitler who was the initiator of the Non-aggresion Pact.
  178. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    On a more serious note, even in your link utu, it explains that it was the Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov to be dismissed. Stalin and the Soviets merely accepted the subtle offers that were coming from the Germans.

    Even English academic, Richard Overy, in his book about these events, Russia's War, explains that the Germans were the ones who approached the Soviets first for a deal on partitioning East Europe, not the other way around.

    https://www.amazon.com/Russias-War-History-Soviet-1941-1945/dp/0140271694

    “Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov” – Another sovok BS! If Germans were really so keen on making a deal with Soviets (as you suggested) they would not care about ethnicity of Litvinov. They did not replace Ribbentrop with a communist to please Stalin. It was other way around. Litvinov’s dismissal was Stalin’s signal that he wanted to deal with Hitler. All the gestures were done by Stalin not by Hitler meaning that it was Stalin not Hitler who was the initiator of the Non-aggresion Pact.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Remind me please, was it the German or Red Army which invaded Poland first in 1939?

    Also, if it was the Soviets who were so desperate to initiate the negotiations for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then why did the Germans let the Soviets take the larger share of land in East Europe? After all, if the Soviets were so desperate for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, why was the German Army the one which did the heavy lifting during the double invasions of Poland?

  179. @utu
    "Germans who were the ones that wanted Litvinov" - Another sovok BS! If Germans were really so keen on making a deal with Soviets (as you suggested) they would not care about ethnicity of Litvinov. They did not replace Ribbentrop with a communist to please Stalin. It was other way around. Litvinov's dismissal was Stalin's signal that he wanted to deal with Hitler. All the gestures were done by Stalin not by Hitler meaning that it was Stalin not Hitler who was the initiator of the Non-aggresion Pact.

    Remind me please, was it the German or Red Army which invaded Poland first in 1939?

    Also, if it was the Soviets who were so desperate to initiate the negotiations for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then why did the Germans let the Soviets take the larger share of land in East Europe? After all, if the Soviets were so desperate for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, why was the German Army the one which did the heavy lifting during the double invasions of Poland?

  180. anon[134] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

     

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven't seen a single example of "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It's also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни - Ivan Grozni - which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    The only defense of Ivan the Awesome from Russian patriotic sources I read was that he was no more brutal and terrible than contemporary Western kings (Henry VIII, Marie de Medici, Charles V, Philip II. etc… ).

  181. @German_reader

    But as soon as the mainstream parties in UK and Denmark adopted immigration restrictionist policies and started to openly talk about immigration
     
    Problem is it's mostly limited to talk...one could also say that mainstream politicans try to placate the public with vague "We have understood" statements, without any intention of really doing anything. Net immigration to Britain is still at extremely high levels by pre-1997 standards, and the Danish Social Democrats already seem to have softened their immigration skepticism...apparently was only necessary before the election.

    When the Danish People’s Party cooperated with the Conservative-Liberal coalition government (2001-2011) which gave them control over immigration policy, they actually did very little to decrease immigration, in fact, there was an increase in net-migration for most years; based on the following graph, net-migration increased from around 50,000 in 2004, 80,000 by 2006, to 100,000 by 2010. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/denmark/population-and-urbanization-statistics/dk-net-migration

    The same happened with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), i.e. during the OVP-FPO government (200o-2005), net-migration increased. Something similar happened with the True Finn Party.

    I’m familiar with the BNP in UK a decade back. They were nowhere in terms of support like the Danish People’s Party or FPO, but did well in local council elections in the 2000s, including taking 12 seats on a London borough council and forming the opposition (Barking and Dagenham). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Barking_and_Dagenham_London_Borough_Council_election They achieved though absolutely nothing when elected despite having some control.

    So far-right & right-wing populists appear to achieve nothing when elected, same for Trump. They’re as incompetent as the mainstream parties on immigration. I think though it’s futile to try to lower immigration without looking at its causes and taking direct action. The far-right & Trump though don’t want to discuss or tackle issues such as anthropogenic climate change and unsustainable population growth/overpopulation.

    Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe
    https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

    Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlooked-driver-central-american-migration

    Five Ways Immigration-Driven Population Growth Impacts Our Environment
    https://cis.org/Sussis/Five-Ways-ImmigrationDriven-Population-Growth-Impacts-Our-Environment

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Immigration hasn't been successfully tackled by anyone in almost a century as far as I can tell. America did successfully clamp down on immigration in the 1920s, and although I'm less clear on the date Australia decisively shut down Chinese coolie migration as well.

    As far as purely illegal immigration goes there have been recent successes in Italy, Israel, Australia, and Japan.

    The basic problem with immigration is that once immigrants establish an anchor, they act as a magnet drawing in more from their homelands. It requires determined and competent governance to put a stop to it. Both are seriously lacking today, and not just in the Trump administration.

    And yes, in principle environmentalists should be joining us in leading the fight against immigration. From an environmentalist point of view there should be zero immigration from areas with low material standards of living to high ones. In turn I don't mind joining with environmentalists in fighting AGW, though if they're going to be atomophobic it makes my stomach turn.

    Climate change may be driving migration, but it strikes me as irrelevant. Irrelevant because shutting down immigration by enforcement is easier than stopping AGW. Doubly irrelevant because the fundamental driver of immigration is obviously the vast chasm in living standards, which is unlikely to change and in any case would be undesirable to change (as it would increase the political power of these countries).
  182. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

     

    No offense, but that is an extremely beta male argument to justify women being educated. The white knighting for women is so cringe nowadays.

    Of course, I should clarify that women on a basic level should learn to read, write and do basic math. Still, why do women need education beyond this? Their ultimate purpose is to make children and then raise them while taking care of the home.

    It is with good reason that women used to be the private property of men in the past. In fact, it is the most reliable way to ensure that women do what they are supposed to do. All education does, especially university education, is simply to either block or delay women from fulfilling their natural purpose in life. It is actually immoral to educate women with university and college since it harms society, birth rates, and men.

    Good luck with that political program.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Not an argument.
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Good luck with that political program.

     

    Lol. Thank you. It is something that could be easily executed in a non-Democracy.

    Still, even in a Democracy, women mentally and physiologically crave to be dominated by a superior life form, which is men, even though they are not fully conscious of this. Patriarchy and giving birth to many children is what women need, as their condition and nature is to be 110% irrational and mentally disturbed otherwise. Feminism is just women shit testing (deliberately causing trouble to test a man's masculinity) men seeing if those men are worthy of controlling them. Of course, the Globohomo dynamic of Feminism being sponsored by George Soros, and so on, is another matter

  183. @Dmitry
    England seems to be successfully transitioning to a lot of offshore wind electricity generation, which is already 1/4 of their mix.

    They are building them larger and larger every year. Perhaps Germany does not have areas with a sufficiency powerful supply of wind, however.

    It is also not explained if it is steady enough to be suitable for baseload (I assume not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgRPjCQn7Tw

    The shift to wind is not driven by economic considerations, but by atomophobia and the gaia religion. It was (re)invented in Denmark after local voters hysterically rejected atom.

    Wind power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I’ve seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh. That’s terrible.

    Then, as AK noted, there is the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

    That said unlike onshore wind, offshore megawind is at least pretty cool.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    but by atomophobia
     
    England does not have irrational atomophobia. They are constructing Sizewell C at the moment.

    But see how Sizewell C will be more than 15 years to become online (with opening date for 2031).

    On the hand, Hornsea Project One was ordered 2,5 years ago and is online already.



    power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I’ve seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh.

     

    Levelized cost of energy already cheaper than nuclear in 2018.
    https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

    However, problem is it is not steady, while nuclear more suitable for baseload.


    the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

     

    It's not necessary way to look at it, as you can just remove subsidies - and it should be reflected in financial cost.

    -

    By the way, nuclear energy has a lot of hidden costs - the greatest is waste disposal, which is usually heavily subsidized by the government.

    Eventual deep geologic disposal not really resolved yet, and is expensive future task which current people are putting on future generations. (Future generations are subsidizing current ones in this industry).

  184. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

     

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven't seen a single example of "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It's also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни - Ivan Grozni - which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    Agreed on Stalin. Disagree on Ivan IV – while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:

    Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Disagree about Ivan IV.

    Ivan IV literally did nothing wrong. All the lies about Ivan being a cruel despot and barbarous murderer was a blacklisting and demonization of him at the time and throughout history by the treacherous Russian oligarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC), international Italian and Jewish oligarchies, and the Vatican. Nearly everything Ivan is accused of is completely false, half true or a lie by omission. For instance, the city of Novgorod was not annihilated. Only a few Boyar scum were executed by his Oprichnina, and Novgorod was instead disbanded and the population resettled somewhere else instead of being "massacred", or whatever other hysterics the Boyars wrote about it.

    In a similar way, Vlad Dracula also did nothing wrong as he impaled traitor Boyars and Muslim Turks who only deserved it. Similarly to Ivan, Vlad Dracula was instead demonized by Wallachian Boyars, and especially the Transylvanian German-Saxons because he restrained their commercial trading privileges. The Transylvanian Saxons spread propaganda about Vlad being a barbarian all throughout Europe in the 15th century.

    Anyway, a reassessment of Late Medieval and Early Modern history in East Europe that cuts through Vatican-Germanic propaganda is sorely needed and long overdue.
    , @melanf

    Disagree on Ivan IV – while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:
     
    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person, but as a ruler, he increased the area of Russia three times and successfully kept these gains (it was the land most important for the future of Russia ). This Ivan is difficult to criticize as a ruler (in the overall assessment of his reign).
  185. @Beckow

    ...Molotov-Ribbentrop was a great chess move…for Germany.
     
    Well, no, after all Germany lost the war in a rather catastrophic way and they have never recovered from it. It is hard to argue that Germany made great moves when they ended up losing so badly. Winning matters.

    Here is the list of losses for Germany from R-M Pact:
    - Russia got enormous strategic depth that resulted in Barbarossa running out of steam before they reached Moscow/St. Petersburg
    - Germany burned bridges with their Anglo sympathisers
    - Japan was betrayed by Germany - they were in the middle of a war in Mongolia with Russia that they lost. This led directly to Japan unwilling to join Germany in 1941 - and that was catastrophic for German chances, no second front for Russia in the east.

    If there was no M-R Pact and Germany attacked Poland, they would still win decisively and also take over eastern Poland (or most of it). They would be at the top of the world and a few hundred kilometres from Moscow, Kiev, St. Petersburg. Russia would be surrounded by enemies - from Finland to Romania all potential allies of Germany. UK-France would sit on the sidelines and find some ethnic excuse to justify Germany liberating somebody in the east, maybe Ukrainians. Germany would most likely prevail. M-R Pact turned that around - Hitler got played because he was unsure of himself and couldn't quite trust that UK-France will only declare a phoney war and do nothing. They did and I am pretty sure by the end of 1939 Hitler knew that he made a mistake. M-R decided the war, it was brilliant on part of Stalin to shift the chess game so dramatically.

