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
Bolshevik Aristocide: the Fate of Sikorsky's Engineers
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Igor Sikorsky was a giant of aviation history. He designed the world’s first heavy bomber (Ilya Muromets), the world’s first mass produced helicopter (Vought-Sikorsky VS-300), and founded a multi-billion worth aviation company that continues making helicopters to this day.

He was also a devout Orthodox Christian and a strong Russian patriot: “My family, which comes from the rural Kiev region, were priests and of pure Ukrainian stock – but we consider ourselves Russians… [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia], like Texas or Louisiana are an integral part of the United States.

In a normal 20th century in which Bolshevik zealots didn’t take over Russia, he would have no doubt played a central role in creating a world-beating aerospace industry in Russia.

Instead, he was forced into emigration, and only the first of his major engineering accomplishments would serve Russian interests, while the rest would accrue to the benefit of its eventual Cold War rival.

But as they say, it takes a village to raise a child – or create an aircraft. In the final chapter of their magisterial 2003 biography of Sikorsky, Russian historians Vadim Mikheev and Gennady Katyshev analyze the life fates of the 75 leading Russian aviation specialists who worked with Sikorsky, including at the Russo-Baltic Wagon Factory which manufactured the Ilya Muromets*. Here are the shocking statistics – out of Sikorsky’s 75 engineers:

  • 1 died during World War I before 1917.
  • 25 died between 1917 and 1924.
  • 32 emigrated
  • Of the 17 who remained in the USSR, a further 8 were subsequently repressed.

Consequently, including Sikorsky himself, we have the remarkable fact that only 23% of the cream of Russia’s aviation human capital crop survived the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. Further, around half of the rest – including fighter designer Nikolay Polikarpov – were subjected to persecution by the Stalinist state, and severely crippled in terms of their professional potential.

Nor was the aerospace industry some sort of exception – according to the estimates of Dmitry Saprykin, a researcher at the Institute of Scientific History RAN, Russia lost 70%-90% of the most qualified cadres across a range of hi-tech industries**.

We should note that the aristocide of Russia’s best and brightest was entirely intentional on the part of the Bolsheviks:

From pp.302 of Mikheev & Katyshev’s book:

The entire Russian aviation industry found itself in a comatose state. This was partly due to the dark developments in July 1918, when repressions against “counter-revolutionaries” were sharply increased under the Red Terror. According to Nikolay Bukharin, these people included:

“3) Bourgeois entrepreneurs – organizers and directors;
4) Higher bureaucrats – state, military, and religious;
5) The technical intelligentsia, and the intelligentsia in general;
6) Officers.”
(В. Кардашов. Наши разногласия. Ленинградская панора­ма. 1990. № 2. С. 34-35; А. Смолин. У истоков красного террора. Ленинг­радская панорама. 1989. № 3. С. 25-28)

The peak of the repression fell on Petrograd, where the Red Terror was headed by Grigory Zinoviev, called on the workers to deal with the intelligentsia “by its own hands, on the streets.” Thousands of bureaucrats, lawyers, doctors, priests, officers, teachers, professors, and nobles were shot. V.I. Yarkovsky, who had repeatedly refused offers to go abroad for prestigious and well-remunerated work, was arrested for “sabotage” in 1918; despite petitions from major figures in the arts and sciences, he was executed at the Peter and Paul Fortress. M.V. Shidlovsky attempted to flee with his family by way of Finland. At the border, he was beaten to death by Red Guards. G.G. Gorshkov was shot by the Odessa Cheka. Many of Sikorsky’s companions perished, who had made it their life’s work to create and nurture Russian aviation.

More than 75% of Russia’s elite cognitive workers – destroyed or expelled in the space of less than a decade. And just a bit more than a decade later, the mustachioed Georgian BDSM master unrolled yet another wave of bloody repressions against Russia’s cognitive elites.

This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.

I suppose the one nice thing about the above is that the Bukharins and the Zinovievs would eventually get their just desserts in the 1930s.

But this would have been of no consolation to the Russian peasants starved to import German and American technical expertise in the 1930s to replace that which had been destroyed, or who died in much higher numbers in 1941-45 than they should have because so many brilliant men who would otherwise have occupied senior positions in their Armed Forces or Design Bureaus were instead working for the US, or rotting in an unmarked ditch.

***

* You can download a PDF of this book (in Russian) here. I have also extracted the relevant 8 page chapter about Sikorsky’s engineers and made it available here.

** Сапрыкин Д.Л.: Образовательный потенциал Российской Империи (2009), see pp.48.

 
Hide 169 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. Another great article.

  3. This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.

    In absolute numbers, and in terms of the sheer intellectual quality of those annihilated, perhaps so.

    In proportional terms, let me mention that other great socialist Pol Pot.

    And what about Chairman Mao?

    Golly, that’s just for the 20th century (so maybe we should throw in wicked Adolf, eh?).

    What about before that?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Cambodians don't have a high average IQ (at least I don't think that they do) and thus the destruction of their cognitive elite might have been less severe--at least relative to the potential that was lost.

    Chairman Mao's actions did result in tens of millions of Chinese deaths, and the genetic ceiling of Chinese in regards to average IQ might be comparable to that of Ashkenazi Jews (at least those in the Diaspora). However, Chinese appear to be less inventive and less accomplished per capita than Ashkenazi Jews are--so that counts against them.

    Also, Yes, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust should certainly be included in this list. Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn't productive to innovation and technological development.
    , @nebulafox
    Well, Cambodia didn't have much human capital to destroy. It was a third world backwater even before the war came. That being said, the Khmer Rouge were good and proper with what it did have, so I'd go ahead and say it qualifies. One thing that is often lost was how much rural Cambodians utterly detested those in the cities by the 1970s. To this day, support for the KR in the Cambodian countryside is a touchy issue.

    Incidentally, a lot of the Khmer Rouge leadership were partially ethnic Chinese, which made them if not part of the societal elites, at least in the gentry class. They were the only ones who had the resources needed to send them off to 1950s Paris, where they'd cobble together their nightmarish ideology. They had no empirical experience with the realities of peasant life, though, not too dissimilar from the original Bolsheviks.

  4. Great article, Anatoly! That said, though, in regards to this specific part of your post:

    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.

    One would think that the Holocaust would have been an even bigger destruction of human capital. After all, a group with an average IQ of 110 consisting of several million people should have a strongly disproportionate percentage of geniuses relative to a group with an average IQ of 100 (assuming normal standard deviations, of course).

    Anyway, what are your thoughts on this, Anatoly?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    That's an interesting point.

    TBH I didn't have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.
    , @anonymous


    Had the bad man with the moustache not gassed 6 gazillion high IQ potential Menzans, we could 've been where we are today politically by 1955! Diversity and Multiculturalism could've been achieved by 1960! We could've achieved a white minority in the US by 1970? Oy Veh, all those wasted years!
    , @orionyx


    I would say that discussing the effects of mythical events belongs outside the purview of historians. It's somewhat like asking what would have happened had the Resurrection not occurred.
  5. @dearieme
    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.

    In absolute numbers, and in terms of the sheer intellectual quality of those annihilated, perhaps so.

    In proportional terms, let me mention that other great socialist Pol Pot.

    And what about Chairman Mao?

    Golly, that's just for the 20th century (so maybe we should throw in wicked Adolf, eh?).

    What about before that?

    Cambodians don’t have a high average IQ (at least I don’t think that they do) and thus the destruction of their cognitive elite might have been less severe–at least relative to the potential that was lost.

    Chairman Mao’s actions did result in tens of millions of Chinese deaths, and the genetic ceiling of Chinese in regards to average IQ might be comparable to that of Ashkenazi Jews (at least those in the Diaspora). However, Chinese appear to be less inventive and less accomplished per capita than Ashkenazi Jews are–so that counts against them.

    Also, Yes, Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust should certainly be included in this list. Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn’t productive to innovation and technological development.

    • Replies: @Malla

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe
     
    As if without Jews, Europe would have been a technological backwater. There were many Jews in Yemen before the creation of Israel. Yemen then was a technological pioneer. Wait....
    , @neutral

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn’t productive to innovation and technological development.
     
    Pure nonsense, Germans made rockets and jet engines without any of these supposed clever jews around. If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now, we would be sending astronauts to the outer planets by now. If no jews existed, there would be no Hollywood, no lunatic SJWs, no collapse of white demographics, no explosion of third world populations, in terms of eugenics things would be infinitely better.
  6. @Mr. XYZ
    Great article, Anatoly! That said, though, in regards to this specific part of your post:

    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.
     
    One would think that the Holocaust would have been an even bigger destruction of human capital. After all, a group with an average IQ of 110 consisting of several million people should have a strongly disproportionate percentage of geniuses relative to a group with an average IQ of 100 (assuming normal standard deviations, of course).

    Anyway, what are your thoughts on this, Anatoly?

    That’s an interesting point.

    TBH I didn’t have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    That’s an interesting point.

    TBH I didn’t have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.
     

    Yeah, functionally speaking, a genocide that targets a high-IQ ethnic group might be just as harmful to things such as innovation, technological development, science, research, et cetera than an aristocide would be. The main difference would be that lower-IQ members of this ethnic group would also get targeted and murdered en masse.

    Granted, the Soviet Union did in fact cause the deaths of a lot of lower-IQ members of its various ethnic groups as well, but it wasn't a targeted campaign of genocide like it was for the Jews under Nazi rule--which explains why the percentage losses among various Soviet ethnic groups were less than the percentage losses among Jews under Nazi rule. Something like 80+% of all Jews under Nazi rule were murdered in the Holocaust--a figure that I suspect is much higher than the losses for any ethnic group under Soviet rule. (I am certainly willing to be corrected in regards to this if I am wrong about this, though.)


    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.
     
    Not quite. After all, didn't Mussolini kill Ethiopia's cognitive elite en masse in the Yekatit-12 massacre?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...

    "...largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations...
     
    "

    It would be interesting and informative to do an ethnic breakdown of the USSR's total intelligentsia, the members of that intelligentsia who were persecuted or liquidated, and the leadership of the agencies who conducted the persecutions and liquidations. Let's not jump to conclusions. let's study the data.
    , @Curmudgeon
    I really don't understand why you are surprised. Every revolution is followed by the de-capitation theory. The best and brightest are considered enemies, because they are intelligent and industrious. They are a natural threat to the revolutionaries. Either they leave, or they will be eliminated.
    What is not talked about in the US Revolution, is that like every other revolution, it was a minority leading the charge. Most people don't care, they are too busy with their lives or don't want to be involved. A sizeable chunk of the colonialists left or were forced to leave the US, and their property seized by those with the means to do so.
  7. @Anatoly Karlin
    That's an interesting point.

    TBH I didn't have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.

    That’s an interesting point.

    TBH I didn’t have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Yeah, functionally speaking, a genocide that targets a high-IQ ethnic group might be just as harmful to things such as innovation, technological development, science, research, et cetera than an aristocide would be. The main difference would be that lower-IQ members of this ethnic group would also get targeted and murdered en masse.

    Granted, the Soviet Union did in fact cause the deaths of a lot of lower-IQ members of its various ethnic groups as well, but it wasn’t a targeted campaign of genocide like it was for the Jews under Nazi rule–which explains why the percentage losses among various Soviet ethnic groups were less than the percentage losses among Jews under Nazi rule. Something like 80+% of all Jews under Nazi rule were murdered in the Holocaust–a figure that I suspect is much higher than the losses for any ethnic group under Soviet rule. (I am certainly willing to be corrected in regards to this if I am wrong about this, though.)

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.

    Not quite. After all, didn’t Mussolini kill Ethiopia’s cognitive elite en masse in the Yekatit-12 massacre?

    • Replies: @Budd Dwyer


    Oh no, the elimination of the race of ruthless middlemen!

    Ron Unz:

    “In the early 2000s I read The Master Switch, a widely-praised history of modern communications technology by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, who has subsequently become a leading Internet-rights activist. I found the account fascinating, with so many stories never before known to me. However, I couldn’t help but notice that all the powerful mass-media technologies of our modern world–film, radio, and television–had been invented and pioneered by Gentiles, mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin, but in each case control was seized by ruthless Jewish businessmen, who sometimes destroyed the lives and careers of those creators.”
     
  8. I’ll be a little contrary just to be provocative: if communism retarded the aviation industry, who is to say that it wasn’t a positive, in the sense of it being an impediment to globalism?

    And I’ll go a bit further, it wasn’t just technological. Of course, there is the economic angle, but when Russia opened up its airspace to transit flights, perhaps it was harming the interests of nationalists everywhere.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    I’ll be a little contrary just to be provocative: if communism retarded the aviation industry, who is to say that it wasn’t a positive, in the sense of it being an impediment to globalism?
     
    The steamboat era was globalist just fine. Look at the nationalities of Titanic passengers:

    http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html#nation

    The Atlantic ocean would be crossed in six days, a flight now (including wait times at the airports) takes one day. Not a very significant difference, and even the third class on the Titanic was vastly more comfortable than the economy class on a plane. In the age of sails it was about forty days, without washing, and live animals were kept together with passengers to be eaten on the way because refrigerators didn't exist. Imagine all the smells and diseases, now that was challenging to globalism. And still desperate people went for it - I learned that from a book about English emigrants in the 1830s.
  9. I prefer your earlier term, straticide.

    AK: That’s not my term.
    First result is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJoseph_Stalin%2FArchive_6
    And that’s not what I mean at all (“wholesale efforts to rid a society of particular social, political, academic, or professional strata through mass extermination”). For instance, exterminating the homeless would be straticide, but it would not be aristocide.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    This was back in Unlikely Thoughts days. Your use of it was the first time I saw it. A useful word nontheless.
  10. “…like Texas or Louisiana are an integral part of the United States.”

    Possibly not the best examples. In addition to both being formerly Confederate, Texas was an independent republic for nine years, and French cultural influence in South Louisiana continues to this day.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    These parallels are entirely intentional on Sikorsky's part. Despite this historical heritage, nobody would seriously claim that Louisiana is its own special separate nation of "not-Americans".
  11. Budd Dwyer [AKA "Anon000"] says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    That’s an interesting point.

    TBH I didn’t have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.
     

    Yeah, functionally speaking, a genocide that targets a high-IQ ethnic group might be just as harmful to things such as innovation, technological development, science, research, et cetera than an aristocide would be. The main difference would be that lower-IQ members of this ethnic group would also get targeted and murdered en masse.

    Granted, the Soviet Union did in fact cause the deaths of a lot of lower-IQ members of its various ethnic groups as well, but it wasn't a targeted campaign of genocide like it was for the Jews under Nazi rule--which explains why the percentage losses among various Soviet ethnic groups were less than the percentage losses among Jews under Nazi rule. Something like 80+% of all Jews under Nazi rule were murdered in the Holocaust--a figure that I suspect is much higher than the losses for any ethnic group under Soviet rule. (I am certainly willing to be corrected in regards to this if I am wrong about this, though.)


    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.
     
    Not quite. After all, didn't Mussolini kill Ethiopia's cognitive elite en masse in the Yekatit-12 massacre?

    [MORE]

    Oh no, the elimination of the race of ruthless middlemen!

    Ron Unz:

    “In the early 2000s I read The Master Switch, a widely-praised history of modern communications technology by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, who has subsequently become a leading Internet-rights activist. I found the account fascinating, with so many stories never before known to me. However, I couldn’t help but notice that all the powerful mass-media technologies of our modern world–film, radio, and television–had been invented and pioneered by Gentiles, mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin, but in each case control was seized by ruthless Jewish businessmen, who sometimes destroyed the lives and careers of those creators.”

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ


    Did Jews' overwhelming success in winning Nobel Prizes also occur as a result of Jews swindling White gentiles?
    , @Chuck


    What would we do without them!
  12. @Budd Dwyer


    Oh no, the elimination of the race of ruthless middlemen!

    Ron Unz:

    “In the early 2000s I read The Master Switch, a widely-praised history of modern communications technology by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, who has subsequently become a leading Internet-rights activist. I found the account fascinating, with so many stories never before known to me. However, I couldn’t help but notice that all the powerful mass-media technologies of our modern world–film, radio, and television–had been invented and pioneered by Gentiles, mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin, but in each case control was seized by ruthless Jewish businessmen, who sometimes destroyed the lives and careers of those creators.”
     

    [MORE]

    Did Jews’ overwhelming success in winning Nobel Prizes also occur as a result of Jews swindling White gentiles?

    • Replies: @Budd Dwyer


    Weird how the J-bias increased dramatically after WWII. 🤣

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Biro/publication/229007550/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Jewish-and-Gentile-Nobel-Laureates-1901-2010-The-list-of-all-Nobel-Laureates-from-The.png
    , @LondonBob
    Jews haven't really contributed much, even including the bad, in of themselves.

    Always interested in the fate of Russian-Germans and what impact this had on German politics, but I have never read any analysis of this. Bit like how much of Enoch Powell's expulsion from mainstream politics was a result of his vehement anti American attitudes than just his attitudes towards immigration.
  13. @Budd Dwyer


    Oh no, the elimination of the race of ruthless middlemen!

    Ron Unz:

    “In the early 2000s I read The Master Switch, a widely-praised history of modern communications technology by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, who has subsequently become a leading Internet-rights activist. I found the account fascinating, with so many stories never before known to me. However, I couldn’t help but notice that all the powerful mass-media technologies of our modern world–film, radio, and television–had been invented and pioneered by Gentiles, mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin, but in each case control was seized by ruthless Jewish businessmen, who sometimes destroyed the lives and careers of those creators.”
     

    [MORE]

    What would we do without them!

  14. Marine One is, of course, a Сикорский:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One

  15. Wonder how the Mongol and Manchu conquests rank in destruction of human capital. Central Asia’s contributions to religion and philosophy before the conquests seem substantial. Seems possible that cognitive elites of Central Asian peoples were concentrated in the cities as successful merchants and were disproportionately affected by the Mongols.

    This would testable as well in the near future. DNA testing of the remains of ancient Central Asians and modern Iranian peoples in Central Asia can currently give an idea of how closely related they are. Comparison of their polygenic intelligence scores would show their change in intelligence through time.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The Mongols also pretty deeply screwed up the Islamic World.
    , @songbird
    The Manchu probably stabilized China, by invading it. It was done opportunely in the period of a civil war. The population of China increased dramatically during the Qing dynasty - though largely as a result of food crops like the potato, sweet potato, and peanut, introduced by Europeans.

    Indeed, as an American, I wish there were Jurchen tribesmen to our north, who hadn't gone soft, and maybe could invade us and undertake some much needed reforms.
    , @Anounder
    The Mongols were a giant parasite that leeched off their Chinese subjects when not killing them off. More attentive studies of China's state under the Mongols show significant dysfunction/setbacks. The praise of the Mongols in modernity is largely from Neolib/Neocon narratives (with a touch of Protestant/Enlightenment braying over muh tolerance, anti-Papist/Western babbling, and praise for noble savages).
  16. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    Great article, Anatoly! That said, though, in regards to this specific part of your post:

    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.
     