    Britain is always deceptive, that's the only way they do anything - in other words, their geo-politics is based on lying and they are rather proud of it. The other idea that Britain would openly show its aims by joinig Nazi Germany in an Anti-Comintern pact is naive. There was the Jewish issue (bad publicity), there was the left in Western Europe issue (not eager to fight the first 'socialist' country).

    No matter how you cut it, Stalin was a savvy (or lucky) player in WWII. That's why Russia won.

    Germany lost the war after they devoured rump Czechoslovakia and created a global Anglo-American war machine determined to destroy it. To even have a shot at winning, it had to do everything right and make no mistakes.

    Its initial efforts were focused on creating an alliance with Italy and Japan in order to face the Western powers with global war and dilute their naval assets. But neither were willing to bite. Next up was Germany’s effort to form an alliance with Poland, allowing an immediate strike to the West. The Poles, either unable to read a map or willing to wait 60 years for things to get better, refused.

    That left the Soviet Union, which allowed Germany to quickly liquidate the Polish stooges with facing simultaneous war against Russia and France.

    The strategic depth gained by the USSR must be offset by the fact that it also resulted in Finland and Rumania joining the German invasion two years later.

    True enough that Japan was very unhappy with the M-R Pact, but as it was proving itself inferior to the Soviet army in any case and its strategic needs dictated expansion to the south.

    Ignored in my previous post, and yours, is also the economic benefits of the M-R Pact to Germany. The German-Soviet commercial agreements that arose out of the Pact provided vast resources to Germany and were very helpful in light of the Entente blockade. In fact the Entente’s entire strategy for defeating Germany was short circuited by German-Soviet trade.

    Of course, who’s to say that negotiating economic agreements required the Pact, especially after the German Army demonstrated its power?

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I mostly agree with that summary, a few quibbles:

    - It was not fully determined in March 1939 when Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia that it would eventually lose, they had a few better moves after that. But it was largely sealed after M-R Pact and attacking Poland later that year.
    - Finland, and especially Romania, were going to join Germany in fighting Russia no matter what. Finland reluctantly and locally, Romania with an overarching ambition.
    - True, Japan lost to Soviets in August 1939. But at the right time, in late 1941, if Japan attacked Soviets in the east it could had been very different. At the minimum, Soviets would had to keep a much larger force there to defend. The defeat of Germans in front of Moscow was partly achieved by a risky transfer of Siberian troops to the West - there was no way they could had done it if Japan attacked at the same time.

    Japan not attacking Russia was among the decisive factors in defeating Barbarossa. It was caused by Japan not trusting Germans after the M-R Pact. Everybody expected Japan to attack and they didn't - it is the dog that didn't bark and it decided the war.

    You can see the economic benefits to Germany as a payoff by Russia to buy time. Incidentally, at that time Germany openly paid profits to US-British investors in German companies through Switzerland. I would not be too harsh on any of it, but let's not cherry pick who helped Nazis when and more. Sweden also helped a lot. History is always messy.

  186. Do all Chinese men look like children or is it just a Hong Kong adaptation to living in a cupboard?

    • Replies: @Anonymoose
    https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1169194979593310210

    Pen Zoned
  187. @Oliver D. Smith
    When the Danish People's Party cooperated with the Conservative-Liberal coalition government (2001-2011) which gave them control over immigration policy, they actually did very little to decrease immigration, in fact, there was an increase in net-migration for most years; based on the following graph, net-migration increased from around 50,000 in 2004, 80,000 by 2006, to 100,000 by 2010. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/denmark/population-and-urbanization-statistics/dk-net-migration

    The same happened with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), i.e. during the OVP-FPO government (200o-2005), net-migration increased. Something similar happened with the True Finn Party.

    I'm familiar with the BNP in UK a decade back. They were nowhere in terms of support like the Danish People's Party or FPO, but did well in local council elections in the 2000s, including taking 12 seats on a London borough council and forming the opposition (Barking and Dagenham). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Barking_and_Dagenham_London_Borough_Council_election They achieved though absolutely nothing when elected despite having some control.

    So far-right & right-wing populists appear to achieve nothing when elected, same for Trump. They're as incompetent as the mainstream parties on immigration. I think though it's futile to try to lower immigration without looking at its causes and taking direct action. The far-right & Trump though don't want to discuss or tackle issues such as anthropogenic climate change and unsustainable population growth/overpopulation.

    Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe
    https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

    Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlooked-driver-central-american-migration

    Five Ways Immigration-Driven Population Growth Impacts Our Environment
    https://cis.org/Sussis/Five-Ways-ImmigrationDriven-Population-Growth-Impacts-Our-Environment

    Immigration hasn’t been successfully tackled by anyone in almost a century as far as I can tell. America did successfully clamp down on immigration in the 1920s, and although I’m less clear on the date Australia decisively shut down Chinese coolie migration as well.

    As far as purely illegal immigration goes there have been recent successes in Italy, Israel, Australia, and Japan.

    The basic problem with immigration is that once immigrants establish an anchor, they act as a magnet drawing in more from their homelands. It requires determined and competent governance to put a stop to it. Both are seriously lacking today, and not just in the Trump administration.

    And yes, in principle environmentalists should be joining us in leading the fight against immigration. From an environmentalist point of view there should be zero immigration from areas with low material standards of living to high ones. In turn I don’t mind joining with environmentalists in fighting AGW, though if they’re going to be atomophobic it makes my stomach turn.

    Climate change may be driving migration, but it strikes me as irrelevant. Irrelevant because shutting down immigration by enforcement is easier than stopping AGW. Doubly irrelevant because the fundamental driver of immigration is obviously the vast chasm in living standards, which is unlikely to change and in any case would be undesirable to change (as it would increase the political power of these countries).

  188. @Anatoly Karlin
    Good luck with that political program.

    Not an argument.

  189. @Anatoly Karlin
    Good luck with that political program.

    Good luck with that political program.

    Lol. Thank you. It is something that could be easily executed in a non-Democracy.

    Still, even in a Democracy, women mentally and physiologically crave to be dominated by a superior life form, which is men, even though they are not fully conscious of this. Patriarchy and giving birth to many children is what women need, as their condition and nature is to be 110% irrational and mentally disturbed otherwise. Feminism is just women shit testing (deliberately causing trouble to test a man’s masculinity) men seeing if those men are worthy of controlling them. Of course, the Globohomo dynamic of Feminism being sponsored by George Soros, and so on, is another matter

    • Replies: @AP
    LOL, you are quite the catch. You admitted to being poor, a Balkan immigrant in the West. What woman could resist someone like you?
    , @Thorfinnsson
    I don't disagree with this, but in light of all the labor-saving devices available in households it seems reasonable to create opportunities for women to do something out of the house, just not for forty plus hours a week.

    Middle class and higher housewives have long busied themselves with volunteering and other charitable activities, but beyond that it could be a good idea to experiment with special 20-30 hour workweeks for women. Allows them to take care of their homes and families properly, but also to get out of the house.

    As far as "education" goes, it might be acceptable to allow women to pursue higher education once they are already married and producing children in order to relieve boredom. It's pointless of course, but women derive esteem from assimilating "knowledge" which is deemed to have high social status.

    And yes, feminism is a society wide shit test that men have failed. Though it was originally just started by ugly women.
  190. @Dmitry
    Are you a fanboy of Schopenhauer or something? You read Supplements to the Book 4
    of Volume 2 of World as Will and Representation and became highly cynical? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40868/40868-h/40868-h.html#toc53

    Never heard of him.

    I simply discuss and tackle (evidence-based) taboo topics.

    A decade back the taboo was immigration; no longer the case, since mainstream politicians now talk openly about it and most mainstream political parties have immigration-restrictionist policies.

    The current taboo is overpopulation. Unlike immigration, even the far-right don’t want to tackle it. It’s basically an elephant in the room for the entire political spectrum, even including most left-wing environmentalists.

    https://www.degrowth.info/en/catalogue-entry/an-elephant-in-the-room-called-overpopulation/

    Human population growth is the elephant in the room in the climate change debate
    https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1938/rr-2

    As a long-standing supporter of various environmental and conservation charities since the late 1980s, I have noticed that human population growth is very much a taboo subject for the “green” environmental movement. It is almost never mentioned.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Overpopulation was a fashionable topic in the 1970s, but then disappeared.

    Not entirely sure why. Perhaps a combination of "neoliberalism" and "racism".
    , @Dmitry
    I don't understand people with "practical" arguments against why your society should not have children.

    Environmental problems with overpopulation, can be solved with technology.

    I agree aesthetically, our current environment is overcrowded and the number of people is too high already - even in low density Australia it would be even quieter, more pleasant and more peaceful with 1/10th of current population figures.

    But as we find the world today - higher quality people do not have enough children, while the lower quality people have too many. Aesthetic considerations becomes less important in such a situation. World would benefit from more civilized people having children, and less uncivilized ones producing less, in the current dynamic.

    If uncivilized people stopped having children, then it would be acceptable if civilized people reduced the numbers as well (while still having more than the uncivilized people). But this is the opposite, sadly, of the current dynamic.


    -


    On the other hand, if your belief against childbirth is based in the Christian, Buddhist, Gnostic, Schopenhauer, rejection of the will- then I can start to understand (certainly in Schopenhauer's writing).

  191. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I am against it for both ethical and practical reasons (which are actually linked).

     

    No offense, but that is an extremely beta male argument to justify women being educated. The white knighting for women is so cringe nowadays.

    Of course, I should clarify that women on a basic level should learn to read, write and do basic math. Still, why do women need education beyond this? Their ultimate purpose is to make children and then raise them while taking care of the home.

    It is with good reason that women used to be the private property of men in the past. In fact, it is the most reliable way to ensure that women do what they are supposed to do. All education does, especially university education, is simply to either block or delay women from fulfilling their natural purpose in life. It is actually immoral to educate women with university and college since it harms society, birth rates, and men.

    Non-Anglosphere countries should also ban the learning of English except after extensive vetting

  192. @Mr. XYZ

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.
     
    Were Ukraine's 2005-2010 governments and 2014-present governments much less corrupt than Yanukovych's government was?

    Also, unless Ukraine was much wealthier than it was in real life in 2007, I just don't see a quick EU entry for Ukraine in this scenario. I mean, a huge part of the Balkans is still outside of the EU even right now in spite of them being wealthier per capita than Ukraine is.

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.
     
    Why not?

    It would have followed the path more slowly but probably would not have joined the EU later than did Bulgaria or Romania. Also Donbas was the one of the most corrupt parts of Ukraine.

    Were Ukraine’s 2005-2010 governments and 2014-present governments much less corrupt than Yanukovych’s government was?

    With respect to CPI (what matters in terms of Euro-integration) they have been a little bit better IIRC.

    Also, unless Ukraine was much wealthier than it was in real life in 2007, I just don’t see a quick EU entry for Ukraine in this scenario.

    Ukraine was slightly richer per capita than Bulgaria and Romania in 1991, had higher level of human capital, and was closer to Western supply chains. If Ukraine had aggressively pursued Eurointegration from 1991 (which would have been the case if it didn’t have Crimea and Donbas looking to Russia) it would have been better off by 2007 than were Romania and Bulgaria. Having Crimea and Donbas, whose population served as an anchor holding Ukraine back, cost Ukraine dearly. 25 lost years.