    One would think that the Holocaust would have been an even bigger destruction of human capital. After all, a group with an average IQ of 110 consisting of several million people should have a strongly disproportionate percentage of geniuses relative to a group with an average IQ of 100 (assuming normal standard deviations, of course).

    Anyway, what are your thoughts on this, Anatoly?

    [MORE]

    Had the bad man with the moustache not gassed 6 gazillion high IQ potential Menzans, we could ‘ve been where we are today politically by 1955! Diversity and Multiculturalism could’ve been achieved by 1960! We could’ve achieved a white minority in the US by 1970? Oy Veh, all those wasted years!

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ


    Actually, without the Holocaust, I think that multiculturalism might be delayed rather than accelerated.
  17. @Mr. XYZ


    Did Jews' overwhelming success in winning Nobel Prizes also occur as a result of Jews swindling White gentiles?

    [MORE]

    Weird how the J-bias increased dramatically after WWII. 🤣

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ


    Perhaps Jews simply had more opportunities after the end of WWII? I mean, Jewish quotas ended, what, in the 1960s?
  18. @dearieme
    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.

    In absolute numbers, and in terms of the sheer intellectual quality of those annihilated, perhaps so.

    In proportional terms, let me mention that other great socialist Pol Pot.

    And what about Chairman Mao?

    Golly, that's just for the 20th century (so maybe we should throw in wicked Adolf, eh?).

    What about before that?

    Well, Cambodia didn’t have much human capital to destroy. It was a third world backwater even before the war came. That being said, the Khmer Rouge were good and proper with what it did have, so I’d go ahead and say it qualifies. One thing that is often lost was how much rural Cambodians utterly detested those in the cities by the 1970s. To this day, support for the KR in the Cambodian countryside is a touchy issue.

    Incidentally, a lot of the Khmer Rouge leadership were partially ethnic Chinese, which made them if not part of the societal elites, at least in the gentry class. They were the only ones who had the resources needed to send them off to 1950s Paris, where they’d cobble together their nightmarish ideology. They had no empirical experience with the realities of peasant life, though, not too dissimilar from the original Bolsheviks.

  19. @Nemets
    Wonder how the Mongol and Manchu conquests rank in destruction of human capital. Central Asia's contributions to religion and philosophy before the conquests seem substantial. Seems possible that cognitive elites of Central Asian peoples were concentrated in the cities as successful merchants and were disproportionately affected by the Mongols.

    This would testable as well in the near future. DNA testing of the remains of ancient Central Asians and modern Iranian peoples in Central Asia can currently give an idea of how closely related they are. Comparison of their polygenic intelligence scores would show their change in intelligence through time.

    The Mongols also pretty deeply screwed up the Islamic World.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Indeed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
    , @anonymous coward
    Not really. Islam deeply screwed up the Islamic world.
  20. @Hibernian
    "...like Texas or Louisiana are an integral part of the United States."

    Possibly not the best examples. In addition to both being formerly Confederate, Texas was an independent republic for nine years, and French cultural influence in South Louisiana continues to this day.

    These parallels are entirely intentional on Sikorsky’s part. Despite this historical heritage, nobody would seriously claim that Louisiana is its own special separate nation of “not-Americans”.

  21. @anonymous


    Had the bad man with the moustache not gassed 6 gazillion high IQ potential Menzans, we could 've been where we are today politically by 1955! Diversity and Multiculturalism could've been achieved by 1960! We could've achieved a white minority in the US by 1970? Oy Veh, all those wasted years!

    [MORE]

    Actually, without the Holocaust, I think that multiculturalism might be delayed rather than accelerated.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The best outcome would have been a National Socialist Germany with nukes, but no war, no conquest beyond the post-Munich borders (maybe Memel and Danzig, but nothing from Poland proper), and of course no holocaust. I don’t know if it was even possible. Hitler certainly would’ve needed to die right after Munich for that.
    , @reiner Tor

    An explicitly racialist major power would have probably made the others more racialist, the same way competition with Soviet communism made the West more socialistic.

    Since by 1938 most Jews had already left Germany, the number of victims of this (those who were severely oppressed) would have been very low (a couple hundred thousand, who would gradually leave Germany, or die of old age), while the number of positively affected people (the whole Western world not descending into multiculturalism) very large.

    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism.

  22. @Budd Dwyer


    Weird how the J-bias increased dramatically after WWII. 🤣

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Biro/publication/229007550/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Jewish-and-Gentile-Nobel-Laureates-1901-2010-The-list-of-all-Nobel-Laureates-from-The.png

    [MORE]

    Perhaps Jews simply had more opportunities after the end of WWII? I mean, Jewish quotas ended, what, in the 1960s?

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist


    Because Jews were denied so many opportunities in the Weimar Republic?
  23. @nebulafox
    The Mongols also pretty deeply screwed up the Islamic World.
    • Replies: @anon
    Did Armenian infantry carry out most of the atrocities?
  24. @nebulafox
    The Mongols also pretty deeply screwed up the Islamic World.

    Not really. Islam deeply screwed up the Islamic world.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Arab conquests were a spectacular achievement, probably the most unexpected event in history.
    , @nebulafox
    Not particularly. "Islam" as we'd recognize it didn't really become a thing until well after the conquests, and in many ways, wouldn't fully mature until well into the Abbasid era. The Byzantines viewed the initial Arab conquerors as heretical Christians of a sort, and the Arabs viewed themselves as carrying out the pure monotheism of their ancestor, Abraham.

    And although the majority of the "Golden Age" intellectual work so ballyhooed over by bizarrely Islamophilic Western liberals was in reality carried out by recently (sometimes nominally) converted Zoroastrian Persians, the caliphate's actions in war or domestic policies weren't egregious by the standards of the age. Cmpared to an illiterate Charlemagne converting or killing the Saxons at the point of a sword, extorting non-conforming religions or sects for money as the Muslims (or the Byzantines) did was relatively easy-going.

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn't? But that's another question for another day.

  25. @Mr. XYZ
    Cambodians don't have a high average IQ (at least I don't think that they do) and thus the destruction of their cognitive elite might have been less severe--at least relative to the potential that was lost.

    Chairman Mao's actions did result in tens of millions of Chinese deaths, and the genetic ceiling of Chinese in regards to average IQ might be comparable to that of Ashkenazi Jews (at least those in the Diaspora). However, Chinese appear to be less inventive and less accomplished per capita than Ashkenazi Jews are--so that counts against them.

    Also, Yes, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust should certainly be included in this list. Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn't productive to innovation and technological development.

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe

    As if without Jews, Europe would have been a technological backwater. There were many Jews in Yemen before the creation of Israel. Yemen then was a technological pioneer. Wait….

    • Agree: neutral
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    Indeed, White/Western civilisation ascended (1500AD-1850AD) to power largely without the help of jewish contribution of any large scale. The peak of jewish achievement happened in the 20th century, by which time the West was already the overwhelming dominant force. So that argument is specious at best, and often trotted out by jewish chauvinists.
    , @Logan
    Well, one major reason the Germans never got close to a Bomb is that its physics was based on Jewish Science and thus inherently unGerman.

    A very, very large percentage of those who built the Bomb in America were refugees from the Nazis.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Ashkenazi Jews are much smarter than Mizrahi Jews, though. In turn, this helps to explain why Muslim countries remained dumps in spite of having relatively large Jewish populations.
  26. @Mr. XYZ


    Perhaps Jews simply had more opportunities after the end of WWII? I mean, Jewish quotas ended, what, in the 1960s?

    [MORE]

    Because Jews were denied so many opportunities in the Weimar Republic?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Weimar Germany only contained something like 5% (at most) of the world's total Ashkenazi Jewish population in 1933, no?
  27. What about the destruction of most Hungarian Jews (the smartest ethnic group in the world) in the span of 4 months? (May to August 1944)

  28. @syonredux
    Indeed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

    Did Armenian infantry carry out most of the atrocities?

  29. @Mr. XYZ
    Great article, Anatoly! That said, though, in regards to this specific part of your post:

    This might have well been the single biggest human capital destruction event in world history.
     
    One would think that the Holocaust would have been an even bigger destruction of human capital. After all, a group with an average IQ of 110 consisting of several million people should have a strongly disproportionate percentage of geniuses relative to a group with an average IQ of 100 (assuming normal standard deviations, of course).

    Anyway, what are your thoughts on this, Anatoly?

    [MORE]

    I would say that discussing the effects of mythical events belongs outside the purview of historians. It’s somewhat like asking what would have happened had the Resurrection not occurred.

  30. @Mr. XYZ


    Did Jews' overwhelming success in winning Nobel Prizes also occur as a result of Jews swindling White gentiles?

    Jews haven’t really contributed much, even including the bad, in of themselves.

    Always interested in the fate of Russian-Germans and what impact this had on German politics, but I have never read any analysis of this. Bit like how much of Enoch Powell’s expulsion from mainstream politics was a result of his vehement anti American attitudes than just his attitudes towards immigration.

  31. @anonymous coward
    Not really. Islam deeply screwed up the Islamic world.

    Arab conquests were a spectacular achievement, probably the most unexpected event in history.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Yes, in the same way that Ebola melting your insides would be a most unexpected event in your life.
    , @Svevlad
    Well, we have indications that Islam only really became Islam and not just a weird heresy of Christianity AFTER the conquests (to prevent Arabs from being assimilated into the conquered populace)

    Plus, shit was at that point more of a consolidation - the Romans (Byzantines) used them for everything, at some point half of administrators in the area were Arabs already
    , @Matra
    Islam = a successful adaptive strategy for Arabs.
  32. @Mr. XYZ


    Actually, without the Holocaust, I think that multiculturalism might be delayed rather than accelerated.

    The best outcome would have been a National Socialist Germany with nukes, but no war, no conquest beyond the post-Munich borders (maybe Memel and Danzig, but nothing from Poland proper), and of course no holocaust. I don’t know if it was even possible. Hitler certainly would’ve needed to die right after Munich for that.

    • Replies: @neutral

    The best outcome would have been
     
    This would have been the best outcome:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLoj61Y_ZT0
  33. @Mr. XYZ


    Actually, without the Holocaust, I think that multiculturalism might be delayed rather than accelerated.

    [MORE]

    An explicitly racialist major power would have probably made the others more racialist, the same way competition with Soviet communism made the West more socialistic.

    Since by 1938 most Jews had already left Germany, the number of victims of this (those who were severely oppressed) would have been very low (a couple hundred thousand, who would gradually leave Germany, or die of old age), while the number of positively affected people (the whole Western world not descending into multiculturalism) very large.

    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism.

    • Replies: @Matra
    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism

    Maybe, but this multiculturalism didn't really start to take off until about the mid to late 1980s, some 40 years after the war. Prior to the 1980s many guest workers in Europe were regularly sent back, most Europeans who grew up then weren't made to feel guilty, and there was very little anti-white propaganda in most countries until recently. Even when multiculturalism began the publicly stated justifications for it had nothing to do with WW2, at least not in the three Anglo countries I grew up in, whereas today WW2 is all we hear about. We see the same thing in America; the further away from slavery they get the more of an issue its legacy has become. At this point, using Hitler's atrocities or 19th century slavery as pretexts for aggression and theft should be close to laughable, and yet...here we are.
    , @nebulafox
    As I've stated before, for someone who so wanted to exterminate Bolshevism, Adolf Hitler did a good job of ensuring it ended up controlling the heart of Europe.
  34. @Mr. XYZ
    Cambodians don't have a high average IQ (at least I don't think that they do) and thus the destruction of their cognitive elite might have been less severe--at least relative to the potential that was lost.

    Chairman Mao's actions did result in tens of millions of Chinese deaths, and the genetic ceiling of Chinese in regards to average IQ might be comparable to that of Ashkenazi Jews (at least those in the Diaspora). However, Chinese appear to be less inventive and less accomplished per capita than Ashkenazi Jews are--so that counts against them.

    Also, Yes, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust should certainly be included in this list. Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn't productive to innovation and technological development.

    [MORE]

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn’t productive to innovation and technological development.

    Pure nonsense, Germans made rockets and jet engines without any of these supposed clever jews around. If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now, we would be sending astronauts to the outer planets by now. If no jews existed, there would be no Hollywood, no lunatic SJWs, no collapse of white demographics, no explosion of third world populations, in terms of eugenics things would be infinitely better.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now
     
    Sounds legit. Only the Third Reich is incompetent and corrupt enough to send people to live inside a rock in a place where there is literally (literally!) a whole lot of toxic nothing.
  35. The Bolshevik ideology was pure madness. While killing all Jews was certainly evil, it was at least not madness in the sense that the system could easily function without Jews. The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.

    Aktion T4 didn't violate any part of human nature?
    , @Jake
    Nazi ideology did not contradict fundamental post-Christian Germanic nature.
    , @Bies Podkrakowski
    And yet it was communism that survived and Nazism died after few years.
  36. @reiner Tor
    The best outcome would have been a National Socialist Germany with nukes, but no war, no conquest beyond the post-Munich borders (maybe Memel and Danzig, but nothing from Poland proper), and of course no holocaust. I don’t know if it was even possible. Hitler certainly would’ve needed to die right after Munich for that.

    [MORE]

    The best outcome would have been

    This would have been the best outcome:

  37. I don’t recall where I wrote about the Jewish contribution to multiculturalism or lack thereof here – for those people so fanatically obsessed that they need to bring it into every thread, there’s an open thread for that – https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-83/

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I hid my comment behind the "more" tag when I saw that you were doing the same.

    The holocaust was not aristocide in the sense that the smartest Jews had the highest chance of survival, while the dumbest ones the lowest. In that sense it was probably eugenic among Central and Easter European Jews. On the other hand, Bolshevism and its incarnations (like Polpotism) probably made the ethnic groups affected dumber, so were highly dysgenic for them.

  38. @LondonBob
    Arab conquests were a spectacular achievement, probably the most unexpected event in history.

    Yes, in the same way that Ebola melting your insides would be a most unexpected event in your life.

  39. @neutral

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe certainly wasn’t productive to innovation and technological development.
     
    Pure nonsense, Germans made rockets and jet engines without any of these supposed clever jews around. If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now, we would be sending astronauts to the outer planets by now. If no jews existed, there would be no Hollywood, no lunatic SJWs, no collapse of white demographics, no explosion of third world populations, in terms of eugenics things would be infinitely better.

    If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now

    Sounds legit. Only the Third Reich is incompetent and corrupt enough to send people to live inside a rock in a place where there is literally (literally!) a whole lot of toxic nothing.

    • Replies: @neutral
    I suppose you are now argue that having men going into female toilets is the pinnacle of civilization, exploring space is for losers.
  40. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't recall where I wrote about the Jewish contribution to multiculturalism or lack thereof here - for those people so fanatically obsessed that they need to bring it into every thread, there's an open thread for that - https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-83/

    I hid my comment behind the “more” tag when I saw that you were doing the same.

    The holocaust was not aristocide in the sense that the smartest Jews had the highest chance of survival, while the dumbest ones the lowest. In that sense it was probably eugenic among Central and Easter European Jews. On the other hand, Bolshevism and its incarnations (like Polpotism) probably made the ethnic groups affected dumber, so were highly dysgenic for them.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, Epigon
    • Replies: @Epigon
    One thing I really like about Unz.com and especially AK's blog here is how often I read the article in question, extract some premises and draw conclusions from them and then go to the comment section, only to find some other user had written them in exact same or similar words.

    This extends to discussions in the comment section and replies to comments.

    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process had been incredibly rare on previous sites.

  41. @anonymous coward

    If the Third Reich existed now there would be colonies on Mars by now
     
    Sounds legit. Only the Third Reich is incompetent and corrupt enough to send people to live inside a rock in a place where there is literally (literally!) a whole lot of toxic nothing.

    I suppose you are now argue that having men going into female toilets is the pinnacle of civilization, exploring space is for losers.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    No, you suppose wrong.

    The Mariana Trench and Antarctica are a million times more hospitable and accessible and useful than Mars.

    How about we settle those first, then aim for Mars? No? Not interested?

    Then shut up about Mars and go do something useful.
  42. Talk about “White flight.”

  43. @LondonBob
    Arab conquests were a spectacular achievement, probably the most unexpected event in history.

    Well, we have indications that Islam only really became Islam and not just a weird heresy of Christianity AFTER the conquests (to prevent Arabs from being assimilated into the conquered populace)

    Plus, shit was at that point more of a consolidation – the Romans (Byzantines) used them for everything, at some point half of administrators in the area were Arabs already

  44. @neutral
    I suppose you are now argue that having men going into female toilets is the pinnacle of civilization, exploring space is for losers.

    No, you suppose wrong.

    The Mariana Trench and Antarctica are a million times more hospitable and accessible and useful than Mars.

    How about we settle those first, then aim for Mars? No? Not interested?

    Then shut up about Mars and go do something useful.

  45. @reiner Tor
    I hid my comment behind the "more" tag when I saw that you were doing the same.

    The holocaust was not aristocide in the sense that the smartest Jews had the highest chance of survival, while the dumbest ones the lowest. In that sense it was probably eugenic among Central and Easter European Jews. On the other hand, Bolshevism and its incarnations (like Polpotism) probably made the ethnic groups affected dumber, so were highly dysgenic for them.

    One thing I really like about Unz.com and especially AK’s blog here is how often I read the article in question, extract some premises and draw conclusions from them and then go to the comment section, only to find some other user had written them in exact same or similar words.

    This extends to discussions in the comment section and replies to comments.

    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process had been incredibly rare on previous sites.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process

    Jews use mental telepathy and mind control to concentrate their enemies at certain nodules within the Matrix.
    , @AP
    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack's law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.
  46. @reiner Tor
    The Bolshevik ideology was pure madness. While killing all Jews was certainly evil, it was at least not madness in the sense that the system could easily function without Jews. The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.

    Aktion T4 didn’t violate any part of human nature?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Aktion T4 didn’t violate any part of human nature?
     
    It was not a core tenet of the ideology. It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics. Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn't violate human nature.
    , @Epigon

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.
     
    Manifest destiny, city upon a hill, American exceptionalism, wholesale extermination of natives/"savages"

    Lebensraum, thousand year Reich, Aryan/German supremacy, Untermensch

    God-chosen people, God-promised land, Jewish supremacy, Goyim, Talmud


    I would put Nazism right in the middle between those two. Why would you disagree?

  47. “We should note that the aristocide of Russia’s best and brightest was entirely intentional on the part of the Bolsheviks:”

    Of course it was intentional. If you truly believe the ideology of The Revolution (whatever specifics that ideology takes, whether Bolshevik or Maoist or Wahhabi Mohammedan or Anglo-Zionist or French Enlightenment anti-Catholicism or Anglo-Saxon Puritan, etc.), then you are confident that your slaughter of even the best minds and ‘sergeants’ of the old regime, the culture you are replacing with revolution, will produce great fruits, because the people produced by your revolutionary faith will be superior in all ways that matter.

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.

    The Bolsheviks did incalculable harm to the world by destroying so much that was truly wonderful in Russia.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.
     
    Sweeping generalisation ruined an otherwise fine comment. The American revolution was a perfectly good and justified revolution. Americans may have sprung out of the British in their origins but ethnogenesis is a thing, and they became their own ethnicity with their own distinct culture. America turned out just fine, at least until recently, becoming the most innovative technological epicenter of the world for close to a century now.

    So revolutionaires are not always bad, or those who 'hate most' with 'true desires' for 'cultural extermination'. That's more of a communist/leftist thing. We've seen in Russia, China, Cambodia and even, yes, France. But the French lucked out that a brilliant and charismatic hardliner with a funny hat bailed out their asses just in time.

    , @EldnahYm
    Anglo Saxon Puritans are not even remotely similar to those other groups.
  48. @Epigon
    One thing I really like about Unz.com and especially AK's blog here is how often I read the article in question, extract some premises and draw conclusions from them and then go to the comment section, only to find some other user had written them in exact same or similar words.

    This extends to discussions in the comment section and replies to comments.

    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process had been incredibly rare on previous sites.

    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process

    Jews use mental telepathy and mind control to concentrate their enemies at certain nodules within the Matrix.

  49. AP says:
    @Epigon
    One thing I really like about Unz.com and especially AK's blog here is how often I read the article in question, extract some premises and draw conclusions from them and then go to the comment section, only to find some other user had written them in exact same or similar words.

    This extends to discussions in the comment section and replies to comments.

    Encountering people on the same wavelength and of same thought process had been incredibly rare on previous sites.

    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that
     
    Eh too, Brute? :-( :-)
    , @Gerard2

    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.
     
    hahaha!! So comparing a fake , gutter country in a catastrophic state shamefully electing another jewish President to go along with its Jewish PM and Nazi-nutjob American Health minister..................to support ( i.e historical context) to a Gruzian man from 90 years ago, who helped organise the greatest military comeback in history and has numerous positive statistics to back up his rule to go with the not so good events - to which the whole of that other state owes it's creation to and existence to....is the "same thing"...LOL

    Just about sums up what a time-wasting attention-wh*re spambot cretin you are- typing garbage that you don't believe in
  50. [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia]

    Did Mister Sikorsky or Mister Karlin say that?

    On the murders of the Christian Russian cognitive elites; was there an ethnic component in those murders would you say? And are there any lessons for today?

    • Replies: @neutral

    was there an ethnic component in those murders would you say?
     
    There was an ethnic component to the Bolsheviks, take a guess which specific one it was.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Not sure why you follow me if you think I make things up and attribute it to others.

    https://ukraina.ru/history/20190606/1023816831.html

    «Однако мы считаем себя по происхождению русскими, из определенной части России, рассматривая украинский народ как неотъемлемую часть России, так же, как Техас или Луизиана являются неотъемлемой частью Соединенных Штатов». (However, we consider ourselves Russian by origin of a certain part of Russia, considering the Ukrainian people an integral part of Russia, just as Texas or Louisiana is an integral part of the United States»).
     
  51. @reiner Tor
    The Bolshevik ideology was pure madness. While killing all Jews was certainly evil, it was at least not madness in the sense that the system could easily function without Jews. The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    Nazi ideology did not contradict fundamental post-Christian Germanic nature.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Killing or harming outgroup members is something which all people easily discount. As an example see how Russians in this blog talk about what happened to Balts in 1940-41 and then again after 1945.
  52. @iffen
    The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.

    Aktion T4 didn't violate any part of human nature?

    Aktion T4 didn’t violate any part of human nature?

    It was not a core tenet of the ideology. It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics. Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn’t violate human nature.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It was not a core tenet of the ideology.

    He only gave it up because of opposition. Had the war gone his way, he would have taken care of the opposition and any other faithful Christians that got in his way.

    It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics.

    So your opposition is that it was not effective?

    Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn’t violate human nature.

    I think so as well, but I think we need some restraint and careful thought before we start using force.
  53. @Jake
    Nazi ideology did not contradict fundamental post-Christian Germanic nature.

    Killing or harming outgroup members is something which all people easily discount. As an example see how Russians in this blog talk about what happened to Balts in 1940-41 and then again after 1945.

  54. @iffen
    The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.

    Aktion T4 didn't violate any part of human nature?

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.

    Manifest destiny, city upon a hill, American exceptionalism, wholesale extermination of natives/”savages”

    Lebensraum, thousand year Reich, Aryan/German supremacy, Untermensch

    God-chosen people, God-promised land, Jewish supremacy, Goyim, Talmud

    I would put Nazism right in the middle between those two. Why would you disagree?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Zionists seem to be only killing the minimum number of Palestinians as necessary. America stills has plenty of Indians, come by sometime and we'll go to one of their casinos. There were massacres, but it was not "the" policy. I guess the difference is similiar to the difference between a murderer and an industrial scale serial murderer.
  55. @Gordo

    [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia]
     
    Did Mister Sikorsky or Mister Karlin say that?

    On the murders of the Christian Russian cognitive elites; was there an ethnic component in those murders would you say? And are there any lessons for today?

    was there an ethnic component in those murders would you say?

    There was an ethnic component to the Bolsheviks, take a guess which specific one it was.

  56. @Epigon

    I think that your concept of human nature needs work.
     
    Manifest destiny, city upon a hill, American exceptionalism, wholesale extermination of natives/"savages"

    Lebensraum, thousand year Reich, Aryan/German supremacy, Untermensch

    God-chosen people, God-promised land, Jewish supremacy, Goyim, Talmud


    I would put Nazism right in the middle between those two. Why would you disagree?

    Zionists seem to be only killing the minimum number of Palestinians as necessary. America stills has plenty of Indians, come by sometime and we’ll go to one of their casinos. There were massacres, but it was not “the” policy. I guess the difference is similiar to the difference between a murderer and an industrial scale serial murderer.

    • Replies: @neutral
    Using Zyklon B gas or poisoning peoples minds with mass entertainment, the end result is the same, still genocide.
  57. @reiner Tor

    Aktion T4 didn’t violate any part of human nature?
     
    It was not a core tenet of the ideology. It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics. Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn't violate human nature.

    It was not a core tenet of the ideology.

    He only gave it up because of opposition. Had the war gone his way, he would have taken care of the opposition and any other faithful Christians that got in his way.

    It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics.

    So your opposition is that it was not effective?

    Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn’t violate human nature.

    I think so as well, but I think we need some restraint and careful thought before we start using force.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think T4 wasn't a core element of Nazism. As I wrote, even its goals (eugenics) could be achieved without it.

    I disagree with a number of your points (like, Hitler might not have done anything against the churches; faithful Christians were anyway just one element of the opposition - Hitler rarely wanted to disturb the peace of the German population, so the fact that the murdered people had relatives in German society caused undue anxiety and disturbance, the churches merely catalyzed this by publicly removing all doubt as to what was going on), but I agree with this one:

    I think we need some restraint and careful thought before we start using force.
     
    I think it's even more general than that. If you don't like something, extreme violence (like killing thousands of people) should be some kind of last resort only, because in real life you cannot know with absolute certainty if you will deliver the results. You know, ends might justify the means, but if you don't reach your end goals, then you will be stuck with your means only. In other words: the coming utopia is in the uncertain future and might never arrive, but the mass murder is immediate and certain. Becoming a mass murderer without delivering a utopia is way worse than not doing anything.

    It's the principle of "first, do no harm," especially don't do extreme harm (mass murder).
  58. 32 emigrated

    I would imagine the most intelligent got out while the going was good.

  59. @Gordo

    [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia]
     
    Did Mister Sikorsky or Mister Karlin say that?

    On the murders of the Christian Russian cognitive elites; was there an ethnic component in those murders would you say? And are there any lessons for today?

    Not sure why you follow me if you think I make things up and attribute it to others.

    https://ukraina.ru/history/20190606/1023816831.html

    «Однако мы считаем себя по происхождению русскими, из определенной части России, рассматривая украинский народ как неотъемлемую часть России, так же, как Техас или Луизиана являются неотъемлемой частью Соединенных Штатов». (However, we consider ourselves Russian by origin of a certain part of Russia, considering the Ukrainian people an integral part of Russia, just as Texas or Louisiana is an integral part of the United States»).

    • Replies: @Gordo
    So a paraphrase.
    , @Mr. Hack
    I for one never doubted your veracity in translating Sikorsky's written feelings regarding his ethnicity. Many Ukrainians who were great contributors to Russian imperial projects deemphasized their Ukrainian roots and adopted a Russian outlook. In contrast to Sikorsky was Vladimir Vernadsky who clearly held to his Ukrainian ethnic roots more tenaciously than Sikorsky. I know that you're also a big fan of Vernadsky and was surprised that you made no comment to my recent quote from another thread regarding his ethnic views, nor to the article from which it was taken. For the benefit of your readers, I'll reprint it here again:


    Ivan Vasilyevich passed on his Ukrainophile sentiments to his son Vladimir, George’s father. George ends the description of his grandfather with a short but telling outline of his historical-political views: “Ivan Vasilyevich believed that [Hetman] Mazepa was one of the last fighters for Ukraine’s independence. And he had a negative view of Peter the Great because of his [ruthless] Ukrainian policy.” Among the many additions and corrections Vladimir Vernadsky personally introduced into this genealogical text, one is particularly remarkable. Its heading, in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians” [emphasis in original]. Vladimir stressed in these notes that both his father and his mother “felt very acutely their distinctiveness from the Russians. [They] knew from legends and books the history of Ukraine. I heard a lot [about it] in my childhood.”
     
    https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93700/OP302.pdf

    What's clear from reading this article is that Vernadasky never considered that the Ukrainian and Russian peoples were one nationality, nor did he ascribe to any form of a "Triune nation" as you do, but only felt that the two peoples were "closely related". Ukrainians are also "closely related" to Poles too, but that doesn't make them Polish.
  60. @iffen
    Zionists seem to be only killing the minimum number of Palestinians as necessary. America stills has plenty of Indians, come by sometime and we'll go to one of their casinos. There were massacres, but it was not "the" policy. I guess the difference is similiar to the difference between a murderer and an industrial scale serial murderer.

    Using Zyklon B gas or poisoning peoples minds with mass entertainment, the end result is the same, still genocide.

    • Replies: @iffen
    How did you get off of my CTI list?
  61. @Malla

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe
     
    As if without Jews, Europe would have been a technological backwater. There were many Jews in Yemen before the creation of Israel. Yemen then was a technological pioneer. Wait....

    Indeed, White/Western civilisation ascended (1500AD-1850AD) to power largely without the help of jewish contribution of any large scale. The peak of jewish achievement happened in the 20th century, by which time the West was already the overwhelming dominant force. So that argument is specious at best, and often trotted out by jewish chauvinists.

  62. @neutral
    Using Zyklon B gas or poisoning peoples minds with mass entertainment, the end result is the same, still genocide.

    How did you get off of my CTI list?

  63. @Jake
    "We should note that the aristocide of Russia’s best and brightest was entirely intentional on the part of the Bolsheviks:"

    Of course it was intentional. If you truly believe the ideology of The Revolution (whatever specifics that ideology takes, whether Bolshevik or Maoist or Wahhabi Mohammedan or Anglo-Zionist or French Enlightenment anti-Catholicism or Anglo-Saxon Puritan, etc.), then you are confident that your slaughter of even the best minds and 'sergeants' of the old regime, the culture you are replacing with revolution, will produce great fruits, because the people produced by your revolutionary faith will be superior in all ways that matter.

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.

    The Bolsheviks did incalculable harm to the world by destroying so much that was truly wonderful in Russia.

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.

    Sweeping generalisation ruined an otherwise fine comment. The American revolution was a perfectly good and justified revolution. Americans may have sprung out of the British in their origins but ethnogenesis is a thing, and they became their own ethnicity with their own distinct culture. America turned out just fine, at least until recently, becoming the most innovative technological epicenter of the world for close to a century now.

    So revolutionaires are not always bad, or those who ‘hate most’ with ‘true desires’ for ‘cultural extermination’. That’s more of a communist/leftist thing. We’ve seen in Russia, China, Cambodia and even, yes, France. But the French lucked out that a brilliant and charismatic hardliner with a funny hat bailed out their asses just in time.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That’s more of a communist/leftist thing.

    Can't you think of even one right wing one?
  64. @Thulean Friend

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.
     
    Sweeping generalisation ruined an otherwise fine comment. The American revolution was a perfectly good and justified revolution. Americans may have sprung out of the British in their origins but ethnogenesis is a thing, and they became their own ethnicity with their own distinct culture. America turned out just fine, at least until recently, becoming the most innovative technological epicenter of the world for close to a century now.

    So revolutionaires are not always bad, or those who 'hate most' with 'true desires' for 'cultural extermination'. That's more of a communist/leftist thing. We've seen in Russia, China, Cambodia and even, yes, France. But the French lucked out that a brilliant and charismatic hardliner with a funny hat bailed out their asses just in time.

    That’s more of a communist/leftist thing.

    Can’t you think of even one right wing one?

  65. [MORE]

    As a Jew, I must agree that the overwhelming majority of secular elite cognitive contributions have come from gentiles, and especially in the practical fields whose purpose is the “conquest of nature”, a distinctively European secular profane project.

    You would have to be blind, or extremely dishonest, not to see this.

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly – this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.

    • Replies: @AaronB


    The only caveat to this is medicine, a practical field where Jews contributed heavily, and math, a theoretical field that underlies much practical engineering.

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.
    , @Hyperborean

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly – this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.
     
    You should stop commenting here and join a yeshiva. It would be a more suitable milieu for the application of anti-logic.
  66. @AaronB


    As a Jew, I must agree that the overwhelming majority of secular elite cognitive contributions have come from gentiles, and especially in the practical fields whose purpose is the "conquest of nature", a distinctively European secular profane project.

    You would have to be blind, or extremely dishonest, not to see this.

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly - this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.

    [MORE]

    The only caveat to this is medicine, a practical field where Jews contributed heavily, and math, a theoretical field that underlies much practical engineering.

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.

    • Replies: @Budd Dwyer

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.
     
    Um, do I need to point out the obvious. Pretty much all of higher mathematics was developed by Gentiles/Christians. Created, not culled.

    Riemann, Laplace, Lagrange, Pascal, Fourier, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Fermat, Gauss, Galois, Euler, Poincaré, Frege, Lobachevsky, Markov, Gödel, Liouville, Legendre, Bernoulli, ...

    #GentileStrong 👊🏻
    , @Epigon
    Would you be so kind and name major Jewish contributions in Mathematics and Medicine?
  67. @AaronB


    As a Jew, I must agree that the overwhelming majority of secular elite cognitive contributions have come from gentiles, and especially in the practical fields whose purpose is the "conquest of nature", a distinctively European secular profane project.

    You would have to be blind, or extremely dishonest, not to see this.

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly - this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.

    [MORE]

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly – this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.

    You should stop commenting here and join a yeshiva. It would be a more suitable milieu for the application of anti-logic.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I am a one man yeshiva.
  68. @reiner Tor

    An explicitly racialist major power would have probably made the others more racialist, the same way competition with Soviet communism made the West more socialistic.

    Since by 1938 most Jews had already left Germany, the number of victims of this (those who were severely oppressed) would have been very low (a couple hundred thousand, who would gradually leave Germany, or die of old age), while the number of positively affected people (the whole Western world not descending into multiculturalism) very large.

    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism.

    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism

    Maybe, but this multiculturalism didn’t really start to take off until about the mid to late 1980s, some 40 years after the war. Prior to the 1980s many guest workers in Europe were regularly sent back, most Europeans who grew up then weren’t made to feel guilty, and there was very little anti-white propaganda in most countries until recently. Even when multiculturalism began the publicly stated justifications for it had nothing to do with WW2, at least not in the three Anglo countries I grew up in, whereas today WW2 is all we hear about. We see the same thing in America; the further away from slavery they get the more of an issue its legacy has become. At this point, using Hitler’s atrocities or 19th century slavery as pretexts for aggression and theft should be close to laughable, and yet…here we are.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    After 1945, "racism" got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don't think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of "anti-racism."

    This left opponents of mass immigration intellectually defenseless.

    Of course, multiculturalism couldn't happen overnight. Immigration started out as a trickle, and only slowly grew. But when the moment came, its opponents couldn't organize themselves intellectually. They always had to say that they'd accept "assimilated" or "well-integrated" immigrants as a matter of course. See the sad spectacle of BoJo wanting to create a government with lots of "minorities" and women.

    It's very difficult to achieve something, if you don't have the intellectual tools to even think about what the ideal outcome would be, or what would be wrong with where we are heading.
  69. @Hyperborean

    The distinctive Jewish contribution to the world is spiritual, not cognitive.

    The extraordinary Jewish cognitive contribution relative to numbers is entirely an accidental byproduct of recent times.

    European gentiles by and large created the modern technological world almost single handedly – this must be admitted by all honest people.

    And this is why the Judgement of God is upon then now, and not on Jews.
     
    You should stop commenting here and join a yeshiva. It would be a more suitable milieu for the application of anti-logic.

    I am a one man yeshiva.

  70. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not sure why you follow me if you think I make things up and attribute it to others.

    https://ukraina.ru/history/20190606/1023816831.html

    «Однако мы считаем себя по происхождению русскими, из определенной части России, рассматривая украинский народ как неотъемлемую часть России, так же, как Техас или Луизиана являются неотъемлемой частью Соединенных Штатов». (However, we consider ourselves Russian by origin of a certain part of Russia, considering the Ukrainian people an integral part of Russia, just as Texas or Louisiana is an integral part of the United States»).
     

    So a paraphrase.

  71. @LondonBob
    Arab conquests were a spectacular achievement, probably the most unexpected event in history.

    Islam = a successful adaptive strategy for Arabs.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    In a sense, yes. Islam was created as a response to the conquests, in large measure. The Arabs increasingly needed a way to distinguish themselves from the conquered peoples. Compare the Arabization of Egypt and Syria to what happened to the Germanic peoples who caused the fall of the Western Empire-the latter got Romanized. Had Islam not been created, it's possible the Arabs would have blended into the culture of their subjects. Even as things stand, Islam has a lot of Zoroastrian features to it-the emphasis on purity, for example, with hadiths being attributed to the Prophet after the fact on the importance of washing yourself before prayer.

    This became the Umayyad caliphate's undoing when all the mawalis began openly wondering why they weren't being treated as equals. Islam becoming what it is today-with the emphasis on shari'a legalism-reflects the victory of the new convert scholar elite over the old Syro-Arab Umayyad military elite in terms of writing the history and defining the religion.
  72. @Anatoly Karlin
    That's an interesting point.

    TBH I didn't have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.