    There’s a reason why Putin isn’t taking Donbas and wants to shove it back to Ukraine. It’s not Ukraine’s best interest (nor that of Donbas’ people), it’s Russia’s.

    I don’t think they would have gone that far, however.

    Why not?

    No region with a majority Russian ethnic population sought independence from Moscow.

    A “Ukraine” stretching to Volgograd wouldn’t have become independent. And I suspect that this would have had a chilling effect on the others: Belarus would not have left if “Ukraine” hadn’t. Only the Baltics and Georgia. And there would have been Galician separatism from “Ukraine.”

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    With respect to CPI (what matters in terms of Euro-integration) they have been a little bit better IIRC.
     
    Enough for successful European integration?

    Ukraine was slightly richer per capita than Bulgaria and Romania in 1991, had higher level of human capital, and was closer to Western supply chains.
     
    What supply chains are you talking about here?

    If Ukraine had aggressively pursued Eurointegration from 1991 (which would have been the case if it didn’t have Crimea and Donbas looking to Russia) it would have been better off by 2007 than were Romania and Bulgaria. Having Crimea and Donbas, whose population served as an anchor holding Ukraine back, cost Ukraine dearly. 25 lost years.

    There’s a reason why Putin isn’t taking Donbas and wants to shove it back to Ukraine. It’s not Ukraine’s best interest (nor that of Donbas’ people), it’s Russia’s.
     
    Yeah, I agree with all of that. I do wonder if Leonid Kuchma would have actually been able to win in 1994 without Crimea and the Donbass.

    No region with a majority Russian ethnic population sought independence from Moscow.
     
    Actually, Crimea did--albeit relatively narrowly. That said, though, the Russians in Ukraine outside of Crimea appear to have largely voted in favor of secession from the USSR back in 1991. At least, that's what the huge victory margins for the pro-independence side in all parts of Ukraine other than Crimea in the December 1991 referendum suggest.

    A “Ukraine” stretching to Volgograd wouldn’t have become independent.
     
    Again, Crimea was Russian-majority in 1989 and yet narrowly voted for secession from the USSR in December 1991. Likewise, most of the Russians in Ukraine outside of Crimea likely voted in favor of secession from the USSR in December 1991 as well. So, there was significant potential in regards to getting support for independence even from pro-Russian voters. For that matter, some Russians in the Baltic countries also voted for independence, no?

    And I suspect that this would have had a chilling effect on the others: Belarus would not have left if “Ukraine” hadn’t. Only the Baltics and Georgia. And there would have been Galician separatism from “Ukraine.”
     What about Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Central Asia?
  193. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Good luck with that political program.

     

    Lol. Thank you. It is something that could be easily executed in a non-Democracy.

    Still, even in a Democracy, women mentally and physiologically crave to be dominated by a superior life form, which is men, even though they are not fully conscious of this. Patriarchy and giving birth to many children is what women need, as their condition and nature is to be 110% irrational and mentally disturbed otherwise. Feminism is just women shit testing (deliberately causing trouble to test a man's masculinity) men seeing if those men are worthy of controlling them. Of course, the Globohomo dynamic of Feminism being sponsored by George Soros, and so on, is another matter

    LOL, you are quite the catch. You admitted to being poor, a Balkan immigrant in the West. What woman could resist someone like you?

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    LOL, you are quite the catch. You admitted to being poor, a Balkan immigrant in the West. What woman could resist someone like you?

     

    It's actually not that hard to have casual sex with women in the West. It doesn't even require a man to have much money. Men just need to be entertaining and project power/status. Women are also mostly race/ethnicity blind. For men with money, prostitutes are obviously easier.

    Of course, family formation is another matter.

  194. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Good luck with that political program.

     

    Lol. Thank you. It is something that could be easily executed in a non-Democracy.

    Still, even in a Democracy, women mentally and physiologically crave to be dominated by a superior life form, which is men, even though they are not fully conscious of this. Patriarchy and giving birth to many children is what women need, as their condition and nature is to be 110% irrational and mentally disturbed otherwise. Feminism is just women shit testing (deliberately causing trouble to test a man's masculinity) men seeing if those men are worthy of controlling them. Of course, the Globohomo dynamic of Feminism being sponsored by George Soros, and so on, is another matter

    I don’t disagree with this, but in light of all the labor-saving devices available in households it seems reasonable to create opportunities for women to do something out of the house, just not for forty plus hours a week.

    Middle class and higher housewives have long busied themselves with volunteering and other charitable activities, but beyond that it could be a good idea to experiment with special 20-30 hour workweeks for women. Allows them to take care of their homes and families properly, but also to get out of the house.

    As far as “education” goes, it might be acceptable to allow women to pursue higher education once they are already married and producing children in order to relieve boredom. It’s pointless of course, but women derive esteem from assimilating “knowledge” which is deemed to have high social status.

    And yes, feminism is a society wide shit test that men have failed. Though it was originally just started by ugly women.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    It’s pointless of course, but women derive esteem from assimilating “knowledge” which is deemed to have high social status.
     
    Your American mentality is showing. Couldn't be farther from Russian realities of the last 100 years. My great-grandmother was a doctor (people whose lives were saved wouldn't agree it was pointless) and my grandmother an engineer who was sent to Czechoslovakia to build factories and got patents for some inventions in chimney-stalk structures. All that was a completely normal part of life. Or look at this story from the "Mad Men" era.

    Or he will spy like the utter son of a bitch

    (...) So, in 1965 (I could be mistaken for a couple of years, but no more), a large delegation of specialists in the processing of earthly gifts, including fruit and berry products, traveled from the USSR to the USA. This trip was organized as an exchange of experience - times were still thawing. My grandmother was also included in the delegation - she was perhaps the biggest specialist in the USSR in fruit and berry standards. And she was, according to her recollections, the only female specialist on that trip. No, of course there were other women (I don’t know how many, I was too young to ask). But they were wives of specialists.
    (...)
    Soviet delegates were taken to all kinds of facilities, including industrial ones. They showed them technologies. But... When the delegates asked to show them some workshops, they were evasively refused. Although these aren't rockets, just cans with compote, still there is no need. Let these Russians sweat and invent something themselves. Lest they come, understand the machine operating principle and methods of processing raw materials, and implement it at home. It would be a shame!

    Nevertheless, a tour to some particularly attractive factory was organized. But not for everyone, only for women. Why? Because the organizers knew that women are wives, they don’t understand anything about technology. The experts were taken somewhere else. And my grandmother was among the wives. The organizers who relaxed at the end of the delegation’s visit did not suspect she was a specialist. The American comrades knew that Soviet spouses could have different surnames, and they did not consider it decent to check who was whose husband. You appear on the list of the delegation, and that’s enough.

    According to one version of family memoirs, the director of the All-Russian Research Institute of Gardening, who, of course, was also part of the delegation, having heard about the tour for the wives, jumped to my grandmother, grabbed her sleeve, and whispered in her ear in a terrible whisper: “You look closely there, Elena Prokofievna! " According to the other, no one jumped to anyone, she only exchanged long, understanding glances with the director. In the third, there weren’t even any glances because the director knew perfectly well what kind of specialist and responsible person Elena Prokofievna really was, and silently giggled in advance.

    And the pike was thrown into the river! They let a goat into the garden, you know. While other women absentmindedly looked around, my grandmother, walking with everyone in the shops, looked with her tenacious gray eyes exactly where she really needed to look, noticed and remembered everything. She spied, in short, like the utter daughter of a bitch. They say she managed to see a lot of useful things. Were they usefully implemented in domestic industry? God knows. In the USSR, it was sometimes difficult to introduce.

    But only half a century has passed, gentlemen! And there are already vanishingly few places on earth where they believe a woman can only be someone's wife, but not a specialist, and relax as carelessly as those long-time American comrades. Just some fifty years...
    https://maria-gorynceva.livejournal.com/642867.html
     
    Comments:

    "Well, I still flinch when I notice that here, in the decaying West, no one can even figure that a woman of our mothers' and grandmothers' generation can be a specialist too, not only a wife. After all, with all the numerous flaws of the USSR, in this matter it was advantageously different."

    "Yes, the fact that women could become specialists despite many hurdles is really one of the Soviet achievements.
    But are there really people somewhere in the decaying West who don't believe in female education and female professionalism in the USSR? Oh boy, what gaps can there be!"

    "They don't disbelieve that, it's just that their older woman is by default a housewife, or in the best case a secretary. This set-up shows in expressions like 'explain it so that your mom can understand' - here I usually mount my horse and say my mom is a systems engineer, she understands many things. They're surprised :)"
     
    And don't get me started on TTA's fellow Balkan men. Those "patriarchs" would sit in kafanas with their friends drinking rakija all day if their women didn't push them to get it together and do something productive.
  195. @Oliver D. Smith
    Never heard of him.

    I simply discuss and tackle (evidence-based) taboo topics.

    A decade back the taboo was immigration; no longer the case, since mainstream politicians now talk openly about it and most mainstream political parties have immigration-restrictionist policies.

    The current taboo is overpopulation. Unlike immigration, even the far-right don't want to tackle it. It's basically an elephant in the room for the entire political spectrum, even including most left-wing environmentalists.

    https://www.degrowth.info/en/catalogue-entry/an-elephant-in-the-room-called-overpopulation/

    Human population growth is the elephant in the room in the climate change debate
    https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1938/rr-2


    As a long-standing supporter of various environmental and conservation charities since the late 1980s, I have noticed that human population growth is very much a taboo subject for the “green” environmental movement. It is almost never mentioned.
     

    Overpopulation was a fashionable topic in the 1970s, but then disappeared.

    Not entirely sure why. Perhaps a combination of “neoliberalism” and “racism”.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Overpopulation was a fashionable topic in the 1970s, but then disappeared.
    Not entirely sure why. Perhaps a combination of “neoliberalism” and “racism”.
     
    The religious right of the United States.
    Have you noticed it was right wingers who screamed RACISM HITLER EUGENICS when Bernie recently said the obvious - that unlimited population growth on limited planet is not possible.
    It is the GOP who is consistently blocking all population control measures all over the world, coz every sperm is sacred.
    Add the climate change denial, and the never ending war mongering.

    25% of Republicans want war against Iran.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/265640/americans-war-iran.aspx

    33% of Americans would support a nuclear first strike on the North Korea.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/poll-33-americans-are-favor-dropping-nuclear-weapons-north-korea-64696

    Most of them are, predictably, Republicans.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1629576

    A majority of Trump supporters prefer the US strike in every scenario, except when confidence in the effectiveness of the US conventional strike is 50 percent. Still, it is important to note that preference for the strike even in this scenario remains at 44 percent among Trump supporters, compared to only 8 percent among non-Trump supporters
     
    Do you understand why the Republican Party is enemy of all mankind and must be destroyed by any means necessary?

    This is why every sane person must support open borders - open borders for America.
    Unlimited immigration, till every state is blue state and only elected Republican is dogcatcher of Upper Hog Creek, Alabama.
    This is the only way to save the world.
  196. @Anatoly Karlin
    Agreed on Stalin. Disagree on Ivan IV - while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:

    Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
     

    Disagree about Ivan IV.