    “…largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations…

    It would be interesting and informative to do an ethnic breakdown of the USSR’s total intelligentsia, the members of that intelligentsia who were persecuted or liquidated, and the leadership of the agencies who conducted the persecutions and liquidations. Let’s not jump to conclusions. let’s study the data.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Good luck with that. Anti-semites are always claiming the Bolshies were almost entirely Jews, and the Jews are always claiming that's a lie.

    So I once tried to research it and get actual numbers. Very hard to do, and when I posted a request for help finding the information I was severely jumped on.

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.
  73. Anatoly Karlin thank you for this historical article. I hope in the future you will write a lengthy article on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s works.

  74. I was aware of minor aristocrat Alexander de Seversky due to his theories on air power which are considered important in the history of geopolitical concepts. He was in the US before the Revolution but chose to stay there because of it.

    Looking at his Wikipedia page though he seems to have been more accomplished in the field of aviation than I thought.

  75. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not sure why you follow me if you think I make things up and attribute it to others.

    https://ukraina.ru/history/20190606/1023816831.html

    «Однако мы считаем себя по происхождению русскими, из определенной части России, рассматривая украинский народ как неотъемлемую часть России, так же, как Техас или Луизиана являются неотъемлемой частью Соединенных Штатов». (However, we consider ourselves Russian by origin of a certain part of Russia, considering the Ukrainian people an integral part of Russia, just as Texas or Louisiana is an integral part of the United States»).
     

    I for one never doubted your veracity in translating Sikorsky’s written feelings regarding his ethnicity. Many Ukrainians who were great contributors to Russian imperial projects deemphasized their Ukrainian roots and adopted a Russian outlook. In contrast to Sikorsky was Vladimir Vernadsky who clearly held to his Ukrainian ethnic roots more tenaciously than Sikorsky. I know that you’re also a big fan of Vernadsky and was surprised that you made no comment to my recent quote from another thread regarding his ethnic views, nor to the article from which it was taken. For the benefit of your readers, I’ll reprint it here again:

    [MORE]

    Ivan Vasilyevich passed on his Ukrainophile sentiments to his son Vladimir, George’s father. George ends the description of his grandfather with a short but telling outline of his historical-political views: “Ivan Vasilyevich believed that [Hetman] Mazepa was one of the last fighters for Ukraine’s independence. And he had a negative view of Peter the Great because of his [ruthless] Ukrainian policy.” Among the many additions and corrections Vladimir Vernadsky personally introduced into this genealogical text, one is particularly remarkable. Its heading, in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians” [emphasis in original]. Vladimir stressed in these notes that both his father and his mother “felt very acutely their distinctiveness from the Russians. [They] knew from legends and books the history of Ukraine. I heard a lot [about it] in my childhood.”

    https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93700/OP302.pdf

    What’s clear from reading this article is that Vernadasky never considered that the Ukrainian and Russian peoples were one nationality, nor did he ascribe to any form of a “Triune nation” as you do, but only felt that the two peoples were “closely related”. Ukrainians are also “closely related” to Poles too, but that doesn’t make them Polish.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Ok, good. So? And? Relevance? There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.
  76. @reiner Tor
    The Bolshevik ideology was pure madness. While killing all Jews was certainly evil, it was at least not madness in the sense that the system could easily function without Jews. The Nazi ideology didn’t contradict fundamental human nature.

    And yet it was communism that survived and Nazism died after few years.

    • Replies: @Malla

    Nazism died after few years.
     
    It was killed using superior forces. It did not die a natural death.
    , @reiner Tor
    Because it lost the war. Communism collapsed despite winning the war and for several decades ruling the second strongest empire in the world.
  77. @anonymous coward
    Not really. Islam deeply screwed up the Islamic world.

    Not particularly. “Islam” as we’d recognize it didn’t really become a thing until well after the conquests, and in many ways, wouldn’t fully mature until well into the Abbasid era. The Byzantines viewed the initial Arab conquerors as heretical Christians of a sort, and the Arabs viewed themselves as carrying out the pure monotheism of their ancestor, Abraham.

    And although the majority of the “Golden Age” intellectual work so ballyhooed over by bizarrely Islamophilic Western liberals was in reality carried out by recently (sometimes nominally) converted Zoroastrian Persians, the caliphate’s actions in war or domestic policies weren’t egregious by the standards of the age. Cmpared to an illiterate Charlemagne converting or killing the Saxons at the point of a sword, extorting non-conforming religions or sects for money as the Muslims (or the Byzantines) did was relatively easy-going.

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn’t? But that’s another question for another day.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn’t?
     
    There was no 'castration of religion'. One religion (Christianity) was replaced by another (Gnosticism).

    The Roman Catholic church tried to stamp out Gnostics by fire and sword during the Albigensian Crusade, but ultimately it failed.
    , @notanon

    why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn’t?
     
    i think historically religion has been used as a way of producing a level of cooperation that a population needed but was otherwise in capable of e.g. making a selfish population act like a clan, a clannish population act a tribe and a tribal population act like a nation.

    i think the west European marriage model made people more cooperative by nature and this reduced the need for religion as a cooperation enhancer.

    nb reducing the need for religion as a cooperation enhancer wouldn't necessarily reduce genetic religiosity.
  78. @Matra
    Islam = a successful adaptive strategy for Arabs.

    In a sense, yes. Islam was created as a response to the conquests, in large measure. The Arabs increasingly needed a way to distinguish themselves from the conquered peoples. Compare the Arabization of Egypt and Syria to what happened to the Germanic peoples who caused the fall of the Western Empire-the latter got Romanized. Had Islam not been created, it’s possible the Arabs would have blended into the culture of their subjects. Even as things stand, Islam has a lot of Zoroastrian features to it-the emphasis on purity, for example, with hadiths being attributed to the Prophet after the fact on the importance of washing yourself before prayer.

    This became the Umayyad caliphate’s undoing when all the mawalis began openly wondering why they weren’t being treated as equals. Islam becoming what it is today-with the emphasis on shari’a legalism-reflects the victory of the new convert scholar elite over the old Syro-Arab Umayyad military elite in terms of writing the history and defining the religion.

  79. @reiner Tor

    An explicitly racialist major power would have probably made the others more racialist, the same way competition with Soviet communism made the West more socialistic.

    Since by 1938 most Jews had already left Germany, the number of victims of this (those who were severely oppressed) would have been very low (a couple hundred thousand, who would gradually leave Germany, or die of old age), while the number of positively affected people (the whole Western world not descending into multiculturalism) very large.

    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism.

    As I’ve stated before, for someone who so wanted to exterminate Bolshevism, Adolf Hitler did a good job of ensuring it ended up controlling the heart of Europe.

  80. @Mr. Hack
    I for one never doubted your veracity in translating Sikorsky's written feelings regarding his ethnicity. Many Ukrainians who were great contributors to Russian imperial projects deemphasized their Ukrainian roots and adopted a Russian outlook. In contrast to Sikorsky was Vladimir Vernadsky who clearly held to his Ukrainian ethnic roots more tenaciously than Sikorsky. I know that you're also a big fan of Vernadsky and was surprised that you made no comment to my recent quote from another thread regarding his ethnic views, nor to the article from which it was taken. For the benefit of your readers, I'll reprint it here again:


    Ivan Vasilyevich passed on his Ukrainophile sentiments to his son Vladimir, George’s father. George ends the description of his grandfather with a short but telling outline of his historical-political views: “Ivan Vasilyevich believed that [Hetman] Mazepa was one of the last fighters for Ukraine’s independence. And he had a negative view of Peter the Great because of his [ruthless] Ukrainian policy.” Among the many additions and corrections Vladimir Vernadsky personally introduced into this genealogical text, one is particularly remarkable. Its heading, in Vladimir’s own handwriting, reads, “About our family as Ukrainians, not Russians” [emphasis in original]. Vladimir stressed in these notes that both his father and his mother “felt very acutely their distinctiveness from the Russians. [They] knew from legends and books the history of Ukraine. I heard a lot [about it] in my childhood.”
     
    https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93700/OP302.pdf

    What's clear from reading this article is that Vernadasky never considered that the Ukrainian and Russian peoples were one nationality, nor did he ascribe to any form of a "Triune nation" as you do, but only felt that the two peoples were "closely related". Ukrainians are also "closely related" to Poles too, but that doesn't make them Polish.

    Ok, good. So? And? Relevance? There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.
     
    Precisely, that's why I included it here to contrast against Sikorsky's views, both prominent scholars who worked and lived in Russia, but born in Ukraine, Ukrainians. Also, I believe that Vernadsky ranks high up within your pantheon of great and important "Russian" scholars. I was interested in knowing whether you were aware of Vernadsky's strong Ukrainian feelings ("Svidomist"), and whether this in any way modifies your feelings about the man?
  81. utu says:

    Good article, good angle. People should know more and more what was the cost of Bolsheviks to Russia and to the world. And how many Mr. XYX were behind it.

    “25 died between 1917 and 1924” – Do we know hod did they die? Who were Messrs X, Y and Z who killed them?

  82. @Anatoly Karlin
    Ok, good. So? And? Relevance? There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.

    There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.

    Precisely, that’s why I included it here to contrast against Sikorsky’s views, both prominent scholars who worked and lived in Russia, but born in Ukraine, Ukrainians. Also, I believe that Vernadsky ranks high up within your pantheon of great and important “Russian” scholars. I was interested in knowing whether you were aware of Vernadsky’s strong Ukrainian feelings (“Svidomist”), and whether this in any way modifies your feelings about the man?

    • Replies: @Adam
    Do you have to drag hohol bullshit into every thread? Fuck off boomer
  83. @Jake
    "We should note that the aristocide of Russia’s best and brightest was entirely intentional on the part of the Bolsheviks:"

    Of course it was intentional. If you truly believe the ideology of The Revolution (whatever specifics that ideology takes, whether Bolshevik or Maoist or Wahhabi Mohammedan or Anglo-Zionist or French Enlightenment anti-Catholicism or Anglo-Saxon Puritan, etc.), then you are confident that your slaughter of even the best minds and 'sergeants' of the old regime, the culture you are replacing with revolution, will produce great fruits, because the people produced by your revolutionary faith will be superior in all ways that matter.

    Revolutionaries always hate most, hate with true desires for at least cultural extermination, those who are fine products of the ancien regime, its best minds and producers of good things, including its down home types who produce the good life on a local level.

    The Bolsheviks did incalculable harm to the world by destroying so much that was truly wonderful in Russia.

    Anglo Saxon Puritans are not even remotely similar to those other groups.

    • Disagree: anonymous coward
  84. Much of what is modern America stems from Jews who left Russia supposedly because of the Pogroms – from science, music, film, mafia, even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews

    So you could turn on it’s head the premise of this article and say it was the policies under the Tsar that killed or sent away many important Jews . All that obviously precedes the Bolsheviks

    In fact, if the Bolshevik revolution had preceded the so-called pogroms then it would be Russians, not Jews ( except the finance, although obviously that migrates into the other categories) who are mainly responsible for modern America, and there would be non of this BS now

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication - calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists - summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    The stupidity of both Russian and Serbian government in dealing with revolutionaries led by hostile minorities and chauvinists led
    to Bolshevik and Yugocommunist dismemberment of parent states, and arguably,
    nations.

    The pickaxe to Trotsky’s head came 30 years too late. Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.
    , @Alias Anonymous
    ". . . even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews. . ."

    Jews celebrating Christmas?
    Is not celebrating Christmas of Roman origin, the feast of Saturnalia?
    And Germans started the Christmas tree tradition?

    I had the impression that Jews do not like Christmas.
    But I remember Barbra Streisand's album of Christmas carols!
  85. @Bies Podkrakowski
    And yet it was communism that survived and Nazism died after few years.

    Nazism died after few years.

    It was killed using superior forces. It did not die a natural death.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

  86. @Gerard2
    Much of what is modern America stems from Jews who left Russia supposedly because of the Pogroms - from science, music, film, mafia, even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews

    So you could turn on it's head the premise of this article and say it was the policies under the Tsar that killed or sent away many important Jews . All that obviously precedes the Bolsheviks

    In fact, if the Bolshevik revolution had preceded the so-called pogroms then it would be Russians, not Jews ( except the finance, although obviously that migrates into the other categories) who are mainly responsible for modern America, and there would be non of this BS now

    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication – calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    The stupidity of both Russian and Serbian government in dealing with revolutionaries led by hostile minorities and chauvinists led
    to Bolshevik and Yugocommunist dismemberment of parent states, and arguably,
    nations.

    The pickaxe to Trotsky’s head came 30 years too late. Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication – calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.
     
    Agree 100% - I just thought I would use diplomatic language in my post, because diplomacy comes so naturally to me.
    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe - it also doesn't change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.

    ...and most of jewish contribution to America in science, entertainment and so on is derivative from living with/off Russian empire....which of course in the late 19th- early 20th century was producing more than any other country in great contributions in music, literature, science & mathematics ( first 2 undisputed leader, last 2 more equal with the other main countries but still a great contributor)
    , @Malla

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.
     
    That is what I find very interesting. Tzar Nicholas seemed too kind and compassionate for his own good. Should have had those commie terrorists shot instead of exile. The Communists in power would have done just that.
    , @anonymous coward

    Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.
     
    Fun fact: Pilsudski's elder brother was in a terrorist cell with Lenin's elder brother, plotting to kill Alexander III.

    Makes you wonder if, indeed, the conspiracy theories about who really runs the world are true.
  87. Budd Dwyer [AKA "Anon000"] says:
    @AaronB


    The only caveat to this is medicine, a practical field where Jews contributed heavily, and math, a theoretical field that underlies much practical engineering.

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.

    Um, do I need to point out the obvious. Pretty much all of higher mathematics was developed by Gentiles/Christians. Created, not culled.

    Riemann, Laplace, Lagrange, Pascal, Fourier, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Fermat, Gauss, Galois, Euler, Poincaré, Frege, Lobachevsky, Markov, Gödel, Liouville, Legendre, Bernoulli, …

    #GentileStrong 👊🏻

  88. @Malla

    Nazism died after few years.
     
    It was killed using superior forces. It did not die a natural death.

    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy – 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers – a 1936 design – Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 – failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad – DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all – at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy – 1942/1943. For a very good reason – bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting – there were only a few assembly line factories – most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.

    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    • Replies: @Malla
    Yes I am aware that Germany was not prepared for war (nor was Japan) and that is why I believe they did not want war. As far as the German economy being backward, that is laughable. How could a high IQ people like the Germans not run their country well especially after Jewish parasitism was removed? If China could run their economy closed from the world, I am sure the Germans could.
    And if the Third Reich would have collapsed anyways then the whole WW2 was just pointless. the British and the French just had to wait a few years for the Third Reich to collapse on its own weight. Does not make sense. The truth is the Western allies and their banker bosses looked at Germany as a permanent threat, a nation that would only grow stronger with time.
    , @utu
    "In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle"- The economic miracle was real. Try to figure out what and who is behind the creation of the meme that it was a myth.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    A bunch of stuff about German war unpreparedness, true or no, does nothing to support your contention that Germany would have "crashed and burned" even without a war.

    It would be more interesting if you tried.

    , @Philip Owen
    German productivity did not overtake the UK's until the early 1950's, a direct result of decartelization. Fascist economies are dirigiste. Good for a certain degree of catch up but not suitable for overtaking. Russia has reverted to dirigism (crony capitalists who invest under are direction).

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski. He was another Russian exile who invented a fundamental technology to whit, television. This had far greater impact than Sikorsky's helicopter. Zworykin's work on TV started in St Petersburg around 1912. He later added the electron microscope to his list of fundamental inventions. That gave Atlantic countries a lead in biological sciences.

    Of course, we are creatures of our environment. Russia had no firms like Westinghouse or RCA or Britain's Marconi that could pick up a new technology and sell and produce the complex system necessary to deliver a television channel. Marconi did have a subsidiary in Russia prior to the Revolution but it thereafter atrophied. The Bolsheviks were followers not leaders in technology. They had a lot of engineers and scientists but the quality was awful. I met them in the 1990's. Great technicial training. Technolgists ... ?
    , @reiner Tor

    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.
     
    I used to think so, too. But now I don't think it was so, at all.

    Richard J. Evans mentions that Hjalmar Schacht had said the same things over and over again - that Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy. He started saying so in 1936, when the policy of strong rearmament just got going. However, in the summer of 1939 in London he admitted that he was basically lying. The combination of price controls, highly regulated foreign trade, and very high military expenditure could have gone on forever, or at least, for a long enough time not to matter.

    Moreover, Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy solely because it was spending so much on the military. They could have slowed down military procurements any time bankruptcy was truly imminent, and in fact, they did so many times over. In early 1939 Hitler publicly endorsed exporting more (in order to pay for the imports), and they did so. Then the absorption of Czechia and the robbery of its resources led to another burst of military procurements, but after that was exhausted, too, they cut back military procurements in the summer again. (Or maybe they were just about to cut them back, but then the war happened.)

    Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy
     
    What is your point? Germany was only allowed to have a minimal size military until 1933. Though military expenditures grew exponentially (from a very low base) after 1933, true large scale armament only started in 1936. The fact that, by 1940, it managed to build up a military which was even remotely competitive with the combined might of France and the UK is a testament to the extreme level of military expenditures.

    Of course, in the absence of war, they could and should have slowed down military procurements. So what?

    Germans engines were bad – DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
     
    Okay. That was because they literally only started to build up their military aviation industry from scratch in 1933. And how is it relevant as to whether Nazi Germany would have crashed and burned in 1940, had they not started a war? Let me answer this rhetorical question: it's not relevant.

    very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy – 1942/1943
     
    That's a myth. In the last full year of peace, 1938, Germany spent 20% of its national income on the military - the highest level a capitalistic economy ever reached in peacetime. In 1939 it grew to a third, and then in 1940 a half. They allocated enormous resources to investments, like building up the chemicals industry (for ersatz Benzin, among other things), which was necessary to wage a war later on. In hindsight, they should've stopped all investments and instead concentrated on purely military expenditure, because by the time the investments came online (only after 1942), the war was already lost for good.

    But they allocated everything to the military. There were serious problems with German armaments production (for example they liked to create several tailor-made versions of their weapons systems, instead of mass producing just a few variants, which resulted in very low levels of production until 1942; some of the problems you mentioned already), but it wasn't that they didn't mobilize the economy. Because they did.

    the industry simply couldn’t utilize female labour
     
    The share of female labor in Germany was higher in 1939 than it would ever become in the UK during the war. This meant that there was already a lower potential for mobilizing women for the war economy. Agriculture was to a large extent run by the wives and daughters of farmers, when farmers and their sons were drafted to the military. This was a hidden female element in the work force (also in the UK, but to a much smaller extent, because agriculture was smaller), which should be added. Overall, they utilized female workforce as much as possible.

    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.
     
    Why? Even better, they should never have started a war. They should have worked on missiles and nukes, and once they have them, they'd have achieved independence without having to conquer an eastern empire. (Because remember, the basic issue for Hitler was that it was very easy to blockade Germany, and so true independence required that they controlled the East. Probably a political dominance over Eastern Central and Southeastern Europe would have been enough, coupled with an independent strategic nuclear arsenal by the 1960s.)
  89. @AaronB


    The only caveat to this is medicine, a practical field where Jews contributed heavily, and math, a theoretical field that underlies much practical engineering.

    But the translation of theoretical math into profane engineering projects is the world of gentiles.

    Would you be so kind and name major Jewish contributions in Mathematics and Medicine?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    http://www.jinfo.org/Biomedical_Research.html

    http://www.jinfo.org/Mathematics.html

    Although really physics too. Explore the site.
    , @Budd Dwyer
    I would say that among the greats you could include John von Neumann. Though Von Neumann converted to Catholicism to marry his wife and on his deathbed he called for a Benedictine priest to hear his confession and give him last rites. Since in the modern era Jews are only distinguished by their opposition to Christ, Von Neumann seemed to do the one thing which would automatically excommunicate him from that group.
  90. @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    Yes I am aware that Germany was not prepared for war (nor was Japan) and that is why I believe they did not want war. As far as the German economy being backward, that is laughable. How could a high IQ people like the Germans not run their country well especially after Jewish parasitism was removed? If China could run their economy closed from the world, I am sure the Germans could.
    And if the Third Reich would have collapsed anyways then the whole WW2 was just pointless. the British and the French just had to wait a few years for the Third Reich to collapse on its own weight. Does not make sense. The truth is the Western allies and their banker bosses looked at Germany as a permanent threat, a nation that would only grow stronger with time.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Pick up Wages of destruction.

    Then search for Reich output of coal, pig iron, steel, aluminum, electricity on one, and tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, trucks on the other.

    Now look up USSR and the same metrics.

    German industry was not at all efficient and the modern factories were subsidiary plants of Ford, GM (Opel) and Chevrolet, for example. Regarding US bankers, who do you think serviced loans to Germany and German reparations to France and Britain?


    The crucial advantage the Germans enjoyed was the quality of their tactics, basic infantry sections, NCOs and junior officers compared to their opposition.
    But most importantly, they had the strategic initiative and sucker punched all their foes which allowed them to outright defeat smaller countries and push up to Moscow building on the success of the initial sucker punch.

  91. @Malla
    Yes I am aware that Germany was not prepared for war (nor was Japan) and that is why I believe they did not want war. As far as the German economy being backward, that is laughable. How could a high IQ people like the Germans not run their country well especially after Jewish parasitism was removed? If China could run their economy closed from the world, I am sure the Germans could.
    And if the Third Reich would have collapsed anyways then the whole WW2 was just pointless. the British and the French just had to wait a few years for the Third Reich to collapse on its own weight. Does not make sense. The truth is the Western allies and their banker bosses looked at Germany as a permanent threat, a nation that would only grow stronger with time.

    Pick up Wages of destruction.

    Then search for Reich output of coal, pig iron, steel, aluminum, electricity on one, and tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, trucks on the other.

    Now look up USSR and the same metrics.

    German industry was not at all efficient and the modern factories were subsidiary plants of Ford, GM (Opel) and Chevrolet, for example. Regarding US bankers, who do you think serviced loans to Germany and German reparations to France and Britain?

    The crucial advantage the Germans enjoyed was the quality of their tactics, basic infantry sections, NCOs and junior officers compared to their opposition.
    But most importantly, they had the strategic initiative and sucker punched all their foes which allowed them to outright defeat smaller countries and push up to Moscow building on the success of the initial sucker punch.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Once again: you fail to show how German unpreparedness for war means Germany's economy would have crashed without a war.
    , @Malla

    Wages of destruction.
     
    Oh Tooze, he is an advocate of "The German economy sucked school of thought". Yeah rite!!

    The German economy under the Third Reich was the second largest in the World after the USA. Unlikely it would have
    collapsed.
    There has been a discussion on this issue before.

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=74477b5b321c1f91f34d588f5acec932&start=45

    By July 1935 almost seventeen million Germans were in brand new jobs, though they were not well paid by anyone’s standards. But nevertheless, these jobs provided a living wage, compared with just eleven million Germans who were in employment just two years before.

    In the space of four years, NS Germany changed from a defeated nation, a bankrupt economy, strangled by war debt, inflation and lack of foreign capital; into full employment with the strongest economy and biggest military power in Europe.


    The Third Reich was to technological failure: think of jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, the electron microscope all of which either were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. There are innovations in the area of basic physics (nuclear fission, discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938), hormone and vitamin research, automotive engineering (the Volkswagen was supposed to be the "people's car"), pharmacology, and synthetic gasoline and rubber (I. G. Farben in 1942 controlled more than 90 percent of the world's synthetic rubber production).

    NS aeronautic engineers designed the first intercontinental ballistic missiles-never actually assembled-and it was Germans in the 1940s who built the first jet ejection seat. German engineers built the world's first autobahns, and the world's first magnetic tape recording is of a speech by Hitler. The first television broadcast strong enough to escape the planet featured Hitler's speech at the opening of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
    , @reiner Tor
    Okay, but how is it relevant as to whether they'd have collapsed of their own weight in 1940, had they not started the war?
  92. @Epigon
    Would you be so kind and name major Jewish contributions in Mathematics and Medicine?
    • Replies: @Epigon
    Oh, I know them.
    I was hoping for an answer from you, singling out your personal favorites.

    I wasn’t denying the contributions.

  93. @Mr. Hack

    There were obviously many points of view amongst Ukrainians then, as they are now.
     
    Precisely, that's why I included it here to contrast against Sikorsky's views, both prominent scholars who worked and lived in Russia, but born in Ukraine, Ukrainians. Also, I believe that Vernadsky ranks high up within your pantheon of great and important "Russian" scholars. I was interested in knowing whether you were aware of Vernadsky's strong Ukrainian feelings ("Svidomist"), and whether this in any way modifies your feelings about the man?

    Do you have to drag hohol bullshit into every thread? Fuck off boomer

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Tsk, tsk...looks like I've hit a live wire with this one! :-)

    Actually, if you sharpened your reading comprehension skills (a severe malady of the Gen Z, that can only function in an environment of visual stimulation), you'd notice that it was Karlin who first brought up the ehtnicity of Sikorsky into the main topic:


    “My family, which comes from the rural Kiev region, were priests and of pure Ukrainian stock – but we consider ourselves Russians… [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia], like Texas or Louisiana are an integral part of the United States.”
     
    If you don't enjoy reading about the ethnic orientations of people within Russia or its former empire, may I suggest that you continue amusing yourself on the couch, coddling your joystick playing the latest version of "Roblox" (stay out of the deep end of the pool reserved for adults).
  94. Budd Dwyer [AKA "Anon000"] says:
    @Epigon
    Would you be so kind and name major Jewish contributions in Mathematics and Medicine?

    I would say that among the greats you could include John von Neumann. Though Von Neumann converted to Catholicism to marry his wife and on his deathbed he called for a Benedictine priest to hear his confession and give him last rites. Since in the modern era Jews are only distinguished by their opposition to Christ, Von Neumann seemed to do the one thing which would automatically excommunicate him from that group.

  95. @AaronB
    http://www.jinfo.org/Biomedical_Research.html

    http://www.jinfo.org/Mathematics.html

    Although really physics too. Explore the site.

    Oh, I know them.
    I was hoping for an answer from you, singling out your personal favorites.

    I wasn’t denying the contributions.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Mathematics is a profane subject - I have no favourites :)
  96. @Adam
    Do you have to drag hohol bullshit into every thread? Fuck off boomer

    Tsk, tsk…looks like I’ve hit a live wire with this one! 🙂

    Actually, if you sharpened your reading comprehension skills (a severe malady of the Gen Z, that can only function in an environment of visual stimulation), you’d notice that it was Karlin who first brought up the ehtnicity of Sikorsky into the main topic:

    “My family, which comes from the rural Kiev region, were priests and of pure Ukrainian stock – but we consider ourselves Russians… [the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia], like Texas or Louisiana are an integral part of the United States.”

    If you don’t enjoy reading about the ethnic orientations of people within Russia or its former empire, may I suggest that you continue amusing yourself on the couch, coddling your joystick playing the latest version of “Roblox” (stay out of the deep end of the pool reserved for adults).

    • LOL: Adam
  97. @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    “In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle”– The economic miracle was real. Try to figure out what and who is behind the creation of the meme that it was a myth.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Sure, it was real. But it was built on a house of cards about to collapse, which is why looting of the rest of the Continent was necessary to prevent that collapse.

    It was sort of like a Ponzi scheme, provides real returns to investors, but will crash unless funds are injected from a new source.
    , @Epigon
    So you think Hjalmar Schacht had the wrong idea?

    And resorting to bartering in trade, not having enough foreign currency reserves for even two weeks of trade and transactions?

  98. @Malla

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe
     
    As if without Jews, Europe would have been a technological backwater. There were many Jews in Yemen before the creation of Israel. Yemen then was a technological pioneer. Wait....

    Well, one major reason the Germans never got close to a Bomb is that its physics was based on Jewish Science and thus inherently unGerman.

    A very, very large percentage of those who built the Bomb in America were refugees from the Nazis.

    • Replies: @Adam
    What percentage exactly?
    , @Epigon
    Yeah, about that - all the physicists in the world working together couldn’t have changed the fact that there was only one country in the world which could afford building enrichment infrastructure.
  99. @Epigon
    Oh, I know them.
    I was hoping for an answer from you, singling out your personal favorites.

    I wasn’t denying the contributions.

    Mathematics is a profane subject – I have no favourites 🙂

  100. @Logan
    Well, one major reason the Germans never got close to a Bomb is that its physics was based on Jewish Science and thus inherently unGerman.

    A very, very large percentage of those who built the Bomb in America were refugees from the Nazis.

    What percentage exactly?

    • Replies: @Logan
    Don't know exactly, and defining the question is a problem.

    But here's an interesting article on the subject.

    https://eteconline.org/news/jewish-scientists-played-a-key-role-in-the-manhattan-project/
  101. @utu
    "In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle"- The economic miracle was real. Try to figure out what and who is behind the creation of the meme that it was a myth.

    Sure, it was real. But it was built on a house of cards about to collapse, which is why looting of the rest of the Continent was necessary to prevent that collapse.

    It was sort of like a Ponzi scheme, provides real returns to investors, but will crash unless funds are injected from a new source.

  102. @utu
    "In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle"- The economic miracle was real. Try to figure out what and who is behind the creation of the meme that it was a myth.

    So you think Hjalmar Schacht had the wrong idea?

    And resorting to bartering in trade, not having enough foreign currency reserves for even two weeks of trade and transactions?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Germany I think never had more than a month's imports worth of reserves 1933-45.

    Schacht warned that the very fast pace of armament would lead to a war anyway. He was not wrong. He wanted a managed peacetime mixed economy. He didn't mind a strong military, but the pace of rearmament was insane. It could and should have been scaled back.

    But it says nothing about the long term viability of the regime. They should've spent less on the military.
  103. @Jus' Sayin'...

    "...largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations...
     
    "

    It would be interesting and informative to do an ethnic breakdown of the USSR's total intelligentsia, the members of that intelligentsia who were persecuted or liquidated, and the leadership of the agencies who conducted the persecutions and liquidations. Let's not jump to conclusions. let's study the data.

    Good luck with that. Anti-semites are always claiming the Bolshies were almost entirely Jews, and the Jews are always claiming that’s a lie.

    So I once tried to research it and get actual numbers. Very hard to do, and when I posted a request for help finding the information I was severely jumped on.

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

     

    Yup, pretty much.

    Regardless of their personal feelings about Jewry, during the 1920s and '30s, it was the all but universal consensus of intelligent and informed political figures in the West that the Russian Revolution was, in effect, a Jewish coup to take over Russia.

    Such noted anti-Semites as, erm, Winston Churchill agreed that this was the case. Quoth Churchill: "And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses."

    White men of power then were no less unscrupulous and treasonous than they are now - they just spoke more openly about controversial things.

    Recent historians such as Sean McMeekin downplay the Jewish angle but admit there was one.

    Interestingly enough, McMeekin also admits that the February Revolution was highly Masonic - Kerensky and his compatriots were all devout Freemasons. But most people don't have the intellectual courage to touch on the meaning of Masonry either.

    I admit this doesn't really help you with "numbers," however.

    , @Fidelios Automata
    Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Consent" has been a real eye-opener for me. You can't get it from Amazon anymore. Any criticism or suspicion of Jewish motivations, no matter how dispassionate, is now considered the vilest form of anti-Semitism.
  104. @Nemets
    Wonder how the Mongol and Manchu conquests rank in destruction of human capital. Central Asia's contributions to religion and philosophy before the conquests seem substantial. Seems possible that cognitive elites of Central Asian peoples were concentrated in the cities as successful merchants and were disproportionately affected by the Mongols.

    This would testable as well in the near future. DNA testing of the remains of ancient Central Asians and modern Iranian peoples in Central Asia can currently give an idea of how closely related they are. Comparison of their polygenic intelligence scores would show their change in intelligence through time.

    The Manchu probably stabilized China, by invading it. It was done opportunely in the period of a civil war. The population of China increased dramatically during the Qing dynasty – though largely as a result of food crops like the potato, sweet potato, and peanut, introduced by Europeans.

    Indeed, as an American, I wish there were Jurchen tribesmen to our north, who hadn’t gone soft, and maybe could invade us and undertake some much needed reforms.

  105. @Logan
    Well, one major reason the Germans never got close to a Bomb is that its physics was based on Jewish Science and thus inherently unGerman.

    A very, very large percentage of those who built the Bomb in America were refugees from the Nazis.

    Yeah, about that – all the physicists in the world working together couldn’t have changed the fact that there was only one country in the world which could afford building enrichment infrastructure.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    For plutonium, you don't need enrichment. But I think the overall costs of the program would have been similar to the A4 rocket program. So definitely not impossible.

    I'm not saying they could've finished it by April 30, 1945 (the Americans didn't manage to do so), but that it would have been possible to work on it, especially in peacetime. They had lots of physicists who were willing to work on it.
  106. After the German-German border was fortified, there were mercenary helicopter pilots who would cross it to get people out from East Germany. I wonder if any of these choppers were made by Sikorsky.

  107. @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    A bunch of stuff about German war unpreparedness, true or no, does nothing to support your contention that Germany would have “crashed and burned” even without a war.

    It would be more interesting if you tried.

  108. @Epigon
    Pick up Wages of destruction.

    Then search for Reich output of coal, pig iron, steel, aluminum, electricity on one, and tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, trucks on the other.

    Now look up USSR and the same metrics.

    German industry was not at all efficient and the modern factories were subsidiary plants of Ford, GM (Opel) and Chevrolet, for example. Regarding US bankers, who do you think serviced loans to Germany and German reparations to France and Britain?


    The crucial advantage the Germans enjoyed was the quality of their tactics, basic infantry sections, NCOs and junior officers compared to their opposition.
    But most importantly, they had the strategic initiative and sucker punched all their foes which allowed them to outright defeat smaller countries and push up to Moscow building on the success of the initial sucker punch.

    Once again: you fail to show how German unpreparedness for war means Germany’s economy would have crashed without a war.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    It had already crashed. Germany was technically bankrupt.

    Are your strong convictions based on some literature, primary sources?

  109. @Logan
    Good luck with that. Anti-semites are always claiming the Bolshies were almost entirely Jews, and the Jews are always claiming that's a lie.

    So I once tried to research it and get actual numbers. Very hard to do, and when I posted a request for help finding the information I was severely jumped on.

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

    Yup, pretty much.

    Regardless of their personal feelings about Jewry, during the 1920s and ’30s, it was the all but universal consensus of intelligent and informed political figures in the West that the Russian Revolution was, in effect, a Jewish coup to take over Russia.

    Such noted anti-Semites as, erm, Winston Churchill agreed that this was the case. Quoth Churchill: “And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.”

    White men of power then were no less unscrupulous and treasonous than they are now – they just spoke more openly about controversial things.

    Recent historians such as Sean McMeekin downplay the Jewish angle but admit there was one.

    Interestingly enough, McMeekin also admits that the February Revolution was highly Masonic – Kerensky and his compatriots were all devout Freemasons. But most people don’t have the intellectual courage to touch on the meaning of Masonry either.

    I admit this doesn’t really help you with “numbers,” however.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Like your moniker!
  110. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Once again: you fail to show how German unpreparedness for war means Germany's economy would have crashed without a war.

    It had already crashed. Germany was technically bankrupt.

    Are your strong convictions based on some literature, primary sources?

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Germany was technically bankrupt since 1932, when it stopped making payments it was required to do under the 1929 Young Plan.

    I fail to see why it would have been in a worse situation in 1939 than in 1932. It was simply spending too much on the military. They could easily have scaled it back.
  111. @Philip Owen
    I prefer your earlier term, straticide.

    AK: That's not my term.
    First result is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJoseph_Stalin%2FArchive_6
    And that's not what I mean at all ("wholesale efforts to rid a society of particular social, political, academic, or professional strata through mass extermination"). For instance, exterminating the homeless would be straticide, but it would not be aristocide.

    This was back in Unlikely Thoughts days. Your use of it was the first time I saw it. A useful word nontheless.

  112. @Gerard2
    Much of what is modern America stems from Jews who left Russia supposedly because of the Pogroms - from science, music, film, mafia, even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews

    So you could turn on it's head the premise of this article and say it was the policies under the Tsar that killed or sent away many important Jews . All that obviously precedes the Bolsheviks

    In fact, if the Bolshevik revolution had preceded the so-called pogroms then it would be Russians, not Jews ( except the finance, although obviously that migrates into the other categories) who are mainly responsible for modern America, and there would be non of this BS now

    “. . . even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews. . .”

    Jews celebrating Christmas?
    Is not celebrating Christmas of Roman origin, the feast of Saturnalia?
    And Germans started the Christmas tree tradition?

    I had the impression that Jews do not like Christmas.
    But I remember Barbra Streisand’s album of Christmas carols!

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    I had the impression that Jews do not like Christmas.
     
    Which is exactly why they perverted it to be about consumerism and trees and Coca-Cola instead of Christ.
  113. @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    German productivity did not overtake the UK’s until the early 1950’s, a direct result of decartelization. Fascist economies are dirigiste. Good for a certain degree of catch up but not suitable for overtaking. Russia has reverted to dirigism (crony capitalists who invest under are direction).

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski. He was another Russian exile who invented a fundamental technology to whit, television. This had far greater impact than Sikorsky’s helicopter. Zworykin’s work on TV started in St Petersburg around 1912. He later added the electron microscope to his list of fundamental inventions. That gave Atlantic countries a lead in biological sciences.

    Of course, we are creatures of our environment. Russia had no firms like Westinghouse or RCA or Britain’s Marconi that could pick up a new technology and sell and produce the complex system necessary to deliver a television channel. Marconi did have a subsidiary in Russia prior to the Revolution but it thereafter atrophied. The Bolsheviks were followers not leaders in technology. They had a lot of engineers and scientists but the quality was awful. I met them in the 1990’s. Great technicial training. Technolgists … ?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski.
     