    Ivan IV literally did nothing wrong. All the lies about Ivan being a cruel despot and barbarous murderer was a blacklisting and demonization of him at the time and throughout history by the treacherous Russian oligarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC), international Italian and Jewish oligarchies, and the Vatican. Nearly everything Ivan is accused of is completely false, half true or a lie by omission. For instance, the city of Novgorod was not annihilated. Only a few Boyar scum were executed by his Oprichnina, and Novgorod was instead disbanded and the population resettled somewhere else instead of being “massacred”, or whatever other hysterics the Boyars wrote about it.

    In a similar way, Vlad Dracula also did nothing wrong as he impaled traitor Boyars and Muslim Turks who only deserved it. Similarly to Ivan, Vlad Dracula was instead demonized by Wallachian Boyars, and especially the Transylvanian German-Saxons because he restrained their commercial trading privileges. The Transylvanian Saxons spread propaganda about Vlad being a barbarian all throughout Europe in the 15th century.

    Anyway, a reassessment of Late Medieval and Early Modern history in East Europe that cuts through Vatican-Germanic propaganda is sorely needed and long overdue.

  197. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    I never wrote it should, and certainly some of the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states and Poland isn’t very constructive…but so isn’t the “Stalin did nothing wrong” revisionism seen in this thread.

     

    Lol. Besides Beckow, I haven't seen a single example of "Stalin did nothing wrong" revisionism here in this thread. That sentiment only exists among Sovoks or tribal Russians/Slavs who feel threatened and confused. It's also something that Anatoly Karlin has written about before. Of course, Russians/Slavs who truly understand what Stalin did and his purpose, do not hero worship him.

    I personally think that Ivan the Terrible really did nothing wrong and that Russians should endorse historical revision about him instead, since really, the mainstream western historical narrative is complete with lies, falsehoods and half truths about Ivan the Terrible. That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни - Ivan Grozni - which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.

    From Wikipedia:

    Sobriquet

    The English word terrible is usually used to translate the Russian word grozny in Ivan’s nickname, but this is a somewhat archaic translation. The Russian word grozny reflects the older English usage of terrible as in “inspiring fear or terror; dangerous; powerful; formidable”. It does not convey the more modern connotations of English terrible, such as “defective” or “evil”. Vladimir Dal defines grozny specifically in archaic usage and as an epithet for tsars: “courageous, magnificent, magisterial and keeping enemies in fear, but people in obedience”. Other translations have also been suggested by modern scholars.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    That is fair enough, but most people who know the English language are not aware of that.
  198. @Thorfinnsson
    The shift to wind is not driven by economic considerations, but by atomophobia and the gaia religion. It was (re)invented in Denmark after local voters hysterically rejected atom.

    Wind power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I've seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh. That's terrible.

    Then, as AK noted, there is the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

    That said unlike onshore wind, offshore megawind is at least pretty cool.

    but by atomophobia

    England does not have irrational atomophobia. They are constructing Sizewell C at the moment.

    But see how Sizewell C will be more than 15 years to become online (with opening date for 2031).

    On the hand, Hornsea Project One was ordered 2,5 years ago and is online already.

    power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I’ve seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh.

    Levelized cost of energy already cheaper than nuclear in 2018.
    https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

    However, problem is it is not steady, while nuclear more suitable for baseload.

    the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

    It’s not necessary way to look at it, as you can just remove subsidies – and it should be reflected in financial cost.

    By the way, nuclear energy has a lot of hidden costs – the greatest is waste disposal, which is usually heavily subsidized by the government.

    Eventual deep geologic disposal not really resolved yet, and is expensive future task which current people are putting on future generations. (Future generations are subsidizing current ones in this industry).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    It is true that England doesn't suffer from German level atomophobia, but they certainly suffer from atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.

    The time and cost to construct atomic powerstations in some countries is the result of atomophobia. The generation II nuclear reactors which constitute most of the global nuclear power fleet were largely constructed in a few years. Atomophobes demanded a massive escalation of unnecessary "safety" features. That wasn't the worst of it however, as the industry has now dealt with this, but rather mucking up the planning and construction costs.

    In Asia, nuclear powerplants are constructed quickly, as you can see here: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country

    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.

    There was once no issue with fast construction in Western countries. Atomophobes are to blame for the glacial pace today.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry concrete casks. It's also not strictly speaking "waste" in that it contains a lot of energy, but mining more uranium is for now cheaper than reprocessing the waste.

    The only subsidy actually required for the industry is insurance. Other than that all that is necessary is to crush atomophobic cowards by sending them to concentration camps, ideally ones containing nuclear waste.

    EROEI should not be ignored because the purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive than one is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit. If it's negative one is actually losing energy.
  199. @Dmitry

    but by atomophobia
     
    England does not have irrational atomophobia. They are constructing Sizewell C at the moment.

    But see how Sizewell C will be more than 15 years to become online (with opening date for 2031).

    On the hand, Hornsea Project One was ordered 2,5 years ago and is online already.



    power has improved its economics, but they generally remain poor. Good data on this is confusing, but the latest best case I’ve seen for offshore wind is 16c/kwh.

     

    Levelized cost of energy already cheaper than nuclear in 2018.
    https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

    However, problem is it is not steady, while nuclear more suitable for baseload.


    the EROEI issue. Financial cost does not necessarily translate to energy cost.

     

    It's not necessary way to look at it, as you can just remove subsidies - and it should be reflected in financial cost.

    -

    By the way, nuclear energy has a lot of hidden costs - the greatest is waste disposal, which is usually heavily subsidized by the government.

    Eventual deep geologic disposal not really resolved yet, and is expensive future task which current people are putting on future generations. (Future generations are subsidizing current ones in this industry).

    It is true that England doesn’t suffer from German level atomophobia, but they certainly suffer from atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.

    The time and cost to construct atomic powerstations in some countries is the result of atomophobia. The generation II nuclear reactors which constitute most of the global nuclear power fleet were largely constructed in a few years. Atomophobes demanded a massive escalation of unnecessary “safety” features. That wasn’t the worst of it however, as the industry has now dealt with this, but rather mucking up the planning and construction costs.

    In Asia, nuclear powerplants are constructed quickly, as you can see here: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country

    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.

    There was once no issue with fast construction in Western countries. Atomophobes are to blame for the glacial pace today.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry concrete casks. It’s also not strictly speaking “waste” in that it contains a lot of energy, but mining more uranium is for now cheaper than reprocessing the waste.

    The only subsidy actually required for the industry is insurance. Other than that all that is necessary is to crush atomophobic cowards by sending them to concentration camps, ideally ones containing nuclear waste.

    EROEI should not be ignored because the purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive than one is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit. If it’s negative one is actually losing energy.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    EROEI should not be ignored
     
    It seems a fully arbitrary measurement, invented by an economist recently. Although it might be interesting sociologically, it's also subjective and arbitrary how you define what is the energy input - and you could produce wildly different results by varying your definitions.

    purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive
     
    This is tautology.

    Obviously, if it was negative, you would find you have no energy very soon.


    simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit
     
    All human energy generation activities, is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry

     

    It's extremely expensive, just a lot of costs hidden carefully. You can look at the already incredibly high costs of nuclear disposal contracts in Krasnoyarsk .

    And the fact disposal of high level radioactive waste is still technically unsolved.

    Here the type of future proposal where they will study if the method they propose works or not first.

    http://www.atomic-energy.ru/files/styles/center/public/images/2016/04/nizhnekansky.jpg?itok=zpeNOzUt


    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.
     
    You mean re-opening of existing unit by TEPCO?

    Also it seems like they have been offline for 6 years since the earthquake, before re-opening?


    atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.
     
    Many countries have atomic mismanagement, including sometimes the most advanced countries (Japan, England,, etc). Inductively, it seems to be not the most easy industry to manage.
  200. @Oliver D. Smith
    Never heard of him.

    I simply discuss and tackle (evidence-based) taboo topics.

    A decade back the taboo was immigration; no longer the case, since mainstream politicians now talk openly about it and most mainstream political parties have immigration-restrictionist policies.

    The current taboo is overpopulation. Unlike immigration, even the far-right don't want to tackle it. It's basically an elephant in the room for the entire political spectrum, even including most left-wing environmentalists.

    https://www.degrowth.info/en/catalogue-entry/an-elephant-in-the-room-called-overpopulation/

    Human population growth is the elephant in the room in the climate change debate
    https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1938/rr-2


    As a long-standing supporter of various environmental and conservation charities since the late 1980s, I have noticed that human population growth is very much a taboo subject for the “green” environmental movement. It is almost never mentioned.
     

    I don’t understand people with “practical” arguments against why your society should not have children.

    Environmental problems with overpopulation, can be solved with technology.

    I agree aesthetically, our current environment is overcrowded and the number of people is too high already – even in low density Australia it would be even quieter, more pleasant and more peaceful with 1/10th of current population figures.

    But as we find the world today – higher quality people do not have enough children, while the lower quality people have too many. Aesthetic considerations becomes less important in such a situation. World would benefit from more civilized people having children, and less uncivilized ones producing less, in the current dynamic.

    If uncivilized people stopped having children, then it would be acceptable if civilized people reduced the numbers as well (while still having more than the uncivilized people). But this is the opposite, sadly, of the current dynamic.

    On the other hand, if your belief against childbirth is based in the Christian, Buddhist, Gnostic, Schopenhauer, rejection of the will- then I can start to understand (certainly in Schopenhauer’s writing).

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I can recommend reading this essay; can be found on Google Books: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199378111.001.0001/acprof-9780199378111-chapter-2

    This chapter advances a misanthropic moral argument for anti-natalism. According to this argument, we have a presumptive duty to desist from bringing into existence new members of species that cause vast amounts of harm. Extensive evidence is provided to show that human nature has a dark side that leads humans to cause vast amounts of pain, suffering, and death to other humans and to non-human animals. Some of this harm is mediated by destruction of the environment.
     
    This essay only raises evidence-based ecological (what you would consider 'practical') arguments against childbirth, not religious or philosophical. Many people are too selfish or ignorant to accept the reality childbirth has a negative environmental impact.
  201. @Dmitry
    I don't understand people with "practical" arguments against why your society should not have children.

    Environmental problems with overpopulation, can be solved with technology.

    I agree aesthetically, our current environment is overcrowded and the number of people is too high already - even in low density Australia it would be even quieter, more pleasant and more peaceful with 1/10th of current population figures.

    But as we find the world today - higher quality people do not have enough children, while the lower quality people have too many. Aesthetic considerations becomes less important in such a situation. World would benefit from more civilized people having children, and less uncivilized ones producing less, in the current dynamic.

    If uncivilized people stopped having children, then it would be acceptable if civilized people reduced the numbers as well (while still having more than the uncivilized people). But this is the opposite, sadly, of the current dynamic.


    -


    On the other hand, if your belief against childbirth is based in the Christian, Buddhist, Gnostic, Schopenhauer, rejection of the will- then I can start to understand (certainly in Schopenhauer's writing).