    They're Russians, so who cares. Let's talk some more about the Jews.
  114. @Malla

    Killing two-thirds of the group that comprised the cognitive elite of Europe
     
    As if without Jews, Europe would have been a technological backwater. There were many Jews in Yemen before the creation of Israel. Yemen then was a technological pioneer. Wait....

    Ashkenazi Jews are much smarter than Mizrahi Jews, though. In turn, this helps to explain why Muslim countries remained dumps in spite of having relatively large Jewish populations.

    • Replies: @Malla
    Though I may add that some Mizrahi/Sephardics were doing quite well in the Islamic world. Jews in Iraq and Morocco were a successful well off population. If I am not mistaken, the Sephardic Kaduri family (Rabbi Kaduri's ancestors) owned the largest publishing house of Arabic books in the entire Arab world before Israel.
  115. @Philip Owen
    German productivity did not overtake the UK's until the early 1950's, a direct result of decartelization. Fascist economies are dirigiste. Good for a certain degree of catch up but not suitable for overtaking. Russia has reverted to dirigism (crony capitalists who invest under are direction).

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski. He was another Russian exile who invented a fundamental technology to whit, television. This had far greater impact than Sikorsky's helicopter. Zworykin's work on TV started in St Petersburg around 1912. He later added the electron microscope to his list of fundamental inventions. That gave Atlantic countries a lead in biological sciences.

    Of course, we are creatures of our environment. Russia had no firms like Westinghouse or RCA or Britain's Marconi that could pick up a new technology and sell and produce the complex system necessary to deliver a television channel. Marconi did have a subsidiary in Russia prior to the Revolution but it thereafter atrophied. The Bolsheviks were followers not leaders in technology. They had a lot of engineers and scientists but the quality was awful. I met them in the 1990's. Great technicial training. Technolgists ... ?

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski.

    They’re Russians, so who cares. Let’s talk some more about the Jews.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    To be fair, though, those two Russians actually survived. They were forced to go into exile but nevertheless survived and were able to make full use of their potential--simply on behalf of the US rather than on the behalf of Russia.
  116. @Anatoly Karlin

    This thread should be discussing Vladimir Zworykin not just Sikorski.
     
    They're Russians, so who cares. Let's talk some more about the Jews.

    To be fair, though, those two Russians actually survived. They were forced to go into exile but nevertheless survived and were able to make full use of their potential–simply on behalf of the US rather than on the behalf of Russia.

  117. @Epigon
    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication - calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists - summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    The stupidity of both Russian and Serbian government in dealing with revolutionaries led by hostile minorities and chauvinists led
    to Bolshevik and Yugocommunist dismemberment of parent states, and arguably,
    nations.

    The pickaxe to Trotsky’s head came 30 years too late. Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.

    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication – calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    Agree 100% – I just thought I would use diplomatic language in my post, because diplomacy comes so naturally to me.
    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe – it also doesn’t change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.

    …and most of jewish contribution to America in science, entertainment and so on is derivative from living with/off Russian empire….which of course in the late 19th- early 20th century was producing more than any other country in great contributions in music, literature, science & mathematics ( first 2 undisputed leader, last 2 more equal with the other main countries but still a great contributor)

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    Hmm. That doesn't bode well for the world's most philosemitic gentile nation in the 21st century. Certain Hebraic intellectuals (not all of them by any means, but certainly the most influential ones) seem to want to destroy this nation for the crime of not loving them enough.
    , @Malla

    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe – it also doesn’t change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.
     
    Not only the Russian Empire but so was Germany. Jews back stabbed both these nations who had been kind to them. Actually in WW1, Jews first back stabbed Russia by killing the Romanovs and installing the murderous Bolshevik regime (in which the idiotic German Government helped the Commies) and then immediately after the Balfour Declaration, they back stabbed Germany.
  118. @Gerard2

    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication – calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.
     
    Agree 100% - I just thought I would use diplomatic language in my post, because diplomacy comes so naturally to me.
    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe - it also doesn't change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.

    ...and most of jewish contribution to America in science, entertainment and so on is derivative from living with/off Russian empire....which of course in the late 19th- early 20th century was producing more than any other country in great contributions in music, literature, science & mathematics ( first 2 undisputed leader, last 2 more equal with the other main countries but still a great contributor)

    Hmm. That doesn’t bode well for the world’s most philosemitic gentile nation in the 21st century. Certain Hebraic intellectuals (not all of them by any means, but certainly the most influential ones) seem to want to destroy this nation for the crime of not loving them enough.

  119. @Logan
    Good luck with that. Anti-semites are always claiming the Bolshies were almost entirely Jews, and the Jews are always claiming that's a lie.

    So I once tried to research it and get actual numbers. Very hard to do, and when I posted a request for help finding the information I was severely jumped on.

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

    Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Consent” has been a real eye-opener for me. You can’t get it from Amazon anymore. Any criticism or suspicion of Jewish motivations, no matter how dispassionate, is now considered the vilest form of anti-Semitism.

  120. @Kent Nationalist


    Because Jews were denied so many opportunities in the Weimar Republic?

    Weimar Germany only contained something like 5% (at most) of the world’s total Ashkenazi Jewish population in 1933, no?

  121. @Epigon
    Pick up Wages of destruction.

    Then search for Reich output of coal, pig iron, steel, aluminum, electricity on one, and tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, trucks on the other.

    Now look up USSR and the same metrics.

    German industry was not at all efficient and the modern factories were subsidiary plants of Ford, GM (Opel) and Chevrolet, for example. Regarding US bankers, who do you think serviced loans to Germany and German reparations to France and Britain?


    The crucial advantage the Germans enjoyed was the quality of their tactics, basic infantry sections, NCOs and junior officers compared to their opposition.
    But most importantly, they had the strategic initiative and sucker punched all their foes which allowed them to outright defeat smaller countries and push up to Moscow building on the success of the initial sucker punch.

    Wages of destruction.

    Oh Tooze, he is an advocate of “The German economy sucked school of thought”. Yeah rite!!

    The German economy under the Third Reich was the second largest in the World after the USA. Unlikely it would have
    collapsed.
    There has been a discussion on this issue before.

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=74477b5b321c1f91f34d588f5acec932&start=45

    By July 1935 almost seventeen million Germans were in brand new jobs, though they were not well paid by anyone’s standards. But nevertheless, these jobs provided a living wage, compared with just eleven million Germans who were in employment just two years before.

    In the space of four years, NS Germany changed from a defeated nation, a bankrupt economy, strangled by war debt, inflation and lack of foreign capital; into full employment with the strongest economy and biggest military power in Europe.

    The Third Reich was to technological failure: think of jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, the electron microscope all of which either were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. There are innovations in the area of basic physics (nuclear fission, discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938), hormone and vitamin research, automotive engineering (the Volkswagen was supposed to be the “people’s car”), pharmacology, and synthetic gasoline and rubber (I. G. Farben in 1942 controlled more than 90 percent of the world’s synthetic rubber production).

    NS aeronautic engineers designed the first intercontinental ballistic missiles-never actually assembled-and it was Germans in the 1940s who built the first jet ejection seat. German engineers built the world’s first autobahns, and the world’s first magnetic tape recording is of a speech by Hitler. The first television broadcast strong enough to escape the planet featured Hitler’s speech at the opening of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

    • Replies: @Malla
    Sorry wrong page

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=1ac9a4ed4ba3185c8e32dceae9a30aff

    A Comparison of American and German economies in WW2

    All the economic data to your heart's content. Notice the massive rise in German GNP after Hitler came to power. In 1933, Germany was 31.95% of the US economy while in 1940 it was 52.30% of the US economy, all this time while the American economy nearly doubled.

  122. @Epigon
    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication - calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists - summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    The stupidity of both Russian and Serbian government in dealing with revolutionaries led by hostile minorities and chauvinists led
    to Bolshevik and Yugocommunist dismemberment of parent states, and arguably,
    nations.

    The pickaxe to Trotsky’s head came 30 years too late. Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    That is what I find very interesting. Tzar Nicholas seemed too kind and compassionate for his own good. Should have had those commie terrorists shot instead of exile. The Communists in power would have done just that.

  123. @Mr. XYZ
    Ashkenazi Jews are much smarter than Mizrahi Jews, though. In turn, this helps to explain why Muslim countries remained dumps in spite of having relatively large Jewish populations.

    Though I may add that some Mizrahi/Sephardics were doing quite well in the Islamic world. Jews in Iraq and Morocco were a successful well off population. If I am not mistaken, the Sephardic Kaduri family (Rabbi Kaduri’s ancestors) owned the largest publishing house of Arabic books in the entire Arab world before Israel.

  124. @Malla

    Wages of destruction.
     
    Oh Tooze, he is an advocate of "The German economy sucked school of thought". Yeah rite!!

    The German economy under the Third Reich was the second largest in the World after the USA. Unlikely it would have
    collapsed.
    There has been a discussion on this issue before.

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=74477b5b321c1f91f34d588f5acec932&start=45

    By July 1935 almost seventeen million Germans were in brand new jobs, though they were not well paid by anyone’s standards. But nevertheless, these jobs provided a living wage, compared with just eleven million Germans who were in employment just two years before.

    In the space of four years, NS Germany changed from a defeated nation, a bankrupt economy, strangled by war debt, inflation and lack of foreign capital; into full employment with the strongest economy and biggest military power in Europe.


    The Third Reich was to technological failure: think of jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, the electron microscope all of which either were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. There are innovations in the area of basic physics (nuclear fission, discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938), hormone and vitamin research, automotive engineering (the Volkswagen was supposed to be the "people's car"), pharmacology, and synthetic gasoline and rubber (I. G. Farben in 1942 controlled more than 90 percent of the world's synthetic rubber production).

    NS aeronautic engineers designed the first intercontinental ballistic missiles-never actually assembled-and it was Germans in the 1940s who built the first jet ejection seat. German engineers built the world's first autobahns, and the world's first magnetic tape recording is of a speech by Hitler. The first television broadcast strong enough to escape the planet featured Hitler's speech at the opening of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

    Sorry wrong page

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=1ac9a4ed4ba3185c8e32dceae9a30aff

    A Comparison of American and German economies in WW2

    All the economic data to your heart’s content. Notice the massive rise in German GNP after Hitler came to power. In 1933, Germany was 31.95% of the US economy while in 1940 it was 52.30% of the US economy, all this time while the American economy nearly doubled.

  125. @Gerard2

    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication – calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists – summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.
     
    Agree 100% - I just thought I would use diplomatic language in my post, because diplomacy comes so naturally to me.
    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe - it also doesn't change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.

    ...and most of jewish contribution to America in science, entertainment and so on is derivative from living with/off Russian empire....which of course in the late 19th- early 20th century was producing more than any other country in great contributions in music, literature, science & mathematics ( first 2 undisputed leader, last 2 more equal with the other main countries but still a great contributor)

    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe – it also doesn’t change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.

    Not only the Russian Empire but so was Germany. Jews back stabbed both these nations who had been kind to them. Actually in WW1, Jews first back stabbed Russia by killing the Romanovs and installing the murderous Bolshevik regime (in which the idiotic German Government helped the Commies) and then immediately after the Balfour Declaration, they back stabbed Germany.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Yup, the Imperial German government put too much stock in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    OTOH, they were quite literally fighting for survival, and longterm considerations understandably tend to take a back seat to survival for the next few minutes or months.
  126. @nebulafox
    Not particularly. "Islam" as we'd recognize it didn't really become a thing until well after the conquests, and in many ways, wouldn't fully mature until well into the Abbasid era. The Byzantines viewed the initial Arab conquerors as heretical Christians of a sort, and the Arabs viewed themselves as carrying out the pure monotheism of their ancestor, Abraham.

    And although the majority of the "Golden Age" intellectual work so ballyhooed over by bizarrely Islamophilic Western liberals was in reality carried out by recently (sometimes nominally) converted Zoroastrian Persians, the caliphate's actions in war or domestic policies weren't egregious by the standards of the age. Cmpared to an illiterate Charlemagne converting or killing the Saxons at the point of a sword, extorting non-conforming religions or sects for money as the Muslims (or the Byzantines) did was relatively easy-going.

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn't? But that's another question for another day.

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn’t?

    There was no ‘castration of religion’. One religion (Christianity) was replaced by another (Gnosticism).

    The Roman Catholic church tried to stamp out Gnostics by fire and sword during the Albigensian Crusade, but ultimately it failed.

  127. @Epigon
    Pogroms are an almost complete fabrication - calling them Russian pogroms is even worse seeing how none of them happened in Russia.

    If anything, Russian Empire was far too lenient and kind to Jewish, Polish and other terrorists - summary executions and reprisals against terrorists’ families instead of exile, Siberia and other crap would have prevented the worst and saved the lives of millions, starting with several thousand Russian officials and goverment workers killed in 1900s.

    The stupidity of both Russian and Serbian government in dealing with revolutionaries led by hostile minorities and chauvinists led
    to Bolshevik and Yugocommunist dismemberment of parent states, and arguably,
    nations.

    The pickaxe to Trotsky’s head came 30 years too late. Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.

    Assassinations of Lenin, Pilsudski and others who were plotting abroad even before WW1 should have been ordered immediately.

    Fun fact: Pilsudski’s elder brother was in a terrorist cell with Lenin’s elder brother, plotting to kill Alexander III.

    Makes you wonder if, indeed, the conspiracy theories about who really runs the world are true.

  128. @Alias Anonymous
    ". . . even how they celebrate Christmas comes primarily from Russian Empire Jews. . ."

    Jews celebrating Christmas?
    Is not celebrating Christmas of Roman origin, the feast of Saturnalia?
    And Germans started the Christmas tree tradition?

    I had the impression that Jews do not like Christmas.
    But I remember Barbra Streisand's album of Christmas carols!

    I had the impression that Jews do not like Christmas.

    Which is exactly why they perverted it to be about consumerism and trees and Coca-Cola instead of Christ.

  129. @iffen
    It was not a core tenet of the ideology.

    He only gave it up because of opposition. Had the war gone his way, he would have taken care of the opposition and any other faithful Christians that got in his way.

    It was a not particularly useful tool of eugenics.

    So your opposition is that it was not effective?

    Eugenics is certainly a good thing, and doesn’t violate human nature.

    I think so as well, but I think we need some restraint and careful thought before we start using force.

    I think T4 wasn’t a core element of Nazism. As I wrote, even its goals (eugenics) could be achieved without it.

    I disagree with a number of your points (like, Hitler might not have done anything against the churches; faithful Christians were anyway just one element of the opposition – Hitler rarely wanted to disturb the peace of the German population, so the fact that the murdered people had relatives in German society caused undue anxiety and disturbance, the churches merely catalyzed this by publicly removing all doubt as to what was going on), but I agree with this one:

    I think we need some restraint and careful thought before we start using force.

    I think it’s even more general than that. If you don’t like something, extreme violence (like killing thousands of people) should be some kind of last resort only, because in real life you cannot know with absolute certainty if you will deliver the results. You know, ends might justify the means, but if you don’t reach your end goals, then you will be stuck with your means only. In other words: the coming utopia is in the uncertain future and might never arrive, but the mass murder is immediate and certain. Becoming a mass murderer without delivering a utopia is way worse than not doing anything.

    It’s the principle of “first, do no harm,” especially don’t do extreme harm (mass murder).

  130. @Matra
    You are largely correct that Hitler’s horrible mass murder, coupled with unleashing and then losing the most destructive war ever (or at least since the 17th century) led to the final victory for multiculturalism

    Maybe, but this multiculturalism didn't really start to take off until about the mid to late 1980s, some 40 years after the war. Prior to the 1980s many guest workers in Europe were regularly sent back, most Europeans who grew up then weren't made to feel guilty, and there was very little anti-white propaganda in most countries until recently. Even when multiculturalism began the publicly stated justifications for it had nothing to do with WW2, at least not in the three Anglo countries I grew up in, whereas today WW2 is all we hear about. We see the same thing in America; the further away from slavery they get the more of an issue its legacy has become. At this point, using Hitler's atrocities or 19th century slavery as pretexts for aggression and theft should be close to laughable, and yet...here we are.

    After 1945, “racism” got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don’t think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of “anti-racism.”

    This left opponents of mass immigration intellectually defenseless.

    Of course, multiculturalism couldn’t happen overnight. Immigration started out as a trickle, and only slowly grew. But when the moment came, its opponents couldn’t organize themselves intellectually. They always had to say that they’d accept “assimilated” or “well-integrated” immigrants as a matter of course. See the sad spectacle of BoJo wanting to create a government with lots of “minorities” and women.

    It’s very difficult to achieve something, if you don’t have the intellectual tools to even think about what the ideal outcome would be, or what would be wrong with where we are heading.

    • Replies: @iffen
    After 1945, “racism” got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don’t think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces (((?))) wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of “anti-racism.”

    I can entertain your idea that a political entity based on race is not inherently "evil." One of the major objections that I have is how the complications that present themselves when we start trying to bring about such an entity will be dealt with. I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked "if" and those who say communism would have worked "if." As you pointed out, Nazism fully discredited "racism," so it doesn't make sense to me to allow one's political ideas and views to be stigmatized with Nazism. You do that by offering any defense of Nazism. I have a similiar political problem. I would like to see our future political direction in the US make a turn to a more communitarian direction, but I have learned enough to know that I should drop any and all references to communist and Marxist ideas.

  131. @Bies Podkrakowski
    And yet it was communism that survived and Nazism died after few years.

    Because it lost the war. Communism collapsed despite winning the war and for several decades ruling the second strongest empire in the world.

  132. @Epigon
    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    In spite of enduring myths of Hitler economic miracle, German efficiency in the period etc. the reality was that Germany was technically bankrupt and completely unprepared for modern war. Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy - 37 mm Pak-36 was the mainstay of infantry AT during Barbarossa, several millions of horses serviced Heer logistical needs and both trucks and halftracks were in short supply; Luftwaffe was plagued by Goering and his cronies and clientelism, lacking desings for replacement of then-current frontline planes as well as having simply inferior engines and designers - a 1936 design - Bf-109 soldiered on until 1945 - failure to produce viable 1500+ HP engines doomed all advanced designs of fighters, tactical and strategic bombers.
    Germans engines were bad - DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.
    Kriegsmarine had two pairs of equally badly designed and useless battleships in addition to a fleet of expensive heavy cruisers which served no purpose at all - at the expense of potentially war winning fleet of Type VII and IX submarines built using that same steel and effort.
    It is worth remembering how small was the German U-boat fleet during both “Happy times”.

    But the most important clue lies in the very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy - 1942/1943. For a very good reason - bribe the population into supporting them and believing the dream; the agriculture was backward and tied up far too much workforce; the industry simply couldn’t utilize female
    labour and war setting - there were only a few assembly line factories - most war factories relied on teams of skilled craftsmen leading larger teams who assembled tanks, engines and planes from start to finish.


    Annexing and conquering Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, Scandinavia, France allowed them to loot all those weapons stocks, industry, gold, currency, trucks, rolling stock and continue the war.
    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    It would have crashed and burned due to economic and political reasons in 1939 and 1940 had the war not started.

    I used to think so, too. But now I don’t think it was so, at all.

    Richard J. Evans mentions that Hjalmar Schacht had said the same things over and over again – that Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy. He started saying so in 1936, when the policy of strong rearmament just got going. However, in the summer of 1939 in London he admitted that he was basically lying. The combination of price controls, highly regulated foreign trade, and very high military expenditure could have gone on forever, or at least, for a long enough time not to matter.

    Moreover, Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy solely because it was spending so much on the military. They could have slowed down military procurements any time bankruptcy was truly imminent, and in fact, they did so many times over. In early 1939 Hitler publicly endorsed exporting more (in order to pay for the imports), and they did so. Then the absorption of Czechia and the robbery of its resources led to another burst of military procurements, but after that was exhausted, too, they cut back military procurements in the summer again. (Or maybe they were just about to cut them back, but then the war happened.)

    Wehrmacht had received maximum attention and funds but the hundreds of newly raised battalions slept in tents due to steel shortages, tank production was lagging behind schedule and had to be reduced in 1939/1940; artillery ammunition would have run out had France attacked during Poland campaign not to mention the overall lack of artillery tubes in addition to their inadequacy

    What is your point? Germany was only allowed to have a minimal size military until 1933. Though military expenditures grew exponentially (from a very low base) after 1933, true large scale armament only started in 1936. The fact that, by 1940, it managed to build up a military which was even remotely competitive with the combined might of France and the UK is a testament to the extreme level of military expenditures.

    Of course, in the absence of war, they could and should have slowed down military procurements. So what?

    Germans engines were bad – DB, BMW and Junkers produced engines that produced less power from more working volume with less reliability than comparable American and British engines.

    Okay. That was because they literally only started to build up their military aviation industry from scratch in 1933. And how is it relevant as to whether Nazi Germany would have crashed and burned in 1940, had they not started a war? Let me answer this rhetorical question: it’s not relevant.

    very late industrial mobilisation and institution of war economy – 1942/1943

    That’s a myth. In the last full year of peace, 1938, Germany spent 20% of its national income on the military – the highest level a capitalistic economy ever reached in peacetime. In 1939 it grew to a third, and then in 1940 a half. They allocated enormous resources to investments, like building up the chemicals industry (for ersatz Benzin, among other things), which was necessary to wage a war later on. In hindsight, they should’ve stopped all investments and instead concentrated on purely military expenditure, because by the time the investments came online (only after 1942), the war was already lost for good.

    But they allocated everything to the military. There were serious problems with German armaments production (for example they liked to create several tailor-made versions of their weapons systems, instead of mass producing just a few variants, which resulted in very low levels of production until 1942; some of the problems you mentioned already), but it wasn’t that they didn’t mobilize the economy. Because they did.

    the industry simply couldn’t utilize female labour

    The share of female labor in Germany was higher in 1939 than it would ever become in the UK during the war. This meant that there was already a lower potential for mobilizing women for the war economy. Agriculture was to a large extent run by the wives and daughters of farmers, when farmers and their sons were drafted to the military. This was a hidden female element in the work force (also in the UK, but to a much smaller extent, because agriculture was smaller), which should be added. Overall, they utilized female workforce as much as possible.

    The hypothetical scenario of waiting for 1942/1944 to be fully ready for war was impossible.

    Why? Even better, they should never have started a war. They should have worked on missiles and nukes, and once they have them, they’d have achieved independence without having to conquer an eastern empire. (Because remember, the basic issue for Hitler was that it was very easy to blockade Germany, and so true independence required that they controlled the East. Probably a political dominance over Eastern Central and Southeastern Europe would have been enough, coupled with an independent strategic nuclear arsenal by the 1960s.)

  133. @Epigon
    Pick up Wages of destruction.

    Then search for Reich output of coal, pig iron, steel, aluminum, electricity on one, and tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, trucks on the other.

    Now look up USSR and the same metrics.

    German industry was not at all efficient and the modern factories were subsidiary plants of Ford, GM (Opel) and Chevrolet, for example. Regarding US bankers, who do you think serviced loans to Germany and German reparations to France and Britain?


    The crucial advantage the Germans enjoyed was the quality of their tactics, basic infantry sections, NCOs and junior officers compared to their opposition.
    But most importantly, they had the strategic initiative and sucker punched all their foes which allowed them to outright defeat smaller countries and push up to Moscow building on the success of the initial sucker punch.

    Okay, but how is it relevant as to whether they’d have collapsed of their own weight in 1940, had they not started the war?

  134. @nebulafox
    Not particularly. "Islam" as we'd recognize it didn't really become a thing until well after the conquests, and in many ways, wouldn't fully mature until well into the Abbasid era. The Byzantines viewed the initial Arab conquerors as heretical Christians of a sort, and the Arabs viewed themselves as carrying out the pure monotheism of their ancestor, Abraham.

    And although the majority of the "Golden Age" intellectual work so ballyhooed over by bizarrely Islamophilic Western liberals was in reality carried out by recently (sometimes nominally) converted Zoroastrian Persians, the caliphate's actions in war or domestic policies weren't egregious by the standards of the age. Cmpared to an illiterate Charlemagne converting or killing the Saxons at the point of a sword, extorting non-conforming religions or sects for money as the Muslims (or the Byzantines) did was relatively easy-going.

    Of course, this begs the question: why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn't? But that's another question for another day.

    why did the West experience the Enlightenment and the resulting castration of religion as a force within the state, whereas the Islamic World didn’t?

    i think historically religion has been used as a way of producing a level of cooperation that a population needed but was otherwise in capable of e.g. making a selfish population act like a clan, a clannish population act a tribe and a tribal population act like a nation.

    i think the west European marriage model made people more cooperative by nature and this reduced the need for religion as a cooperation enhancer.

    nb reducing the need for religion as a cooperation enhancer wouldn’t necessarily reduce genetic religiosity.

  135. @Epigon
    So you think Hjalmar Schacht had the wrong idea?

    And resorting to bartering in trade, not having enough foreign currency reserves for even two weeks of trade and transactions?

    Germany I think never had more than a month’s imports worth of reserves 1933-45.

    Schacht warned that the very fast pace of armament would lead to a war anyway. He was not wrong. He wanted a managed peacetime mixed economy. He didn’t mind a strong military, but the pace of rearmament was insane. It could and should have been scaled back.

    But it says nothing about the long term viability of the regime. They should’ve spent less on the military.

  136. Two pieces which relate to the likes of Sikorsky and how some see the Soviet experience as an overall plus for Russia:

    https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/07/25/a-tale-of-two-museums/

    https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/homo-sovieticus/

  137. @Epigon
    Yeah, about that - all the physicists in the world working together couldn’t have changed the fact that there was only one country in the world which could afford building enrichment infrastructure.

    For plutonium, you don’t need enrichment. But I think the overall costs of the program would have been similar to the A4 rocket program. So definitely not impossible.

    I’m not saying they could’ve finished it by April 30, 1945 (the Americans didn’t manage to do so), but that it would have been possible to work on it, especially in peacetime. They had lots of physicists who were willing to work on it.

  138. @Epigon
    It had already crashed. Germany was technically bankrupt.

    Are your strong convictions based on some literature, primary sources?

    Germany was technically bankrupt since 1932, when it stopped making payments it was required to do under the 1929 Young Plan.

    I fail to see why it would have been in a worse situation in 1939 than in 1932. It was simply spending too much on the military. They could easily have scaled it back.

  139. Soviet communism was massively dysgenic even where they didn’t commit mass murder. Because even there masses of the elites fled the area, whose main result is exactly the same.

    • Replies: @Malla

    Soviet communism was massively dysgenic
     
    In the beginning years, yes, but in its later decades I doubt that would be the case.
  140. @reiner Tor
    Soviet communism was massively dysgenic even where they didn't commit mass murder. Because even there masses of the elites fled the area, whose main result is exactly the same.

    Soviet communism was massively dysgenic

    In the beginning years, yes, but in its later decades I doubt that would be the case.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  141. @songbird
    I'll be a little contrary just to be provocative: if communism retarded the aviation industry, who is to say that it wasn't a positive, in the sense of it being an impediment to globalism?

    And I'll go a bit further, it wasn't just technological. Of course, there is the economic angle, but when Russia opened up its airspace to transit flights, perhaps it was harming the interests of nationalists everywhere.

    I’ll be a little contrary just to be provocative: if communism retarded the aviation industry, who is to say that it wasn’t a positive, in the sense of it being an impediment to globalism?

    The steamboat era was globalist just fine. Look at the nationalities of Titanic passengers:

    http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html#nation

    The Atlantic ocean would be crossed in six days, a flight now (including wait times at the airports) takes one day. Not a very significant difference, and even the third class on the Titanic was vastly more comfortable than the economy class on a plane. In the age of sails it was about forty days, without washing, and live animals were kept together with passengers to be eaten on the way because refrigerators didn’t exist. Imagine all the smells and diseases, now that was challenging to globalism. And still desperate people went for it – I learned that from a book about English emigrants in the 1830s.

  142. @reiner Tor
    After 1945, "racism" got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don't think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of "anti-racism."

    This left opponents of mass immigration intellectually defenseless.

    Of course, multiculturalism couldn't happen overnight. Immigration started out as a trickle, and only slowly grew. But when the moment came, its opponents couldn't organize themselves intellectually. They always had to say that they'd accept "assimilated" or "well-integrated" immigrants as a matter of course. See the sad spectacle of BoJo wanting to create a government with lots of "minorities" and women.

    It's very difficult to achieve something, if you don't have the intellectual tools to even think about what the ideal outcome would be, or what would be wrong with where we are heading.

    After 1945, “racism” got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don’t think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces (((?))) wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of “anti-racism.”

    I can entertain your idea that a political entity based on race is not inherently “evil.” One of the major objections that I have is how the complications that present themselves when we start trying to bring about such an entity will be dealt with. I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked “if” and those who say communism would have worked “if.” As you pointed out, Nazism fully discredited “racism,” so it doesn’t make sense to me to allow one’s political ideas and views to be stigmatized with Nazism. You do that by offering any defense of Nazism. I have a similiar political problem. I would like to see our future political direction in the US make a turn to a more communitarian direction, but I have learned enough to know that I should drop any and all references to communist and Marxist ideas.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked “if” and those who say communism would have worked “if.”
     
    Nazism didn't work because it lost the war. It lost the war because it was impossible to win in the first place. And many Nazis (including high ranking Nazis) were afraid of the war. Göring didn't seem to be so keen on fighting a war, for example, and it's possible that he would never have started one.

    So with Nazism, you have to change the very aggressive pursuit of lebensraum in the East and the very aggressive program of immediate conquest. (Or you have to win that war. I don't think their chances were zero, but close enough to zero for our purposes.)

    With communism... what would you change with communism, in order for it to change? It's not like it wasn't tried. The Chinese found a way which works - basically, capitalism, coupled with a totalitarian state. That's basically the recipe of Nazism. (With a few additions, the most important of which was overt racialism. Eugenics actually does have some currency in China, just not as overtly as in Nazi Germany.)

    So the most basic idea of communism (nationalizing everything and running a centrally planned economy, or "people's communes", or something along those lines) is clearly not working on a large scale.
  143. @iffen
    After 1945, “racism” got fully discredited. In the following two-three decades, blank slatism became dominant in academia. I don’t think any other outcome was possible, because very strong forces (((?))) wanted it to happen, while their opponents were tainted by association with Nazism. Even worse, we got to a situation where opponents of blank slatism still publicly affirm the tenets of “anti-racism.”

    I can entertain your idea that a political entity based on race is not inherently "evil." One of the major objections that I have is how the complications that present themselves when we start trying to bring about such an entity will be dealt with. I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked "if" and those who say communism would have worked "if." As you pointed out, Nazism fully discredited "racism," so it doesn't make sense to me to allow one's political ideas and views to be stigmatized with Nazism. You do that by offering any defense of Nazism. I have a similiar political problem. I would like to see our future political direction in the US make a turn to a more communitarian direction, but I have learned enough to know that I should drop any and all references to communist and Marxist ideas.

    I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked “if” and those who say communism would have worked “if.”

    Nazism didn’t work because it lost the war. It lost the war because it was impossible to win in the first place. And many Nazis (including high ranking Nazis) were afraid of the war. Göring didn’t seem to be so keen on fighting a war, for example, and it’s possible that he would never have started one.

    So with Nazism, you have to change the very aggressive pursuit of lebensraum in the East and the very aggressive program of immediate conquest. (Or you have to win that war. I don’t think their chances were zero, but close enough to zero for our purposes.)

    With communism… what would you change with communism, in order for it to change? It’s not like it wasn’t tried. The Chinese found a way which works – basically, capitalism, coupled with a totalitarian state. That’s basically the recipe of Nazism. (With a few additions, the most important of which was overt racialism. Eugenics actually does have some currency in China, just not as overtly as in Nazi Germany.)

    So the most basic idea of communism (nationalizing everything and running a centrally planned economy, or “people’s communes”, or something along those lines) is clearly not working on a large scale.

    • Replies: @iffen
    So the most basic idea of communism

    Yes, it was flawed at the core and the ideal conflicts with human nature. :)

    Nazism without the racial angle is not flawed at the core (but then it wouldn't be Nazism). It is flawed at the core with regard to implementation in our nation states as they actually exist today.
  144. @AP
    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack's law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that

    Eh too, Brute? 🙁 🙂

    • Replies: @AP
    It's neither good nor bad, it just is :-)
  145. @reiner Tor

    I see a parallel between those who say Nazism would have worked “if” and those who say communism would have worked “if.”
     
    Nazism didn't work because it lost the war. It lost the war because it was impossible to win in the first place. And many Nazis (including high ranking Nazis) were afraid of the war. Göring didn't seem to be so keen on fighting a war, for example, and it's possible that he would never have started one.

    So with Nazism, you have to change the very aggressive pursuit of lebensraum in the East and the very aggressive program of immediate conquest. (Or you have to win that war. I don't think their chances were zero, but close enough to zero for our purposes.)

    With communism... what would you change with communism, in order for it to change? It's not like it wasn't tried. The Chinese found a way which works - basically, capitalism, coupled with a totalitarian state. That's basically the recipe of Nazism. (With a few additions, the most important of which was overt racialism. Eugenics actually does have some currency in China, just not as overtly as in Nazi Germany.)

    So the most basic idea of communism (nationalizing everything and running a centrally planned economy, or "people's communes", or something along those lines) is clearly not working on a large scale.

    So the most basic idea of communism

    Yes, it was flawed at the core and the ideal conflicts with human nature. 🙂

    Nazism without the racial angle is not flawed at the core (but then it wouldn’t be Nazism). It is flawed at the core with regard to implementation in our nation states as they actually exist today.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The racial angle didn't contradict human nature. It could be instituted in Germany with minimal violence. (Though it was accompanied by lots of unnecessary violence.)

    I don't think full racialism could be implemented in current Western countries the way it was done in Nazi Germany, or at least it'd involve lots of violence.
  146. @iffen
    So the most basic idea of communism

    Yes, it was flawed at the core and the ideal conflicts with human nature. :)

    Nazism without the racial angle is not flawed at the core (but then it wouldn't be Nazism). It is flawed at the core with regard to implementation in our nation states as they actually exist today.

    The racial angle didn’t contradict human nature. It could be instituted in Germany with minimal violence. (Though it was accompanied by lots of unnecessary violence.)

    I don’t think full racialism could be implemented in current Western countries the way it was done in Nazi Germany, or at least it’d involve lots of violence.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The racial angle didn’t contradict human nature.

    The "mean" human nature for Europeans has been moving steadily toward "race is a social construct" for several hundred years. You are going uphill, against the trend, against the grain.
  147. @reiner Tor
    The racial angle didn't contradict human nature. It could be instituted in Germany with minimal violence. (Though it was accompanied by lots of unnecessary violence.)

    I don't think full racialism could be implemented in current Western countries the way it was done in Nazi Germany, or at least it'd involve lots of violence.

    The racial angle didn’t contradict human nature.

    The “mean” human nature for Europeans has been moving steadily toward “race is a social construct” for several hundred years. You are going uphill, against the trend, against the grain.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That's why you need an ideology explicitly acknowledging and emphasizing racial differences.

    Hitler actually overemphasized it. For example, he knew that Jews were capable of artistic performance, but banned Jewish artists without exception anyway, because he thought watering down the message would quickly kill it altogether.
  148. @iffen
    The racial angle didn’t contradict human nature.

    The "mean" human nature for Europeans has been moving steadily toward "race is a social construct" for several hundred years. You are going uphill, against the trend, against the grain.

    That’s why you need an ideology explicitly acknowledging and emphasizing racial differences.

    Hitler actually overemphasized it. For example, he knew that Jews were capable of artistic performance, but banned Jewish artists without exception anyway, because he thought watering down the message would quickly kill it altogether.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That’s why you need an ideology explicitly acknowledging and emphasizing racial differences.

    Good luck with that, I guess.
  149. @Nemets
    Wonder how the Mongol and Manchu conquests rank in destruction of human capital. Central Asia's contributions to religion and philosophy before the conquests seem substantial. Seems possible that cognitive elites of Central Asian peoples were concentrated in the cities as successful merchants and were disproportionately affected by the Mongols.

    This would testable as well in the near future. DNA testing of the remains of ancient Central Asians and modern Iranian peoples in Central Asia can currently give an idea of how closely related they are. Comparison of their polygenic intelligence scores would show their change in intelligence through time.

    The Mongols were a giant parasite that leeched off their Chinese subjects when not killing them off. More attentive studies of China’s state under the Mongols show significant dysfunction/setbacks. The praise of the Mongols in modernity is largely from Neolib/Neocon narratives (with a touch of Protestant/Enlightenment braying over muh tolerance, anti-Papist/Western babbling, and praise for noble savages).

    • Replies: @AP
    IIRC Russian Eurasianists also praise Mongols.
    , @Logan
    The great podcaster Dan Carlin has a wonderful series on the Mongols. Highly recommended.
  150. @Adam
    What percentage exactly?

    Don’t know exactly, and defining the question is a problem.

    But here’s an interesting article on the subject.

    https://eteconline.org/news/jewish-scientists-played-a-key-role-in-the-manhattan-project/

  151. @Anounder
    The Mongols were a giant parasite that leeched off their Chinese subjects when not killing them off. More attentive studies of China's state under the Mongols show significant dysfunction/setbacks. The praise of the Mongols in modernity is largely from Neolib/Neocon narratives (with a touch of Protestant/Enlightenment braying over muh tolerance, anti-Papist/Western babbling, and praise for noble savages).