    I can recommend reading this essay; can be found on Google Books: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199378111.001.0001/acprof-9780199378111-chapter-2

    This chapter advances a misanthropic moral argument for anti-natalism. According to this argument, we have a presumptive duty to desist from bringing into existence new members of species that cause vast amounts of harm. Extensive evidence is provided to show that human nature has a dark side that leads humans to cause vast amounts of pain, suffering, and death to other humans and to non-human animals. Some of this harm is mediated by destruction of the environment.

    This essay only raises evidence-based ecological (what you would consider ‘practical’) arguments against childbirth, not religious or philosophical. Many people are too selfish or ignorant to accept the reality childbirth has a negative environmental impact.

  202. @Thorfinnsson
    It is true that England doesn't suffer from German level atomophobia, but they certainly suffer from atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.

    The time and cost to construct atomic powerstations in some countries is the result of atomophobia. The generation II nuclear reactors which constitute most of the global nuclear power fleet were largely constructed in a few years. Atomophobes demanded a massive escalation of unnecessary "safety" features. That wasn't the worst of it however, as the industry has now dealt with this, but rather mucking up the planning and construction costs.

    In Asia, nuclear powerplants are constructed quickly, as you can see here: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-second-fastest-nuclear-plant-building-country

    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.

    There was once no issue with fast construction in Western countries. Atomophobes are to blame for the glacial pace today.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry concrete casks. It's also not strictly speaking "waste" in that it contains a lot of energy, but mining more uranium is for now cheaper than reprocessing the waste.

    The only subsidy actually required for the industry is insurance. Other than that all that is necessary is to crush atomophobic cowards by sending them to concentration camps, ideally ones containing nuclear waste.

    EROEI should not be ignored because the purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive than one is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit. If it's negative one is actually losing energy.

    EROEI should not be ignored

    It seems a fully arbitrary measurement, invented by an economist recently. Although it might be interesting sociologically, it’s also subjective and arbitrary how you define what is the energy input – and you could produce wildly different results by varying your definitions.

    purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive

    This is tautology.

    Obviously, if it was negative, you would find you have no energy very soon.

    simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit

    All human energy generation activities, is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry

    It’s extremely expensive, just a lot of costs hidden carefully. You can look at the already incredibly high costs of nuclear disposal contracts in Krasnoyarsk .

    And the fact disposal of high level radioactive waste is still technically unsolved.

    Here the type of future proposal where they will study if the method they propose works or not first.

    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.

    You mean re-opening of existing unit by TEPCO?

    Also it seems like they have been offline for 6 years since the earthquake, before re-opening?

    atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.

    Many countries have atomic mismanagement, including sometimes the most advanced countries (Japan, England,, etc). Inductively, it seems to be not the most easy industry to manage.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    EROEI is not arbitrary at all. It is true that it is a recent concept, but it's inherently simple to understand. One simply compares the input of energy invested to the energy return on said investment.

    In that sense it is quite similar to financial ROI. If you borrow money at 5% to get a return of 3%, you will not be long for this world.

    You are correct that all human energy production activities are actually a form of energy transformation. But in EROEI one looks at already usable forms of energy in order to get new energy. If the new energy obtained is less than the energy that was used to harvest it, then energy has been lost.

    This is sometimes useful of course. Classic examples are batteries and pumped hydro, as both store energy for future needs. But when used for electricity generation it is pathological.

    Japan had the world's best managed nuclear industry until its irrational, hysterical reaction to Fukushima. It may never properly recover, which is very sad. Even worse, this inspired neighboring South Korea to embrace atomophobia as well. The future of the nuclear industry now lies in China and Russia.

    And no, I did not mean the reopening of some units at that plant, but the construction of unit 6 there.

    The nuclear industry simply requires economies of scale and standardization to succeed. In this it's not very different from other industrial activities, but it is unfortunately subjected to far more political interference. Imagine if the American fracking industry faced similar interference. There would not be a fracking industry at all. Likewise the achievements of modern combined cycle natural gas powerplants are the result of sixty years of refinement and experience, without dramatic political interference (there has been pressure to reduce emissions, but done in a rational way).

  203. @melanf

    result of making Finland a German ally
     
    I think Finland would be an ally of Germany anyway. There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia. The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Nothing was gained by Russia in the war
     
    Except the Karelian isthmus

    There is no doubt that Finland had quite clear plans for conquest (and ethnic cleansing) of northwestern Russia.

    By these standards there is also “no doubt” that the Soviet war aim was full ethnic cleansing of Finland. People were shown supposed leaks of Soviet government plans to deport the whole Finnish ethnic group to Siberia, many ethnic Russian dissidents who had formerly worked for Stalin and had defected to the West showed up in Finland to testify about Russia’s genocidal plans, Finnish leftists who had returned from the Soviet Union were testifying about (actually real) mass executions of Finns etc.

    People mock Finns who believe Finland to have won the war but a big part of that is that rather many Finns believe the worst about Russia’s aims. If you believe that the Russian aim was the elimination of Finns as a national group and you note that Finns still exist after the war, well, then you’re going to believe that Finns won and that Russians lost.

    You may think it’s ridiculous but it’s no more ridiculous than your beliefs of nefarious Finnish grand plans which are very likely based on claims that something published by some random fringe nationalist somewhere were “government policy” or even just the word of Finnish communist exiles who of course made all sorts of made up claims.

    In any case, we have an extremely likely comparison with the Baltic states. Baltic nations weren’t wiped out but there was communist mass terror and I think there’s approximately zero chance that my landowning ancestors wouldn’t have been shot or put in some cattle wagon if Finland had accepted the communist puppet government. Most Finns would have faced less persecution, though Finland would have been turned into a backwards shithole.

    We don’t have a similar comparison for what would have happened if Finland won and it’s actually tough to say precisely because Finland didn’t have any grand plan and offensive war aims had never been widely discussed since most people considered invading Russia a ridiculous idea. Finland’s behavior was inconsistent and ineffective in offense due to lack of clear and consistent war aims beyond recapturing lost territories.

    One pretty good bit of evidence that Finland had not expected the war was that the government had made very little investment in military and Finland had essentially no offensive capabilities. This was another reason why the Winter War pushed Finland into German arms – the popular feeling was that since we had done so well when fighting with hunting rifles and no real military, imagine what we could do if we had proper fighters, tanks, artillery?

    The Winter War had everyone convinced that with German gear it would be a quick victory. Russia would surrender and we’d be at a negotiation table and that’s when we’d talk about which lands to claim and what is to be done with the populations.

    The situation when the German offensive in 1941 would have started from the outskirts of Leningrad (where are placed the border with Finland before the Winter war) is probably meant the complete defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Finland did not allow the Germans to use the territory even in real history so what would be different in this scenario? Finland’s deal with the Germans was to take the positions that it had had before the Winter War, sit there and do nothing else. No German offensive was allowed to start from that position towards Leningrad so why would it be allowed in some alternative scenario When the siege didn’t go as planned the Germans asked for more but Finland refused.

    Finland reached the old border well in time to wait for Germany to show up so Russia gaining the Karelian isthmus in Winter War did not delay the siege of Leningrad.

    Of course, if Germany had some regime that was trusted more than Hitler’s, Finland might have allowed them more use of its territory, but then we’d need to have a hypothetical nicer German regime that still wants to start Operation Barbarossa.

    Personally I think it was a foolish decision not to push further on Leningrad and if we had actively co-operated with the Germans we would have properly closed the siege. Since Russia is eternally going to use “defense of St Petersburg” as a supposed reason, we really should have taken the one chance to get rid of that reason. But with hindsight I doubt it would have made the difference to the war – I don’t see how Germany would have won even if a meteorite had destroyed Leningrad in early 1941.

    • Replies: @utu
    Finland was to be swallowed by the USSR according to the Secret Protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact#/media/File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg

    , @melanf

    People mock Finns
     
    No one mock Finns in this debate. But there are two obvious things

    Results of the Winter war meant winning the USSR. I don't think evicting Finns from Vyborg is a good thing (I think such actions are a bad thing) but the reality is that success often has nothing to do with morality.

    The Finnish border on the outskirts of Leningrad (on the eve of the WWI) threatened the USSR with defeat and destruction. Of course, the alternative history is incomprehensible to us, but there is reason to think that Finland would be an ally of Germany in any case (even without Winter war).
    , @Korenchkin

    People mock Finns
     
    People mock Finns for their lack of social skills, not because of the Winter War XD
    Shitty jokes aside, the Winter War is best classified as a stalemate IMO

    No one should deride Finns for celebrating the fact that they prevented the complete annexation of Finland, here's hoping you manage to dodge the Globo Homo aswell
  204. @AP
    LOL, you are quite the catch. You admitted to being poor, a Balkan immigrant in the West. What woman could resist someone like you?

    LOL, you are quite the catch. You admitted to being poor, a Balkan immigrant in the West. What woman could resist someone like you?

    It’s actually not that hard to have casual sex with women in the West. It doesn’t even require a man to have much money. Men just need to be entertaining and project power/status. Women are also mostly race/ethnicity blind. For men with money, prostitutes are obviously easier.

    Of course, family formation is another matter.

  205. @Dmitry

    EROEI should not be ignored
     
    It seems a fully arbitrary measurement, invented by an economist recently. Although it might be interesting sociologically, it's also subjective and arbitrary how you define what is the energy input - and you could produce wildly different results by varying your definitions.

    purpose of energy production is to produce energy. If EROEI is not positive
     
    This is tautology.

    Obviously, if it was negative, you would find you have no energy very soon.


    simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit
     
    All human energy generation activities, is simply transforming energy with no net energetic benefit.

    Nuclear waste is not an expensive problem to deal with. It can be stored at the plants themselves in dry

     

    It's extremely expensive, just a lot of costs hidden carefully. You can look at the already incredibly high costs of nuclear disposal contracts in Krasnoyarsk .

    And the fact disposal of high level radioactive waste is still technically unsolved.

    Here the type of future proposal where they will study if the method they propose works or not first.

    http://www.atomic-energy.ru/files/styles/center/public/images/2016/04/nizhnekansky.jpg?itok=zpeNOzUt


    Unit 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was built in just 39 months, and with first world safety standards.
     
    You mean re-opening of existing unit by TEPCO?

    Also it seems like they have been offline for 6 years since the earthquake, before re-opening?


    atomic mismanagement. This is reflected in their abandonment of their indigenous nuclear-industrial base and the comically poor management of Sizewell C.
     
    Many countries have atomic mismanagement, including sometimes the most advanced countries (Japan, England,, etc). Inductively, it seems to be not the most easy industry to manage.

    EROEI is not arbitrary at all. It is true that it is a recent concept, but it’s inherently simple to understand. One simply compares the input of energy invested to the energy return on said investment.

    In that sense it is quite similar to financial ROI. If you borrow money at 5% to get a return of 3%, you will not be long for this world.

    You are correct that all human energy production activities are actually a form of energy transformation. But in EROEI one looks at already usable forms of energy in order to get new energy. If the new energy obtained is less than the energy that was used to harvest it, then energy has been lost.

    This is sometimes useful of course. Classic examples are batteries and pumped hydro, as both store energy for future needs. But when used for electricity generation it is pathological.

    Japan had the world’s best managed nuclear industry until its irrational, hysterical reaction to Fukushima. It may never properly recover, which is very sad. Even worse, this inspired neighboring South Korea to embrace atomophobia as well. The future of the nuclear industry now lies in China and Russia.

    And no, I did not mean the reopening of some units at that plant, but the construction of unit 6 there.

    The nuclear industry simply requires economies of scale and standardization to succeed. In this it’s not very different from other industrial activities, but it is unfortunately subjected to far more political interference. Imagine if the American fracking industry faced similar interference. There would not be a fracking industry at all. Likewise the achievements of modern combined cycle natural gas powerplants are the result of sixty years of refinement and experience, without dramatic political interference (there has been pressure to reduce emissions, but done in a rational way).

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    EROEI is not arbitrary at all.
     
    It is arbitrary in many different ways.

    Because it's now the season of year for harvesting sunflowers - we can use that for an example.

    Maybe you assume that sun is "not your energy". So to produce sunflower oil, you need some land (0 energy investment), and energy investment (what you eat for breakfast) of planting sunflower seeds.

    We can also employ laborers to collect the sunflower seeds and squeeze them for oil. So the energy investment is what they eat for breakfast.

    In the end we can produce arbitrary amount of sunflower oil (perhaps hundreds of litres, perhaps millions of litres), depending on the size of the land and its location relative to the sun, which is produced for almost no energy investment (except what the labour who plant and harvest the seeds eat).


    -

    Is the "energy invested" relevant cost for production of the energy? Is sunflower oil costing the breakfast the labour eats? (Perhaps recycling a spoon of last year's sunflower oil to feed them?)

    No, the important things are:
    1. Value of land used. (Opportunity cost of land)
    2. Time.
    3. Cost of the labourer's souls themselves (not their breakfast)

    -


    To continue example - think about a rowing ship.

    Power is supplied by the slaves under the ship. Energy invested is the chemical energy in food you feed to slaves. And usable energy is the kinetic energy of the oars.

    In this case, you might think there is very negative return on energy invested (as most of the chemical energy in food is not transferred to the oars).

    But to illustrate how arbitrary this is, just add another stage - that the person who invests in the slave ship is the same one who invests in the sunflower farm, and that we consider this as a total energy generation and transfer system.

    By changing definition of the size of the system (to expand its size to include the farm), then you will have a positive return on investment.


    I did not mean the reopening of some units at that plant, but the construction of unit 6 there.

     

    It was constructed in the 1970s? But then restarted in 2009 after upgrad, and they closed it after Fukushima incident?

    nuclear industry simply requires economies of scale and standardization to succeed.

     

    There's very large hidden costs. Who is subsidizing geological disposal - or even current research into this - of high-level waste? It is taxpayers, and primarily future taxpayers.

    And yet levelized cost of energy of nuclear energy is already higher than gas (without accounting for hidden costs of nuclear waste disposal).

  206. @Hyperborean

    That bias is even shown by the incorrect translation of Иван Грозни – Ivan Grozni – which means Ivan the Fearsome, to Ivan the Terrible.
     
    From Wikipedia:


    Sobriquet

    The English word terrible is usually used to translate the Russian word grozny in Ivan's nickname, but this is a somewhat archaic translation. The Russian word grozny reflects the older English usage of terrible as in "inspiring fear or terror; dangerous; powerful; formidable". It does not convey the more modern connotations of English terrible, such as "defective" or "evil". Vladimir Dal defines grozny specifically in archaic usage and as an epithet for tsars: "courageous, magnificent, magisterial and keeping enemies in fear, but people in obedience". Other translations have also been suggested by modern scholars.
     

    That is fair enough, but most people who know the English language are not aware of that.

  207. @Thomm
    I think it is quite salient to point out the vast difference between AK's views of Andrew Yang, vs. Steve Sailer's.

    Anatoly Karlin is a fan of Yang, and has done his best to promote him. AK does not think Andrew Yang's heritage is a huge factor in his candidacy. While Yang's version of 'UBI' is a relatively uncreative idea among the set of ideas out there regarding UBI, Karlin at least recognizes that some form of this idea has merit.

    On the other hand, Steve Sailer, true to his worldview, can only see Andrew Yang as a Chinese person who wants to sneak more Chinese people into the US (that too in the cramped conditions Chinese often come in illegally under) :

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/andrew-yang-should-endorse-this-idea/?highlight=andrew+Yang

    When one sees race in everything, they assume all others do too, and can't imagine anyone who doesn't think that way.

    AK has defended Steve Sailer in the past (although those instances had a vibe of 'I have to defend Sailer' rather than 'I want to defend Sailer').

    But this time, it is instructive to see who is a thinker vs. who is in a relatively lower tier of innate caliber of thought.

    I have often maintained that if one scratches the surface, they see that Steve Sailer is ultimately a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.

    His strength is quantity of output, rather than quality. If just one post out of six is good, doing six posts per day still leads to one good one per day. This episode does not help Steve's defenders argue otherwise.

    I have often maintained that if one scratches the surface, they see that Steve Sailer is ultimately a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.

    He seems to catch your interest.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Thomm is a really weird commenter. His main obsessions are attacking "white trashionalists" (who in turn accuse him of being Indian) and Steve Sailer.

    The former is sort of understandable, though odd from someone in our space.

    The latter is bizarre. Steve Sailer is one of the most important--and high quality--public intellectuals of the past twenty years. He doesn't do any long-form writing anymore, probably because he's seen it all before. Sailer should probably write more books, if only to increase his income and prestige, but he doesn't appear to enjoy that.
  208. @Realist

    I have often maintained that if one scratches the surface, they see that Steve Sailer is ultimately a 100 IQ blogger catering to an 80 IQ audience.
     
    He seems to catch your interest.

    Thomm is a really weird commenter. His main obsessions are attacking “white trashionalists” (who in turn accuse him of being Indian) and Steve Sailer.

    The former is sort of understandable, though odd from someone in our space.

    The latter is bizarre. Steve Sailer is one of the most important–and high quality–public intellectuals of the past twenty years. He doesn’t do any long-form writing anymore, probably because he’s seen it all before. Sailer should probably write more books, if only to increase his income and prestige, but he doesn’t appear to enjoy that.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Thomm is a really weird commenter.
     
    He is for sure.
    , @German_reader

    He doesn’t do any long-form writing anymore
     
    Sailer comes across as pretty disillusioned, like he's resigned himself to not doing more than chronicling the insanities of the present age which will inevitably end in disaster. But tbh that's probably just being realistic. It's also probably hard not to get cynical when one has to read the NYT and similar publications.
  209. @Thorfinnsson
    Thomm is a really weird commenter. His main obsessions are attacking "white trashionalists" (who in turn accuse him of being Indian) and Steve Sailer.

    The former is sort of understandable, though odd from someone in our space.

    The latter is bizarre. Steve Sailer is one of the most important--and high quality--public intellectuals of the past twenty years. He doesn't do any long-form writing anymore, probably because he's seen it all before. Sailer should probably write more books, if only to increase his income and prestige, but he doesn't appear to enjoy that.

    Thomm is a really weird commenter.

    He is for sure.

  210. @Anatoly Karlin
    Agreed on Stalin. Disagree on Ivan IV - while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:

    Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
     

    Disagree on Ivan IV – while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:

    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person, but as a ruler, he increased the area of Russia three times and successfully kept these gains (it was the land most important for the future of Russia ). This Ivan is difficult to criticize as a ruler (in the overall assessment of his reign).

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person

     

    What are you on about? Ivan was a deeply just and moral man. Ivan IV was also the most moral and humane ruler in all of Europe for his time. It was his oligarch boyar associates who were unpleasant scum that betrayed him. Ivan's wife was poisoned by boyar scum. A close friend of Ivan's, a piece of boyar scum, also betrayed him and defected to Poland-Lithuania where he took part in many of the oligarch-noble boyar conspiracies against Ivan IV and Russia. The Oprichniki were a necessary, just and righteous guard that defended against internal and external conspiracies.

    Again, Ivan did nothing wrong and all the quotes about him being evil is just propaganda written by those who hated him at the time or have hated him ever since. They have no evidence in fact and basis.

  211. @German_reader

    If the causes of the WWII (referred by Karlin) are discussed
     
    Yes, but as I wrote in my original comment, Western criticism of Molotov-Ribbentropp isn't because of the mere fact of the pact itself, but because of what the Soviet Union did as a consequence of it, that is invading the territory of other states and bringing communist terror there. Karlin referred to the recent commemorations in Poland, and the Soviet record wasn't attacked there simply because the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Hitler's Germany (it's technically correct that other states, including Poland, had done so before as well), but because of Soviet policies in the annexed territories during 1939-1941.
    It would certainly be extremely inappropriate to cast Russians as a perpetrator nation because of Molotov-Ribbentropp or to forget the Russian role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but I don't see why that should mean one has to defend everything Stalin's regime did, as some of the commenters here seem to believe.

    …Western criticism of Molotov-Ribbentropp isn’t because of the mere fact of the pact itself, but because of what the Soviet Union did as a consequence of it, that is invading the territory of other states and bringing communist terror there.

    You make that distinction, but not everybody in the West does it. There is an attempt to say that M-R pact made it ‘possible’ for Germany to attack Poland. Or even that it was a joint attack. That is simply historically not true.

    Regarding consequences, as I wrote above, Soviets were brutal and the way they did things at that time was very brutal. The consequences were built into the agreement. By the way a number of other countries at that time were also habitually brutal in their own way, e.g. Japanese, French or British in their colonies, Turks, and of course the highly cultured Germans anywhere in the east, it was a different era, brutality came with it automatically.

    To expect that after Germany quickly executed their part of M-R Pact, Soviets would sit on their hands and not take over the exposed buffer area between them and larger Germany is unrealistic. Why would they do it? At any point after defeating Poland, Germany could sweep through eastern ‘Poland’, Baltic states, or place its artillery a few kilometres from St. Petersburg. No military strategist would allow that, so Soviets had to move in.

    Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened for two reasons:
    – Poland refused to even discuss any alliance against Germany that included Russia
    – Moscow was skeptical whether UK-France would fight and suspected that at that time Britain’s policy was to trigger a Germany-Russia war and watch from the sidelines.

    All else were natural consequences. You can call that ‘paranoid‘, but that is the way all countries think – they have to plan for the worse possibilities, not hope for the best.

  212. @Anonymoose
    No problem. These changes are fine by me because while I love reading your articles and twitter and the discussions, it's honestly quite addicting. I also have a lot of work to look forward to in the future so I need to direct my attention elsewhere. I haven't made a comment on this site for more than a month anyway. Congrats on the 88th Open Thread if you know what I mean.

    I agree. The changes are fine with me, too, AK.

  213. @Thorfinnsson
    Thomm is a really weird commenter. His main obsessions are attacking "white trashionalists" (who in turn accuse him of being Indian) and Steve Sailer.

    The former is sort of understandable, though odd from someone in our space.

    The latter is bizarre. Steve Sailer is one of the most important--and high quality--public intellectuals of the past twenty years. He doesn't do any long-form writing anymore, probably because he's seen it all before. Sailer should probably write more books, if only to increase his income and prestige, but he doesn't appear to enjoy that.

    He doesn’t do any long-form writing anymore

    Sailer comes across as pretty disillusioned, like he’s resigned himself to not doing more than chronicling the insanities of the present age which will inevitably end in disaster. But tbh that’s probably just being realistic. It’s also probably hard not to get cynical when one has to read the NYT and similar publications.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Sailer likes to say that he keeps seeing the same things over and over again in the press that he's been reading about since he was a teenager. No doubt it gets old. I'm still young, and I certainly can't be bothered to argue with people anymore about the reality of race and/or IQ. Eventually you conclude that everyone's nuts and things are hopeless (until, of course, they aren't). I'm sure that would be economic reformers felt the same before the Great Depression for instance.

    Keep in mind also that he is now over sixty years old, has suffered from cancer, and doesn't seem to be very affluent. No family money that I can see, and he retired from his business career during his prime earning years to focus on his writing--and was quickly purged.
  214. @melanf

    Disagree on Ivan IV – while he was not unremittingly bad, I believe that this assessment of Mao applies to him to a tee:
     
    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person, but as a ruler, he increased the area of Russia three times and successfully kept these gains (it was the land most important for the future of Russia ). This Ivan is difficult to criticize as a ruler (in the overall assessment of his reign).

    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person

    What are you on about? Ivan was a deeply just and moral man. Ivan IV was also the most moral and humane ruler in all of Europe for his time. It was his oligarch boyar associates who were unpleasant scum that betrayed him. Ivan’s wife was poisoned by boyar scum. A close friend of Ivan’s, a piece of boyar scum, also betrayed him and defected to Poland-Lithuania where he took part in many of the oligarch-noble boyar conspiracies against Ivan IV and Russia. The Oprichniki were a necessary, just and righteous guard that defended against internal and external conspiracies.

    Again, Ivan did nothing wrong and all the quotes about him being evil is just propaganda written by those who hated him at the time or have hated him ever since. They have no evidence in fact and basis.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Ivan was a deeply just and moral man. Ivan IV was also the most moral and humane ruler in all of Europe for his time.
     
    Funny joke.
    Here is how to characterize Ivan historian Sergei Platonov (in General, positively evaluating Ivan as a ruler)
    "Грозный последних лет его деятельности не умалишенный человек, но человек, лишенный душевного спокойствия, угнетаемый страхом за самого себя и своих близких. Это - одна сторона его "ненормальности". Другая - близкая к тому, что называется "садизмом", то есть соединение жестокости с развратом. Эта черта в натуре Грозного, воспитанная его несчастным детством, к старости усилилась до чрезвычайных; проявлений. Его жертвы погибали в утонченных истязаниях и погибали сразу сотнями, доставляя тирану своеобразное удовольствие видом крови и мучений. Иногда Грозный "каялся", признавая, что "он разумом растленен и скотен умом", что он осквернил себя убийством, блудом и всяким злым деланием, что он "паче мертвеца смраднейший и гнуснейший"; но это был лишь обряд."
    , @Anonymoose
    Wasn't his half Serb mother poisoned as well? But one thing he did do wrong was beat his daughter in law causing her to miscarrige and then killed his son in rage when he confronted him about it leaving his second weakly son to succeed him who had no heirs which subsequently led to civil war upon his death.
  215. @Thorfinnsson
    Germany lost the war after they devoured rump Czechoslovakia and created a global Anglo-American war machine determined to destroy it. To even have a shot at winning, it had to do everything right and make no mistakes.

    Its initial efforts were focused on creating an alliance with Italy and Japan in order to face the Western powers with global war and dilute their naval assets. But neither were willing to bite. Next up was Germany's effort to form an alliance with Poland, allowing an immediate strike to the West. The Poles, either unable to read a map or willing to wait 60 years for things to get better, refused.

    That left the Soviet Union, which allowed Germany to quickly liquidate the Polish stooges with facing simultaneous war against Russia and France.

    The strategic depth gained by the USSR must be offset by the fact that it also resulted in Finland and Rumania joining the German invasion two years later.

    True enough that Japan was very unhappy with the M-R Pact, but as it was proving itself inferior to the Soviet army in any case and its strategic needs dictated expansion to the south.

    Ignored in my previous post, and yours, is also the economic benefits of the M-R Pact to Germany. The German-Soviet commercial agreements that arose out of the Pact provided vast resources to Germany and were very helpful in light of the Entente blockade. In fact the Entente's entire strategy for defeating Germany was short circuited by German-Soviet trade.

    Of course, who's to say that negotiating economic agreements required the Pact, especially after the German Army demonstrated its power?

    I mostly agree with that summary, a few quibbles:

    – It was not fully determined in March 1939 when Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia that it would eventually lose, they had a few better moves after that. But it was largely sealed after M-R Pact and attacking Poland later that year.
    – Finland, and especially Romania, were going to join Germany in fighting Russia no matter what. Finland reluctantly and locally, Romania with an overarching ambition.
    – True, Japan lost to Soviets in August 1939. But at the right time, in late 1941, if Japan attacked Soviets in the east it could had been very different. At the minimum, Soviets would had to keep a much larger force there to defend. The defeat of Germans in front of Moscow was partly achieved by a risky transfer of Siberian troops to the West – there was no way they could had done it if Japan attacked at the same time.

    Japan not attacking Russia was among the decisive factors in defeating Barbarossa. It was caused by Japan not trusting Germans after the M-R Pact. Everybody expected Japan to attack and they didn’t – it is the dog that didn’t bark and it decided the war.

    You can see the economic benefits to Germany as a payoff by Russia to buy time. Incidentally, at that time Germany openly paid profits to US-British investors in German companies through Switzerland. I would not be too harsh on any of it, but let’s not cherry pick who helped Nazis when and more. Sweden also helped a lot. History is always messy.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The Germans could've plausibly won the war had they done everything and then some right. They had a weak hand and played it very far.

    The issue with swallowing up rump Czechoslovakia is that it permanently destroyed Hitler's credibility with the British. The Germans didn't understand this, as they didn't understand the moral evolution that Britain had undergone since Gladstone's time. They should've known better in light of British outrage over Belgium in 1914.

    I'm not at all convinced that Finland would've joined Germany in attacking the USSR had there been no Winter War, Jaako Raipala certainly suggests otherwise, but you're almost certainly right about Rumania.

    I don't think Japan not attacking Russia was decisive in defeating Barbarossa, though it helped. See here: http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops? The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941.
     

    Any Japanese offensive into Siberia would've been limited in size for a variety of reasons. The demands of the war in China, the difficult terrain, logistical constraints (especially on the Soviet side of the frontier), and Japan's limited industrial resources. The Soviets would not have needed to maintain many forces in the Far East, especially as there was nothing important there to hold other than the port of Vladivostok.

    Losing Vladivostok would be helpful to the Germans, but cargo would've continued to flow into Murmansk (which couldn't be taken because of Finnish reluctance) and Persia.

    A lot more helpful to the Germans would be if Italy and especially Japan had agreed to the global alliance proposal in 1939. Imagine the strain on Britain's navy and merchant marine.

    German-Soviet trade wasn't just a move to buy time for the USSR. The Soviet Union received valuable goods and technology from Germany in exchange. Though they also made some dubious purchases in pursuit of Stalin's odd big fleet program: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a422492.pdf

    My take on the M-R Pact is that it assured no Soviet involvement in Germany's war with the Entente while providing Germany with valuable resources. Nothing about the M-R Pact required the USSR to attack Finland (or to attack it so ineptly), so that can be described as a Soviet own goal unrelated to the pact per se.

    That brings up another hypothetical--historical M-R Pact, but no Soviet attack on Finland. Then there could be the benefit of additional strategic depth without a hostile Finland. But who knew?

  216. @German_reader

    He doesn’t do any long-form writing anymore
     
    Sailer comes across as pretty disillusioned, like he's resigned himself to not doing more than chronicling the insanities of the present age which will inevitably end in disaster. But tbh that's probably just being realistic. It's also probably hard not to get cynical when one has to read the NYT and similar publications.

    Sailer likes to say that he keeps seeing the same things over and over again in the press that he’s been reading about since he was a teenager. No doubt it gets old. I’m still young, and I certainly can’t be bothered to argue with people anymore about the reality of race and/or IQ. Eventually you conclude that everyone’s nuts and things are hopeless (until, of course, they aren’t). I’m sure that would be economic reformers felt the same before the Great Depression for instance.

    Keep in mind also that he is now over sixty years old, has suffered from cancer, and doesn’t seem to be very affluent. No family money that I can see, and he retired from his business career during his prime earning years to focus on his writing–and was quickly purged.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    btw I just saw this:
    https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170033001864028166

    It's really remarkable how crazy the left on both sides of the Atlantic has become in recent years with their open borders enthusiasm.
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    Steve Sailer's scientific views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists, so he's left posting about them on right-wing fringe websites. lol
  217. @Thorfinnsson
    Sailer likes to say that he keeps seeing the same things over and over again in the press that he's been reading about since he was a teenager. No doubt it gets old. I'm still young, and I certainly can't be bothered to argue with people anymore about the reality of race and/or IQ. Eventually you conclude that everyone's nuts and things are hopeless (until, of course, they aren't). I'm sure that would be economic reformers felt the same before the Great Depression for instance.

    Keep in mind also that he is now over sixty years old, has suffered from cancer, and doesn't seem to be very affluent. No family money that I can see, and he retired from his business career during his prime earning years to focus on his writing--and was quickly purged.

    btw I just saw this:

    It’s really remarkable how crazy the left on both sides of the Atlantic has become in recent years with their open borders enthusiasm.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    It's crazy, but it makes perfect sense from their first principles.

    If your first principle is equality (or perhaps hatred of the white race under the guise of equality), then denying people rights based on their place of birth and citizenship is evil.

    From Elizabeth Warren it's especially absurd since she's made her political career on fighting economic inequality and exploitation. But then she's also a hysterical female.
  218. @Beckow
    I mostly agree with that summary, a few quibbles:

    - It was not fully determined in March 1939 when Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia that it would eventually lose, they had a few better moves after that. But it was largely sealed after M-R Pact and attacking Poland later that year.
    - Finland, and especially Romania, were going to join Germany in fighting Russia no matter what. Finland reluctantly and locally, Romania with an overarching ambition.
    - True, Japan lost to Soviets in August 1939. But at the right time, in late 1941, if Japan attacked Soviets in the east it could had been very different. At the minimum, Soviets would had to keep a much larger force there to defend. The defeat of Germans in front of Moscow was partly achieved by a risky transfer of Siberian troops to the West - there was no way they could had done it if Japan attacked at the same time.

    Japan not attacking Russia was among the decisive factors in defeating Barbarossa. It was caused by Japan not trusting Germans after the M-R Pact. Everybody expected Japan to attack and they didn't - it is the dog that didn't bark and it decided the war.

    You can see the economic benefits to Germany as a payoff by Russia to buy time. Incidentally, at that time Germany openly paid profits to US-British investors in German companies through Switzerland. I would not be too harsh on any of it, but let's not cherry pick who helped Nazis when and more. Sweden also helped a lot. History is always messy.

    The Germans could’ve plausibly won the war had they done everything and then some right. They had a weak hand and played it very far.

    The issue with swallowing up rump Czechoslovakia is that it permanently destroyed Hitler’s credibility with the British. The Germans didn’t understand this, as they didn’t understand the moral evolution that Britain had undergone since Gladstone’s time. They should’ve known better in light of British outrage over Belgium in 1914.

    I’m not at all convinced that Finland would’ve joined Germany in attacking the USSR had there been no Winter War, Jaako Raipala certainly suggests otherwise, but you’re almost certainly right about Rumania.

    I don’t think Japan not attacking Russia was decisive in defeating Barbarossa, though it helped. See here: http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops? The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941.

    Any Japanese offensive into Siberia would’ve been limited in size for a variety of reasons. The demands of the war in China, the difficult terrain, logistical constraints (especially on the Soviet side of the frontier), and Japan’s limited industrial resources. The Soviets would not have needed to maintain many forces in the Far East, especially as there was nothing important there to hold other than the port of Vladivostok.

    Losing Vladivostok would be helpful to the Germans, but cargo would’ve continued to flow into Murmansk (which couldn’t be taken because of Finnish reluctance) and Persia.

    A lot more helpful to the Germans would be if Italy and especially Japan had agreed to the global alliance proposal in 1939. Imagine the strain on Britain’s navy and merchant marine.

    German-Soviet trade wasn’t just a move to buy time for the USSR. The Soviet Union received valuable goods and technology from Germany in exchange. Though they also made some dubious purchases in pursuit of Stalin’s odd big fleet program: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a422492.pdf

    My take on the M-R Pact is that it assured no Soviet involvement in Germany’s war with the Entente while providing Germany with valuable resources. Nothing about the M-R Pact required the USSR to attack Finland (or to attack it so ineptly), so that can be described as a Soviet own goal unrelated to the pact per se.

    That brings up another hypothetical–historical M-R Pact, but no Soviet attack on Finland. Then there could be the benefit of additional strategic depth without a hostile Finland. But who knew?

    • Replies: @Beckow
    The impact of any Japan attack in Siberia in 1941 would be psychologically devastating for the Soviets. It doesn't matter if it only blocked Vladivostok and took Irkutsk, having to defend Siberia hinterland would change the balance of power. Japan was also quite capable and within 6 months of Barbarossa defeated Americans in the Philippines, occupied most of east Asia, had air force, etc...

    ... hordes of newly arrived Siberian
     
    I take historians who feel comfortable describing soldiers from Siberia as 'hordes' with a grain of salt. Imagine 'hordes of newly arrived British soldiers in Normandy'. Right.

    ...moral evolution that Britain had undergone since Gladstone’s time
     
    You mean from lying occasionally to basically lying all the time? Britain has no morals and no honour code. The main reason Brits invented the concept of fair play is because they naturally lack any sense of fairness or honour. So they play-act. I don't think British elite had any moral awakening about Nazis after Czechoslovakia, they simply adjusted their behaviour to reflect the fact that Germany was suddenly on the roll. I find all this posturing about 'British values' and morality bizarre beyond belief, are we talking about people like Chamberlain, Churchill, Halifax?

    Germany could had won WWII if they didn't attack Soviet Union. It is that simple: as Napoleon, Swedes, Turks and Poles before, they broke their teeth attacking Russia. If Germany in 1941 simply sat on its hands and kept what they had, they were unbeatable. Poles would disappear, French would adjust to pleasing their German overlords, Sweden would over time become a dependency. Germany attacked Russia in 1941 because they were on a victory high and judged Red Army by the ease with which they disposed of Poles and French. Hitler even sent Rudolf Hess in May 1941 to negotiate a 3-year pause on the Western front to have time to defeat Russia - and Britain agreed to the dot, they waited exactly 3 years before Normandy invasion.

    Finland was definitely a fiasco and there is no way to know what they would had done in the absence of the Winter War. My point is that countries act based on existing threats and that made attacking Finland almost inevitable. It is interesting that Westerners who act in a similar paranoid fashion at home all the time not allowing even a semblance of threat on the own borders don't see the other side as having a right to similar concerns. We see it again today with Nato in Ukraine, etc... Being willfuly self-righteous is no way to run the world.

  219. @German_reader
    btw I just saw this:
    https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170033001864028166

    It's really remarkable how crazy the left on both sides of the Atlantic has become in recent years with their open borders enthusiasm.

    It’s crazy, but it makes perfect sense from their first principles.

    If your first principle is equality (or perhaps hatred of the white race under the guise of equality), then denying people rights based on their place of birth and citizenship is evil.

    From Elizabeth Warren it’s especially absurd since she’s made her political career on fighting economic inequality and exploitation. But then she’s also a hysterical female.

  220. @Thorfinnsson
    Sailer likes to say that he keeps seeing the same things over and over again in the press that he's been reading about since he was a teenager. No doubt it gets old. I'm still young, and I certainly can't be bothered to argue with people anymore about the reality of race and/or IQ. Eventually you conclude that everyone's nuts and things are hopeless (until, of course, they aren't). I'm sure that would be economic reformers felt the same before the Great Depression for instance.

    Keep in mind also that he is now over sixty years old, has suffered from cancer, and doesn't seem to be very affluent. No family money that I can see, and he retired from his business career during his prime earning years to focus on his writing--and was quickly purged.

    Steve Sailer’s scientific views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists, so he’s left posting about them on right-wing fringe websites. lol

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The vast majority of scientists are cucked faggots whose careers would end or at the very least stall if they were to state the obvious. The scientists can reject the obvious all they want, and I'll continue not taking them seriously.

    The recent defenestration of Noah Carl is a useful example which serves pour encourager les autres.

    Of course you're an amateur witch burner so you delight in this.

    One of many reasons I counsel young dissidents to make some money and not grow dependent on institutions for their livelihoods. These institutions are either outright controlled by the enemy or afraid of them, with few exceptions (Nivea has notably ignored them recently, unless something changed).

  221. @Oliver D. Smith
    Steve Sailer's scientific views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists, so he's left posting about them on right-wing fringe websites. lol

    The vast majority of scientists are cucked faggots whose careers would end or at the very least stall if they were to state the obvious. The scientists can reject the obvious all they want, and I’ll continue not taking them seriously.

    The recent defenestration of Noah Carl is a useful example which serves pour encourager les autres.

    Of course you’re an amateur witch burner so you delight in this.

    One of many reasons I counsel young dissidents to make some money and not grow dependent on institutions for their livelihoods. These institutions are either outright controlled by the enemy or afraid of them, with few exceptions (Nivea has notably ignored them recently, unless something changed).

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I wrote a rebuttal to Noah Carl's claims, see here:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl_Controversy:_FAQ_(rebuttal)

    I'm well aware RationalWiki has a toxic reputation as being SJW. However, many articles I wrote about pseudoscientists on RW are now appearing on Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia has more of a credible reputation; few people would consider its POV as SJW, so my content is now not so easily dismissed, e.g.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Meisenberg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Carl

    Both Meisenberg and Carl lost their jobs, but I had no involvement in that. I just wrote some RationalWiki and Wikipedia articles criticising them, alongside several other pseudoscientists associated with OpenPsych.

    Note that there are various people who argue the decision to sack Noah Carl was a mistake, but even they have admitted the obvious that OpenPsych is pseudoscience and "academically dodgy". The following article for example:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/09/the-lynch-mobbing-of-noah-carl/

    So it turns out OpenPsych has even a more toxic reputation than RationalWiki. lol.

  222. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Ivan no doubt was an exceptionally unpleasant person

     

    What are you on about? Ivan was a deeply just and moral man. Ivan IV was also the most moral and humane ruler in all of Europe for his time. It was his oligarch boyar associates who were unpleasant scum that betrayed him. Ivan's wife was poisoned by boyar scum. A close friend of Ivan's, a piece of boyar scum, also betrayed him and defected to Poland-Lithuania where he took part in many of the oligarch-noble boyar conspiracies against Ivan IV and Russia. The Oprichniki were a necessary, just and righteous guard that defended against internal and external conspiracies.

    Again, Ivan did nothing wrong and all the quotes about him being evil is just propaganda written by those who hated him at the time or have hated him ever since. They have no evidence in fact and basis.

    Ivan was a deeply just and moral man. Ivan IV was also the most moral and humane ruler in all of Europe for his time.

    Funny joke.
    Here is how to characterize Ivan historian Sergei Platonov (in General, positively evaluating Ivan as a ruler)
    “Грозный последних лет его деятельности не умалишенный человек, но человек, лишенный душевного спокойствия, угнетаемый страхом за самого себя и своих близких. Это – одна сторона его “ненормальности”. Другая – близкая к тому, что называется “садизмом”, то есть соединение жестокости с развратом. Эта черта в натуре Грозного, воспитанная его несчастным детством, к старости усилилась до чрезвычайных; проявлений. Его жертвы погибали в утонченных истязаниях и погибали сразу сотнями, доставляя тирану своеобразное удовольствие видом крови и мучений. Иногда Грозный “каялся”, признавая, что “он разумом растленен и скотен умом”, что он осквернил себя убийством, блудом и всяким злым деланием, что он “паче мертвеца смраднейший и гнуснейший”; но это был лишь обряд.”

    • Disagree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  223. @Thorfinnsson
    EROEI is not arbitrary at all. It is true that it is a recent concept, but it's inherently simple to understand. One simply compares the input of energy invested to the energy return on said investment.

    In that sense it is quite similar to financial ROI. If you borrow money at 5% to get a return of 3%, you will not be long for this world.

    You are correct that all human energy production activities are actually a form of energy transformation. But in EROEI one looks at already usable forms of energy in order to get new energy. If the new energy obtained is less than the energy that was used to harvest it, then energy has been lost.

    This is sometimes useful of course. Classic examples are batteries and pumped hydro, as both store energy for future needs. But when used for electricity generation it is pathological.

    Japan had the world's best managed nuclear industry until its irrational, hysterical reaction to Fukushima. It may never properly recover, which is very sad. Even worse, this inspired neighboring South Korea to embrace atomophobia as well. The future of the nuclear industry now lies in China and Russia.

    And no, I did not mean the reopening of some units at that plant, but the construction of unit 6 there.

    The nuclear industry simply requires economies of scale and standardization to succeed. In this it's not very different from other industrial activities, but it is unfortunately subjected to far more political interference. Imagine if the American fracking industry faced similar interference. There would not be a fracking industry at all. Likewise the achievements of modern combined cycle natural gas powerplants are the result of sixty years of refinement and experience, without dramatic political interference (there has been pressure to reduce emissions, but done in a rational way).

    EROEI is not arbitrary at all.

    It is arbitrary in many different ways.

    Because it’s now the season of year for harvesting sunflowers – we can use that for an example.

    Maybe you assume that sun is “not your energy”. So to produce sunflower oil, you need some land (0 energy investment), and energy investment (what you eat for breakfast) of planting sunflower seeds.

    We can also employ laborers to