    IIRC Russian Eurasianists also praise Mongols.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Chales Halperin, a prominent historian of Rus and the Mongols, in addition to pointing out the calamities that transpired under the Mongol domination, also points out a number of positive cultural developments that occured too: centralized governance, tax collection, develoment of roads, a mail system and more. It's been several years since I last read his highly informative "Russia and the Golden Horde". Highly readable and recommended if you're at all interested in the topic.
  152. @Mr. Hack

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that
     
    Eh too, Brute? :-( :-)

    It’s neither good nor bad, it just is 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    It's just that I don't often have an opinion on who was more at fault for starting WWI, or whether Japan's infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII (but I do enjoy reading most of the comments here). I try to stick to things that I know. Most people are specialists these days, anyway? :-)
  153. @reiner Tor
    That's why you need an ideology explicitly acknowledging and emphasizing racial differences.

    Hitler actually overemphasized it. For example, he knew that Jews were capable of artistic performance, but banned Jewish artists without exception anyway, because he thought watering down the message would quickly kill it altogether.

    That’s why you need an ideology explicitly acknowledging and emphasizing racial differences.

    Good luck with that, I guess.

  154. @AP
    It's neither good nor bad, it just is :-)

    It’s just that I don’t often have an opinion on who was more at fault for starting WWI, or whether Japan’s infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII (but I do enjoy reading most of the comments here). I try to stick to things that I know. Most people are specialists these days, anyway? 🙂

    • Replies: @Logan
    whether Japan’s infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII

    Newsflash! It wasn't.

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we'd agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler's response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.
  155. @AP
    IIRC Russian Eurasianists also praise Mongols.

    Chales Halperin, a prominent historian of Rus and the Mongols, in addition to pointing out the calamities that transpired under the Mongol domination, also points out a number of positive cultural developments that occured too: centralized governance, tax collection, develoment of roads, a mail system and more. It’s been several years since I last read his highly informative “Russia and the Golden Horde”. Highly readable and recommended if you’re at all interested in the topic.

  156. @Anatoly Karlin
    That's an interesting point.

    TBH I didn't have the Holocaust at all on my mind, having classified it as a genocide. However, I suppose that you are correct that genocide of higher IQ ethnic groups would automatically constitute an aristocide as well.

    Intentional aristocides that are largely or entirely free of ethnic considerations seem to be an exclusively commie specialty.

    I really don’t understand why you are surprised. Every revolution is followed by the de-capitation theory. The best and brightest are considered enemies, because they are intelligent and industrious. They are a natural threat to the revolutionaries. Either they leave, or they will be eliminated.
    What is not talked about in the US Revolution, is that like every other revolution, it was a minority leading the charge. Most people don’t care, they are too busy with their lives or don’t want to be involved. A sizeable chunk of the colonialists left or were forced to leave the US, and their property seized by those with the means to do so.

    • Replies: @Logan
    The Patriots did not target the best and brightest. They targeted those who supported the British. Quite a different concept.

    FWIW, I'm always amused by the southern apologists who weep over the intense persecution of secessionists during Reconstruction. While being completely unaware of the much more intense persecution of Loyalists during and for a brief time after our Revolution.

  157. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Apparently one is supposed to simply accept that the association of Jews with Bolshevism is an anti-semitic lie and never try to put numbers to it.

     

    Yup, pretty much.

    Regardless of their personal feelings about Jewry, during the 1920s and '30s, it was the all but universal consensus of intelligent and informed political figures in the West that the Russian Revolution was, in effect, a Jewish coup to take over Russia.

    Such noted anti-Semites as, erm, Winston Churchill agreed that this was the case. Quoth Churchill: "And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses."

    White men of power then were no less unscrupulous and treasonous than they are now - they just spoke more openly about controversial things.

    Recent historians such as Sean McMeekin downplay the Jewish angle but admit there was one.

    Interestingly enough, McMeekin also admits that the February Revolution was highly Masonic - Kerensky and his compatriots were all devout Freemasons. But most people don't have the intellectual courage to touch on the meaning of Masonry either.

    I admit this doesn't really help you with "numbers," however.

    Like your moniker!

  158. @Malla

    Russian Empire over the last 2000 years has been by far the most benevolent towards Jews in all of Europe – it also doesn’t change the fact though that many of these Jews from the supposed pogroms immigrated to the US & UK , had great bloodlust and are partly to blame for the anti-Russian policy of the west in the last 100 years.
     
    Not only the Russian Empire but so was Germany. Jews back stabbed both these nations who had been kind to them. Actually in WW1, Jews first back stabbed Russia by killing the Romanovs and installing the murderous Bolshevik regime (in which the idiotic German Government helped the Commies) and then immediately after the Balfour Declaration, they back stabbed Germany.

    Yup, the Imperial German government put too much stock in “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    OTOH, they were quite literally fighting for survival, and longterm considerations understandably tend to take a back seat to survival for the next few minutes or months.

  159. @Curmudgeon
    I really don't understand why you are surprised. Every revolution is followed by the de-capitation theory. The best and brightest are considered enemies, because they are intelligent and industrious. They are a natural threat to the revolutionaries. Either they leave, or they will be eliminated.
    What is not talked about in the US Revolution, is that like every other revolution, it was a minority leading the charge. Most people don't care, they are too busy with their lives or don't want to be involved. A sizeable chunk of the colonialists left or were forced to leave the US, and their property seized by those with the means to do so.

    The Patriots did not target the best and brightest. They targeted those who supported the British. Quite a different concept.

    FWIW, I’m always amused by the southern apologists who weep over the intense persecution of secessionists during Reconstruction. While being completely unaware of the much more intense persecution of Loyalists during and for a brief time after our Revolution.

  160. @Mr. Hack
    It's just that I don't often have an opinion on who was more at fault for starting WWI, or whether Japan's infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII (but I do enjoy reading most of the comments here). I try to stick to things that I know. Most people are specialists these days, anyway? :-)

    whether Japan’s infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII

    Newsflash! It wasn’t.

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we’d agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler’s response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we’d agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler’s response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.
     
    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories (which they would be unable to justify to the army or the people, even had there been someone left at that point who would do it), being slowly strangled to economic collapse or going to war against the USA and hoping for some kind of way out.
  161. @Anounder
    The Mongols were a giant parasite that leeched off their Chinese subjects when not killing them off. More attentive studies of China's state under the Mongols show significant dysfunction/setbacks. The praise of the Mongols in modernity is largely from Neolib/Neocon narratives (with a touch of Protestant/Enlightenment braying over muh tolerance, anti-Papist/Western babbling, and praise for noble savages).

    The great podcaster Dan Carlin has a wonderful series on the Mongols. Highly recommended.

  162. @Logan
    whether Japan’s infrastructure was sufficient enough to support its war efforts during WWII

    Newsflash! It wasn't.

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we'd agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler's response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we’d agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler’s response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.

    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories (which they would be unable to justify to the army or the people, even had there been someone left at that point who would do it), being slowly strangled to economic collapse or going to war against the USA and hoping for some kind of way out.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Yup. I've always had difficulty seeing why the Japanese expansion is described in shocked and horrified tones while the Euro and (to a much lesser degree) American expansion into the same areas is accepted as entirely normal and reasonable.

    To be sure the Japs were a great deal more brutal than even the Euros had been.

    The Jap leaders who could have made the decision to fall back were also perfectly well aware that to do so would have been a death sentence for them. Japan had for 15 years or so been dominated by junior army officers who sort of went their own way, launching preemptive attacks against the desires of their theoretical military and political superiors and assassinating those who got too much in their way.

    Which is kind of different to the way we normally think of Japan as hierarchical, with the juniors implicitly obedient to their superiors. Well, they were, but only as long as the superiors didn't get too far out of line. This has a looonnngggg tradition in Japanese politics, the theoretical superior not really having the actual power.

    At one point in Japanese history the emperor was controlled behind the scenes by a shogun, who was controlled behind the scenes by a regent, who was controlled de facto by members of his own clan.
    , @Malla

    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories
     
    The Japanese were ready to surrendering Indo-China but not their holdings in China. They faced a communist threat. The Soviets conquered Outer Mongolia and the Americans as usual said nothing. There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.
  163. @Hyperborean

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we’d agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler’s response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.
     
    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories (which they would be unable to justify to the army or the people, even had there been someone left at that point who would do it), being slowly strangled to economic collapse or going to war against the USA and hoping for some kind of way out.

    Yup. I’ve always had difficulty seeing why the Japanese expansion is described in shocked and horrified tones while the Euro and (to a much lesser degree) American expansion into the same areas is accepted as entirely normal and reasonable.

    To be sure the Japs were a great deal more brutal than even the Euros had been.

    The Jap leaders who could have made the decision to fall back were also perfectly well aware that to do so would have been a death sentence for them. Japan had for 15 years or so been dominated by junior army officers who sort of went their own way, launching preemptive attacks against the desires of their theoretical military and political superiors and assassinating those who got too much in their way.

    Which is kind of different to the way we normally think of Japan as hierarchical, with the juniors implicitly obedient to their superiors. Well, they were, but only as long as the superiors didn’t get too far out of line. This has a looonnngggg tradition in Japanese politics, the theoretical superior not really having the actual power.

    At one point in Japanese history the emperor was controlled behind the scenes by a shogun, who was controlled behind the scenes by a regent, who was controlled de facto by members of his own clan.

  164. @Hyperborean

    The theory behind the Japanese decision to attack was that American morale would be devastated and that we’d agree to a negotiated peace, kind of like a whipped dog.

    This is somewhat like Hitler’s response to the news that FDR had died. He thought this would save Germany, as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg saved Prussia.

    Both decision-makers clearly had zero understanding of America or Americans.
     
    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories (which they would be unable to justify to the army or the people, even had there been someone left at that point who would do it), being slowly strangled to economic collapse or going to war against the USA and hoping for some kind of way out.

    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories

    The Japanese were ready to surrendering Indo-China but not their holdings in China. They faced a communist threat. The Soviets conquered Outer Mongolia and the Americans as usual said nothing. There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.

    • Replies: @Malla
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDrUcjzEalY

    James Perloff on WW2 mentions this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cX_Fr3qyQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uf_3E4pn3U

    FDR had planed sneak attack on Japan before Pearl Harbor
    , @reiner Tor

    There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.
     
    The Japanese then made sure that China would be communist by destroying the Kuomintang military and government. The Kuomintang never had the chance to recover from the devastating blow of the Japanese knockout in 1937, because the commies immediately started the civil war after 1945. (To be fair, they still needed to commit some major errors, and Mao needed to be smart, but still, it would never have happened without the Japanese attack in 1937.)
  165. @Malla

    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories
     
    The Japanese were ready to surrendering Indo-China but not their holdings in China. They faced a communist threat. The Soviets conquered Outer Mongolia and the Americans as usual said nothing. There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.

    James Perloff on WW2 mentions this

    FDR had planed sneak attack on Japan before Pearl Harbor

  166. Also interesting is that Japanese society in the 1930s did not look like some North Korean society. It looks very Western and free. I was expecting to see a North Korean like dictatorial state.

    Japan of the 1930

    Same with Germany, civilian life does not seem any different from other European countries.

    Berlin 1936

  167. @Malla

    The Japanese were faced with the options of either surrendering vast territories
     
    The Japanese were ready to surrendering Indo-China but not their holdings in China. They faced a communist threat. The Soviets conquered Outer Mongolia and the Americans as usual said nothing. There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.

    There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.

    The Japanese then made sure that China would be communist by destroying the Kuomintang military and government. The Kuomintang never had the chance to recover from the devastating blow of the Japanese knockout in 1937, because the commies immediately started the civil war after 1945. (To be fair, they still needed to commit some major errors, and Mao needed to be smart, but still, it would never have happened without the Japanese attack in 1937.)

    • Replies: @Malla

    The Japanese then made sure that China would be communist by destroying the Kuomintang military and government.
     
    There were forces in China who were anti japanese. After the Xian incident where Chiang Kai Shek was kidnapped he turned from anti Commie to anti Japanese. By his unnecessary anti Japanese attitude, he made sure that China went communist.
    Basically both the Japanese Empire and Chiang Kai-Shek were played by the commies to fight each other.

    From
    https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=moore

    Chinese Politics
    For decades in China it has been the fashion to blame foreigners for the distress brought on partly by overpopulation and partly by Chinese civil wars and official cruelties.
    Probably less than five per cent of China’s population can read, though the number of Chinese graduates of American universities is large. Mass ignorance makes anti-foreignism a natural choice of corrupt politicians.
    After America and England bombarded Nanking to rescue foreigners and showed a firm resolve to defend the Shanghai Settlement, Chiang’s party found that anti-American and anti-British policies did not pay. So Chiang’s party moderated that tack and began to seek U. S. aid. Chiang wanted aid to help him subdue rival claimants for the dictatorship. He promptly got U. S. backing, for reasons too devious to relate here, despite just having finished a campaign of anti-Americanism in which much American property was burned and in which a number of Americans were killed.
    When U. S. and British backing became assured, Chiang’s party shifted the anti-foreign emphasis to Japan. The Anglo-Japanese alliance had expired. Bolshevist publicity against Japan had been effective in America. Thus isolated, at that time not having either Italy or Germany as theoretical allies, Japan was the ideal target-much better than America or England- for traditional Chinese anti-foreignism.

    ...snip...

    “Chiang’s Predicament
    Anti-Japanese agitation from 1928 to 1937 was waged considerably by Chinese elements – particularly Chinese Communists-who hated Chiang. If he could be entangled in a losing war, reds might hope to gain power in large areas of China in consequence of wartime disorganization. When Chiang Kai-shek undertook to subdue anti-Japanese lawlessness, his enemies in China shoute.d that he was pro-Japanese. Yet to compromise with the anti-Japanese elements and officially sanction their violence would invite war with Japan. Chiang was in a hard position. Finally he yielded to the factions clamoring for war.

    In June of 1936 a South China faction revolted with the announcement that its aim was to force Chiang to attack the Japanese. Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later.The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    Chiang’s Kidnaping
    From Madame Chiang Kai-shek’s book on the kidnapping of her husband, plus other evidence, it seems plain that Chiang had to choose between risk ing his dictatorship in civil war or joining the movement to make war on Japan. The Blue Shirts, an organization of anti-Japanese officers in the Chinese army, might join the factions against him if he refused to side with the factions seeking war on Japan. Chinese businessmen and the more stable variety of educated Chinese generally seem to have opposed war. The common coolie and farmer classes dreaded war. But these pro-peace elements were shouted down by the radicals. Meanwhile, red propagandists spread the word that aid from America could be expected if war could be started. While affairs were thickening, after Chiang was kidnaped by reds in December of 1936, Chinese radicals were shouting that China, with nine times as many ready troops, could win against Japan.
  168. @AP
    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack's law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.

    Agreed.

    And now I will follow Hack’s law in stating that I remember and liked your comment about the ridiculousness of Russians making fun of Ukrainians for having a Jewish PM (now they have a president also), when they themselves (52% of them) support Stalin, the Georgian gangster who slaughtered millions of Russians.

    hahaha!! So comparing a fake , gutter country in a catastrophic state shamefully electing another jewish President to go along with its Jewish PM and Nazi-nutjob American Health minister………………to support ( i.e historical context) to a Gruzian man from 90 years ago, who helped organise the greatest military comeback in history and has numerous positive statistics to back up his rule to go with the not so good events – to which the whole of that other state owes it’s creation to and existence to….is the “same thing”…LOL

    Just about sums up what a time-wasting attention-wh*re spambot cretin you are- typing garbage that you don’t believe in

  169. @reiner Tor

    There was also a lot of Communist activity in China and Japan was looking at a Communist wall of Soviet Russia as well as China.
     
    The Japanese then made sure that China would be communist by destroying the Kuomintang military and government. The Kuomintang never had the chance to recover from the devastating blow of the Japanese knockout in 1937, because the commies immediately started the civil war after 1945. (To be fair, they still needed to commit some major errors, and Mao needed to be smart, but still, it would never have happened without the Japanese attack in 1937.)

    The Japanese then made sure that China would be communist by destroying the Kuomintang military and government.

    There were forces in China who were anti japanese. After the Xian incident where Chiang Kai Shek was kidnapped he turned from anti Commie to anti Japanese. By his unnecessary anti Japanese attitude, he made sure that China went communist.
    Basically both the Japanese Empire and Chiang Kai-Shek were played by the commies to fight each other.

    From
    https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=moore

    Chinese Politics
    For decades in China it has been the fashion to blame foreigners for the distress brought on partly by overpopulation and partly by Chinese civil wars and official cruelties.
    Probably less than five per cent of China’s population can read, though the number of Chinese graduates of American universities is large. Mass ignorance makes anti-foreignism a natural choice of corrupt politicians.
    After America and England bombarded Nanking to rescue foreigners and showed a firm resolve to defend the Shanghai Settlement, Chiang’s party found that anti-American and anti-British policies did not pay. So Chiang’s party moderated that tack and began to seek U. S. aid. Chiang wanted aid to help him subdue rival claimants for the dictatorship. He promptly got U. S. backing, for reasons too devious to relate here, despite just having finished a campaign of anti-Americanism in which much American property was burned and in which a number of Americans were killed.
    When U. S. and British backing became assured, Chiang’s party shifted the anti-foreign emphasis to Japan. The Anglo-Japanese alliance had expired. Bolshevist publicity against Japan had been effective in America. Thus isolated, at that time not having either Italy or Germany as theoretical allies, Japan was the ideal target-much better than America or England- for traditional Chinese anti-foreignism.

    …snip…

    “Chiang’s Predicament
    Anti-Japanese agitation from 1928 to 1937 was waged considerably by Chinese elements – particularly Chinese Communists-who hated Chiang. If he could be entangled in a losing war, reds might hope to gain power in large areas of China in consequence of wartime disorganization. When Chiang Kai-shek undertook to subdue anti-Japanese lawlessness, his enemies in China shoute.d that he was pro-Japanese. Yet to compromise with the anti-Japanese elements and officially sanction their violence would invite war with Japan. Chiang was in a hard position. Finally he yielded to the factions clamoring for war.

    In June of 1936 a South China faction revolted with the announcement that its aim was to force Chiang to attack the Japanese. Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later.The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    Chiang’s Kidnaping
    From Madame Chiang Kai-shek’s book on the kidnapping of her husband, plus other evidence, it seems plain that Chiang had to choose between risk ing his dictatorship in civil war or joining the movement to make war on Japan. The Blue Shirts, an organization of anti-Japanese officers in the Chinese army, might join the factions against him if he refused to side with the factions seeking war on Japan. Chinese businessmen and the more stable variety of educated Chinese generally seem to have opposed war. The common coolie and farmer classes dreaded war. But these pro-peace elements were shouted down by the radicals. Meanwhile, red propagandists spread the word that aid from America could be expected if war could be started. While affairs were thickening, after Chiang was kidnaped by reds in December of 1936, Chinese radicals were shouting that China, with nine times as many ready troops, could win against Japan.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS