The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Egor Kholmogorov: Stalin Is Not Great
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

great-stalin

Vladislav Pravdin – GREAT STALIN (1949). It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN.

Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

And now for something completely different. Instead of snippets from larger works, here’s Egor Kholmogorov’s two-part takedown of the notion of “Stalin as a Russia national hero” merged into a single text.

The relationship of Russian nationalism and Neo-Stalinism is a torturous one. Modern Neo-Stalinism emerged in the early 2000s as one aspect of an anti-Yeltsinist and anti-Liberal consensus, an attempt to reconcile the Imperial and Soviet past under the banner of a broadly defined Russian patriotism and do away with the kind of historical nihilism that painted Stalin as the ultimate expression of a “millennium-old Russian yearning for slavery”. Many, including the author of the article and its translator, paid lip service to this movement in their younger years.

By approximately 2005, the movement had gone mainstream, and by 2012, it completely morphed into a cancerous outgrowth. The nerve of early Neo-Stalinist rhetoric was the belief that Stalin had made a U-turn from (((Old Bolshevik cosmopolitanism))), legalised some forms of Russian national consciousness, and generally put Russian history back on track (i.e., was not true Marxism, and it was good). The Neo-Stalinism of The New Tens is virulently hostile towards the slightest hint of Russian patriotism and a positive appraisal of pre-1917 Russia, going as far as to condemn liking Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great (both lionised under Stalin) as “Vlasovism” (oh the sweet irony).

Needless to say, this text provoked some gnashing of teeth in the Neo-Stalinist camp.

AK’s Foreword

After my takedown of Lenin, some people suggested that I extend it to Stalin. But what point is there when we have Kholmogorov? I agree with this 90%, down to the biographical details of my own modest (if still regrettable) quasi-Stalinophile sentiments a decade ago.

This is something that afflicted many Russian patriots of that time, being part of a general rejection of the Russophobic narratives of the liberal elites. Support for Stalin became intensely tribal, and a means to troll those people. However, it has now gone on for far too long. That particular culture war is no longer relevant, and lingering Stalinophilia now only serves to distort Russian history and Russia’s self-image of itself. It is time to put that mustachioed, medals-bedecked Halloween costume back into the cupboard.

Although we may quibble with some details – I had quite a few myself as I edited this – this piece may be considered to be as close to a Russian nationalist statement on Stalin as any.

If you appreciate these translatinos, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here: http://akarlin.com/donations-kholmogorov/

***

Part I: Pharaoh of the Plow and Atom

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/faraon-sohi-i-reaktora_71311

38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

Well well well… This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn’t have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures. To be fair, sociologists aren’t that far from the masses, mixing in the same poll politicians, generals, writers, and scientist, whose relative importance just can’t be measured by the scale. Essentially, this a list of the best-advertised personalities.

The absolute disaster here is that, in 2017, almost a good half our citizens are confident enough to place Stalin at #1 in Russian and world history. Of course, the Generalissimo here is playing the part of an epic or even mythological hero; the details and real achievements do not matter. For our people, Stalin is a byword for “a strong Russia to be reckoned with in the global arena”. And this strength acts as an acceptable rationale for everything else: millions of murdered Russians, from great scientists to common villagers, demolished churches and martyred priests, a completely fleeced countryside… Everything is pardoned and justified, following Isaac Deutscher’s formula: “He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles” (which is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill instead of this obscure Trotskyite and has “atomic piles” replaced with the “atomic bomb”).

In other words, Stalin is seen by the Russian consciousness as the architect of our incredible grandeur, which was enabled by the tremendous industrial leap forward and Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This grandeur is enough to excuse his transformation of Russia into a hellish bloodbath of terror.

If we put mythological and epical thinking aside and deal with historical facts, is Stalin’s #1 place among the greatest personalities in world history, afforded by our compatriots and sociologists, in any way justified?

I have never been into anti-Stalinist hysterics. I even published multiple articles calling to refrain from cartoonish nihilism while evaluating Stalin’s contribution to our country’s Victory in the Great Patriotic War. I am an even stauncher opponent of identifying Russia with Stalin, of using Stalin’s horrifying atrocities as a pretext to erase our national heroism and demand “reparations”, “territorial concessions”, and other vile nonsense. I couldn’t care less about Stalin being distasteful to other countries and nations – the Russians are blameless before them.

What really concerns me is Stalin’s place in the history of the Russian people. And it is in this domain, no thanks to meddlesome “National Stalinists” who go as far as to put Stalin on icons, where the role of this historical figure is inflated to infinity and beyond. It now turns out that it wasn’t Stalin’s good fortune that the Russians stayed loyal to him during the military debacle of 1941, as he claimed himself in his famous Victory Toast. No, it was a great honor and mercy for the Russians on Stalin’s part, because he condescended to rule them, shoot them, exile them where they could plow permafrost, let them get slaughtered in Nazi encirclements, and starve them with famines. It turns out that we Russians are allegedly unworthy of Stalin, our Messiah.

This boundless and hypertrophied propaganda poisoning the minds of our countrymen is sometimes even more obscene than the cult of the Great Leader as it existed in his lifetime. To heighten Stalin’s pedestal, they keep placing more and more falsehood at its base, be it myths of a pathetic backward Tsarist Russia or new slander against victims of the regime, long rehabilitated by state security and never held in contempt by the nation or history. Even the greatest of victims, such as Nikolai Vavilov, are now dragged through the mud, and the most despicable of rogues, such as Trofim Lysenko, are now lionized, for the sole purpose of keeping Stalin’s halo intact.

That is why we have to return to the question of Stalin the historical figure and not Stalin the myth, and enquire into the degree and character of his greatness.

The first foundation stone of Stalin’s pedestal is the Industrialization. Allegedly, the very Russia that languished in backwardness under the pathetically incompetent Tsars made a huge industrial leap under Stalin, storming into global industrial leadership, beating Hitler, and becoming a superpower.

This claim is false in several respects. First, Tsarist Russia wasn’t backward either in industry or in military technology. The country was developing dynamically, and there is no reason to suggest she would have reached a lower level of industrial progress than the one attained by the USSR in 1939. When we were little kids, Soviet textbooks hypnotized us with diagrams of industrial development compared to “Russia in 1913”. And no one would pose the question: “Wait, if the revolution hadn’t happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?”. And here’s another naïve question no one came to ask Soviet history teachers: “If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?”

Russian industrialization began in the 1890s mostly thanks to the efforts of Count Sergei Witte, who was a follower of the great German economist Friedrich List, the theorist of the forces of production (a term later plagiarized by Karl Marx) and protectionism. An active ally of Witte’s was Dmitry Mendeleev, not only a famous chemist but also an economist who organised the Russian oil industry and also followed List’s principles of economic protectionism.

Enjoying the complete support of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II, Witte achieved an impressive surge in industrial development. However, he was often criticised for overstraining the Russian peasantry to achieve said surge, which backfired with the unrest of 1905-06 that coincided with a cyclic crisis in world economy. In 1909, Russia saw the start of a new economic boom and a new wave of industrialization overseen by Peter Stolypin.

Stolypin’s approach was much more merciful to the peasantry than Witte’s. The countryside stopped being an economic donor and became a full-fledged partner, reaping the benefits of industrialization together with urban areas. The Great War, despite extreme conditions, gave an even greater boost to Russia’s military and industrial development. It was was the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as the ensuing “War Communism” and Civil War, which caused the terrible desolation that almost plunged the country into a new Stone Age. As a member of the Bolshevik leadership, Stalin was directly responsible for that.

Evidently, to endure as a Great Power (and, consequently, protect the Bolshevik dictatorship from being deposed by a foreign invasion), Russia couldn’t stay at the rock bottom where Bolshevism had flung her. Hence the idea of resuming industrialization, now under a new Communist management and based on Communist ideas. Stalinism didn’t attempt anything new here, because industrialization had already been running for a quarter of a century under the Tsars and was in any case supported by all rival Communist factions. Stalin’s contribution to industrialization is limited to inventing a new method, not based on strong-arming the countryside (as with Witte) or robbing it blind (as proposed by Trotsky and Pyatakov).

Stalin’s industrialization was powered by the physical eradication of the Russian countryside via forced collectivization, punitive expeditions, mass exile, famine, and terror. Yes, this method of industrialization had been previously unknown to the wider world and could be perfectly dispensed with, as demonstrated by Tsarist Russia. But can the invention of cannibalism be considered a contribution to the culinary arts? Probably not.

To Stalin’s credit, he was very successful in simultaneously bleeding the country dry to gain funds for industrialization with exploiting the vicissitudes of the global market. The Great Depression engulfed the entire world, flooding the market with cheap imported machinery and tractors, as well as jobless American engineers. In this respect, Stalin’s industrialization turned out to be cheaper for the USSR than if it had happened at the peak of the global business cycle. But let’s not forget that Russian bread and Russian exports also became cheaper cheaper. To turn a profit, Soviet industrialization needed not just cheap labor, but a slave-like one, spurred by a famine stemming from Stalin’s 1930-31 attempts at monopolizing global grain exports. As grain prices kept falling during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union was forced to increase export volume and thus physically decimate its own citizenry with starvation and terror.

In 1929, the Soviets exported 1.3 million metric tons of grain worth $68 a ton, earning $88 million. In 1930, the exports amounted to 4.8 million tons worth $45 to $60 a ton, netting a marvelous $288 million in profits. However, in October 1930, grain prices on the world market collapsed. After completely fleecing the peasantry and exporting 5.2 million tons, Stalin earned a paltry $72 million. At the same time, a mass urban exodus from the countryside required greater grain procurements for the domestic market as well. Combined with plummeting grain harvests in 1931-32, this would lead to a terrible famine, now appropriated by Ukrainian nationalists under the name of “Holodomor” and “genocide” (in reality, the Kuban and Volga regions didn’t suffer any less).

Stalin’s great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age, a feat hitherto unknown to human history. Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards. Stalin demonstrated that Southern slave owners could compete with the industry of the Union if only they had abandoned their paternalistic views of their slaves and sent them, overseen by cruel taskmasters, to build factories, roads, and mines…

Low labor costs, achieved through extreme coercion and terror, did make the USSR capable of undertaking projects that hadn’t been considered economically viable in Tsarist Russia, such as the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, dependent on both Kuznetsk coal and Urals ore. When capital was the main factor of production, such projects wouldn’t have made a profit. The historical Russian model of industrialization was capital-intensive: the Morozovs, Ryabushinkys, Tereschenkos, Putilovs, Konovalovs and other tycoons invested in costly machinery, often more advanced than in neighboring Germany. Based on this trend, the Russian-American economist Alexander Gerschenkron wrote of the advantages of “economic backwardness”, that is, a belated industrialization.

The Bolsheviks blew the old Russian industry to smithereens. However, the Great Leader and the Great Teacher successfully triumphed over the laws of economics. The leading economic factor in Soviet industrial projects, in Soviet circumpolar canal-digging and railroad construction, was labor. Slave labor. The profitability of most industrial projects soared, as a train full of Gulag convicts acted as a replacement for costly machinery, which was doubly economical: money was saved on both expensive equipment and maintenance for the workers themselves.

Stalin sought to apply the same principle of making labor the main industrial factor while lowering the importance of capital everywhere, including science. Sharashkas and threats of arrest turned out to be a better stimulus for scientific progress, in the short run at least, than German sausages and American mansions with swimming pools. Alas, biology is different from mechanics: Vavilov couldn’t get wheat chromosomes to vernalize even at gunpoint, which ended in his elimination and the rise of Lysenko, who promised to impose Stalinist labor discipline even on plant life…

Is enriching global economic thought with the principle of forced labor superiority to the capital enough to make Stalin the greatest person in history? I don’t think so. Russia used to have its own model of industrialization, which had produced excellent results and created an industrially developed economy integrated into the global economic system. Of course, it wasn’t without its failings, and had patent elements of financial dependence. But didn’t the USSR have the same kind of dependence on foreign credit, both during and after the industrialization, though only working harder to conceal it? Professor Katasonov’s calculations reveal that all profits from Soviet exports, all the gold pillaged from the Church and the general populace, all the money made from art sales couldn’t pay for the equipment imported by the USSR. This meant that the Soviets were systematically dependent on foreign loans, which Stalin himself acknowledged on multiple occasions in his correspondence. In this respect, the Great Leader merely differed from the Tsar in hiding his debts from the masses.

World War II caught Stalin’s Soviet Union in the midst of an incomplete industrialization, dependent on foreign imports in many types of machinery, up to the eyes in debt, with a part of the populace – oftentimes the intellectually and economically superior one – exterminated or jailed, and with a unique slave-labor driven industrial economy. Any organic path of Russia’s development, especially Stolypin’s, would have given Russia much better historical prospects.

But perhaps the Stalinist Soviet Union developed some kind of unique technology that was beyond the powers of old Russia? Nope. Stalin did bequeath us the proverbial atomic piles, using slave labor and nuclear espionage to save the billions of dollars spent by the USA on the Manhattan Project, which the Soviets simply didn’t have. God forbid me from chastising Stalin for that act of espionage – actually, it was one of his greatest and most innocent achievements that cost only two human lives (the Rosenbergs) and saved millions of them.

However, Stalin kept dreaming of Soviet battleships for the entirety of reign, but the USSR never managed to complete its large warships program. The naval contribution to the defense of Leningrad in WWII consisted of Gangut and Petropavlovsk, two Tsarist battleships built by Admiral Grigorovich and paid for by a Duma browbeaten into submission by Stolypin. Soviet aircraft carriers at that time were also a complete impossibility.

The story of Stalin’s fighter planes turned into a tale of endless anguish for engineers, constructors, and pilots, which the Great Leader himself confirmed by mass imprisonment of the apparatchiks responsible for the wartime aircraft production (the so-called “Aviation Affair”). The same thing happened with bombers: It would suffice to mention that the Soviet Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered copy of the American B-29.

These examples have nothing to do with the myth of Russia’s backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by “old-schoolers”. The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost exclusively from the ranks of the “enemy class” of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, receiving their education either before the Revolution or in the 1920s, when the old foundations of education hadn’t been completely ruined. Without these human resources, Stalin wouldn’t have had a shot at leaving Russia with atomic piles. The same atomic piles, however, could well have be developed by the same date by a Tsar Alexey Nikolayevich or Mikhail Alexandrovic h…

By the way, about those plows that Stalin “found Russia” with. Indeed, Stalin took Russia with wooden plows… from Lenin. And Lenin had grabbed Russia by the neck after she had lost her Tsar, under whose rule she had been a country with automobiles, armored cars, Sikorsky airplanes, early aircraft carriers, battleships and tank blueprints. And the truth is that Stalin took Russia from Lenin with plows and left her with the same implements. The plow was in use in 1953 just as in 1924, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (the sokha, the Russian light wooden plow, is better suited to certain soil types than heavier plows). All in all, measuring the trajectory of Stalinism in terms of plows and atomic piles is a gross oversimplification.

However, let us not lapse into slander and calumny by claiming that all Stalin’s achievements came only as a result of cannibalism and mass destruction of his own citizens. After the war, many residential and industrial objects in the Soviet Union were erected by German POWs, following the same slave labor model. Some select citizens of the USSR whirled around Moscow in an Opels (rechristened Moskvitch) while sporting nice Carl Zeiss glasses. Stalinist industrialization got a new a material and moral resource: Victory. And that Cictory is what our compatriots deservedly count as one of Stalin’s greatest achievements.

Can the victor in the greatest war in history not be named the greatest man in history? This is a story for our next article.

***

Part II: Stalin’s Toxic Gifts

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/otravlennye-podarki-stalina_71529

So, let’s go back to Stalin as the “greatest person in Russian and world history”. This reputation – to the degree that it actually exists among the populace and wasn’t engineered by sociologists – dwells mostly upon the Soviet Victory in the Great Patriotic War. World War II being the greatest war ever waged by mankind, it seems reasonable and justified to hail the victor in this war as the greatest man ever.

There can be a lot of objections to this. First, the Great Patriotic War was just one part of World War II, won fair and square by the United States. The Americans, having lost the least amount of people by dint of replacing them with guns and dollars, using the Russians to do the bloody work, and stealing the thunder of their British allies, went on to become the masters of the postwar world order.

Even during the Cold War, the USSR was, for a long time, a mere challenger to American supremacy and not an equal contender. And we all know how this war ended for us. The US victory in WWII under President Roosevelt is undisputed. He died when their victory was a fait accompli, and President Truman took no new decisions of his own (Roosevelt would have probably nuked Hiroshima, too). But is Roosevelt the greatest person in history? Not quite! He keeps getting flak from the left and the right, even for his New Deal, even for his meagre concessions to the Soviets in Tehran and Yalta. Even in the US proper, his ranking among top US presidents never rises above #2, and usually he occupies the #3 spot.

Regarding Russia, her greatest pre-1941 war was the Patriotic War of 1812, greatest by the stature of the enemy (Napoleon, one of the greatest characters in history), by the size and the power of his Army of the Twelve Nations, the tragedy of the fall of the Russian capital, the charity and sacrifice of the nobility, the merchant class, and the peasantry, the complete destruction of the adversary – in all these respects, the “thunder of 1812” was historically unparalleled. Who won this war? Alexander I the Blessed. To quote Pushkin’s lines, “he conquered Paris, he founded the Lyceum”.

But is this Emperor counted among the all-time greats of Russian history, according to Levada or whatever other poll? No. He is half-forgotten, his reputation destroyed by ignominious military settlements (still less outrageous than the Gulag), the infamy of Arakcheevschina (still not quite the Yezhovschina), the sin of patricide[1] (is it worse than Patria-cide?), the ridicule of other, much less flattering Pushkin poems[2]. And if it is ever to be proven that he was already been canonised by the Orthodox Church as a saint and revered by the common folk under the name of Feodor Kuzmich[3], this glory and grace would only be bestowed upon his second life, granted to expiate the sins of the first.

Stalin founded no Lyceum, he created the sharashkas, and, to paraphrase Saltykov-Schedrin’s History of a Town, “torched public schools and abolished (some of) the sciences”. He didn’t reach Paris but quite definitely conquered Berlin, a feat unseen since the days of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, God bless her memory. He lucked out with his enemy – Hitler wasn’t as great as Napoleon, but he was extraordinary vile towards the Russians and brought Russia untold of devastation. Before the invasion, his generals fulminated with very clear instructions: “war crimes in the East are not to be considered as such”, “any cultural assets in the East do not matter”. Anyone who would stand between Hitler and the Russians and organize resistance was deserving of great praise.

Stalin is deserving of such praise, too. He managed to collect himself and lead the struggle, distributing his forces so that Hitler’s onslaught got bogged down in Russia’s expanse and failing to reach any Russian capital except Kiev. He evacuated and thus preserve the bulk of Soviet industrial production. The army that he assumed supreme command of experienced almost no defeats after November 1942 and led an unstoppable march to the Elbe. Stalin was prudent enough to make peace with the Russian people and unfurl the banner of Russian patriotism – quickly furled back up after the war but not as completely, since no one dared to derogate the Russians as brazenly as in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin was shrewd enough while dealing with the Alleis that the USSR ended the war with large, even somewhat excessive gains. It is historically disingenuous to deny Stalin these achievements, and it would be nothing but a parallel falsehood to the rising tide of diehard Stalinist lies, which provoked this essay in the first place.

If we are to speak of Stalin’s greatness in world history and Russian history, his halo needs to be knocked down a couple of notches. Who is to blame but the country’s political and military leader for allowing the claws of the German eagle to sink so deep into the chest of our eagle-turned-red-star? Who is to answer for the unthinkable casualties sustained by our army in the 1941 encirclements?

Of course, these losses can’t be deemed “excessive”. Modern calculations place Soviet and German irrevocable military losses at 11.5 million vs. 8.6 million, a ratio of 1:3 to 1. But what are these 3 million “surplus” dead if not the price paid for the chaos and incompetence reigning in 1941, especially in September and October, when the tide of the Blitzkrieg seemed to have been stemmed?

Yes, June 22, 1941 was a case of the Wehrmacht’s military luck, intensified by a vile sneak attack. Luck has its place in warfare. But the encirclements near Kiev and Vyazma, the siege of Leningrad, to say nothing of the crushing 1942 defeats, were less a case of German good luck than our own failures.

The more one reads documents and memoirs, the clearer it is that Stalin’s interference in warfare was incompetent, arbitrary, and short-sighted. He was intelligent, driven, obstinate, obsessive about details, and despotic, all great qualities for a general, but his mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result, and a resulting utopian mindset. His meticulousness often turned into nitpicking, and he would obsess over trivial details. In spite of the Neo-Stalinist mythology, his views were ideologically blinkered in many important questions. Given the conditions of a hyper-centralized system of military management, all of the Commander-in-Chief’s foibles, all of his idiosyncrasies and fantasies took their greatly magnified toll on the real command of warfare. Yes, Stalin was smarter than Hitler, but setting the bar for greatness so low would be embarrassing even for the Generalissimo himself.

“It is all well and good”, some might say, “and a lot of what you say might be true – but don’t forget, the winner takes it all.

Perhaps a winner does take it all, but it doesn’t make him immune to criticism for misusing his spoils of victory. An untold loss of life, devastation, suffering, the horror of POW camps, occupation, and terror should have given the Russian a right to sizeable reparations. Did Stalin give its due to the nation he called “great” in his Victory Toast? Let’s give an objective rundown of military gains and talk about Stalin’s diplomacy.

When you hear any talk of Stalinism as an era when Russia was a Great Power to be reckoned with, you should realize that World War II started, and started the way it did, only because the pre-war Stalinist USSR was a pariah state, a rogue state written off by everyone. Through Foreign Affairs Commissar Maksim Litvinov, Stalin kept proclaiming a policy of collective defense, trying to cobble together anti-Fascist coalitions. He waged a “proxy war” with the Nazis in Spain, which was such an ideological trash fire that many past Republican sympathizers had to admit that Franco, a rational nationalist with a strong vision of unity, was better than bloodthirsty Red psychos. Nothing revealed the truth about Red methods for the European Liberal Left and pitted former fellow travelers against the Soviet Union quite like the Spanish Civil War.

When, in 1938, an agreement regarding the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR, an alleged “Great Power”. This pushed Stalin towards a reasonable and prudent idea: if you can’t side with hyenas against a wolf, you pit the wolf against the hyenas. In his 1939 pact with Hitler, Stalin attempted, without a major war or sometimes without a single shot fired, to restore the territorial losses of 1918: the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus, and Bessarabia. He bungled with Finland but at least got Vyborg back. He also grabbed what hadn’t belonged to Russia but should have: Galicia and Bukovina (the latter would be cited by Hitler as a pretext for the invasion on June 22, 1941).

Was this return to imperial borders justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes. Did those returned territories do any good for the Russians? Not at all. Stalin fixed the crimes and mistakes of Lenin, a fellow Bolshevik. He pushed the balance of Russian history from “in the red” to “zero”. Doesn’t sound much for a “great leader”.

But what happened to the regathered lands? They were turned into ethnic republics that easily “de-occupied” themselves in 1991. Only tiny tracts of borderlands were annexed to the Pskov oblast. A once heavily Russified Vilna, recaptured from Poland, was given to the Lithuanian SSR. A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it. However, Stalin’s most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. The entirety of Ukrainiznig potential accumulated there over the course of Austrian and Polish dominance engulfed Soviet Ukraine and dragged it into the abyss of “anti-Moskalism”. Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

All of these toxic gifts came with a terrible price, paid for by our people during the war. This price gave the Russians the right to expect even greater gifts, now destined only for the Russian people and no one else.

So what happened in reality? Pechenga, once the scene of St. Tryphon of Pechenga’s ascetic devotion, became Russian once again. Another restoration of what had been ours before. Carpathian Ruthenia, however, despite the pleas of Rusyn delegates to incorporate their land into the RSFSR, was not united with Russia and sacrificed on the altar of Ukrainization.

The rest was a gift to Poland, that backstabber who managed to reap three harvests from the same field. In exchange for restoring to Russia what Lenin had given away with the Riga peace treaty, they occupied, with Stalin’s consent, all of Eastern Germany, and expelled its ethnic German population, and gained highly developed industrial regions, and received the lion’s share of East Prussia, and got the Augustów district back from the USSR, and kept running around the world for 80 years complaining about the “Russian occupation” and demanding Lvov and Grodno back. Talk about stuffing the goose! And who kept feeding that pocket monster as a ploy to appease the British? Stalin, that’s who.

If there’s ever a World War III, it will start with a NATO blockade of Kaliningrad. And Stalin would be to blame for that, because he stripped the Augustów district from Belarus and carved up East Prussia in such a way that our communications with Kaliningrad stretch through Lithuania, always eager to block them entirely. Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn’t even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn’t really Stalin’s gift to the Russians but Adenauer’s: the West German Chancellor wasn’t swayed by the prospect of neutrality.

The same happened in the Far East. Stalin did the barest minimum of what every government of nationalist Russia would have done in a military grudge match against Japan: restoring the losses of the Russo-Japanese War and grabbing the Kuril Islands “for the trouble”. However, even those gains were left in a suspended and toxic state. Instead of strong-arming Japan into accepting the totality of our gains without further delay, the peace treaty question was dragged out until it blossomed into the mythical problem of the so-called Northern Territories. Toxic gifts, here we go again.

Let’s not forget the assets in Manchuria sacrificed in the name of solidarity with Red China – the Chinese Eastern Railway and Dalniy/Dalian, all the more frustrating because Manchuria’s specificities made it possible to give it a sui generis status profitable to the Soviets.

map-russia-plans-ww1

What could have been: Map of the “Future Europe” (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)

For the USSR, WWII resulted in lesser territorial gains that would have been plausibly claimed by Russia at the end of the Great War, which was “surrendered” by the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Almost everywhere he would go, Stalin only picked up what had been squandered by Lenin. He failed to gain from a crushing German defeat even a half of what could have and would have been acquired by the Tsar. Under the Tsar, Galicia would have been incorporated into Russia under a Russian banner (to say nothing of the Turkish Straits). The few acquisitions of the Soviet Empire actually beneficial for the Russians, such as Kaliningrad, turned out to be this way almost by pure happenstance.

As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again. Exhausting the Russians under the burden of hangers-on in an incomprehensible Communist experiment is hardly a solid basis for greatness.

If we calculate the war losses of our nation and our more than modest gains, our victory was indeed Pyrrhic – as great as it was unprofitable. If it was indeed a historical comeback, it remedied not the historical faults of Tsarist Russia but those of Stalin’s mentor Lenin, who had wrecked historical Russia both morally and territorially.

Let’s give Stalin his due. He knew very well that he had started the war and had been rubbish at managing it. The Russians had every reason to give him the boot. He explicitly mentioned this in the Victory Toast: “A different people could have said to the Government: “You have failed to justify our expectations. Go away. We shall install another government which will conclude peace with Germany and assure us a quiet life.”

However, Stalin also considered the Russians’ understanding that “running away” from a world war, failing to complete it for a second time would be tantamount to ending our history as a great nation. This was evident to both people of intelligence and the national instinct of the masses. Even such a fervent anti-Communist as Ivan Ilyin wrote that a desertion similar to the one of 1917 was impossible, that one had to fight on and win. Stalin harnessed this resource of Russian prudence and patience to reap the laurels of victory. However, he failed to repay most of his “debts” to the Russians.

The war was barely over, but Marxist historians wasted no time in trampling all over the academic defenders of Russian Imperial legacy led by Academician Tarle. By Stalin’s and Zhdanov’s decree, the term “Russian nation-state” was almost completely purged from the historical idiom. Orthodox hierarchs were still needed for reasons of international diplomatic representation, but the persecution of the Church would make a comeback, including the closure of churches (bear in mind that most of the churches “opened under Stalin” were churches that reopened by themselves under German occupation, and churches reopened in Stalin-held territories were a drop in the ocean). Barely four years after the victory, state security boss Viktor Abakumov would torture those few Soviet apparatchiks who dared to have but a smidgen of Russian identity. Stalin would destroy his incredibly talented assistant Nikolay Voznesenskiy, ruining all chances of the USSR being led by an intellectually developed Russian person. In the USSR, a prison of the Russian people designed by Lenin and built by Stalin, they briefly opened a fresh-air shutter and then slammed it shut.

We, Russians, cannot elevate this man to the rank of the greatest genius in history while keeping a straight face. We cannot sell our memory – mutilated national livelihood, demolished churches, massacred priests and murdered scientists, engineers, and poets, our forefathers exiled to Siberia for refusing to give their last horse to Red activists – for a minute of Stalin’s “Victory Toast”.

Yes, we should be fair in our historical judgement and shouldn’t defame Stalin with the fantasies of the “children of the Arbat”[4]. But we also should, with even greater force and rage, be fair in the opposite respect: never cutting Stalin any slack for his horrifying sins, mistakes, cruelties, and injustices, never forgetting just how many eggs he broke to make his omelet.

***

[1] Alexander I is widely accepted to have been complicit in the palace coup that led to the death of his father Paul I.

[2] For instance, in the so-called Chapter X of Eugene Onegin Pushkin described Alexander I as “a feeble and conniving ruler, a bald fop, the enemy of all work, crowned with glory by happenstance”.

[3] Legend has it that Alexander I, remorseful of his past misdeeds and faced with a profound religious crisis, feigned his own death in 1825 and fled to Siberia, where he lived as a starets (mystic hermit) under the name of Feodor Kuzmich (died 1864). The Orthodox Church officially canonized Feodor Kuzmich as a saint in 1984 but rejects his identification with the Emperor.

[4] Reference to Anatoly Rybakov’s 1987 novel Children of the Arbat (referring to a central Moscow street populated by high-ranking “Old Bolsheviks” after the revolution), a hallmark of Perestroika anti-Stalinism, where Stalin was portrayed as a one-dimensionally diabolical and sadistic figure.

 
Hide 940 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. melanf says:

    Boring and stupid propaganda, where the right reasons drown in lies and manipulation

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

    Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn’t even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn’t really Stalin’s gift to the Russians but Adenauer’s: the West German Chancellor wasn’t swayed by the prospect of neutrality.

    What is Egor talking about?
    What was offered was the new eastern Germany, not the old one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, it was about the GDR, no chance East Prussia would have been given back by the 1950s.
    , @songbird
    I wasn't even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who was favorable to German re-unification - but Khrushchev won the power struggle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Mikhail says: • Website

    38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

    Well well well… This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn’t have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures.

    How trustworthy is it? Volgograd hasn’t been renamed Stalingrad. The still popular in Russia Putin has spoken out against Stalin era oppression. By and large, the May 9 Victory Day honors the Russian people, without emphasizing Stalin.

    A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it.

    Any polling support of this? At last glance, Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania is closer to 15% than 33%. Either way, there’s no majority. In addition, the Gagauz have a legit basis to break from Moldova, were it to merge with Romania. Never mind trying to get Pridnestrovie (Transnistria) to go along with such a move.

    Pridnestrovie is ethnically pretty evenly distributed among Russiasn, Ukrainians and Moldovans, while having a pro-Russian outlook.

    Upon further review, I came across this reference to a poll on Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania:

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803141062503935-moldova-romania-nato-unification-poll/

    Still a clear minority, with a noticeably strong opposition in Gagauzia (under the control of Moldova) and the disputed territory of Pridnestrovie (which has essentially been separate from Moldova since the Soviet breakup).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Mr. Hack says:

    However, Stalin’s most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it’s just ‘lies, lies and more lies’. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830′s and got into full swing there in the 1860′s culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930′s. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality ‘koronizatsiya’ ended in the early 1930′s to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @AP
    I agree with your comment, but it may be more extreme exaggeration than outright lies.

    Without Galicia, the Ukrainian SSR would have been a more nationalistic but not much more so version of Belarus. The national idea was historically present, but not "hot", in central Ukraine. So for example, prior to Bolshevism, over 70% of Ukrainians in the Russian-owned parts of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties. It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular. But during the Revolution, only about 100,000 of these Ukrainians fought in the various not very well organized nationalist militias (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites) with another 40,000 at peak fighting for the anarchist Makhno. Most, like my central Ukrainian great-grandfather, simply stayed home after having deserted from the collapsing Russian army. In contrast, little Galicia, 1/5 of the population of Russian-ruled Ukraine, managed to mobilize 100,000 troops. Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.

    If Galicia were never annexed by Stalin, Ukraine like Belarus would have become independent anyways but Kiev would be outnumbered and the Party of Regions or something like it would easily win all elections. Such a Ukraine would still have been more non-Russian than Belarus (Kuchma was no Lukashenko) but nevertheless would have joined the Eurasian Customs Union.
    , @Gerard2

    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it’s just ‘lies, lies and more lies’. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830′s and got into full swing there in the 1860′s culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930′s. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality ‘koronizatsiya’ ended in the early 1930′s to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!
     
    Laughably stupid fantasist garbage of a retard
    , @Marcus
    So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren't powerful enough to stand on their own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    However, Stalin’s most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
     
    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it's just 'lies, lies and more lies'. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830's and got into full swing there in the 1860's culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930's. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality 'koronizatsiya' ended in the early 1930's to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!

    I agree with your comment, but it may be more extreme exaggeration than outright lies.

    Without Galicia, the Ukrainian SSR would have been a more nationalistic but not much more so version of Belarus. The national idea was historically present, but not “hot”, in central Ukraine. So for example, prior to Bolshevism, over 70% of Ukrainians in the Russian-owned parts of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties. It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular. But during the Revolution, only about 100,000 of these Ukrainians fought in the various not very well organized nationalist militias (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites) with another 40,000 at peak fighting for the anarchist Makhno. Most, like my central Ukrainian great-grandfather, simply stayed home after having deserted from the collapsing Russian army. In contrast, little Galicia, 1/5 of the population of Russian-ruled Ukraine, managed to mobilize 100,000 troops. Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.

    If Galicia were never annexed by Stalin, Ukraine like Belarus would have become independent anyways but Kiev would be outnumbered and the Party of Regions or something like it would easily win all elections. Such a Ukraine would still have been more non-Russian than Belarus (Kuchma was no Lukashenko) but nevertheless would have joined the Eurasian Customs Union.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Well, it's encouraging to see that you got Karlin to agree with an important point, that most Russian nationalists hold near and dear to their hearts:

    It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular.

     

    Also, I don't think that emphasizing that 70% of Ukrainians voting for Ukrainian parties prior to the Bolsheviks intrusions into Ukraine is reflective of a population where the Ukrainian national ideal wasn't 'hot'. Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular. Mind you, this was an era of few if any Ukrainian language periodicals, no Ukrainian TV, radio, journals etc; etc;
    , @Mikhail

    (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)
     
    You're big on giving personal anecdotes. I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.

    Petliura's support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura's weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Was this return to imperial borders justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes.

    lol, so Kholmogorov’s only complaint about Stalinist annexations is that they weren’t used for a programme Russian nationalists like himself would approve of. Morally obtuse and autistic in the extreme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won't speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It's really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don't have to like it. We don't overly care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Mitleser

    Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn’t even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn’t really Stalin’s gift to the Russians but Adenauer’s: the West German Chancellor wasn’t swayed by the prospect of neutrality.
     
    What is Egor talking about?
    What was offered was the new eastern Germany, not the old one.

    Yes, it was about the GDR, no chance East Prussia would have been given back by the 1950s.

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

    Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.

    That’s quite an impressive figure. It must include reservists too? The Polish national movement, although it had run into some serious bumps in the road, stood on much more solid ground than did the Ukrainian one. 100,000 Ukrainian troops in my estimation is still a good solid figure. Also,the idea of Ukraine without Galicia is non sequitur. It was, is and will remain an integral part of the Ukrainian picture.

    Kuchma was no Lukashenko

    Please elaborate. Also, Kuchma’s family tree started somewhere in Russia, at least that’s what I remember reading somewhere. His return to Ukraine from a vacation, when Russia was up to something near Kerch (?), was classic. Remember his photo, plastered all over the blogosphere, of him peering at the untrustworthy Russkies through a pair of binoculars? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    That’s quite an impressive figure. It must include reservists too? The Polish national movement, although it had run into some serious bumps in the road, stood on much more solid ground than did the Ukrainian one. 100,000 Ukrainian troops in my estimation is still a good solid figure
     
    100,000 was not many for a place as big as Russian-ruled Ukraine. Poland had a comparable population and produced 800,000 soldiers. With these it was able to stop the Soviet invasion.

    I was wrong when I wr0te Galica had 1/5 the population. It had about 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians compared to about 27 million ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Empire. So about 1/7 the population. So with 1/7 the population Galicia mobilized about as many soldiers as did Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Also,the idea of Ukraine without Galicia is non sequitur. It was, is and will remain an integral part of the Ukrainian picture.

     

    The issue was - was adding Galicia to the Ukrainian SSR a good idea from a Russian nationalist POV. Clearly it was not.

    Kuchma was no Lukashenko

    Please elaborate
     
    He much more ambivalent, playing the West and Russia off against each other, whereas Lukashenko was more solidly pro-Russian. That having been said, Kuchma was no pro-Westerner either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Beckow says:

    Stalin’s great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age…Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards

    Really? ‘Slave labor‘ was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China’s recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That’s how stuff gets built.

    And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don’t know, but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.

    Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.

    Stalin’s mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result

    True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The life before Bolsheviks wasn’t that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came out of enormous suffering.

    I often hear that it was ‘about to get better’, ‘look at European welfare states’ or New Deal. I wouldn’t be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that the 20th century enormous egalitarian progress was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds, Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?

    We can see that right after the ‘revenge’ systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry about that a lot more than about ‘Lithuania’ blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes and ships, don’t they?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Really? ‘Slave labor‘ was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China’s recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That’s how stuff gets built.
     
    You are really this clueless?

    But why is there no mention of why tens of millions in Russia and eastern Europe were ready for the revenge on the system?
     
    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn't much. Bolsheviks ruled by terror, not choice.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    The Harlan County War in the coal company fields of eastern Kentucky ended in a kind of victory for the union strikers.

    In the Soviet Union, the miners would have been shot before they sang the first verse of Which Side Are You On?

    You, sir, are a damned fool.
    , @Philip Owen
    The British welfare state started to take shape in 1908. It was in response to Prussia/Germany, not the USSR.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    What you call neo-liberalism was under way in the Anglosphere - certainly the British parts - by the mid 70s intellectually and in the early 80s practically so your thesis is radically undermined by factual error.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. songbird says:
    @Mitleser

    Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn’t even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn’t really Stalin’s gift to the Russians but Adenauer’s: the West German Chancellor wasn’t swayed by the prospect of neutrality.
     
    What is Egor talking about?
    What was offered was the new eastern Germany, not the old one.

    I wasn’t even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who was favorable to German re-unification – but Khrushchev won the power struggle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. AP says:
    @Beckow

    Stalin’s great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age...Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards
     
    Really? 'Slave labor' was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China's recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930's Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That's how stuff gets built.

    And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don't know, but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.

    Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.


    Stalin's mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result
     
    True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The life before Bolsheviks wasn't that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came out of enormous suffering.

    I often hear that it was 'about to get better', 'look at European welfare states' or New Deal. I wouldn't be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that the 20th century enormous egalitarian progress was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds, Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?

    We can see that right after the 'revenge' systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry about that a lot more than about 'Lithuania' blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes and ships, don't they?).

    Really? ‘Slave labor‘ was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China’s recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That’s how stuff gets built.

    You are really this clueless?

    But why is there no mention of why tens of millions in Russia and eastern Europe were ready for the revenge on the system?

    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn’t much. Bolsheviks ruled by terror, not choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    You are really this clueless?
     
    That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn’t much.
     
    Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were clearly either a majority or close to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.
     
    That's quite an impressive figure. It must include reservists too? The Polish national movement, although it had run into some serious bumps in the road, stood on much more solid ground than did the Ukrainian one. 100,000 Ukrainian troops in my estimation is still a good solid figure. Also,the idea of Ukraine without Galicia is non sequitur. It was, is and will remain an integral part of the Ukrainian picture.

    Kuchma was no Lukashenko
     
    Please elaborate. Also, Kuchma's family tree started somewhere in Russia, at least that's what I remember reading somewhere. His return to Ukraine from a vacation, when Russia was up to something near Kerch (?), was classic. Remember his photo, plastered all over the blogosphere, of him peering at the untrustworthy Russkies through a pair of binoculars? :-)

    That’s quite an impressive figure. It must include reservists too? The Polish national movement, although it had run into some serious bumps in the road, stood on much more solid ground than did the Ukrainian one. 100,000 Ukrainian troops in my estimation is still a good solid figure

    100,000 was not many for a place as big as Russian-ruled Ukraine. Poland had a comparable population and produced 800,000 soldiers. With these it was able to stop the Soviet invasion.

    I was wrong when I wr0te Galica had 1/5 the population. It had about 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians compared to about 27 million ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Empire. So about 1/7 the population. So with 1/7 the population Galicia mobilized about as many soldiers as did Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Also,the idea of Ukraine without Galicia is non sequitur. It was, is and will remain an integral part of the Ukrainian picture.

    The issue was – was adding Galicia to the Ukrainian SSR a good idea from a Russian nationalist POV. Clearly it was not.

    Kuchma was no Lukashenko

    Please elaborate

    He much more ambivalent, playing the West and Russia off against each other, whereas Lukashenko was more solidly pro-Russian. That having been said, Kuchma was no pro-Westerner either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    100,000 was not many for a place as big as Russian-ruled Ukraine. Poland had a comparable population and produced 800,000 soldiers. With these it was able to stop the Soviet invasion.
     
    But the two situations were not completely comparable, as I've already pointed out. The modern Polish national ideal was further along in its development. Also, the figure of 800,000 sounds a bit over the top? How many were regular army formations, and how many were reservists including grandpa and great grandpa too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @songbird
    I wasn't even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who was favorable to German re-unification - but Khrushchev won the power struggle.
    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Interesting. Do you think it was genuine, or some sort of ploy?

    I see one of the later notes had something about equal representation among East and West in any election commission, seems a bit dodgey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @German_reader

    Was this return to imperial borders justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes.
     
    lol, so Kholmogorov's only complaint about Stalinist annexations is that they weren't used for a programme Russian nationalists like himself would approve of. Morally obtuse and autistic in the extreme.

    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won’t speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It’s really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don’t have to like it. We don’t overly care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an 'epic failure', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960's they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

    "win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
     
    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
    , @German_reader
    Kholmogorov's only standard seems to be "Is is good for Russians?", almost like a parody of the sentiment often attributed to Jews on Unz review. He doesn't even mention that the 1939/40 annexations resulted in significant Stalinist terror against the non-Russian populations of those areas (leading to resentment against Russia lasting until today), all he cares about is his Russian victim narrative. Sure, that's a position one can take as a nationalist, but it seems rather short-sighted to me. And I still don't get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.
    , @Thorfinnsson

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.
     

    Bethmann-Hollweg put forth Germany's demands with the Septemberprogramm.

    They were:

    France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.

    France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.

    France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.

    Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.

    Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.

    Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".

    Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.

    The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.

    The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.
     

    Sounds a lot like the European Union.

    Noteworthy that the German reparations' demand is about thirteen times smaller than Versailles imposed on the Germans (granted, the war was only a month old at the time). Land over money apparently.

    Not listed here, but the Germans also intended to continue their Drang nach Osten by settling veterans in the east. Nothing like Generalplan Ost of course.

    After the collapse of Russia, Germany started realizing some of these aims by setting up a network of puppet states in Eastern Europe ruled by German princes.

    , @Yevardian
    Please stop using 'we'. You are a decent blogger and all that, but I can say without one drop of Russian blood in my veins I can say my outlook is more 'Russian' than yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Really? ‘Slave labor‘ was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China’s recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That’s how stuff gets built.
     
    You are really this clueless?

    But why is there no mention of why tens of millions in Russia and eastern Europe were ready for the revenge on the system?
     
    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn't much. Bolsheviks ruled by terror, not choice.

    You are really this clueless?

    That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn’t much.

    Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were clearly either a majority or close to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?
     
    So in your world these situations were really comparable to the Stalinist nightmare. Good to know. And keep in mind we are discussing the 20th century. You actually compared an American 20th century factory town to the 1930s USSR. Here, for example, is a company town built for miners in early 20th century Michigan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwinn,_Michigan#/media/File:Gwinn_Model_Town_Historic_District_2009c.jpg

    And one in Virginia:

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/row0fhouses.jpg

    While Russians under Stalin were slave labor, this was going on in the USA:

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935/

    Characteristic of coal towns was the influence of the company. Companies built hospitals, hotels, recreation halls, schools, and stores for miners and their families. They paid for medical personnel and teachers. The companies sponsored garden awards and gave chocolate and fruit to children at Christmas. Coal companies encouraged sports, and camp rivalries were intense. Miners at Roda (built in 1902) formed a band, and Stonega Coke & Coal Company sponsored an African American quartet. Coal companies also made land available for both Catholic and Protestant church structures. Company commissaries carried necessities and amenities such as washing machines, radios, and refrigerators, available for purchase on credit. To make ends meet, families often tended gardens in order to can goods and women sold butter and eggs. Miners and their families enjoyed their leisure times by visiting neighbors, going to the movies, having card parties, and picnicking.

    The earliest coal camps often consisted of boarding houses for the mostly unmarried male miners; duplexes and single-family houses were more common after the 1910s when companies actively recruited a more stable workforce of married men with families. Squeezed between mountains and stretched out along creeks, the camps often were divided along class, ethnic, and racial lines. Mining town sections carried names such as “Pink Town” (native white), Colored Hill” (African American), Hunk Town” (Eastern European), and Quality Hill” (company officials). Even after the establishment of permanent housing, coal towns often lacked adequate sewerage and water facilities.

    Company towns exist across the country; however, the southern coalfield company towns are distinctly West Virginian. When the railroads arrived, southern West Virginia primarily was a mountain wilderness, with a smattering of small towns such as Beckley, Madison and Aracoma (later renamed Logan). Coal companies had to build towns and houses for their miners in some of the most isolated areas of the region. By 1922, nearly 80 percent of West Virginia miners lived in company houses.

    Coal companies stripped down the forests to erect simply designed houses, schools and churches, all within close proximity of the mines. The towns followed the branch lines of the C&O, N&W and Virginian railroads. To cut costs, almost all miners’ houses were built identically, often of cheap materials. Since most towns, such as Mohegan, were built in isolated areas, miners and their families were totally dependent on the companies for all services. Some companies took much better care of miners and their families by building swimming pools, movie theaters and parks. Houses in these model towns included indoor plumbing, electricity and sewer systems.

    All life in company towns revolved around the company-owned store. Since these towns were located in isolated areas, the company store offered the only option for buying groceries, mining tools and other goods. Most company stores also contained the local post office and payroll office. As the only store in town, companies were not threatened by competition. They often charged exorbitant prices compared to what people in cities paid for the same items. Company stores could provide anything a miner and his family might need, ranging from washing machines to shoes to medicine. Most miners eventually earned enough to buy cars, which allowed them to visit local service towns such as Welch, Beckley, Bluefield, Logan, Madison, Mullens or Williamson.

    :::::::::::::::::

    So in the early 20th century coal miners in poor West Virginia lived much better and more luxurious lives than did the slave laborers of the industrialized Soviet world.

    :::::::::::::::::

    And btw, some of us actually had family members whom they knew who knew what life was like in the countryside of the USSR in the 1930s.
    , @Philip Owen
    19C coal mining or factory work in Shenzhen were both superior to the alternative as the massive rise in working class living standards in both cases demonstrated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    That’s quite an impressive figure. It must include reservists too? The Polish national movement, although it had run into some serious bumps in the road, stood on much more solid ground than did the Ukrainian one. 100,000 Ukrainian troops in my estimation is still a good solid figure
     
    100,000 was not many for a place as big as Russian-ruled Ukraine. Poland had a comparable population and produced 800,000 soldiers. With these it was able to stop the Soviet invasion.

    I was wrong when I wr0te Galica had 1/5 the population. It had about 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians compared to about 27 million ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Empire. So about 1/7 the population. So with 1/7 the population Galicia mobilized about as many soldiers as did Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Also,the idea of Ukraine without Galicia is non sequitur. It was, is and will remain an integral part of the Ukrainian picture.

     

    The issue was - was adding Galicia to the Ukrainian SSR a good idea from a Russian nationalist POV. Clearly it was not.

    Kuchma was no Lukashenko

    Please elaborate
     
    He much more ambivalent, playing the West and Russia off against each other, whereas Lukashenko was more solidly pro-Russian. That having been said, Kuchma was no pro-Westerner either.

    100,000 was not many for a place as big as Russian-ruled Ukraine. Poland had a comparable population and produced 800,000 soldiers. With these it was able to stop the Soviet invasion.

    But the two situations were not completely comparable, as I’ve already pointed out. The modern Polish national ideal was further along in its development. Also, the figure of 800,000 sounds a bit over the top? How many were regular army formations, and how many were reservists including grandpa and great grandpa too?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. songbird says:
    @German_reader
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note

    Interesting. Do you think it was genuine, or some sort of ploy?

    I see one of the later notes had something about equal representation among East and West in any election commission, seems a bit dodgey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Do you think it was genuine, or some sort of ploy?
     
    No idea really. Obviously there were good reasons not to trust Stalin. On the other hand, I think one should at least have seriously explored the possibilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Beckow says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won't speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It's really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don't have to like it. We don't overly care.

    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an ‘epic failure‘, it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn’t know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960′s they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn’t Stalin’s fault, but his successors.

    “win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania”

    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia ‘naturally’ belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.
     
    Although this was the plan, who knows how things would have turned out. The USSR, after all, was not forever a Stalinist nightmare. We can reasonably assume short-term results (completed mass murder of Jewish people, several million more dead Slavs) but not the long-term one.

    Surviving is not an ‘epic failure‘, it is better that the alternative
     
    .

    Something could be both an epic failure and better than the alternative.

    Allowing a small nation with 40% of your population to kill tens of millions of your people and nearly topple your regime is an epic failure, yet better than the alternative of losing.

    You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
     
    Not much more nor less viable than Balts, Finns, Slovaks or other historically stateless people.

    If no state, a western Ukraine separated from the rest of Ukraine could have been added to the already bizarrely shaped Czechoslovakia.
    , @Mitleser

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?
     
    Separate SSRs.
    , @Mr. Hack

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
     
    If Galicia wasn't 'viable' as a separate state, and there really wasn't another 'alternative', why was this a 'disaster'? You seem to be contradicting your own logical conclusion here?
    , @TP

    E.g. who does Silesia ‘naturally’ belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options.
     
    It would be fun watching Beckow telling Hans Ullrich Rudel that Silesia to Poland ist the "probably best of all available options"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Anatoly Karlin
    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won't speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It's really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don't have to like it. We don't overly care.

    Kholmogorov’s only standard seems to be “Is is good for Russians?”, almost like a parody of the sentiment often attributed to Jews on Unz review. He doesn’t even mention that the 1939/40 annexations resulted in significant Stalinist terror against the non-Russian populations of those areas (leading to resentment against Russia lasting until today), all he cares about is his Russian victim narrative. Sure, that’s a position one can take as a nationalist, but it seems rather short-sighted to me. And I still don’t get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    1. What's wrong with learning from the Jews? (inb4 Karlin's a hasbara neocon)? :) Well, apart from us not having any powerful ethnic lobbies. Then again, as I pointed out, this is written for Russians, not foreigners. Anglophones are just getting a chance to peek in on what is happening through these translations.

    2. I think almost by definition nationalists are most concerned about their own people.

    Just FWIW, there will not be many defenders of Stalin's deportations, ethnic operations, and so forth. One of the leading luminaries of 20th century Russian nationalism, Ivan Ilyin, does that repeatedly. But that topic has been covered exhaustively, most of all by their intelligentsias, while applying the same sort of analytical framework to Russians is rare and indeed even, to an extent, politically incorrect in the West.

    3. And I still don’t get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    Kholmogorov has answered that succinctly:

    Once again, friends.

    I have always been, I am and will be a Russian Orthodox nationalist monarchist.

    For me, Holy Russia has always been and will be more valuable than the Petrine Empire, and the Russian Empire, historical Russia, is infinitely more valuable than the Soviet Union.

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics - the vital interests of the Russian people.

    I am ready to respect the USSR to the extent that it does not contradict the Russian Empire, and I respect the Empire to the extent that it does not contradict, but continues Holy Russia.

    I am ready to respect other spiritual realities to the extent that they are not hostile to Orthodox Christianity and are willing to respect other political and ideological programs to the extent that their implementation is not at the expense of the vital interests of the Russian people.

    If you were expecting from me some other position, then you were mistaken in understanding my point of view, and not my position has changed. My position changes only with regard to the assessment of the position of certain concrete facts and figures in the system of coordinates indicated above.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @songbird
    Interesting. Do you think it was genuine, or some sort of ploy?

    I see one of the later notes had something about equal representation among East and West in any election commission, seems a bit dodgey.

    Do you think it was genuine, or some sort of ploy?

    No idea really. Obviously there were good reasons not to trust Stalin. On the other hand, I think one should at least have seriously explored the possibilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. TP says:

    What could have been: Map of the “Future Europe” (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)

    Hey Karlin,

    this map (Truth Magazin, 1890), showed the actual “future of europe”
    Whats your opinion on that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. AP says:
    @Beckow
    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an 'epic failure', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960's they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

    "win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
     
    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Although this was the plan, who knows how things would have turned out. The USSR, after all, was not forever a Stalinist nightmare. We can reasonably assume short-term results (completed mass murder of Jewish people, several million more dead Slavs) but not the long-term one.

    Surviving is not an ‘epic failure‘, it is better that the alternative

    .

    Something could be both an epic failure and better than the alternative.

    Allowing a small nation with 40% of your population to kill tens of millions of your people and nearly topple your regime is an epic failure, yet better than the alternative of losing.

    You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    Not much more nor less viable than Balts, Finns, Slovaks or other historically stateless people.

    If no state, a western Ukraine separated from the rest of Ukraine could have been added to the already bizarrely shaped Czechoslovakia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim

    Allowing a small nation with 40% of your population to kill tens of millions of your people and nearly topple your regime is an epic failure, yet better than the alternative of losing.
     
    Come again?

    It seems as if the (uncontested) crimes of the Nazis are becoming worse with every passing decade.

    The fact that the red army lost significantly more soldiers than the Wehrmacht in in any single battle, victorious or not, even in the very last days of the war, when the Wehrmacht was completely outmaneuvered and outgunned cannot solely be blamed at the murderous spirit of the Wehrmacht.

    Brusilov's tactics led to the revolution of 1917, the Stalinist miracle seems to me that the same tactics did not destroy Russia's coherence the second time around.
    , @LH

    If no state, a western Ukraine separated from the rest of Ukraine could have been added to the already bizarrely shaped Czechoslovakia.

     

    Czechoslovakia was de facto state of the Czechs. Why would they want to dilute their dominant position? They just kicked out ethnic Germans, why to bring the problem back? Subcarpathian Ruthenia was let go almost without anyone noticing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Mitleser says:
    @Beckow
    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an 'epic failure', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960's they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

    "win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
     
    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

    Separate SSRs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

    Separate SSRs.
     

    This might have made the anti-UPA struggle more difficult. Also the excuse for removing it from Poland was because it was Ukrainian, not Galician.

    One of my relatives was the guy who flew to Moscow and met personally with Stalin, asking him to join Galicia to Ukraine :-)

    Guy was a conservative clerical-nationalist who led a Christian Social party, not a commie (nor Banderist); he was playing a long game. It worked.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. AP says:
    @Beckow

    You are really this clueless?
     
    That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

    Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn’t much.
     
    Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were clearly either a majority or close to it.

    Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

    So in your world these situations were really comparable to the Stalinist nightmare. Good to know. And keep in mind we are discussing the 20th century. You actually compared an American 20th century factory town to the 1930s USSR. Here, for example, is a company town built for miners in early 20th century Michigan:

    And one in Virginia:

    While Russians under Stalin were slave labor, this was going on in the USA:

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935/

    Characteristic of coal towns was the influence of the company. Companies built hospitals, hotels, recreation halls, schools, and stores for miners and their families. They paid for medical personnel and teachers. The companies sponsored garden awards and gave chocolate and fruit to children at Christmas. Coal companies encouraged sports, and camp rivalries were intense. Miners at Roda (built in 1902) formed a band, and Stonega Coke & Coal Company sponsored an African American quartet. Coal companies also made land available for both Catholic and Protestant church structures. Company commissaries carried necessities and amenities such as washing machines, radios, and refrigerators, available for purchase on credit. To make ends meet, families often tended gardens in order to can goods and women sold butter and eggs. Miners and their families enjoyed their leisure times by visiting neighbors, going to the movies, having card parties, and picnicking.

    The earliest coal camps often consisted of boarding houses for the mostly unmarried male miners; duplexes and single-family houses were more common after the 1910s when companies actively recruited a more stable workforce of married men with families. Squeezed between mountains and stretched out along creeks, the camps often were divided along class, ethnic, and racial lines. Mining town sections carried names such as “Pink Town” (native white), Colored Hill” (African American), Hunk Town” (Eastern European), and Quality Hill” (company officials). Even after the establishment of permanent housing, coal towns often lacked adequate sewerage and water facilities.

    Company towns exist across the country; however, the southern coalfield company towns are distinctly West Virginian. When the railroads arrived, southern West Virginia primarily was a mountain wilderness, with a smattering of small towns such as Beckley, Madison and Aracoma (later renamed Logan). Coal companies had to build towns and houses for their miners in some of the most isolated areas of the region. By 1922, nearly 80 percent of West Virginia miners lived in company houses.

    Coal companies stripped down the forests to erect simply designed houses, schools and churches, all within close proximity of the mines. The towns followed the branch lines of the C&O, N&W and Virginian railroads. To cut costs, almost all miners’ houses were built identically, often of cheap materials. Since most towns, such as Mohegan, were built in isolated areas, miners and their families were totally dependent on the companies for all services. Some companies took much better care of miners and their families by building swimming pools, movie theaters and parks. Houses in these model towns included indoor plumbing, electricity and sewer systems.

    All life in company towns revolved around the company-owned store. Since these towns were located in isolated areas, the company store offered the only option for buying groceries, mining tools and other goods. Most company stores also contained the local post office and payroll office. As the only store in town, companies were not threatened by competition. They often charged exorbitant prices compared to what people in cities paid for the same items. Company stores could provide anything a miner and his family might need, ranging from washing machines to shoes to medicine. Most miners eventually earned enough to buy cars, which allowed them to visit local service towns such as Welch, Beckley, Bluefield, Logan, Madison, Mullens or Williamson.

    :::::::::::::::::

    So in the early 20th century coal miners in poor West Virginia lived much better and more luxurious lives than did the slave laborers of the industrialized Soviet world.

    :::::::::::::::::

    And btw, some of us actually had family members whom they knew who knew what life was like in the countryside of the USSR in the 1930s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking 'industrialisation', that has happened in different countries at different times. I can find 'company towns' in US (Colorado mines...) that were brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia's industrialisation. Picking up the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.

    The 5-year old miners in England in 1840's were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the revenge I mentioned... today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?
    , @denjae

    And btw, some of us actually had family members whom they knew who knew what life was like in the countryside of the USSR in the 1930s
     
    Family to family is great. E.g. My father went into a countryside Red Terror camp begging for food 99 years ago. Walked away with a rifle. Smartly tied to his dog’s leash-collar to evoke dindu effect. Rifle rode his shoulder to Amerika in 1921.

    Scholarly dross about poor miners, sourced from an upscale social-library-edu, SUCKS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @German_reader
    Kholmogorov's only standard seems to be "Is is good for Russians?", almost like a parody of the sentiment often attributed to Jews on Unz review. He doesn't even mention that the 1939/40 annexations resulted in significant Stalinist terror against the non-Russian populations of those areas (leading to resentment against Russia lasting until today), all he cares about is his Russian victim narrative. Sure, that's a position one can take as a nationalist, but it seems rather short-sighted to me. And I still don't get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    1. What’s wrong with learning from the Jews? (inb4 Karlin’s a hasbara neocon)? :) Well, apart from us not having any powerful ethnic lobbies. Then again, as I pointed out, this is written for Russians, not foreigners. Anglophones are just getting a chance to peek in on what is happening through these translations.

    2. I think almost by definition nationalists are most concerned about their own people.

    Just FWIW, there will not be many defenders of Stalin’s deportations, ethnic operations, and so forth. One of the leading luminaries of 20th century Russian nationalism, Ivan Ilyin, does that repeatedly. But that topic has been covered exhaustively, most of all by their intelligentsias, while applying the same sort of analytical framework to Russians is rare and indeed even, to an extent, politically incorrect in the West.

    3. And I still don’t get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    Kholmogorov has answered that succinctly:

    Once again, friends.

    I have always been, I am and will be a Russian Orthodox nationalist monarchist.

    For me, Holy Russia has always been and will be more valuable than the Petrine Empire, and the Russian Empire, historical Russia, is infinitely more valuable than the Soviet Union.

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics – the vital interests of the Russian people.

    I am ready to respect the USSR to the extent that it does not contradict the Russian Empire, and I respect the Empire to the extent that it does not contradict, but continues Holy Russia.

    I am ready to respect other spiritual realities to the extent that they are not hostile to Orthodox Christianity and are willing to respect other political and ideological programs to the extent that their implementation is not at the expense of the vital interests of the Russian people.

    If you were expecting from me some other position, then you were mistaken in understanding my point of view, and not my position has changed. My position changes only with regard to the assessment of the position of certain concrete facts and figures in the system of coordinates indicated above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    So he's basically an imperialist.
    I realize discussion of this is probably pointless, but I still want to state my opinion that all this talk about territorial annexations, areas that should have been Russified etc. is deeply unsettling even to namy people in Europe who would be interested in better relations with Russia. Now you probably don't care about that since you think "The West is always going to hate and despise us anyway", and to some extent that view is understandable given the anti-Russian hysterics in Western media and I won't argue with you about it. I can't regard Kholmogorov's vision as positive or constructive though, and it also doesn't seem very realistic to me.
    , @Mr. Hack

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics – the vital interests of the Russian people.
     
    It looks to me that his underlying spiritual values have fallen upon deaf ears (you). Your total infatuation with transhumanism clashes directly with one of his most important core values, making you somewhat of an anomaly within your chosen profession of a 'Russian nationalist'.
    , @John Gruskos

    What’s wrong with learning from the Jews?
     
    Hyper-ethnocentrism always leads to a nasty backlash against hyper-ethnocentric peoples such as the Spartans, the Germans under Nazi leadership, and diaspora Jews - for example, the repeated expulsions of the Jews from various countries, the world rising up in wrath against Nazi iniquity, Epaminondas crushing Sparta, etc.

    More importantly, Christian morality and Aristotlean reason both demand that we eschew the sinful vices of ethno-masochism on the one hand and hyper-ethnocentrism on the other, in favor of the holy virtue of ethnic-self-respect.

    In his critique of Stalin, Kholmogorov presents a very different ideal than that espoused by Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn advocated for a Russian ethno-state consisting of the current territories of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Belarus, and the majority-Slav northern districts of Kazakhstan. Kholmogorov seems to prefer an empire including all territory which was at any time controlled by the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, and then some, even though minorities (Finns, Balts, Poles, Romanians, Caucasians, and Central Asians) would outnumber East Slavs in such an empire.

    While he does successfully expose the contradictions of neo-Stalinism, he seems to concede the validity of imperial and Stalinist conceptions of "greatness", abandoning the ethno-nationalist ideal in the process.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Mr. Hack says:
    @Beckow
    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an 'epic failure', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960's they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

    "win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
     
    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    If Galicia wasn’t ‘viable’ as a separate state, and there really wasn’t another ‘alternative’, why was this a ‘disaster’? You seem to be contradicting your own logical conclusion here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

    If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Anatoly Karlin
    1. What's wrong with learning from the Jews? (inb4 Karlin's a hasbara neocon)? :) Well, apart from us not having any powerful ethnic lobbies. Then again, as I pointed out, this is written for Russians, not foreigners. Anglophones are just getting a chance to peek in on what is happening through these translations.

    2. I think almost by definition nationalists are most concerned about their own people.

    Just FWIW, there will not be many defenders of Stalin's deportations, ethnic operations, and so forth. One of the leading luminaries of 20th century Russian nationalism, Ivan Ilyin, does that repeatedly. But that topic has been covered exhaustively, most of all by their intelligentsias, while applying the same sort of analytical framework to Russians is rare and indeed even, to an extent, politically incorrect in the West.

    3. And I still don’t get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    Kholmogorov has answered that succinctly:

    Once again, friends.

    I have always been, I am and will be a Russian Orthodox nationalist monarchist.

    For me, Holy Russia has always been and will be more valuable than the Petrine Empire, and the Russian Empire, historical Russia, is infinitely more valuable than the Soviet Union.

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics - the vital interests of the Russian people.

    I am ready to respect the USSR to the extent that it does not contradict the Russian Empire, and I respect the Empire to the extent that it does not contradict, but continues Holy Russia.

    I am ready to respect other spiritual realities to the extent that they are not hostile to Orthodox Christianity and are willing to respect other political and ideological programs to the extent that their implementation is not at the expense of the vital interests of the Russian people.

    If you were expecting from me some other position, then you were mistaken in understanding my point of view, and not my position has changed. My position changes only with regard to the assessment of the position of certain concrete facts and figures in the system of coordinates indicated above.
     

    So he’s basically an imperialist.
    I realize discussion of this is probably pointless, but I still want to state my opinion that all this talk about territorial annexations, areas that should have been Russified etc. is deeply unsettling even to namy people in Europe who would be interested in better relations with Russia. Now you probably don’t care about that since you think “The West is always going to hate and despise us anyway”, and to some extent that view is understandable given the anti-Russian hysterics in Western media and I won’t argue with you about it. I can’t regard Kholmogorov’s vision as positive or constructive though, and it also doesn’t seem very realistic to me.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf, snorlax
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Lol you would not be a great fan of the tsargrad.tv project.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Gerard2 says:

    Obviously Galicia is a sparsely populated and financially irrelevant shithole in Ukraine. It’s political relevance is massively overrated ( plus many have left there to go to Russia or Poland)….the big problem is American money or organisations over there, not the political power of the individuals there.

    [MORE]

    Obviously it’s to do with American money because the “nationalism” of the fuckedup fake sytate of Ukraine makes even less sense if propagated by idiots from Galicia ( so does the fantasism about the Golodomor, for a region never touched by it)
    The Soros/State Department for the orange revolution and other elections either side of it then criminally exaggeratd the number of people living there, and then under-exaggerated massively the amount of people in the most populous areas of Ukraine (Novorossiya 5 out of 7)…hence why we had all these retarded lies about “120% turnout in Donetsk)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. TP says:
    @Beckow
    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

    Surviving is not an 'epic failure', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960's they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

    "win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
     
    That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

    E.g. who does Silesia ‘naturally’ belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options.

    It would be fun watching Beckow telling Hans Ullrich Rudel that Silesia to Poland ist the “probably best of all available options”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:

    Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after WWII was untenable - most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia reaches out quite far eastward.

    Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be reshuffled, but went against 'let's keep divided Germany as small as possible' attitude at Potsdam.

    The option of having an independent Silesia, with 'Silesian' ethnicity (it does exist), was economically not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.

    So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. Hack

    However, Stalin’s most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
     
    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it's just 'lies, lies and more lies'. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830's and got into full swing there in the 1860's culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930's. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality 'koronizatsiya' ended in the early 1930's to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!

    [MORE]

    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it’s just ‘lies, lies and more lies’. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830′s and got into full swing there in the 1860′s culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930′s. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality ‘koronizatsiya’ ended in the early 1930′s to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!

    Laughably stupid fantasist garbage of a retard

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Really? Just where exactly does my narrative break down? Karlin seems to give it a green light and doesn't try to contradict me? :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. AP says:
    @Mitleser

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?
     
    Separate SSRs.

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

    Separate SSRs.

    This might have made the anti-UPA struggle more difficult. Also the excuse for removing it from Poland was because it was Ukrainian, not Galician.

    One of my relatives was the guy who flew to Moscow and met personally with Stalin, asking him to join Galicia to Ukraine :-)

    Guy was a conservative clerical-nationalist who led a Christian Social party, not a commie (nor Banderist); he was playing a long game. It worked.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Stalin tried to bring the Uniates back into the Orthodox fold, so can he really be considered a friend of Galician-driven Ukrainian nationalism? The author is reaching
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    So he's basically an imperialist.
    I realize discussion of this is probably pointless, but I still want to state my opinion that all this talk about territorial annexations, areas that should have been Russified etc. is deeply unsettling even to namy people in Europe who would be interested in better relations with Russia. Now you probably don't care about that since you think "The West is always going to hate and despise us anyway", and to some extent that view is understandable given the anti-Russian hysterics in Western media and I won't argue with you about it. I can't regard Kholmogorov's vision as positive or constructive though, and it also doesn't seem very realistic to me.

    Lol you would not be a great fan of the tsargrad.tv project.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Mr. Hack says:
    @Gerard2

    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it’s just ‘lies, lies and more lies’. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830′s and got into full swing there in the 1860′s culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930′s. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality ‘koronizatsiya’ ended in the early 1930′s to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!
     
    Laughably stupid fantasist garbage of a retard

    Really? Just where exactly does my narrative break down? Karlin seems to give it a green light and doesn’t try to contradict me? :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Marcus says:
    @AP

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

    Separate SSRs.
     

    This might have made the anti-UPA struggle more difficult. Also the excuse for removing it from Poland was because it was Ukrainian, not Galician.

    One of my relatives was the guy who flew to Moscow and met personally with Stalin, asking him to join Galicia to Ukraine :-)

    Guy was a conservative clerical-nationalist who led a Christian Social party, not a commie (nor Banderist); he was playing a long game. It worked.

    Stalin tried to bring the Uniates back into the Orthodox fold, so can he really be considered a friend of Galician-driven Ukrainian nationalism? The author is reaching

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Beckow says:
    @TP

    E.g. who does Silesia ‘naturally’ belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options.
     
    It would be fun watching Beckow telling Hans Ullrich Rudel that Silesia to Poland ist the "probably best of all available options"

    I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:

    Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after WWII was untenable – most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia reaches out quite far eastward.

    Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be reshuffled, but went against ‘let’s keep divided Germany as small as possible’ attitude at Potsdam.

    The option of having an independent Silesia, with ‘Silesian’ ethnicity (it does exist), was economically not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.

    So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Herr Rudel was the "Stuka Pilot," the most highly decorated WW II German.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?
     
    So in your world these situations were really comparable to the Stalinist nightmare. Good to know. And keep in mind we are discussing the 20th century. You actually compared an American 20th century factory town to the 1930s USSR. Here, for example, is a company town built for miners in early 20th century Michigan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwinn,_Michigan#/media/File:Gwinn_Model_Town_Historic_District_2009c.jpg

    And one in Virginia:

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/row0fhouses.jpg

    While Russians under Stalin were slave labor, this was going on in the USA:

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935/

    Characteristic of coal towns was the influence of the company. Companies built hospitals, hotels, recreation halls, schools, and stores for miners and their families. They paid for medical personnel and teachers. The companies sponsored garden awards and gave chocolate and fruit to children at Christmas. Coal companies encouraged sports, and camp rivalries were intense. Miners at Roda (built in 1902) formed a band, and Stonega Coke & Coal Company sponsored an African American quartet. Coal companies also made land available for both Catholic and Protestant church structures. Company commissaries carried necessities and amenities such as washing machines, radios, and refrigerators, available for purchase on credit. To make ends meet, families often tended gardens in order to can goods and women sold butter and eggs. Miners and their families enjoyed their leisure times by visiting neighbors, going to the movies, having card parties, and picnicking.

    The earliest coal camps often consisted of boarding houses for the mostly unmarried male miners; duplexes and single-family houses were more common after the 1910s when companies actively recruited a more stable workforce of married men with families. Squeezed between mountains and stretched out along creeks, the camps often were divided along class, ethnic, and racial lines. Mining town sections carried names such as “Pink Town” (native white), Colored Hill” (African American), Hunk Town” (Eastern European), and Quality Hill” (company officials). Even after the establishment of permanent housing, coal towns often lacked adequate sewerage and water facilities.

    Company towns exist across the country; however, the southern coalfield company towns are distinctly West Virginian. When the railroads arrived, southern West Virginia primarily was a mountain wilderness, with a smattering of small towns such as Beckley, Madison and Aracoma (later renamed Logan). Coal companies had to build towns and houses for their miners in some of the most isolated areas of the region. By 1922, nearly 80 percent of West Virginia miners lived in company houses.

    Coal companies stripped down the forests to erect simply designed houses, schools and churches, all within close proximity of the mines. The towns followed the branch lines of the C&O, N&W and Virginian railroads. To cut costs, almost all miners’ houses were built identically, often of cheap materials. Since most towns, such as Mohegan, were built in isolated areas, miners and their families were totally dependent on the companies for all services. Some companies took much better care of miners and their families by building swimming pools, movie theaters and parks. Houses in these model towns included indoor plumbing, electricity and sewer systems.

    All life in company towns revolved around the company-owned store. Since these towns were located in isolated areas, the company store offered the only option for buying groceries, mining tools and other goods. Most company stores also contained the local post office and payroll office. As the only store in town, companies were not threatened by competition. They often charged exorbitant prices compared to what people in cities paid for the same items. Company stores could provide anything a miner and his family might need, ranging from washing machines to shoes to medicine. Most miners eventually earned enough to buy cars, which allowed them to visit local service towns such as Welch, Beckley, Bluefield, Logan, Madison, Mullens or Williamson.

    :::::::::::::::::

    So in the early 20th century coal miners in poor West Virginia lived much better and more luxurious lives than did the slave laborers of the industrialized Soviet world.

    :::::::::::::::::

    And btw, some of us actually had family members whom they knew who knew what life was like in the countryside of the USSR in the 1930s.

    You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking ‘industrialisation’, that has happened in different countries at different times. I can find ‘company towns’ in US (Colorado mines…) that were brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia’s industrialisation. Picking up the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.

    The 5-year old miners in England in 1840′s were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the revenge I mentioned… today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process - virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin - friend of Russian people - do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

    , @Philip Owen
    The 5 year olds were going down with their families. Mining in those days involved a team, usually brothers or cousins working together on piecework.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Beckow

    Stalin’s great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age...Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards
     
    Really? 'Slave labor' was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China's recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930's Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That's how stuff gets built.

    And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don't know, but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.

    Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.


    Stalin's mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result
     
    True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The life before Bolsheviks wasn't that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came out of enormous suffering.

    I often hear that it was 'about to get better', 'look at European welfare states' or New Deal. I wouldn't be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that the 20th century enormous egalitarian progress was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds, Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?

    We can see that right after the 'revenge' systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry about that a lot more than about 'Lithuania' blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes and ships, don't they?).

    The Harlan County War in the coal company fields of eastern Kentucky ended in a kind of victory for the union strikers.

    In the Soviet Union, the miners would have been shot before they sang the first verse of Which Side Are You On?

    You, sir, are a damned fool.

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

    However, Stalin’s most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
     
    Lies, lies, lies! This is the type of total BS that modern Russian nationalist ideology is built upon, and yes, let me say it one more time it's just 'lies, lies and more lies'. The Ukrainian national idea first started in Eastern and Central Ukraine in the 1830's and got into full swing there in the 1860's culminating in the early teens of the 20th century. Galicia derived its brand of Ukrainianism from the Ukrainian nationalist writers in Kharkiv, Kyiv and Poltava. In fact the most malevelant form of Ukrainian nationalism was forged by Dmitri Dontsov, a Ukrainian from southern Ukraine that became the blueprint for Banderite nationalism in Galicia in the 1930's. The Bolsheviks, including Stalin, had already encountered a very vibrant outpouring of Ukrainian nationalism on the streets of Kyiv in 1919, as can be seen by these very interesting and telling photos (Petliura was no Galician!) :

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#18

    BTW, another false Russian meme is that the commies continually helped foster the sense of Ukrainianization, when in reality 'koronizatsiya' ended in the early 1930's to be substituted for an ubiquitous brand of Russification. Read your history books more thoroughly and completely!

    So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren’t powerful enough to stand on their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren’t powerful enough to stand on their own.
     
    I'm not aware of any huge influx of Galicians into Central, Eastern or Southern Ukraine during the 1930's? What are you talking about?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    I agree with your comment, but it may be more extreme exaggeration than outright lies.

    Without Galicia, the Ukrainian SSR would have been a more nationalistic but not much more so version of Belarus. The national idea was historically present, but not "hot", in central Ukraine. So for example, prior to Bolshevism, over 70% of Ukrainians in the Russian-owned parts of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties. It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular. But during the Revolution, only about 100,000 of these Ukrainians fought in the various not very well organized nationalist militias (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites) with another 40,000 at peak fighting for the anarchist Makhno. Most, like my central Ukrainian great-grandfather, simply stayed home after having deserted from the collapsing Russian army. In contrast, little Galicia, 1/5 of the population of Russian-ruled Ukraine, managed to mobilize 100,000 troops. Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.

    If Galicia were never annexed by Stalin, Ukraine like Belarus would have become independent anyways but Kiev would be outnumbered and the Party of Regions or something like it would easily win all elections. Such a Ukraine would still have been more non-Russian than Belarus (Kuchma was no Lukashenko) but nevertheless would have joined the Eurasian Customs Union.

    Well, it’s encouraging to see that you got Karlin to agree with an important point, that most Russian nationalists hold near and dear to their hearts:

    It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular.

    Also, I don’t think that emphasizing that 70% of Ukrainians voting for Ukrainian parties prior to the Bolsheviks intrusions into Ukraine is reflective of a population where the Ukrainian national ideal wasn’t ‘hot’. Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular. Mind you, this was an era of few if any Ukrainian language periodicals, no Ukrainian TV, radio, journals etc; etc;

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular.
     
    In central Ukraine the Ukrainian idea was popular. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for Ukrainian parties, and they clearly had a Ukrainian self-identity. But unlike Galicians, or Poles, or Finns, they were less likely to fight and die for their national idea in 1917-1920. To be sure, this spirit was not absent - 100,000 volunteers isn't nothing. But it wasn't much either.

    To put it in perspective - the two Donbas oblasts had 6.5 million people in 2013, compared to 27 or so million ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine. So about 1/4 the population. Donbas militias have about 40,000 troops. That would be equivalent to 160,000 troops in 1917 Ukraine. Now, there are numerous caveats - Russia lavishly supplies the Donbas militias, Ukrainian ones were on their own, and there are some pro-Kiev volunteers from Donbas whereas there were virtually no pro-Russian ones among Russian Empire Russians.

    Of course, to repeat myself, there was basically zero sentiment among these people to fight for Russia. There were some Kadets from among ethnic Russians in Kiev but no pro-White military units of Ukrainians/Little Russians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Even Makhno, already losing, murdered Wrangel's emissary's rather than join forces with him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Beckow
    You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking 'industrialisation', that has happened in different countries at different times. I can find 'company towns' in US (Colorado mines...) that were brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia's industrialisation. Picking up the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.

    The 5-year old miners in England in 1840's were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the revenge I mentioned... today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?

    If your argument is that the “average” Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the “average” experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process – virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn’t great Comrade Stalin – friend of Russian people – do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: “On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?
     
    This reminds me of an amusing, but tragic, fact from the Bolivarian paradise of Venezuela.

    Lately Venezuelan oil output has been falling in part because Venezuelan roughnecks and roustabouts are now too hungry to work hard.
    , @melanf

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).
     
    Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

    “A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)
    , @Beckow

    If your argument is that the “average” Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the “average” experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain...
     
    You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among 'educated' in the West. No, my argument is that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930's, is often a painful, violent, unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China's today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours, jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where 5-year olds were dropped to 'mine for coal'.

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930's) in Russia, exaggerate or quote 'some people say that maybe a 1 million died..' and compare it to heavily 'explained' case in Britain or US, with allusions to 'malaria', etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that, of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn't stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor, koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that 'Volga-canal'.

    And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools's errand...

    , @utu
    Very good point but it won't be accepted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Mr. Hack says:
    @Marcus
    So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren't powerful enough to stand on their own.

    And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren’t powerful enough to stand on their own.

    I’m not aware of any huge influx of Galicians into Central, Eastern or Southern Ukraine during the 1930′s? What are you talking about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    In terms of national aspirations, they started to desire to be part of an expanded Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    1. What's wrong with learning from the Jews? (inb4 Karlin's a hasbara neocon)? :) Well, apart from us not having any powerful ethnic lobbies. Then again, as I pointed out, this is written for Russians, not foreigners. Anglophones are just getting a chance to peek in on what is happening through these translations.

    2. I think almost by definition nationalists are most concerned about their own people.

    Just FWIW, there will not be many defenders of Stalin's deportations, ethnic operations, and so forth. One of the leading luminaries of 20th century Russian nationalism, Ivan Ilyin, does that repeatedly. But that topic has been covered exhaustively, most of all by their intelligentsias, while applying the same sort of analytical framework to Russians is rare and indeed even, to an extent, politically incorrect in the West.

    3. And I still don’t get how Kholmogorov intends to reconcile his extremely ethnocentric positions with all his talk about Christian civilization, spiritual values etc.

    Kholmogorov has answered that succinctly:

    Once again, friends.

    I have always been, I am and will be a Russian Orthodox nationalist monarchist.

    For me, Holy Russia has always been and will be more valuable than the Petrine Empire, and the Russian Empire, historical Russia, is infinitely more valuable than the Soviet Union.

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics - the vital interests of the Russian people.

    I am ready to respect the USSR to the extent that it does not contradict the Russian Empire, and I respect the Empire to the extent that it does not contradict, but continues Holy Russia.

    I am ready to respect other spiritual realities to the extent that they are not hostile to Orthodox Christianity and are willing to respect other political and ideological programs to the extent that their implementation is not at the expense of the vital interests of the Russian people.

    If you were expecting from me some other position, then you were mistaken in understanding my point of view, and not my position has changed. My position changes only with regard to the assessment of the position of certain concrete facts and figures in the system of coordinates indicated above.
     

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics – the vital interests of the Russian people.

    It looks to me that his underlying spiritual values have fallen upon deaf ears (you). Your total infatuation with transhumanism clashes directly with one of his most important core values, making you somewhat of an anomaly within your chosen profession of a ‘Russian nationalist’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    http://akarlin.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/starkes-herz.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Mr. Hack

    For me in the realm of the spirit, the first place is occupied by Orthodox Christianity in the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, and in the sphere of politics – the vital interests of the Russian people.
     
    It looks to me that his underlying spiritual values have fallen upon deaf ears (you). Your total infatuation with transhumanism clashes directly with one of his most important core values, making you somewhat of an anomaly within your chosen profession of a 'Russian nationalist'.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Sounds like Russia's version of Nazism. So, you've reincarnated into a skinhead now? Tattoos, high boots and all...why not cash in and be the first to market real, historical blackshirts too? The height of fashion (in some circles). :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Anatoly Karlin
    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won't speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It's really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don't have to like it. We don't overly care.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Bethmann-Hollweg put forth Germany’s demands with the Septemberprogramm.

    They were:

    France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.

    France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans’ funds and to pay off all of Germany’s existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.

    France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.

    Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a “vassal state”, which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.

    Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.

    Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty “for all time”.

    Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.

    The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain’s “intolerable hegemony” in world affairs was to end.

    The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.

    Sounds a lot like the European Union.

    Noteworthy that the German reparations’ demand is about thirteen times smaller than Versailles imposed on the Germans (granted, the war was only a month old at the time). Land over money apparently.

    Not listed here, but the Germans also intended to continue their Drang nach Osten by settling veterans in the east. Nothing like Generalplan Ost of course.

    After the collapse of Russia, Germany started realizing some of these aims by setting up a network of puppet states in Eastern Europe ruled by German princes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    http://akarlin.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/starkes-herz.jpg

    Sounds like Russia’s version of Nazism. So, you’ve reincarnated into a skinhead now? Tattoos, high boots and all…why not cash in and be the first to market real, historical blackshirts too? The height of fashion (in some circles). :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process - virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin - friend of Russian people - do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    This reminds me of an amusing, but tragic, fact from the Bolivarian paradise of Venezuela.

    Lately Venezuelan oil output has been falling in part because Venezuelan roughnecks and roustabouts are now too hungry to work hard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. melanf says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process - virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin - friend of Russian people - do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).

    Well, a million is just nonsense. It’s possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

    “A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very 'ethical labour' inside the UK itself.

    Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

    Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

    After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power
    ...

    Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

    The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

     

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
     
    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

    Not sure that is the comparison I would be making to defend Stalinism.
    , @songbird

    A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
     
    I'm skeptical of any attempt to blame England for Indian famine. India was Malthusian society located thousands of miles away from England. The claims that there was never any famine there until the British came are obvious BS. It is estimated that over 14 million people died of famine in China from 1840–1911 and 2 million in floods.

    Indians seem to want to play up the famine-angle to continue their invasion into white countries, but the idea that they were somehow genocided by Europeans is laughable. Counting Pakistan and Bangladesh, there will be over 2.2 billion subcons in the subcontinent by 2050. That is greater than the estimates of sub-Saharan Africans by 2050. Indeed, right now about 1 in 5 in the world are subcons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Hack

    And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren’t powerful enough to stand on their own.
     
    I'm not aware of any huge influx of Galicians into Central, Eastern or Southern Ukraine during the 1930's? What are you talking about?

    In terms of national aspirations, they started to desire to be part of an expanded Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus.
     
    It wild nonsense . Of course it is interesting to look at photos of madmen with Stalin's icon , but madmen are not the norm.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/blessed4.jpg

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/na-korable-polden.jpg
    , @Thorfinnsson
    There's no shortage of Russian heroes to choose from.

    Seems like the state and its propaganda apparatus could simply emphasize other Russian heroes.

    Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect. People don't respond well to having their idols destroyed, even if the idol is false.

    And isn't this what Putin is doing anyway?
    , @Mikhail

    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.
     
    Russians and Ukrainians have better alternatives than Stalin and Bandera to look to with pride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Dmitry says:
    @melanf

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).
     
    Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

    “A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

    It’s also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very ‘ethical labour’ inside the UK itself.

    Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

    Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain’s Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

    After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford’s Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world’s understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation’s economic and imperial power

    Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

    The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    That's interesting, thanks. Haven't had time to read it yet but here is an article by the author cited above (Jane Humphries), from the Economic History Review, on the same subject, based on her book

    http://pseweb.eu/ydepot/semin/texte1112/JAN2012CHI.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @melanf

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).
     
    Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

    “A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

    If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”

    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

    Not sure that is the comparison I would be making to defend Stalinism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.
     
    "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must bridge that gap in ten years. Otherwise we will be destroyed" Stalin February 4, 1931

    1931+10=1941

    The British oligarchy (which killed many more people in British Empire) has no such excuse.
    , @Beckow
    To provide context doesn't men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering. I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200 million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.

    Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago and that it was 'not their own people'. Both are partially true, but not really relevant - Masais were being killed by Britain in 1950's and Irish are kind of part of the family.

    Context matters, but I disagree with 'hero Stalin' arguments - I generally dislike heroes of all kinds. And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism...)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. melanf says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    https://i2.wp.com/defence-line.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-111.jpg
    https://politikus.ru/uploads/posts/2014-04/1398166319_bl0jn7ccaaextug.jpg

    Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus.

    It wild nonsense . Of course it is interesting to look at photos of madmen with Stalin’s icon , but madmen are not the norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    What a dumb comment. Most Russians have favorable opinions of Stalin, they are all madmen?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Felix Keverich
    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    https://i2.wp.com/defence-line.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-111.jpg
    https://politikus.ru/uploads/posts/2014-04/1398166319_bl0jn7ccaaextug.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Anatoly, did you finally give up on 'singing the body electric' and come back to your true Russian roots including the Orthodox faith? Is that you I see in the first photo leading the procession of Orthodox faithful into the promised land of photo #2? The only problem though is that the use of nuclear missiles as presented in photo #1 would result in Russia looking something like this:

    http://f1.media.brightcove.com/4/77374810001/77374810001_1318707206001_Video-of-largest-bomb-ever-dropped--the-50-MT-Tsar-nuclear-bomb.mp4?pubId=77374810001&videoId=1318659315001

    Do you think that if a 'Tsar' bomb were dropped on Kyiv, that Moscow or even St. Petersburg would be safe from the radioactivity? You wouldn't even have enough time to get on a plane and go back to California.
    , @Dmitry
    My emotional reaction to the two images.

    The first is embarrassing. Because it is based not on strong religious belief, but on lack of religious belief - they are some fake losers dressing in robes walking next to a missile complex.

    In addition, the disjunction between the technology and the priests is embarrassing. Because they probably have no interest in the basic physics that allows the technology to operate. To me it highlights over-division of labour, alienation, and lack of education in society, that has developed since the time of buildings the pyramids.

    -

    As for the second image, it is the starting point. Still nice job if you made the image yourself... But it is generic, not 'local' enough, too much within the boundaries of common imagination.

    But do they possess the Promethean imagination, spiritual inspiration and transcendent national consciousness? ...

    , @Yevardian
    You could have at least posted Ilya Repin, or a futurist with a bit more subtlety and taste, Aleksandr Blok, hell even Mayakovsky. Whenever someone asks you seriously on this question, you always dodge the question with a snark or something like this:

    https://imgur.com/gallery/d5Z4tEh

    , @DFH
    Did you ever play Empire Earth?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
     
    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

    Not sure that is the comparison I would be making to defend Stalinism.

    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

    We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must bridge that gap in ten years. Otherwise we will be destroyed” Stalin February 4, 1931

    1931+10=1941

    The British oligarchy (which killed many more people in British Empire) has no such excuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

    It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Nonsense about the British oligarchs killing millions in the British Empire. Initially the complaint was that the Indians weren't being involved in the Industrial Revolution but that local family spinners and weavers were losing out to British factory production. And by the 1930s Indian manufacturers were putting native Brits out of work. The Indian population grew enormously under British rule btw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Felix Keverich
    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    https://i2.wp.com/defence-line.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-111.jpg
    https://politikus.ru/uploads/posts/2014-04/1398166319_bl0jn7ccaaextug.jpg

    There’s no shortage of Russian heroes to choose from.

    Seems like the state and its propaganda apparatus could simply emphasize other Russian heroes.

    Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect. People don’t respond well to having their idols destroyed, even if the idol is false.

    And isn’t this what Putin is doing anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect.
     
    For this purpose it is necessary to exterminate as rats the Russian liberal intelligentsia. Until this is done - Stalin will be a hero.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. melanf says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    There's no shortage of Russian heroes to choose from.

    Seems like the state and its propaganda apparatus could simply emphasize other Russian heroes.

    Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect. People don't respond well to having their idols destroyed, even if the idol is false.

    And isn't this what Putin is doing anyway?

    Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect.

    For this purpose it is necessary to exterminate as rats the Russian liberal intelligentsia. Until this is done – Stalin will be a hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    I agree with your comment, but it may be more extreme exaggeration than outright lies.

    Without Galicia, the Ukrainian SSR would have been a more nationalistic but not much more so version of Belarus. The national idea was historically present, but not "hot", in central Ukraine. So for example, prior to Bolshevism, over 70% of Ukrainians in the Russian-owned parts of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties. It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular. But during the Revolution, only about 100,000 of these Ukrainians fought in the various not very well organized nationalist militias (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites) with another 40,000 at peak fighting for the anarchist Makhno. Most, like my central Ukrainian great-grandfather, simply stayed home after having deserted from the collapsing Russian army. In contrast, little Galicia, 1/5 of the population of Russian-ruled Ukraine, managed to mobilize 100,000 troops. Poland, of similar population to Ukraine, had about 800,000 soldiers.

    If Galicia were never annexed by Stalin, Ukraine like Belarus would have become independent anyways but Kiev would be outnumbered and the Party of Regions or something like it would easily win all elections. Such a Ukraine would still have been more non-Russian than Belarus (Kuchma was no Lukashenko) but nevertheless would have joined the Eurasian Customs Union.

    (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)

    You’re big on giving personal anecdotes. I’ve heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.

    Petliura’s support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura’s weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski’s puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I’ve heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.
     
    Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not.
    Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn't in Ukraine.

    the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.
     
    It's telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don't think they ever fought a battle for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians could get healthy.

    Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later become a commander of the Galician SS Division.
    , @Philip Owen
    I have read books saying that thousands of ethnic Russian coalminers in the Donbass volunteeredmfor the Whites (but not the steel workers or townspeople except in Gorlivka).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Beckow says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process - virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin - friend of Russian people - do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

    If your argument is that the “average” Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the “average” experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain…

    You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among ‘educated’ in the West. No, my argument is that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930′s, is often a painful, violent, unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China’s today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours, jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where 5-year olds were dropped to ‘mine for coal’.

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia, exaggerate or quote ‘some people say that maybe a 1 million died..‘ and compare it to heavily ‘explained‘ case in Britain or US, with allusions to ‘malaria’, etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that, of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn’t stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor, koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that ‘Volga-canal’.

    And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools’s errand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia
     
    1930s was typical and peak Stalinism, it was no cherry-picking or strawman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Beckow says:
    @Mr. Hack

    I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
     
    If Galicia wasn't 'viable' as a separate state, and there really wasn't another 'alternative', why was this a 'disaster'? You seem to be contradicting your own logical conclusion here?

    It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

    If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger ‘Habsburg-lite’ country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in ‘Europe’, and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian viewpoint.

    The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.
    , @Mr. Hack
    But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to themselves as the 'Piedmont of Ukraine' and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine's national revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of Ukraine - the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a temporary solution for Ukraine's larger development.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Felix Keverich
    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    https://i2.wp.com/defence-line.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-111.jpg
    https://politikus.ru/uploads/posts/2014-04/1398166319_bl0jn7ccaaextug.jpg

    Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

    Russians and Ukrainians have better alternatives than Stalin and Bandera to look to with pride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @melanf

    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.
     
    "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must bridge that gap in ten years. Otherwise we will be destroyed" Stalin February 4, 1931

    1931+10=1941

    The British oligarchy (which killed many more people in British Empire) has no such excuse.

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1849.[1] It is sometimes referred to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3] During the famine, about one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[5]

    ...

    Since the Acts of Union in January 1801, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, who were appointed by the British government. Ireland sent 105 members of parliament to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and Irish representative peers elected 28 of their own number to sit for life in the House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859, 70% of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of landowners.[8]

    ...

    Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests.[79] No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[80]

    Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food.


     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
    , @melanf

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
     
    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Beckow
    It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

    If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.

    Stalin’s heavy handedness in Galicia didn’t help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian viewpoint.

    The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Stalin’s heavy handedness in Galicia didn’t help
     
    Sure, it didn't help. Also Hitler's, Bandera's, Polish, and even Habsburg heavy handedness didn't help. Look around, most of history are stupid heavy-handed over-reaching acts...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Mr. Hack says:
    @Beckow
    It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

    If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.

    But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to themselves as the ‘Piedmont of Ukraine’ and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine’s national revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of Ukraine – the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a temporary solution for Ukraine’s larger development.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Ok, but would you agree that Ukraine has had a few contradicting tendencies? Galicians are 10-15% of Ukraine and are totally Western-oriented. Donbass is not, no matter how you spin it. And Odessa, Kiev or Kharkov are also not quite in the 'West-is-best, and there can be nothing else' camp. Thus today's difficulties in Ukraine.

    The economic integration of the eastern 2/3 of Ukraine with Russia is real and hard to change without major living standards disruption. That says that a compromise, or some degree of decentralisation are required. Galicians and their allies don't want a compromise - they want it all. It will not work. It it will cause a lot of tears and regrets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Beckow says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
     
    So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

    Not sure that is the comparison I would be making to defend Stalinism.

    To provide context doesn’t men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering. I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200 million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.

    Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago and that it was ‘not their own people’. Both are partially true, but not really relevant – Masais were being killed by Britain in 1950′s and Irish are kind of part of the family.

    Context matters, but I disagree with ‘hero Stalin’ arguments – I generally dislike heroes of all kinds. And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism…)
     
    Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions.

    The polls are often based on the public's knowledge of historical figures, their perception of who is good and current societal moods (which is why Putin is a joint second place).

    Interestingly, it appears Stalin had his own role in making Pushkin a great figure: https://www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2017/02/14/pushkin-soviet-god_701618
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

    It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

    The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1849.[1] It is sometimes referred to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3] During the famine, about one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island’s population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[5]

    Since the Acts of Union in January 1801, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, who were appointed by the British government. Ireland sent 105 members of parliament to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and Irish representative peers elected 28 of their own number to sit for life in the House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859, 70% of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of landowners.[8]

    Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests.[79] No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[80]

    Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting if you are making a comparison between the laissez-faire policies which allowed food to be exported from Ireland in the 1840s and Stalin's starving of Soviet citizens by forcing them to export increasing quantities of grain from 1929 to 1932.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Beckow says:
    @Mikhail
    Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian viewpoint.

    The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.

    Stalin’s heavy handedness in Galicia didn’t help

    Sure, it didn’t help. Also Hitler’s, Bandera’s, Polish, and even Habsburg heavy handedness didn’t help. Look around, most of history are stupid heavy-handed over-reaching acts…

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. songbird says:
    @melanf

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).
     
    Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

    “A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII — начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

    A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. — 26 million.”

    I’m skeptical of any attempt to blame England for Indian famine. India was Malthusian society located thousands of miles away from England. The claims that there was never any famine there until the British came are obvious BS. It is estimated that over 14 million people died of famine in China from 1840–1911 and 2 million in floods.

    Indians seem to want to play up the famine-angle to continue their invasion into white countries, but the idea that they were somehow genocided by Europeans is laughable. Counting Pakistan and Bangladesh, there will be over 2.2 billion subcons in the subcontinent by 2050. That is greater than the estimates of sub-Saharan Africans by 2050. Indeed, right now about 1 in 5 in the world are subcons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Beckow says:
    @Mr. Hack
    But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to themselves as the 'Piedmont of Ukraine' and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine's national revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of Ukraine - the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a temporary solution for Ukraine's larger development.

    Ok, but would you agree that Ukraine has had a few contradicting tendencies? Galicians are 10-15% of Ukraine and are totally Western-oriented. Donbass is not, no matter how you spin it. And Odessa, Kiev or Kharkov are also not quite in the ‘West-is-best, and there can be nothing else‘ camp. Thus today’s difficulties in Ukraine.

    The economic integration of the eastern 2/3 of Ukraine with Russia is real and hard to change without major living standards disruption. That says that a compromise, or some degree of decentralisation are required. Galicians and their allies don’t want a compromise – they want it all. It will not work. It it will cause a lot of tears and regrets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

    It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
    , @Dmitry

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

     

    England and Ireland were the same country (under the union - the United Kingdom), ruled from London - until 1922. (Part of Ireland - Northern Ireland - is still with the United Kingdom).

    So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom, under the rule of London.

    , @Dmitry

    Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines.

     

    At 2:10 in the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRp8vUesbbE
    , @Hyperborean

    British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
     
    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?
    , @Philip Owen
    And yet British workers enjoyed the highest living standards for the poor in the history of the world. The abolitionists told many lies and exaggerations to end slavery. The same people then went on to campaign, from the top down, to regulate the presence of women and children in predominately male working environments. The records they left are not always accurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Marcus says:
    @melanf

    Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus.
     
    It wild nonsense . Of course it is interesting to look at photos of madmen with Stalin's icon , but madmen are not the norm.

    What a dumb comment. Most Russians have favorable opinions of Stalin, they are all madmen?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @melanf

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
     
    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
     
    Oh really?

    "Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)......In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children... Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
    Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery...it disappeared...for economic reasons, not for racial ones
    ."

    Fernand Braudel.— Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

    There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I don't have time):
    «Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми «прикованного палачом к задку телеги». Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли…В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов)… идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что «ежели бы рабство…применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды». И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть…И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло… Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста…Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство…Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих «подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они…лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером»
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Cyrano says:

    If my grandma had different genitalia, I would have called her a grandpa. I would have also grown up a very confused kid: Why do I of all kids have a transgendered grandma and is this a sign of the things to come?

    Anyhow, my favorite theory about history is this: The most optimal history, with the best case scenario circumstances is the one that already happened. There is only one history and we can’t improve on it based on our superior knowledge now.

    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

    If the political system in Russia in WW2 was “democracy” – that might have lulled them into believing that when the going got tough, a “deal” could have been made with the Nazis (even Stalin tried to sue for peace with Hitler), or the west or whomever they might have ended up fighting in the revised version of history of WW2. By not having those delusional options that they – the Russians as a democracy can make a deal with the west which will save them – they might have avoided committing a national suicide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.
     
    Read Mein Kampf. The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

    The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

    Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

    Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact been German!

    Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Dmitry says:
    @melanf

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
     
    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    England and Ireland were the same country (under the union – the United Kingdom), ruled from London – until 1922. (Part of Ireland – Northern Ireland – is still with the United Kingdom).

    So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom, under the rule of London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Ireland's population (North & South) is substantially (25%) lower than it was in 1840 -- I'm not aware of any other country in the world where this is the case. In 1840, the Irish population was a bit more than half that of England & Wales (today slightly more than 10%).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Well, it's encouraging to see that you got Karlin to agree with an important point, that most Russian nationalists hold near and dear to their hearts:

    It is a myth that the Bolsheviks created Ukrainian idea or made it popular.

     

    Also, I don't think that emphasizing that 70% of Ukrainians voting for Ukrainian parties prior to the Bolsheviks intrusions into Ukraine is reflective of a population where the Ukrainian national ideal wasn't 'hot'. Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular. Mind you, this was an era of few if any Ukrainian language periodicals, no Ukrainian TV, radio, journals etc; etc;

    Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular.

    In central Ukraine the Ukrainian idea was popular. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for Ukrainian parties, and they clearly had a Ukrainian self-identity. But unlike Galicians, or Poles, or Finns, they were less likely to fight and die for their national idea in 1917-1920. To be sure, this spirit was not absent – 100,000 volunteers isn’t nothing. But it wasn’t much either.

    To put it in perspective – the two Donbas oblasts had 6.5 million people in 2013, compared to 27 or so million ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine. So about 1/4 the population. Donbas militias have about 40,000 troops. That would be equivalent to 160,000 troops in 1917 Ukraine. Now, there are numerous caveats – Russia lavishly supplies the Donbas militias, Ukrainian ones were on their own, and there are some pro-Kiev volunteers from Donbas whereas there were virtually no pro-Russian ones among Russian Empire Russians.

    Of course, to repeat myself, there was basically zero sentiment among these people to fight for Russia. There were some Kadets from among ethnic Russians in Kiev but no pro-White military units of Ukrainians/Little Russians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Even Makhno, already losing, murdered Wrangel’s emissary’s rather than join forces with him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Dmitry says:
    @melanf

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
     
    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines.

    At 2:10 in the video:

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks for posting the video.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. AP says:
    @Mikhail

    (there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)
     
    You're big on giving personal anecdotes. I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.

    Petliura's support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura's weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

    I’ve heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.

    Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not.
    Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn’t in Ukraine.

    the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

    It’s telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don’t think they ever fought a battle for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians could get healthy.

    Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later become a commander of the Galician SS Division.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) - which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.

    That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR - including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

    The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

    Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an All-Russian Federation, inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

    Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces - which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

    On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Out of curiosity–had Ukraine been smaller (no Galicia, Volhynia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina–for instance, had Hitler never become to power in Germany and there would have thus been no German-Soviet partition of Poland), and had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?

    Also, as a side note, it’s interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don’t appear to have done very well in “Novorossiya” in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya. In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can’t see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia) and would have thus had to rely on Russia, Poland, or Romania for sea access.

    Finally, off-topic, but as a side question–why exactly were Ukrainians outside of Galicia unwilling to fight en masse for the Ukrainian national cause in 1917-1920?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?
     
    Closer than NAFTA and closer than the EU, but not total annexation. Like if the EU consisted only of similar countries on the same page politically-economically, like the Scandinavian ones. Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan would be like this. The others would be more alien but are smaller and would basically serve as a source for migrants.

    Also, as a side note, it’s interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don’t appear to have done very well in “Novorossiya” in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya.
     
    The results for the Ukrainian Guberniyas in terms of votes for Ukrainian nationalist parties was:

    Kiev: 77%
    Volynia: 70% (this was because lots of Poles lived here)
    Chernihiv: 60%
    Poltava: 60%
    Katerynoslav (Dnipropetrovsk): 52%
    Tavria: 33%

    About of Tavria was Crimea, the other half was southern Ukrainian areas north of Crimea. Assuming few Ukrainian votes in Crimea, about 55% of Ukrainian part of Tavria voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties.

    So a Ukrainian majority in the territory of modern Ukraine, down to the Azov sea.

    In Kherson (Odessa) and Kharkiv guberniyas, the Ukrainian SRs combined with the Russian SRs; they were given 25% and 12% of the slots respectively but it's hard to guess what % of votes they would have received had they appeared on the ballot. Kharkiv guberniya included a lot of territory that is now part of Russia. Kherson guberniya included Russian-populated Odessa which at the time was Ukraine's largest city. It is likely that the northern parts of that guberniya voted like Yekaterynoslav (that is, 52% Ukrainian nationalist).

    In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can’t see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia)

     

    Bessarabia guberniya is Moldova and the northern part of Tauridia voted pro-Ukrainian. This would just leave Kherson guberniya - specifically, the area around the city of Odessa (and Crimea) cut off from the rest of Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Cyrano
    If my grandma had different genitalia, I would have called her a grandpa. I would have also grown up a very confused kid: Why do I of all kids have a transgendered grandma and is this a sign of the things to come?

    Anyhow, my favorite theory about history is this: The most optimal history, with the best case scenario circumstances is the one that already happened. There is only one history and we can’t improve on it based on our superior knowledge now.

    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

    If the political system in Russia in WW2 was “democracy” - that might have lulled them into believing that when the going got tough, a “deal” could have been made with the Nazis (even Stalin tried to sue for peace with Hitler), or the west or whomever they might have ended up fighting in the revised version of history of WW2. By not having those delusional options that they – the Russians as a democracy can make a deal with the west which will save them - they might have avoided committing a national suicide.

    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

    Read Mein Kampf. The H-man didn’t use communism as an “excuse”. He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

    The idea that the West is “naturally” hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The “wise men” who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

    Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

    Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon’s Grand Army had in fact been German!

    Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia’s greatest ally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    The idea that the West is “naturally” hostile to Russia is completely bogus
     
    Let's drop the 'naturally' qualifier, since we wouldn't agree on how to define it. That leaves a question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable - and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German, Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.

    West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia 'would change its ways'. Interesting, by that standard we could all be friends. I always tell people 'if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me 100%, I will be your best friend'. To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.

    The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some strange reason always personalised as 'Putin'). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd - Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let's call spade a spade: West doesn't like Russia as it is.

    How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler's coalition...

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

    , @AP
    FYI, Cyrano is a dumb Balkan who usually gloats about German women being raped by Soviet soldiers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/blessed4.jpg

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/na-korable-polden.jpg

    Anatoly, did you finally give up on ‘singing the body electric’ and come back to your true Russian roots including the Orthodox faith? Is that you I see in the first photo leading the procession of Orthodox faithful into the promised land of photo #2? The only problem though is that the use of nuclear missiles as presented in photo #1 would result in Russia looking something like this:

    http://f1.media.brightcove.com/4/77374810001/77374810001_1318707206001_Video-of-largest-bomb-ever-dropped–the-50-MT-Tsar-nuclear-bomb.mp4?pubId=77374810001&videoId=1318659315001

    Do you think that if a ‘Tsar’ bomb were dropped on Kyiv, that Moscow or even St. Petersburg would be safe from the radioactivity? You wouldn’t even have enough time to get on a plane and go back to California.

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

    I’ve heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.
     
    Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not.
    Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn't in Ukraine.

    the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.
     
    It's telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don't think they ever fought a battle for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians could get healthy.

    Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later become a commander of the Galician SS Division.

    Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) – which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what’s now known as Ukraine.

    That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR – including individuals who’d qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person’s family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what’s considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

    The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn’t include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it’s within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren’t so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

    Meantime, it’s clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky’s edict for an All-Russian Federation, inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

    Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky’s forces – which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

    On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura’s forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Arguably? He and Nikiforova were strongly antinationalist, like good anarchists
    , @AP
    I asked a specific question:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/blessed4.jpg

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/na-korable-polden.jpg

    My emotional reaction to the two images.

    The first is embarrassing. Because it is based not on strong religious belief, but on lack of religious belief – they are some fake losers dressing in robes walking next to a missile complex.

    In addition, the disjunction between the technology and the priests is embarrassing. Because they probably have no interest in the basic physics that allows the technology to operate. To me it highlights over-division of labour, alienation, and lack of education in society, that has developed since the time of buildings the pyramids.

    -

    As for the second image, it is the starting point. Still nice job if you made the image yourself… But it is generic, not ‘local’ enough, too much within the boundaries of common imagination.

    But do they possess the Promethean imagination, spiritual inspiration and transcendent national consciousness? …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Although perhaps already some, at least among the highest educated members of our generation, can already catch briefly glimpses in vague daydreams of ancestral visions the past and future greatness of their people...

    https://i.imgur.com/59vhV1z.jpg

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    First off, we're talking about a replacement religion for the bozos who march around with Stalin icons.

    But I'll defend them anyway.

    First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a6/d3/c9a6d325d453234bded21bcb61893635.jpg

    This is also in line with Kholmogorov's vision of Atomic Orthodoxy, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!

    Second image is the book cover to a sci-fi novel by Alexander Zorich, which is a collective pen-name for a male and female writer from Kharkov. Their series takes place in the 27th century where Russia and Ukraine are united, and constitute a space empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    My emotional reaction to the two images.

    The first is embarrassing. Because it is based not on strong religious belief, but on lack of religious belief - they are some fake losers dressing in robes walking next to a missile complex.

    In addition, the disjunction between the technology and the priests is embarrassing. Because they probably have no interest in the basic physics that allows the technology to operate. To me it highlights over-division of labour, alienation, and lack of education in society, that has developed since the time of buildings the pyramids.

    -

    As for the second image, it is the starting point. Still nice job if you made the image yourself... But it is generic, not 'local' enough, too much within the boundaries of common imagination.

    But do they possess the Promethean imagination, spiritual inspiration and transcendent national consciousness? ...

    Although perhaps already some, at least among the highest educated members of our generation, can already catch briefly glimpses in vague daydreams of ancestral visions the past and future greatness of their people…

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


    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.
     
    Read Mein Kampf. The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

    The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

    Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

    Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact been German!

    Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.

    The idea that the West is “naturally” hostile to Russia is completely bogus

    Let’s drop the ‘naturally’ qualifier, since we wouldn’t agree on how to define it. That leaves a question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable – and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German, Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.

    West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia ‘would change its ways‘. Interesting, by that standard we could all be friends. I always tell people ‘if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me 100%, I will be your best friend’. To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.

    The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some strange reason always personalised as ‘Putin’). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd – Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let’s call spade a spade: West doesn’t like Russia as it is.

    How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler’s coalition…

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.
     
    There has never been a 'European Christian civilization'. Western Europe has always been Gnostic, with a small but sharp underdog Christian current among the elites.

    Today, of course, Europe is 100% Gnostic from top to bottom. It's historically inevitable and just the natural state of your society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again.

    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed? Fuck you!
    With people who think like this Russia will always be a blight on herself and on her neighbours.

    Read More
    • Agree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Fascinating phenomenon.

    Bordering on the autistic.

    I find present western politics against Russia immoral and wrong, but I start to understand why Eastern Europeans have such a strong dislike towards them.
    , @Pavlo
    Your dirt poor countries joined up with Hitler. Your fag troops died like cowards. All of you deserved all of your suffering and more besides. More of you should have been killed.

    The 'victims of communism' had it coming and it is a pleasure to piss on your ancestors' graves.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed?
     
    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

    The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR.

    Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.

    Consequently, Kholmogorov is perfectly correct.

    So your real objection is "tone" or similar crap. This makes you the East European edition of an SJW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Beckow
    I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:

    Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after WWII was untenable - most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia reaches out quite far eastward.

    Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be reshuffled, but went against 'let's keep divided Germany as small as possible' attitude at Potsdam.

    The option of having an independent Silesia, with 'Silesian' ethnicity (it does exist), was economically not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.

    So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.

    Herr Rudel was the “Stuka Pilot,” the most highly decorated WW II German.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TP
    correct!

    Also a native Silesian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Marcus says:
    @Mikhail
    Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) - which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.

    That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR - including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

    The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

    Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an All-Russian Federation, inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

    Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces - which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

    On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.

    Arguably? He and Nikiforova were strongly antinationalist, like good anarchists

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Maybe no-one here knows or cares, but I would be interested to know about the impact of the war with Germany on Marxist-Leninist ideology in Russia. It seems like the original Marxist conception was that the workers’ revolution would just happen and spread until it was universal. Then fascism was supposed to be a last-ditch defense of the system by the capitalists. So after an enormous war in which fascism was actually defeated – did they think that now the tide had turned? And with the disintegration of the European maritime empires, and with many of the newly independent countries turning towards socialism, an optimistic attitude (towards the eventual global victory of socialism) must have been possible for many decades… Maybe I should read something by Suslov, I’ve heard that he was the ideological chief in the Brezhnev era.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) - which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.

    That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR - including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

    The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

    Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an All-Russian Federation, inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

    Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces - which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

    On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.

    I asked a specific question:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn’t count.

    Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Check and checkmate.
    , @Mikhail
    Your personal anecdotes haven't been shown to be more legit than the ones I've provided.

    Militarily, Petliura's forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.

    You fail to grasp the fact that people on what became Ukrainian territory fought on the White side. Such folks were typically never with Petliura - which is understandable given how many never supported him.

    There's some difference on the actual number of Petliura's forces. Lehovich notes that just prior to Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.
     
    Well, I pulled out my old calculator and ran some numbers for comparison, and surprisingly this is what I found out. For comparison, I took the military and population figures of the US in 2017, the most powerful military system in the world today, and also the same figures that you've provided for Ukraine during the revolutionary war period, roughly 1919. The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you're up to .48%. What if you added in the strength size of the WUR?

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn't even have a state of their own at that time! Looking back, I think that we can be proud of the presence of Ukrainians that volunteered for service during a hectic war period! What do you think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can’t improve some parts of the equations that you don’t like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

    Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It’s called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.
     
    Read Mein Kampf. The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

    The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

    Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

    Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact been German!

    Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.

    FYI, Cyrano is a dumb Balkan who usually gloats about German women being raped by Soviet soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    And FYI, AP is an Ukrainian scum, whose women didn't even have to be raped by the Germans. They volunteered their services.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. AP says:
    @Marcus
    Arguably? He and Nikiforova were strongly antinationalist, like good anarchists

    Makhno’s wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin’s defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel’s envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Makhno fought against Petliura's forces. In exile, he associated with Russian anarchists.
    , @Marcus
    I agree the Makhnovists fought mainly against the Whites, who were the biggest threat for them, but neutrality and occassional collaboration with the Petliurists was purely tactical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Cyrano says:
    @AP
    FYI, Cyrano is a dumb Balkan who usually gloats about German women being raped by Soviet soldiers.

    And FYI, AP is an Ukrainian scum, whose women didn’t even have to be raped by the Germans. They volunteered their services.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Very rude.

    The hot to trot Ukrainian women on the web charge for their services.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. iffen says:

    What’s a Galician?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    People from the western-most part of the Ukraine, often noted for having a very strong Ukrainian national consciousness.
    , @anonymous coward

    What’s a Galician?
     
    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout history. They're distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin in 1939.

    They're the political and cultural driver behind a 'Western' orientation for Ukraine. Which is not surprising: they're just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.

    Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible today, so Poland as a 'plan B' is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. iffen says:
    @Cyrano
    And FYI, AP is an Ukrainian scum, whose women didn't even have to be raped by the Germans. They volunteered their services.

    Very rude.

    The hot to trot Ukrainian women on the web charge for their services.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. iffen says:
    @AP
    I asked a specific question:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

    Check and checkmate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Bullshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Beckow
    To provide context doesn't men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering. I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200 million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.

    Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago and that it was 'not their own people'. Both are partially true, but not really relevant - Masais were being killed by Britain in 1950's and Irish are kind of part of the family.

    Context matters, but I disagree with 'hero Stalin' arguments - I generally dislike heroes of all kinds. And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism...)

    (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism…)

    Levada doesn’t explicitly say ‘heroes’, just ‘great personalities’, so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions.

    The polls are often based on the public’s knowledge of historical figures, their perception of who is good and current societal moods (which is why Putin is a joint second place).

    Interestingly, it appears Stalin had his own role in making Pushkin a great figure: https://www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2017/02/14/pushkin-soviet-god_701618

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Levada doesn’t explicitly say ‘heroes’, just ‘great personalities’, so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions
     
    That clarifies it. But if you ask people about 'greatness', their answers are based on notoriety for some, admiration for others, sympathy, etc...

    I recently saw Pushkin on a list of African contributors to civilisation due to his partial Abyssinian ancestry. His story has always puzzled me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.

    Oh really?

    Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)……In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children… Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
    Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery…it disappeared…for economic reasons, not for racial ones
    .”

    Fernand Braudel.— Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

    There are many similar examples in this book. Here’s another (not going to translate into English, as I don’t have time):
    «Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми «прикованного палачом к задку телеги». Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли…В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов)… идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что «ежели бы рабство…применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды». И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть…И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло… Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста…Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство…Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих «подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они…лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером»

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    And there are more radical statements


    https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1417983427i/2455819._UY400_SS400_.jpg

    White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
    Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
    This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
    .
     
    However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle ("free" British) for the settlement of the Crimea - true. And this is the end of the 18th century.
    , @AP

    John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
     
    LOL, so in your world Georgia was originally a white slave colony.

    Let me guess - Australians are mostly descended from white slaves too?
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Standard in the 18th century:

    * Indentured servants - People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

    * Press-ganging into the Royal Navy - Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

    All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.
    , @Philip Owen
    Calling indentured labourers and transported conbicts "slaves" is an inaccuracy. They were not property without rights. Their service ended, typically after 7 years depending on the crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @melanf

    Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
    Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
    It would only be comparable if the “British oligarchy” had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
     
    This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
    Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

    British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.

    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Only ex negativo

    https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/the-racist-myth-within-a-racist-myth-8eac2c890e92
    , @melanf

    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?
     
    In articles devoted to the white slaves (Irish) is a decree of the British crown, which prohibits forced interbreeding Irish women slaves with black slaves. But maybe this decree is a fake created by Irish nationalists
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @AP

    Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.
     
    Although this was the plan, who knows how things would have turned out. The USSR, after all, was not forever a Stalinist nightmare. We can reasonably assume short-term results (completed mass murder of Jewish people, several million more dead Slavs) but not the long-term one.

    Surviving is not an ‘epic failure‘, it is better that the alternative
     
    .

    Something could be both an epic failure and better than the alternative.

    Allowing a small nation with 40% of your population to kill tens of millions of your people and nearly topple your regime is an epic failure, yet better than the alternative of losing.

    You couldn’t reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
     
    Not much more nor less viable than Balts, Finns, Slovaks or other historically stateless people.

    If no state, a western Ukraine separated from the rest of Ukraine could have been added to the already bizarrely shaped Czechoslovakia.

    Allowing a small nation with 40% of your population to kill tens of millions of your people and nearly topple your regime is an epic failure, yet better than the alternative of losing.

    Come again?

    It seems as if the (uncontested) crimes of the Nazis are becoming worse with every passing decade.

    The fact that the red army lost significantly more soldiers than the Wehrmacht in in any single battle, victorious or not, even in the very last days of the war, when the Wehrmacht was completely outmaneuvered and outgunned cannot solely be blamed at the murderous spirit of the Wehrmacht.

    Brusilov’s tactics led to the revolution of 1917, the Stalinist miracle seems to me that the same tactics did not destroy Russia’s coherence the second time around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Germans in the Great War were more civilized than Germans under Nazis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. melanf says:
    @melanf

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
     
    Oh really?

    "Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)......In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children... Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
    Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery...it disappeared...for economic reasons, not for racial ones
    ."

    Fernand Braudel.— Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

    There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I don't have time):
    «Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми «прикованного палачом к задку телеги». Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли…В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов)… идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что «ежели бы рабство…применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды». И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть…И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло… Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста…Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство…Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих «подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они…лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером»

    And there are more radical statements

    White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
    Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
    This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
    .

    However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle (“free” British) for the settlement of the Crimea – true. And this is the end of the 18th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.
    , @utu
    I glanced at some reviews and they were OK. Obviously Blacks did not like the book and some Irish complained that Irish slaves are called British in the book. Also somebody complains that Whites want to become Israelites like Jews in Egypt. Anyway, I would like to read his book.


    Also this book was praised for research

    They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America. by Michale Hoffman
     
    even though the author is a well known racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP: Out of curiosity--had Ukraine been smaller (no Galicia, Volhynia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina--for instance, had Hitler never become to power in Germany and there would have thus been no German-Soviet partition of Poland), and had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?

    Also, as a side note, it's interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don't appear to have done very well in "Novorossiya" in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya. In turn, this makes me wonder--had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can't see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia) and would have thus had to rely on Russia, Poland, or Romania for sea access.

    Finally, off-topic, but as a side question--why exactly were Ukrainians outside of Galicia unwilling to fight en masse for the Ukrainian national cause in 1917-1920?

    Had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?

    Closer than NAFTA and closer than the EU, but not total annexation. Like if the EU consisted only of similar countries on the same page politically-economically, like the Scandinavian ones. Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan would be like this. The others would be more alien but are smaller and would basically serve as a source for migrants.

    Also, as a side note, it’s interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don’t appear to have done very well in “Novorossiya” in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya.

    The results for the Ukrainian Guberniyas in terms of votes for Ukrainian nationalist parties was:

    Kiev: 77%
    Volynia: 70% (this was because lots of Poles lived here)
    Chernihiv: 60%
    Poltava: 60%
    Katerynoslav (Dnipropetrovsk): 52%
    Tavria: 33%

    About of Tavria was Crimea, the other half was southern Ukrainian areas north of Crimea. Assuming few Ukrainian votes in Crimea, about 55% of Ukrainian part of Tavria voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties.

    So a Ukrainian majority in the territory of modern Ukraine, down to the Azov sea.

    In Kherson (Odessa) and Kharkiv guberniyas, the Ukrainian SRs combined with the Russian SRs; they were given 25% and 12% of the slots respectively but it’s hard to guess what % of votes they would have received had they appeared on the ballot. Kharkiv guberniya included a lot of territory that is now part of Russia. Kherson guberniya included Russian-populated Odessa which at the time was Ukraine’s largest city. It is likely that the northern parts of that guberniya voted like Yekaterynoslav (that is, 52% Ukrainian nationalist).

    In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can’t see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia)

    Bessarabia guberniya is Moldova and the northern part of Tauridia voted pro-Ukrainian. This would just leave Kherson guberniya – specifically, the area around the city of Odessa (and Crimea) cut off from the rest of Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Very interesting!

    That said, though, would Moldova have actually wanted to secede from Russia in this scenario? After all, its lower average IQ and lack of natural resources suggests that it might benefit from continued Russian rule (assuming that its population wouldn't be oppressed, that is).

    Also, what's interesting is that an independence vote in northern Kherson Guberniya, northern Taurida Guerbiya, and Yekaterinoslav Guberniya might have very well been extremely close in 1917 (assuming that very few of the people who voted against Ukrainian parties would have voted for Ukrainian independence in 1917). Indeed, a lot might have depended on turnout. Of course, a split decision would have been possible.

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

    British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
     
    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. AP says:
    @melanf
    And there are more radical statements


    https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1417983427i/2455819._UY400_SS400_.jpg

    White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
    Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
    This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
    .
     
    However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle ("free" British) for the settlement of the Crimea - true. And this is the end of the 18th century.

    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Fernand Braudel is not a bad/unreliable source - an academic historian from France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernand_Braudel
    , @Dmitry
    The British government sent British children as slaves (for "hard labour") in their empire into the 1960s.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

    https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow=1&ei=UXAbW9WGLMLMwAKPqavIBQ&q=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&oq=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...19052.32821.0.33000.60.55.4.0.0.0.328.7411.0j34j8j2.44.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..13.17.2257...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1j0i13i30k1.0.XAL40lUpC78

    , @for-the-record
    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

    I'm afraid in this case your sense of nonsense is misplaced. I read the book a couple of years ago, and while it had its flaws I found it pretty convincing.

    The fact that "actual historians" don't like it says nothing, since it is obviously an anti-PC book that could not possibly be embraced by the guardians of our past. However, before the "conventional wisdom" had coalesced to relegate it to the rubbish bin, an early review in the New York Times was far more favorable:

    “White Cargo” is meticulously sourced and footnoted — which is wise, given its contentious material — but it is never dry or academic. Quotations from 17th- and 18th-century letters, diaries and newspapers lend authenticity as well as color. Excerpts from wills, stating how white servants should be passed down along with livestock and furniture, say more than any textbook explanation could. The authors are not only historians, but also natural storytellers with a fine sense of drama and character.

    Despite the heaviness of the subject matter, their playful way with words and love of literary allusion come through. There are kidnapping victims of the kind written about in Daniel Defoe’s “Colonel Jack,” and a tumultuous ocean voyage that may have inspired Shakespeare’s writing of “The Tempest.”

    What little discussion there is about this forgotten bit of American history is sometimes linked to those with ulterior political motives, usually interested in delegitimizing current-day discourse about race or the teaching of black history. “White Cargo,” which was first published in Britain last year, has a refreshing sense of distance and neutrality. The authors take care to quote African-American sources and clearly state that they have no wish to play down the horrors of the much larger black slave trade that followed.

    If anything, Jordan and Walsh offer an explanation of how the structures of slavery — black or white — were entwined in the roots of American society. They refrain from drawing links to today, except to remind readers that there are probably tens of millions of Americans who are descended from white slaves without even knowing it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html
     
    By the way, one of the authors that you so belittle last year published a very well-received book entitled The King's City: London under Charles II: A city that transformed a nation – and created modern Britain -- the third volume in his trilogy about Charles II (the first two written jointly in collaboration with the second author of White Cargo).
    , @David In TN
    "Actual historians were not impressed."

    To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies; They wouldn't be would they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. AP says:
    @melanf

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
     
    Oh really?

    "Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)......In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children... Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
    Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery...it disappeared...for economic reasons, not for racial ones
    ."

    Fernand Braudel.— Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

    There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I don't have time):
    «Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми «прикованного палачом к задку телеги». Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли…В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов)… идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что «ежели бы рабство…применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды». И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть…И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло… Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста…Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство…Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих «подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они…лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером»

    John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt

    LOL, so in your world Georgia was originally a white slave colony.

    Let me guess – Australians are mostly descended from white slaves too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed, as the descendant of convicts sent to Australia in 1796, 1798 and 1820 [this one pardoned but he stayed on] I find it hard to believe that those previously sent to North America to serve sentences or as indentured labour can sensibly be called slaves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. melanf says:
    @Hyperborean

    British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
     
    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?

    Did this really happen? Do you have some source?

    In articles devoted to the white slaves (Irish) is a decree of the British crown, which prohibits forced interbreeding Irish women slaves with black slaves. But maybe this decree is a fake created by Irish nationalists

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Pseudonymic Handle

    As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again.
     
    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed? Fuck you!
    With people who think like this Russia will always be a blight on herself and on her neighbours.

    Fascinating phenomenon.

    Bordering on the autistic.

    I find present western politics against Russia immoral and wrong, but I start to understand why Eastern Europeans have such a strong dislike towards them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Mikhail says: • Website
    @iffen
    Check and checkmate.

    Bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Yevardian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    How is it obtuse and autistic?

    It is perfectly understandable and normal to seek to benefit from wars, most especially ones that are forced on you and that you end up winning anyway.

    Romania used WW1 to win back two of the lost three provinces of Greater Romania (one of which was only half Romanian). Reasonable success.

    Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

    Stalin used WW2 to win a fraction of what the Russian Empire would have won had it won in WW1, and reinforced the foundations for its eventual complete collapse. Epic failure.

    ***

    Anyhow, I won't speak for Kholmogorov. Personally I have no issues with his assessment. It's really a take it or leave sort of thing.

    What it is, is genuine domestic Russian nationalism. Not aimed for Westerners, and which is all but inaccessible for non-Russophone foreigners. Westerners don't have to like it. We don't overly care.

    Please stop using ‘we’. You are a decent blogger and all that, but I can say without one drop of Russian blood in my veins I can say my outlook is more ‘Russian’ than yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    "I doubt the holocaust happened" isn't exactly a mainstream view amongst Russians (Western anti-Russian propaganda regardless).

    See the problem with your approach?

    Anyhow, I never claimed that my views are "Russian" (whatever that is supposed to mean). They are however largely in sync with those of Russian nationalists, so my statement is absolutely correct.
    , @Dmitry
    Surely his views and outlook are a little distinctive, in every country, not just Russia (or America). But it doesn't make them less entertaining/interesting/funny, etc.

    From the perspective of a blog, if the viewpoint of the blogger is more frequently found in the public , then they would be easier to find, less rare - and there would be less reason for audience to visit the blog. If all the blogger's views are 'typical' - then why would anyone visit the blog? They could read the main news sites and encounter the identical content.

    More generally, the more thinking or thoughtful people, will usually have more unusual and unpredictable combinations of views, which cannot be categorized into simple groups.

    If you encounter that your views can 'map' predictably onto any political movement, common ideology, or political party in your country -then you need to question your views (and the influence of conformism in the predictability).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    I asked a specific question:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

    Your personal anecdotes haven’t been shown to be more legit than the ones I’ve provided.

    Militarily, Petliura’s forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.

    You fail to grasp the fact that people on what became Ukrainian territory fought on the White side. Such folks were typically never with Petliura – which is understandable given how many never supported him.

    There’s some difference on the actual number of Petliura’s forces. Lehovich notes that just prior to Petliura’s break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Militarily, Petliura’s forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.
     
    Irrelevant to the point discussed.

    He had a few tens of thousands of troops. Other nationalist warlords had thousands, or tens of thousands, also (there were dozens of them). The total was about 100,000.

    Here is an article about the Ukrainian nationalist army from the former Russian Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Army

    On the other hand, there was no army of Ukrainians fighting for Russia or the Whites. There wasn't even any military unit of Ukrainians from the Russian Empire Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    So again - list the ethnic Ukrainian military units from Russian Empire Ukraine who fought for Russia or the Whites.

    You still can't.

    Everything else you write is handwaving and excuses to avoid admitting the truth.

    just prior to Petliura’s break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

     

    That was towards the end of the war. He had earlier had about 40,000 of his own soldiers. And Petliura wasn't the only nationalist warlord. Danylo Zeleny who fought against Petliura had about 30,000 troops at the height of his power:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CZ%5CE%5CZeleny%20Danylo%20with%20aids.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @iffen
    What's a Galician?

    People from the western-most part of the Ukraine, often noted for having a very strong Ukrainian national consciousness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.

    Makhno fought against Petliura’s forces. In exile, he associated with Russian anarchists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    There may have been some minor skirmishes.

    List battles please.

    Or is your evidence, "Someone told me once."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Makhno fought against Petliura's forces. In exile, he associated with Russian anarchists.

    There may have been some minor skirmishes.

    List battles please.

    Or is your evidence, “Someone told me once.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura's forces.

    Upon Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainian Army, the Whites severely beat his forces in the areas of Uman, Gaisin and Birsula. Thereafter, Petliura's forces retreated behind Polish lines.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    There may have been some minor skirmishes.

    List battles please.

    Or is your evidence, "Someone told me once."

    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura’s forces.

    Upon Petliura’s break with the Galician Ukrainian Army, the Whites severely beat his forces in the areas of Uman, Gaisin and Birsula. Thereafter, Petliura’s forces retreated behind Polish lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura’s forces.
     
    I asked you to list battles. You failed to do so. There were probably some minor skirmishes, nothing like his all-out war against the Whites.

    Wikipedia states: "While the bulk of Makhno's forces consisted of ethnic Ukrainian peasants, he did not consider himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, but rather an anarchist. His movement did put out a Ukrainian-language version of their newspaper and his wife Halyna Kuzmenko was a nationally conscious Ukrainian. In emigration, Makhno came to believe that anarchists would only have a future in Ukraine if they Ukrainianized and he stated that he regretted that he was writing his memoirs in Russian and not in Ukrainian.[32] Makhno viewed the revolution as an opportunity for ordinary Ukrainians – particularly rural peasants – to rid themselves of the overweening power of the central state through self-governing and autonomous peasant committees, protected by a people's army dedicated to anarchist principles of self-rule.."

    At any rate, he clearly hated Russian natonalists more than he disliked Ukrainian ones.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Your personal anecdotes haven't been shown to be more legit than the ones I've provided.

    Militarily, Petliura's forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.

    You fail to grasp the fact that people on what became Ukrainian territory fought on the White side. Such folks were typically never with Petliura - which is understandable given how many never supported him.

    There's some difference on the actual number of Petliura's forces. Lehovich notes that just prior to Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

    Militarily, Petliura’s forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.

    Irrelevant to the point discussed.

    He had a few tens of thousands of troops. Other nationalist warlords had thousands, or tens of thousands, also (there were dozens of them). The total was about 100,000.

    Here is an article about the Ukrainian nationalist army from the former Russian Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Army

    On the other hand, there was no army of Ukrainians fighting for Russia or the Whites. There wasn’t even any military unit of Ukrainians from the Russian Empire Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    So again – list the ethnic Ukrainian military units from Russian Empire Ukraine who fought for Russia or the Whites.

    You still can’t.

    Everything else you write is handwaving and excuses to avoid admitting the truth.

    just prior to Petliura’s break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

    That was towards the end of the war. He had earlier had about 40,000 of his own soldiers. And Petliura wasn’t the only nationalist warlord. Danylo Zeleny who fought against Petliura had about 30,000 troops at the height of his power:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    You're irrelevantly boorish, with an autistic trait by not acknowledging the obvious about folks ethnically akin to the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, who fought on the White side, without having previously been associated with Petliura, who lacked a good deal of popular support.

    Their looting aside, what great battles did Zeleny's forces win? In comparison, Makhno had military significance in a way that Petliura and Zeleny didn't. Onc e again noting that Makhno was more of an anarchist than Ukrainian nationalist. The academically written works on the Russian Civil War give little comparative mention to Zeleny.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura's forces.

    Upon Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainian Army, the Whites severely beat his forces in the areas of Uman, Gaisin and Birsula. Thereafter, Petliura's forces retreated behind Polish lines.

    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura’s forces.

    I asked you to list battles. You failed to do so. There were probably some minor skirmishes, nothing like his all-out war against the Whites.

    Wikipedia states: “While the bulk of Makhno’s forces consisted of ethnic Ukrainian peasants, he did not consider himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, but rather an anarchist. His movement did put out a Ukrainian-language version of their newspaper and his wife Halyna Kuzmenko was a nationally conscious Ukrainian. In emigration, Makhno came to believe that anarchists would only have a future in Ukraine if they Ukrainianized and he stated that he regretted that he was writing his memoirs in Russian and not in Ukrainian.[32] Makhno viewed the revolution as an opportunity for ordinary Ukrainians – particularly rural peasants – to rid themselves of the overweening power of the central state through self-governing and autonomous peasant committees, protected by a people’s army dedicated to anarchist principles of self-rule..”

    At any rate, he clearly hated Russian natonalists more than he disliked Ukrainian ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Makhno lumped Denikin and Petliura together as negative forces to what he preferred.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1928/12/national-question.htm

    From Wiki:

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

    Makhno fought all factions which sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine, battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-German occupation, the Hetmanate Republic, the Russian White Army, the Russian Red Army, and other smaller forces led by Ukrainian otamans.
     
    Denikin was militarily stronger than Petliura. That aspect motivated Makhno to concentrate more of his efforts against Denikin than Petliura.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    I asked a specific question:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

    Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

    Well, I pulled out my old calculator and ran some numbers for comparison, and surprisingly this is what I found out. For comparison, I took the military and population figures of the US in 2017, the most powerful military system in the world today, and also the same figures that you’ve provided for Ukraine during the revolutionary war period, roughly 1919. The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you’re up to .48%. What if you added in the strength size of the WUR?

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn’t even have a state of their own at that time! Looking back, I think that we can be proud of the presence of Ukrainians that volunteered for service during a hectic war period! What do you think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you’re up to .48%.
     
    I included Zeleny's forces in the 100,000. Petliura himself probably had about 40,000-50,000 non-Galician troops at most. When Zeleny and Petliura were allied they may have reached closer to 100,000. Because of the disorganized and chaotic nature of the Russian Empire Ukrainian forces a specific number is hard to pin down.

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn’t even have a state of their own at that time!
     
    Good point. OTOH Ukraine was under attack. Presumably if the USA was engaged in a battle against invading forces the national guards, reserves would get activated, there would be a rush of volunteers, etc. During the Polish-Soviet war Poland recruited 800,000 soldiers. Galicia mobilized 100,000 out of a population of only 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Militarily, Petliura’s forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned.
     
    Irrelevant to the point discussed.

    He had a few tens of thousands of troops. Other nationalist warlords had thousands, or tens of thousands, also (there were dozens of them). The total was about 100,000.

    Here is an article about the Ukrainian nationalist army from the former Russian Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Army

    On the other hand, there was no army of Ukrainians fighting for Russia or the Whites. There wasn't even any military unit of Ukrainians from the Russian Empire Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    So again - list the ethnic Ukrainian military units from Russian Empire Ukraine who fought for Russia or the Whites.

    You still can't.

    Everything else you write is handwaving and excuses to avoid admitting the truth.

    just prior to Petliura’s break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

     

    That was towards the end of the war. He had earlier had about 40,000 of his own soldiers. And Petliura wasn't the only nationalist warlord. Danylo Zeleny who fought against Petliura had about 30,000 troops at the height of his power:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CZ%5CE%5CZeleny%20Danylo%20with%20aids.jpg

    You’re irrelevantly boorish, with an autistic trait by not acknowledging the obvious about folks ethnically akin to the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, who fought on the White side, without having previously been associated with Petliura, who lacked a good deal of popular support.

    Their looting aside, what great battles did Zeleny’s forces win? In comparison, Makhno had military significance in a way that Petliura and Zeleny didn’t. Onc e again noting that Makhno was more of an anarchist than Ukrainian nationalist. The academically written works on the Russian Civil War give little comparative mention to Zeleny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I asked a specific question and will once again repeat it:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Repeating a question you refuse to answer is not "autistic."

    It is a demonstration of how wrong you are.

    Success of these people is irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.
     
    Well, I pulled out my old calculator and ran some numbers for comparison, and surprisingly this is what I found out. For comparison, I took the military and population figures of the US in 2017, the most powerful military system in the world today, and also the same figures that you've provided for Ukraine during the revolutionary war period, roughly 1919. The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you're up to .48%. What if you added in the strength size of the WUR?

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn't even have a state of their own at that time! Looking back, I think that we can be proud of the presence of Ukrainians that volunteered for service during a hectic war period! What do you think?

    The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you’re up to .48%.

    I included Zeleny’s forces in the 100,000. Petliura himself probably had about 40,000-50,000 non-Galician troops at most. When Zeleny and Petliura were allied they may have reached closer to 100,000. Because of the disorganized and chaotic nature of the Russian Empire Ukrainian forces a specific number is hard to pin down.

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn’t even have a state of their own at that time!

    Good point. OTOH Ukraine was under attack. Presumably if the USA was engaged in a battle against invading forces the national guards, reserves would get activated, there would be a rush of volunteers, etc. During the Polish-Soviet war Poland recruited 800,000 soldiers. Galicia mobilized 100,000 out of a population of only 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    It's unfair to compare Central and Eastern Ukraine to the US, Poland or even to Galicia. Each country/area stood on much more developed state structures that could help promote a feeling of solidarity and need to protect the homeland. Even Galicia, being a part of the Hapsburg Empire had a presence in the parliament and was able to promote its own citizens within civic society. Also, its local church was in a better position to promote the Ukrainian position. Central Ukraine was in the throes of a war, unprepared and only just beginning to formulate a state structure of its own. Even at 100,000 troops divided between different warlords, I still find this an impressive gesture in the right direction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    You're irrelevantly boorish, with an autistic trait by not acknowledging the obvious about folks ethnically akin to the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, who fought on the White side, without having previously been associated with Petliura, who lacked a good deal of popular support.

    Their looting aside, what great battles did Zeleny's forces win? In comparison, Makhno had military significance in a way that Petliura and Zeleny didn't. Onc e again noting that Makhno was more of an anarchist than Ukrainian nationalist. The academically written works on the Russian Civil War give little comparative mention to Zeleny.

    I asked a specific question and will once again repeat it:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn’t count.

    Repeating a question you refuse to answer is not “autistic.”

    It is a demonstration of how wrong you are.

    Success of these people is irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra. You've exhibited such much unlike myself.

    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side, without having necessarily been associated with Petliura's forces or any other committed to a complete Ukrainian separatism from Russia - thereby explaining the accounts of Ukrainian being spoken among some Whites. Quite believable given Petliura's limited popularity.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura’s forces.
     
    I asked you to list battles. You failed to do so. There were probably some minor skirmishes, nothing like his all-out war against the Whites.

    Wikipedia states: "While the bulk of Makhno's forces consisted of ethnic Ukrainian peasants, he did not consider himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, but rather an anarchist. His movement did put out a Ukrainian-language version of their newspaper and his wife Halyna Kuzmenko was a nationally conscious Ukrainian. In emigration, Makhno came to believe that anarchists would only have a future in Ukraine if they Ukrainianized and he stated that he regretted that he was writing his memoirs in Russian and not in Ukrainian.[32] Makhno viewed the revolution as an opportunity for ordinary Ukrainians – particularly rural peasants – to rid themselves of the overweening power of the central state through self-governing and autonomous peasant committees, protected by a people's army dedicated to anarchist principles of self-rule.."

    At any rate, he clearly hated Russian natonalists more than he disliked Ukrainian ones.

    Makhno lumped Denikin and Petliura together as negative forces to what he preferred.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1928/12/national-question.htm

    From Wiki:

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

    Makhno fought all factions which sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine, battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-German occupation, the Hetmanate Republic, the Russian White Army, the Russian Red Army, and other smaller forces led by Ukrainian otamans.

    Denikin was militarily stronger than Petliura. That aspect motivated Makhno to concentrate more of his efforts against Denikin than Petliura.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    List battles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. TP says:
    @David In TN
    Herr Rudel was the "Stuka Pilot," the most highly decorated WW II German.

    correct!

    Also a native Silesian

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Makhno lumped Denikin and Petliura together as negative forces to what he preferred.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1928/12/national-question.htm

    From Wiki:

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

    Makhno fought all factions which sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine, battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-German occupation, the Hetmanate Republic, the Russian White Army, the Russian Red Army, and other smaller forces led by Ukrainian otamans.
     
    Denikin was militarily stronger than Petliura. That aspect motivated Makhno to concentrate more of his efforts against Denikin than Petliura.

    List battles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Your point being what? Makhno clearly didn't support Petliura, with yourself saying that some skirmishes between the two might've been evident.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    I asked a specific question and will once again repeat it:

    Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You failed to do so.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.

    Repeating a question you refuse to answer is not "autistic."

    It is a demonstration of how wrong you are.

    Success of these people is irrelevant.

    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra. You’ve exhibited such much unlike myself.

    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side, without having necessarily been associated with Petliura’s forces or any other committed to a complete Ukrainian separatism from Russia – thereby explaining the accounts of Ukrainian being spoken among some Whites. Quite believable given Petliura’s limited popularity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra
     
    You have no valid point.

    I ask for facts. Can you provide them, yes or no? A simple question. If yes, do so.


    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side
     
    We are discussing Ukrainians in Ukraine. You made a claim without evidence. "I heard someone say.." or "accounts I heard.." is not evidence.

    For evidence, name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You fail to do so. Again and again.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Dmitry says:
    @AP
    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

    Fernand Braudel is not a bad/unreliable source – an academic historian from France.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    He wasn't one of the authors of that book.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. utu says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

    The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

    For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process - virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

    By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin - friend of Russian people - do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

    Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

    On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

    Very good point but it won’t be accepted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP
    List battles.

    Your point being what? Makhno clearly didn’t support Petliura, with yourself saying that some skirmishes between the two might’ve been evident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Point being Makhno hated Russian nationalist Whites but didn't care much about Ukrainian nationalists.

    Name major battles or conflicts between him and Petliura.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    The results are actually quite astounding and very comparable. With a population of 27,000,000 and a fighting force of 100,000, this translates into .37% of the population. Add in another 30,000 Zeleny fighters and now you’re up to .48%.
     
    I included Zeleny's forces in the 100,000. Petliura himself probably had about 40,000-50,000 non-Galician troops at most. When Zeleny and Petliura were allied they may have reached closer to 100,000. Because of the disorganized and chaotic nature of the Russian Empire Ukrainian forces a specific number is hard to pin down.

    Now in 2017, the population of the US was approximately 326,000,000. Active military troops were 1,281,000, or .39% of the population. This is comparing the mightiest military force in the world today that spends countless millions recruiting soldiers with all manner of scholarships, training, and retirement benefits against a people that didn’t even have a state of their own at that time!
     
    Good point. OTOH Ukraine was under attack. Presumably if the USA was engaged in a battle against invading forces the national guards, reserves would get activated, there would be a rush of volunteers, etc. During the Polish-Soviet war Poland recruited 800,000 soldiers. Galicia mobilized 100,000 out of a population of only 3.2 million ethnic Ukrainians.

    It’s unfair to compare Central and Eastern Ukraine to the US, Poland or even to Galicia. Each country/area stood on much more developed state structures that could help promote a feeling of solidarity and need to protect the homeland. Even Galicia, being a part of the Hapsburg Empire had a presence in the parliament and was able to promote its own citizens within civic society. Also, its local church was in a better position to promote the Ukrainian position. Central Ukraine was in the throes of a war, unprepared and only just beginning to formulate a state structure of its own. Even at 100,000 troops divided between different warlords, I still find this an impressive gesture in the right direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I agree with what you write. There were reason for that. My point was simply that for the reasons you mentioned, nationalism while widespread in Ukraine in 1917 wasn't "hot" enough to inspire mass activity (vs. massive passive support, by voting).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Dmitry says:
    @AP
    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    In reality, many were children of single mothers who had been forced to give them up for adoption in an era when their solitary status constituted a grave social stigma.
     
    An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.

    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.

    If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).

    No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. utu says:
    @Dmitry

    Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines.

     

    At 2:10 in the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRp8vUesbbE

    Thanks for posting the video.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Pavlo says:
    @Pseudonymic Handle

    As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again.
     
    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed? Fuck you!
    With people who think like this Russia will always be a blight on herself and on her neighbours.

    Your dirt poor countries joined up with Hitler. Your fag troops died like cowards. All of you deserved all of your suffering and more besides. More of you should have been killed.

    The ‘victims of communism’ had it coming and it is a pleasure to piss on your ancestors’ graves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Yevardian
    Please stop using 'we'. You are a decent blogger and all that, but I can say without one drop of Russian blood in my veins I can say my outlook is more 'Russian' than yours.

    I doubt the holocaust happened” isn’t exactly a mainstream view amongst Russians (Western anti-Russian propaganda regardless).

    See the problem with your approach?

    Anyhow, I never claimed that my views are “Russian” (whatever that is supposed to mean). They are however largely in sync with those of Russian nationalists, so my statement is absolutely correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. utu says:
    @melanf
    And there are more radical statements


    https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1417983427i/2455819._UY400_SS400_.jpg

    White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
    Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
    This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
    .
     
    However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle ("free" British) for the settlement of the Crimea - true. And this is the end of the 18th century.

    I glanced at some reviews and they were OK. Obviously Blacks did not like the book and some Irish complained that Irish slaves are called British in the book. Also somebody complains that Whites want to become Israelites like Jews in Egypt. Anyway, I would like to read his book.

    Also this book was praised for research

    They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America. by Michale Hoffman

    even though the author is a well known racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Pseudonymic Handle

    As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again.
     
    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed? Fuck you!
    With people who think like this Russia will always be a blight on herself and on her neighbours.

    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed?

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

    The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR.

    Moreover, in 1946-47, “conquered” East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.

    Consequently, Kholmogorov is perfectly correct.

    So your real objection is “tone” or similar crap. This makes you the East European edition of an SJW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     
    Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.
    , @utu

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     

    Moreover, in 1946-47, “conquered” East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.
     
    50/50= truths/myths. East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians have similar stories. They always blamed shortages on the so-called 'exports' to USSR. There were no noticeable Soviet products in stores there but plenty of Eastern Block products in Soviet Union.

    inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return
     
    How anybody can determine what was overpriced or underpriced in the system of exchange they had? Eastern European products often were inferior with respect to the West but superior to what was being produced in the USSR. Muscovites were going crazy when shoes from Czechoslovakia or DDR were sold in few stores. Anybody lined up for Soviet products in Hungary or Poland. Perhaps for Sovetskoye Shampanskoye before the New Year's Eve

    Buses and pharmaceuticals form Hungary, high-tech optical and electronics equipment from DDR, ship industry in Poland mainly functioning for USSR, more that 50% sulphuric acid used in the USSR was from Poland, CSFR motor vehicles, for example, passenger cars, trams, motorcycles , lathes, pumps , compressors. (10 min of googling).

    Russian nationalist want empire but they do not know how they are going to run it. Actually they did not know in the past. They have never managed to culturally dominate people they subjugated except for some Siberian tribal people. One thing is true, the emotional prerequisite for Russians is to be loved and appreciated by the people they subjugated. When they see all the evidence to the contrary they display the spurned lover syndrome and show hurt ego how much they sacrificed for the subjugated and so on. You even detect it in Uber-rational A. Karlin. Americans have it too but to much lesser extent because they are much more secure in their beliefs. They do not have to support them by myths only. It suffices to look around and see how America is powerful and dominant. But the megalomania and some sense of missions are very similar among Russians and Americans. People from 'lesser' countries are fed up with it. Now they may sympathize with Russia in hope that counterbalancing of American power would be good but when they hear the nationalist imperial spiel like that of Kholmogorov they pause and have a second thought and may consider that beefing up Ukraine might be a very good thing after all and opening border with Mexico and turning the US into a Latin America might be a good thing after all from the point of view of small countries that want to have more sovereignty whether to create the ethno-state state or gay utopia or both.

    , @reiner Tor

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     
    The bulk of Soviet exports were also manufactured goods. For example the various Lada models. Or Zaporozhets, or Moskvich. (The latter two, especially Zaporozhets, with horrible reputations.) Soviet consumer goods did exist, and had very bad reputations in general (except Lada). (East German cars were more reliable, but were extremely noisy and with a horrible smell, due to the two-stroke engines.) You don’t know how much those were overpriced. And Hungary (and I think Czechoslovakia, too) for a long while exported uranium ore to the USSR. Was uranium ore correctly priced?

    Another issue is that a lot of nominally Hungarian spending was there to further Soviet aims. E.g. the Hungarian People’s Army bought Scuds from the USSR. We didn’t need them, because we didn’t have tactical nuclear warheads. The Soviets would’ve given the warheads to us, if during a crisis similar to Cuba they’d blundered into a war with the West. So we bought them from the USSR, but they were for all practical purposes Soviet weapons, paid for and manned by Hungary. Hungary also had to spend vast sums on subsidizing Cuba (we imported sugar which we could also produce for a fraction of the price), and various “revolutionary movements” around the world. East Germany sent troops to Angola, while obviously there were no East German national interests served there.

    I have seen some academic literature on Hungary being subsidized or not, and probably for most of the Soviet occupation it was not.


    The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR.
     
    A very large fraction (a third perhaps?) of the USSR budget was spent on the military. So it could be that the RFSR and Belarus were paying for the military, while the rest didn’t.

    Then there’s the question of building stuff with Russians. For example the USSR built an aircraft manufacturer in Tashkent. The engineers and directors were I guess mostly Russians. The apartments built for them were, obviously, used by them. But on paper even their salaries look like a Russian subsidy to Uzbekistan. When Uzbeks didn’t much benefit from it.

    The apartment buildings built for the Russian settlers in the Baltic states benefited the Russians who moved there. Yet on paper they looked like Russian subsidies to Estonians or Latvians, when it had hugely negative value for them, creating a huge ethnic minority there.

    And finally, even if it turned out that for example the empire was a net cost to Russia (as it probably was to Britain), you cannot call the subject peoples “freeloaders.” It’s absurd. You cannot call Kenyans or Nigerians “freeloaders” of the British Empire.

    , @Pseudonymic Handle
    Why don't you ask your romanian hosts about Sovroms?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SovRom
    My objection to Kholmogorov is that he is an idiot. West Germany looked pretty prosperous, I wonder why East Germany had to wall its people in?
    Eastern Europe was ruined by communist incompetence brought on and imposed on us by russian tanks and Kholmogorov complains that the ruins were unprofitable.
    You know what? Now that I think about it, Stalin was not so bad. Sure he fucked up my country, but he also killed lots of russians and that counts for something. The georgian psychopath is still not as great as Batu khan though.
    And don't call me a SJW, you curry-eater. Only the most moronic brits still think that eating that indian diarrhea makes them the vanguard of globalist cool. We're not in the 90's anymore, so find something else to signal your cosmopolitan credentials.

    (BTW this exchange shows why the right always loses as I would rather have my country under the limp, 50-shades-of-grey whip of western cucks than under the knout of russian batshit crazy nationalists)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @melanf

    Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
     
    Oh really?

    "Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)......In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children... Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
    Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery...it disappeared...for economic reasons, not for racial ones
    ."

    Fernand Braudel.— Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

    There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I don't have time):
    «Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми «прикованного палачом к задку телеги». Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли…В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов)… идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что «ежели бы рабство…применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды». И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть…И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло… Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста…Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство…Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих «подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они…лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером»

    Standard in the 18th century:

    * Indentured servants – People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

    * Press-ganging into the Royal Navy – Perhaps closer to “white slavery”, but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

    All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Press-ganging was doubtless unpleasant for those experiencing it, but was minor compared to the full-scale conscription present in every other European state.

    Sending rebels and other criminals to America was obviously much more humane than the alternative of execution or mutilation. Georgia was actually founded by philanthropists to try and reform criminals, but failed like most such projects. There was of course nothing unique about this, the French attempt to try and populate Louisiana with prostitutes, among other criminals, is well-known.

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

    , @melanf
    These people (in very many cases) were not volunteers (read the quote carefully). Temporary slavery (7 years) on sugar cane plantations (where white people have been dying for 2 years) is an evil joke. There was (along with temporary) and permanent white slavery. And if you like the British Empire slavery, I have absolutely no idea what you're up against Stalin. Stalin's concentration camps were no worse than the British plantations. And of course, in both cases, the victims were "criminals".
    , @for-the-record
    I'm surprised you have such a PC view of American history. As multiple sources make clear, the information presented in White Cargo is correct -- large numbers of (white) people were effectively involuntarily "enslaved" in colonial America, in conditions that were no better (and often worse) than enslaved Africans.

    Where do you think the word kidnap comes from?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra. You've exhibited such much unlike myself.

    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side, without having necessarily been associated with Petliura's forces or any other committed to a complete Ukrainian separatism from Russia - thereby explaining the accounts of Ukrainian being spoken among some Whites. Quite believable given Petliura's limited popularity.

    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra

    You have no valid point.

    I ask for facts. Can you provide them, yes or no? A simple question. If yes, do so.

    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side

    We are discussing Ukrainians in Ukraine. You made a claim without evidence. “I heard someone say..” or “accounts I heard..” is not evidence.

    For evidence, name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You fail to do so. Again and again.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    You completely flopped in trying to disprove the historically obvious:

    - Petliura had limited support on the territory which became the Ukrainian SSR
    - that resulted in his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet.

    If his vision was so popular, the Whites and Reds would've had a difficult time with him, which wasn't the case - partly on account of the Reds and Whites each finding support on the territory that became the Ukrainian SSR. As noted earlier, there was also the matter of many on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, not being so supportive of any of the armed groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    Your point being what? Makhno clearly didn't support Petliura, with yourself saying that some skirmishes between the two might've been evident.

    Point being Makhno hated Russian nationalist Whites but didn’t care much about Ukrainian nationalists.

    Name major battles or conflicts between him and Petliura.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    It's unfair to compare Central and Eastern Ukraine to the US, Poland or even to Galicia. Each country/area stood on much more developed state structures that could help promote a feeling of solidarity and need to protect the homeland. Even Galicia, being a part of the Hapsburg Empire had a presence in the parliament and was able to promote its own citizens within civic society. Also, its local church was in a better position to promote the Ukrainian position. Central Ukraine was in the throes of a war, unprepared and only just beginning to formulate a state structure of its own. Even at 100,000 troops divided between different warlords, I still find this an impressive gesture in the right direction.

    I agree with what you write. There were reason for that. My point was simply that for the reasons you mentioned, nationalism while widespread in Ukraine in 1917 wasn’t “hot” enough to inspire mass activity (vs. massive passive support, by voting).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. AP says:
    @Dmitry
    Fernand Braudel is not a bad/unreliable source - an academic historian from France.

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

    He wasn’t one of the authors of that book.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. AP says:
    @Beckow

    If your argument is that the “average” Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the “average” experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain...
     
    You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among 'educated' in the West. No, my argument is that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930's, is often a painful, violent, unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China's today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours, jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where 5-year olds were dropped to 'mine for coal'.

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930's) in Russia, exaggerate or quote 'some people say that maybe a 1 million died..' and compare it to heavily 'explained' case in Britain or US, with allusions to 'malaria', etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that, of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn't stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor, koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that 'Volga-canal'.

    And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools's errand...

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia

    1930s was typical and peak Stalinism, it was no cherry-picking or strawman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    1930s was typical and peak Stalinism
     
    No, it was the peak, but it was not typical. 'Typical' is defined as 'faithfully representing'. 1930's were an extreme, the 1917-1991 period as a whole was very different. So yes, you are cherry-picking.

    How about them 5-year olds in the British mines? Ok, with that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Dmitry
    My emotional reaction to the two images.

    The first is embarrassing. Because it is based not on strong religious belief, but on lack of religious belief - they are some fake losers dressing in robes walking next to a missile complex.

    In addition, the disjunction between the technology and the priests is embarrassing. Because they probably have no interest in the basic physics that allows the technology to operate. To me it highlights over-division of labour, alienation, and lack of education in society, that has developed since the time of buildings the pyramids.

    -

    As for the second image, it is the starting point. Still nice job if you made the image yourself... But it is generic, not 'local' enough, too much within the boundaries of common imagination.

    But do they possess the Promethean imagination, spiritual inspiration and transcendent national consciousness? ...

    First off, we’re talking about a replacement religion for the bozos who march around with Stalin icons.

    But I’ll defend them anyway.

    First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

    This is also in line with Kholmogorov’s vision of Atomic Orthodoxy, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!

    Second image is the book cover to a sci-fi novel by Alexander Zorich, which is a collective pen-name for a male and female writer from Kharkov. Their series takes place in the 27th century where Russia and Ukraine are united, and constitute a space empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

    This is also in line with Kholmogorov’s vision of Atomic Orthodoxy, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!
     

    Atomic Orthodoxy doesn't fit to this dream of future religion though. It's just kind of tacky, inharmonious disjunction of unrelated, pre-fabricated words, which reflect embarrassingly on each other.

    No offense to Kholmogorov, but it feels the reflection of weak, 1990s, inauthentic, post-modern mentality, like 'Swedish Goths' pretending to be Satanist pirates or something. And then it also has some aspect of being put together as a way of ass kissing to the government.


    -

    This dream of future religions is something beautiful though.

    But can you imagine this conjunction Atomic Orthodox as something real, except after some kind of nuclear apocalypse?

    E.g. All copies of the Bible are somehow lost in the atomic fire, but a half-burnt second year graduate textbook of physics discovered, along with a file containing various unrelated problem sets in advanced calculus. In the survivors' confused imagination, figures of Einstein and Jesus somehow become combined (along with "the apostles" - Heisenberg, Landau, Fermi, etc).... In worship to the atomic fires, priests recite incantations to the 'holy texts' of calculus from morning to night. Etc.

    Ok... now we have real Atomic Orthodoxy

    By the way in Volgodonsk there is already the peaceful monument to the atom which can be used as a pilgrimage site:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68BDmHUXU0

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. DFH says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Standard in the 18th century:

    * Indentured servants - People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

    * Press-ganging into the Royal Navy - Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

    All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.

    Press-ganging was doubtless unpleasant for those experiencing it, but was minor compared to the full-scale conscription present in every other European state.

    Sending rebels and other criminals to America was obviously much more humane than the alternative of execution or mutilation. Georgia was actually founded by philanthropists to try and reform criminals, but failed like most such projects. There was of course nothing unique about this, the French attempt to try and populate Louisiana with prostitutes, among other criminals, is well-known.

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.
     
    I don't think that's the motivation in this case, it's rather an attempt to claim that whites were subject to slavery just as blacks (which isn't true, indentured servitude was limited in time). Part of the debate who's had it worse in American history, blacks or "white trash".
    , @songbird
    The navy was pretty unpleasant - probably worse than the army. You could get scurvy. Being on an old ship is much worse than being in barracks. It could be pretty hard to keep dry, when it rained. Many got rheumatism.

    Some of the people sent abroad were literally "Kidnapped." The RLS book was (very loosely) inspired by one case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Yevardian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/blessed4.jpg

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/na-korable-polden.jpg

    You could have at least posted Ilya Repin, or a futurist with a bit more subtlety and taste, Aleksandr Blok, hell even Mayakovsky. Whenever someone asks you seriously on this question, you always dodge the question with a snark or something like this:

    https://imgur.com/gallery/d5Z4tEh

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. DFH says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/blessed4.jpg

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/na-korable-polden.jpg

    Did you ever play Empire Earth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Yesssss... it all makes sense now. The epic of Grigor II led to Akarlin's spiritual awakening.

    The only good thing about that game was the campaigns, it was a sprawling mess otherwise.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=empire+earth+russians&num=20&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj46urarMbbAhXDybwKHajHCpUQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=606#imgrc=lEv7VpG4LvvRXM:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=empire+earth+russians&num=20&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj46urarMbbAhXDybwKHajHCpUQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=606#imgdii=mQwrvKN842DzrM:&imgrc=lEv7VpG4LvvRXM:
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra
     
    You have no valid point.

    I ask for facts. Can you provide them, yes or no? A simple question. If yes, do so.


    Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side
     
    We are discussing Ukrainians in Ukraine. You made a claim without evidence. "I heard someone say.." or "accounts I heard.." is not evidence.

    For evidence, name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

    You fail to do so. Again and again.

    Because there were none.

    There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

    You completely flopped in trying to disprove the historically obvious:

    - Petliura had limited support on the territory which became the Ukrainian SSR
    - that resulted in his willingness to become Pilsudski’s puppet.

    If his vision was so popular, the Whites and Reds would’ve had a difficult time with him, which wasn’t the case – partly on account of the Reds and Whites each finding support on the territory that became the Ukrainian SSR. As noted earlier, there was also the matter of many on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, not being so supportive of any of the armed groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I didn't claim Petliura did not have limited support. In fact, I insisted that not many Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine were willing to lay down their lives for Ukraine by fighting for it (even though the majority supported it by voting for it).

    I stated correctly that the Russian idea had virtually no support.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Petliura was able to command up to 50,000 men from Russian-ruled Ukraine willing to fight for him. Another 50,000 or so fought for other Ukrainian nationalist warlords (otomans).

    In contrast, there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    I'm still waiting for you to prove otherwise. It will be a long wait :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Yevardian says:
    @DFH
    Did you ever play Empire Earth?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Bliss says:

    Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I

    Stalin——-> Kebab
    Putin ——-> Mongol
    Pushkin —> Ethiop
    Lenin ——-> Kalmuk
    Peter I ——> Kebab

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

    Stalin——-> Kebab
    Putin ——-> Mongol
    Pushkin —> Ethiop
    Lenin ——-> Kalmuk
    Peter I ——> Kebab
     
    Bliss ——> Madman
    , @Hyperborean
    Just face it, Africans are to the rest of humanity what cows are to McDonald's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Beckow

    The idea that the West is “naturally” hostile to Russia is completely bogus
     
    Let's drop the 'naturally' qualifier, since we wouldn't agree on how to define it. That leaves a question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable - and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German, Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.

    West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia 'would change its ways'. Interesting, by that standard we could all be friends. I always tell people 'if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me 100%, I will be your best friend'. To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.

    The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some strange reason always personalised as 'Putin'). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd - Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let's call spade a spade: West doesn't like Russia as it is.

    How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler's coalition...

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

    There has never been a ‘European Christian civilization’. Western Europe has always been Gnostic, with a small but sharp underdog Christian current among the elites.

    Today, of course, Europe is 100% Gnostic from top to bottom. It’s historically inevitable and just the natural state of your society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Western Europe has always been Gnostic, with a small but sharp underdog Christian current among the elites
     
    Forgive my shallowness, but when I see my aunts piling into a Church in Central Europe, I foolishly assume that it is what it looks like: Christians in Europe. How naive of me that I don't see what is really going on...

    (More seriously, isn't Gnosticism an elite thing? we commoners can't even pronounce it.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @iffen
    What's a Galician?

    What’s a Galician?

    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout history. They’re distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin in 1939.

    They’re the political and cultural driver behind a ‘Western’ orientation for Ukraine. Which is not surprising: they’re just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.

    Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible today, so Poland as a ‘plan B’ is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    They don't want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?

    There is definitely something a little bit off with Slavs.

    , @AP

    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state.
     
    You are such a moron. You don't even know where Galicia is in Ukraine yet you write about it.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I see your knowledge is being questioned but fwiw let me point out that it has been noted on this thread that the ethnic Poles from Galicia were encouraged/forced to move to Silesia after WW2. Have you taken account of that?

    Also I understand that the Galician orientation to the West derives at least as much from its being part of Austria-Hungary as from bring part of Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. iffen says:
    @anonymous coward

    What’s a Galician?
     
    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout history. They're distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin in 1939.

    They're the political and cultural driver behind a 'Western' orientation for Ukraine. Which is not surprising: they're just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.

    Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible today, so Poland as a 'plan B' is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.

    They don’t want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?

    There is definitely something a little bit off with Slavs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    They don’t want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?
     
    No, they want to be Galician, but as a part of Poland. (The ethnicity they're closest to historically and culturally.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Standard in the 18th century:

    * Indentured servants - People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

    * Press-ganging into the Royal Navy - Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

    All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.

    These people (in very many cases) were not volunteers (read the quote carefully). Temporary slavery (7 years) on sugar cane plantations (where white people have been dying for 2 years) is an evil joke. There was (along with temporary) and permanent white slavery. And if you like the British Empire slavery, I have absolutely no idea what you’re up against Stalin. Stalin’s concentration camps were no worse than the British plantations. And of course, in both cases, the victims were “criminals”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. melanf says:
    @Bliss

    Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I
     
    Stalin——-> Kebab
    Putin ——-> Mongol
    Pushkin —> Ethiop
    Lenin ——-> Kalmuk
    Peter I ——> Kebab

    Stalin——-> Kebab
    Putin ——-> Mongol
    Pushkin —> Ethiop
    Lenin ——-> Kalmuk
    Peter I ——> Kebab

    Bliss ——> Madman

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Bliss

    Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I
     
    Stalin——-> Kebab
    Putin ——-> Mongol
    Pushkin —> Ethiop
    Lenin ——-> Kalmuk
    Peter I ——> Kebab

    Just face it, Africans are to the rest of humanity what cows are to McDonald’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @DFH
    Press-ganging was doubtless unpleasant for those experiencing it, but was minor compared to the full-scale conscription present in every other European state.

    Sending rebels and other criminals to America was obviously much more humane than the alternative of execution or mutilation. Georgia was actually founded by philanthropists to try and reform criminals, but failed like most such projects. There was of course nothing unique about this, the French attempt to try and populate Louisiana with prostitutes, among other criminals, is well-known.

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

    I don’t think that’s the motivation in this case, it’s rather an attempt to claim that whites were subject to slavery just as blacks (which isn’t true, indentured servitude was limited in time). Part of the debate who’s had it worse in American history, blacks or “white trash”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Part of the debate who’s had it worse in American history, blacks or “white trash”.


    Without exception, white trash will pooh-pooh claims of mistreatment of blacks by referencing how much worse was the treatment of American Indians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Dmitry
    The British government sent British children as slaves (for "hard labour") in their empire into the 1960s.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

    https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow=1&ei=UXAbW9WGLMLMwAKPqavIBQ&q=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&oq=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...19052.32821.0.33000.60.55.4.0.0.0.328.7411.0j34j8j2.44.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..13.17.2257...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1j0i13i30k1.0.XAL40lUpC78

    In reality, many were children of single mothers who had been forced to give them up for adoption in an era when their solitary status constituted a grave social stigma.

    An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.

    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.

    If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).

    No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.
    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.
    If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).
    No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.
     
    Thorfinnsson its you in the foreground, fighting parasites?
    https://www.factinate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/James_Ives_Viking_Raiders_7-1024x617.jpg
    , @songbird

    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.
     
    Milton Hershey was a man born at the right time - when railroads made it possible to create national brands. He made a rare fortune, and, since he had no children, he bequested almost the entirety to a school for "orphan" boys (many the children of single mothers.) He did this because it was well understood at that time that boys without fathers posed a danger to civilization.

    Of course, the government came in and subsidized the single mothers and the resulting cost of the new scale of the thing to society would be unpayable by a million Milton Hersheys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @iffen
    They don't want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?

    There is definitely something a little bit off with Slavs.

    They don’t want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?

    No, they want to be Galician, but as a part of Poland. (The ethnicity they’re closest to historically and culturally.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Last time they were forcibly part of Poland they murdered up to 100,000 ethnic Poles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anatoly Karlin

    So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed?
     
    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

    The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR.

    Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.

    Consequently, Kholmogorov is perfectly correct.

    So your real objection is "tone" or similar crap. This makes you the East European edition of an SJW.

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

    Even if that’s true, the “freeloader” accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he’s writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what’s the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

    Read More
    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Replies: @melanf

    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he’s writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what’s the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.
     
    Absolutely correct. But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Not all Anglophones reading this are cucks who are scared of other people asserting themselves.
    , @inertial

    Even if that’s true, the “freeloader” accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.
     
    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the West.

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.
    , @peterAUS

    ....what’s the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.
     
    Hehe....

    As for "worst suspicions" I'd change that to "simple facts".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.
     
    I don't think that's the motivation in this case, it's rather an attempt to claim that whites were subject to slavery just as blacks (which isn't true, indentured servitude was limited in time). Part of the debate who's had it worse in American history, blacks or "white trash".

    Part of the debate who’s had it worse in American history, blacks or “white trash”.

    Without exception, white trash will pooh-pooh claims of mistreatment of blacks by referencing how much worse was the treatment of American Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Without exception, white trash will pooh-pooh claims of mistreatment of blacks by referencing how much worse was the treatment of American Indians.
     
    Certainly the aboriginal mongoloid populations of Greater Siberia (around 1/3 of the planet’s land mass) remain the biggest victims of the Great European Land Grab that began in 1492.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/dna-traces-native-americans-ancestry-siberia

    DNA analysis of the boy confirmed the child was a relative of ancient Siberian and East Asian people, concludes a study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday. Their analysis also showed that the child shares DNA with 80 percent of all modern Native American tribes, revealing that he is part of a direct ancestral line to Native Americans living today.

    This discovery confirms archeologists’ idea that native people of North and South America descended from people who crossed a land bridge over the Bering Strait from East Asia and Siberia. But while there were archaeological signs to suggest that was the case, there was no DNA evidence until now.
    , @utu

    white trash will pooh-pooh claims of mistreatment of blacks by referencing how much worse was the treatment of American Indians.
     
    Blacks had positive market value while Indian's value was negative, so they ended up dead. The white trash just states facts as they see them. The middle class relies more on the sense of hearing through which they instructions about propriety are received.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AP says:
    @Mikhail
    You completely flopped in trying to disprove the historically obvious:

    - Petliura had limited support on the territory which became the Ukrainian SSR
    - that resulted in his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet.

    If his vision was so popular, the Whites and Reds would've had a difficult time with him, which wasn't the case - partly on account of the Reds and Whites each finding support on the territory that became the Ukrainian SSR. As noted earlier, there was also the matter of many on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, not being so supportive of any of the armed groups.

    I didn’t claim Petliura did not have limited support. In fact, I insisted that not many Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine were willing to lay down their lives for Ukraine by fighting for it (even though the majority supported it by voting for it).

    I stated correctly that the Russian idea had virtually no support.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Petliura was able to command up to 50,000 men from Russian-ruled Ukraine willing to fight for him. Another 50,000 or so fought for other Ukrainian nationalist warlords (otomans).

    In contrast, there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    I’m still waiting for you to prove otherwise. It will be a long wait :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    I didn’t claim Petliura did not have limited support. In fact, I insisted that not many Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine were willing to lay down their lives for Ukraine by fighting for it (even though the majority supported it by voting for it).

    I stated correctly that the Russian idea had virtually no support.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Petliura was able to command up to 50,000 men from Russian-ruled Ukraine willing to fight for him. Another 50,000 or so fought for other Ukrainian nationalist warlords (otomans).

    In contrast, there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    I’m still waiting for you to prove otherwise. It will be a long wait
     

    I already did, with your not being able to provide a valid counter. No need to repeat what has been clearly explained.

    The aforementioned voting wasn't complete in a way that can be considered as being clearly indicative indicative to what the majority on the land that became the Ukrainian SSR had actually thought at the time. In point of fact, there was a noticeable advocacy for seeking an autonomous Ukraine that was affiliated with Russia, in one former or the other.

    There's also the matter of likely number trumping the actual support. You brought up a relatively obscure warlord saying he commanded 70,000. With that number, he should've been much more significant. Instead, the recollection of him notes looting with no significant battle victories.

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

    In reality, many were children of single mothers who had been forced to give them up for adoption in an era when their solitary status constituted a grave social stigma.
     
    An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.

    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.

    If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).

    No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.

    An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.
    Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.
    If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).
    No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.

    Thorfinnsson its you in the foreground, fighting parasites?

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

    They don’t want to be Russian, or Ukrainian, but Polish?
     
    No, they want to be Galician, but as a part of Poland. (The ethnicity they're closest to historically and culturally.)

    Last time they were forcibly part of Poland they murdered up to 100,000 ethnic Poles.

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

    What’s a Galician?
     
    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout history. They're distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin in 1939.

    They're the political and cultural driver behind a 'Western' orientation for Ukraine. Which is not surprising: they're just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.

    Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible today, so Poland as a 'plan B' is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.

    Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state.

    You are such a moron. You don’t even know where Galicia is in Ukraine yet you write about it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     
    Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he’s writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what’s the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

    Absolutely correct. But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.
     
    I know, and tbh I'm glad about that. I don't understand what Karlin sees in this guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Beckow says:
    @anonymous coward

    European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.
     
    There has never been a 'European Christian civilization'. Western Europe has always been Gnostic, with a small but sharp underdog Christian current among the elites.

    Today, of course, Europe is 100% Gnostic from top to bottom. It's historically inevitable and just the natural state of your society.

    Western Europe has always been Gnostic, with a small but sharp underdog Christian current among the elites

    Forgive my shallowness, but when I see my aunts piling into a Church in Central Europe, I foolishly assume that it is what it looks like: Christians in Europe. How naive of me that I don’t see what is really going on…

    (More seriously, isn’t Gnosticism an elite thing? we commoners can’t even pronounce it.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @melanf

    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he’s writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what’s the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.
     
    Absolutely correct. But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.

    But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.

    I know, and tbh I’m glad about that. I don’t understand what Karlin sees in this guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    You're German. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet find your Stresemann.

    Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.

    That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

    The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

    , @Mr. Hack
    It's got to be his strong Christian Orthodox message. Don't forget, Kholmogorov stated that:

    Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
     
    Don't forget, in the Russian nationalist parallel universe (for internal consumption only! :-) Stalin was the father of the Ukrainian nation. I can't wait to get my hands on Karlin's magnum opus 'Putler, the Dark Lord of the Kremlin', where it will finally be revealed to whom exactly Putler owes his fortunes to. Is it just a coincidence that both Putler and Porkoshenko were implicated in the 'Panama papers' scandal, where both civic patriots, in their own right, were implicated in international money laundering projects? Seems like its been all quieted down since when it first surfaced in 2015?...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Beckow says:
    @Hyperborean

    (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism…)
     
    Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions.

    The polls are often based on the public's knowledge of historical figures, their perception of who is good and current societal moods (which is why Putin is a joint second place).

    Interestingly, it appears Stalin had his own role in making Pushkin a great figure: https://www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2017/02/14/pushkin-soviet-god_701618

    Levada doesn’t explicitly say ‘heroes’, just ‘great personalities’, so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions

    That clarifies it. But if you ask people about ‘greatness’, their answers are based on notoriety for some, admiration for others, sympathy, etc…

    I recently saw Pushkin on a list of African contributors to civilisation due to his partial Abyssinian ancestry. His story has always puzzled me.

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

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     
    Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

    Not all Anglophones reading this are cucks who are scared of other people asserting themselves.

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

    But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.
     
    I know, and tbh I'm glad about that. I don't understand what Karlin sees in this guy.

    You’re German. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we’ll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you’ll yet find your Stresemann.

    Russians, and many other nationalities, aren’t like that.

    That said I’ll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They’re particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

    The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I see it as increasingly likely that we’ll be forced to liberate you
     
    No thanks, Americans "liberating" us is one of the main reasons for the mess we're in (interesting though that even Trump supporters have this messianic impulse to tell other peoples what to do, that seems to be an unchanging constant of the American character).
    Look, I get how those "might is right" power fantasies are great fun on internet message boards, but they're not a sound basis for constructive and mutually beneficial European-Russian relations which is still what I want. It's not my business to tell Russians how to run their country or how to deal with their history, but I just don't see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov's will do much good. I'm all for nationalism in the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914 nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.
    , @Beckow
    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

    loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness
     
    You miss the longer historical picture if you dismiss us as 'loser countries'. In the last 100 years, by any standard, the big winners have been the smaller countries between Germany and Russia (or West and Russia). Politically, demographically, economically they have prospered beyond anything one would guess in 1900. This includes the endlessly demonised post-WWII period. They also probably have a better future than their western and southern neighbours. All we need is peace and well managed borders, and for the Western meddlers to mind their business.
    , @Mr. Hack
    Why do the German people continue to elect politicians and political parties that encourage the immigration patterns of third world refugees? Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers?...(for some reason, one doesn't expect more from the French).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Beckow says:

    there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

    I am not sure people put that much thought into it. If they did, the Whites were socially very unsympathetic for most people. The uniforms, rituals, pomposity. A friend of mine is a descendant of a White Russian officer, he says he wouldn’t fight with the Whites either, too snotty and you had to polish your boots.

    Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?
     
    The Reds had a lot of ethnic Russian troops from cities like Kharkiv. There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds (perhaps the most significant was Semyon Timoshenko, from Odessa region) but mostly it was a matter of anarchists or nationalists making temporary alliances with the Reds and placing themselves under Red command in order to keep the Whites out. Even some of the Galicians temporarily joined the Reds, in order to fight against Poland:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CE%5CRedUkrainianGalicianArmy.htm

    One of the commanders of these Red Galicians would later be a commander in the 14th Waffen SS Divison Galicia.

    , @Mikhail
    Well a good enough number did fight on the White side, thereby explaining why they never lost to Petliura's forces, which were representative of a completely separatist Ukraine, until Petliura sold out to Pilsudski - in a move which saw the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse come under the command of the Whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Mr. Hack says:
    @German_reader

    But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.
     
    I know, and tbh I'm glad about that. I don't understand what Karlin sees in this guy.

    It’s got to be his strong Christian Orthodox message. Don’t forget, Kholmogorov stated that:

    Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

    Don’t forget, in the Russian nationalist parallel universe (for internal consumption only! :-) Stalin was the father of the Ukrainian nation. I can’t wait to get my hands on Karlin’s magnum opus ‘Putler, the Dark Lord of the Kremlin’, where it will finally be revealed to whom exactly Putler owes his fortunes to. Is it just a coincidence that both Putler and Porkoshenko were implicated in the ‘Panama papers’ scandal, where both civic patriots, in their own right, were implicated in international money laundering projects? Seems like its been all quieted down since when it first surfaced in 2015?…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Thorfinnsson
    You're German. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet find your Stresemann.

    Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.

    That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

    The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

    I see it as increasingly likely that we’ll be forced to liberate you

    No thanks, Americans “liberating” us is one of the main reasons for the mess we’re in (interesting though that even Trump supporters have this messianic impulse to tell other peoples what to do, that seems to be an unchanging constant of the American character).
    Look, I get how those “might is right” power fantasies are great fun on internet message boards, but they’re not a sound basis for constructive and mutually beneficial European-Russian relations which is still what I want. It’s not my business to tell Russians how to run their country or how to deal with their history, but I just don’t see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov’s will do much good. I’m all for nationalism in the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914 nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Basically, like all western Europeans you're against anything "great". Any grand ambitions.

    You prefer the small-minded, the petty, the dull, the boring, the safe. The dull comfortable life.

    Anatoly, being a religious person, still has grand ambitions - transhumanism, grand ambitions for Russia, etc.

    It's interesting to watch this divide play out.

    Basically, the only people with any vitality left are Russians, Muslims, Jews, and Asians.
    , @peterAUS

    ....I just don’t see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov’s will do much good. I’m all for nationalism in the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914 nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.
     
    Ah....The CONUNDRUM.

    Well...maybe the later is the price for the former.

    I am sure that a lot of guys here will offer a solution.
    All you need is to trust them. I mean, not exactly them but people who would execute (pun intended) those ...ahm..."solutions".

    Good thing having all those nukes around, sometimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Beckow says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    You're German. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet find your Stresemann.

    Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.

    That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

    The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

    loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness

    You miss the longer historical picture if you dismiss us as ‘loser countries’. In the last 100 years, by any standard, the big winners have been the smaller countries between Germany and Russia (or West and Russia). Politically, demographically, economically they have prospered beyond anything one would guess in 1900. This includes the endlessly demonised post-WWII period. They also probably have a better future than their western and southern neighbours. All we need is peace and well managed borders, and for the Western meddlers to mind their business.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @inertial

    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.
     
    Actually, Russians are generally not like that. Or at least they weren't in the past. What you are seeing is a natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    You're German. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet find your Stresemann.

    Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.

    That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

    The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

    Why do the German people continue to elect politicians and political parties that encourage the immigration patterns of third world refugees? Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers?…(for some reason, one doesn’t expect more from the French).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers?
     
    It wasn't as obviously bad as in France or Britain before 2015. Bad enough, but the biggest non-European immigrant group are Turks who are problematic, but not on the same level as Arabs or Pakistanis.
    And due to the Nazi past there's a huge taboo against voting for anything even vaguely nationalist, with right-wingers being demonized by the entire establishment and facing physical assaults by Antifa thugs. That taboo is steadily getting eroded though, given the actions of the Merkel government which is unwilling to close the borders. A right-wing party like the AfD not only being present in almost all state parliaments, but getting almost 13% in the federal elections is completely unprecedented in the history of post-war Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. AaronB says:
    @German_reader

    I see it as increasingly likely that we’ll be forced to liberate you
     
    No thanks, Americans "liberating" us is one of the main reasons for the mess we're in (interesting though that even Trump supporters have this messianic impulse to tell other peoples what to do, that seems to be an unchanging constant of the American character).
    Look, I get how those "might is right" power fantasies are great fun on internet message boards, but they're not a sound basis for constructive and mutually beneficial European-Russian relations which is still what I want. It's not my business to tell Russians how to run their country or how to deal with their history, but I just don't see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov's will do much good. I'm all for nationalism in the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914 nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.

    Basically, like all western Europeans you’re against anything “great”. Any grand ambitions.

    You prefer the small-minded, the petty, the dull, the boring, the safe. The dull comfortable life.

    Anatoly, being a religious person, still has grand ambitions – transhumanism, grand ambitions for Russia, etc.

    It’s interesting to watch this divide play out.

    Basically, the only people with any vitality left are Russians, Muslims, Jews, and Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Mr. Hack
    Why do the German people continue to elect politicians and political parties that encourage the immigration patterns of third world refugees? Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers?...(for some reason, one doesn't expect more from the French).

    Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers?

    It wasn’t as obviously bad as in France or Britain before 2015. Bad enough, but the biggest non-European immigrant group are Turks who are problematic, but not on the same level as Arabs or Pakistanis.
    And due to the Nazi past there’s a huge taboo against voting for anything even vaguely nationalist, with right-wingers being demonized by the entire establishment and facing physical assaults by Antifa thugs. That taboo is steadily getting eroded though, given the actions of the Merkel government which is unwilling to close the borders. A right-wing party like the AfD not only being present in almost all state parliaments, but getting almost 13% in the federal elections is completely unprecedented in the history of post-war Germany.

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

    The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.
     
    Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
    Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

    Even if that’s true, the “freeloader” accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.

    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the West.

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don’t know why it was translated in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don’t know why it was translated in the first place.
     
    What context? Although I find most of Kholmogorov's ideas to be infantile and unbelievable, I applaud Karlin for bringing it up here, outside of the ghetto that it was intended for. It's good to see just what sorts of idiotic ideas and concerns are circulating today in the parallel universe of the Russian nationalists. Keep doing it Anatoly!
    , @German_reader

    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them?
     
    Complaining that Russians didn't get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria...does anybody in Russia care about this?).
    The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I'm not going to argue with them since that's an internal Russian debate as far as I'm concerned).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. inertial says:
    @Beckow
    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

    loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness
     
    You miss the longer historical picture if you dismiss us as 'loser countries'. In the last 100 years, by any standard, the big winners have been the smaller countries between Germany and Russia (or West and Russia). Politically, demographically, economically they have prospered beyond anything one would guess in 1900. This includes the endlessly demonised post-WWII period. They also probably have a better future than their western and southern neighbours. All we need is peace and well managed borders, and for the Western meddlers to mind their business.

    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

    Actually, Russians are generally not like that. Or at least they weren’t in the past. What you are seeing is a natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years
     
    Possibly, although I would say that messages have been mixed. I have argued with my comprador friends that full devotion to the Atlanticist West limits one's options, that it is the worst game strategy, and that burning bridges is a often a bad idea. But rationality is in short supply when salmon buffets call and that umpteenth trip to a DC 3- star hotel for 'training' is dangled in front of them.

    To be fair, Russians for most of the last 25 years were not that different, and would probably do it again. Human weakness has few boundaries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Mr. Hack says:
    @inertial

    Even if that’s true, the “freeloader” accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.
     
    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the West.

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don’t know why it was translated in the first place.

    What context? Although I find most of Kholmogorov’s ideas to be infantile and unbelievable, I applaud Karlin for bringing it up here, outside of the ghetto that it was intended for. It’s good to see just what sorts of idiotic ideas and concerns are circulating today in the parallel universe of the Russian nationalists. Keep doing it Anatoly!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @inertial

    Even if that’s true, the “freeloader” accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.
     
    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the West.

    This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.

    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them?

    Complaining that Russians didn’t get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria…does anybody in Russia care about this?).
    The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I’m not going to argue with them since that’s an internal Russian debate as far as I’m concerned).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    What's weird about it?

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

    The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.

    Instead they quite literally wasted millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the ridiculous East German regime.

    If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would've gotten something out of it.
    , @inertial
    I am sure it sounds weird to you, but what Kholmogorov is doing here, is telling the Stalinists that even by their own criteria their hero is a failure. What they say are his greatest achievements are not so great after all, even from the Imperial Stalinist POV.

    Another way Kholmogorov likes to troll Stalinists is to take a Soviet accomplishment (like going into space) and credit Nicholas II.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @German_reader

    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them?
     
    Complaining that Russians didn't get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria...does anybody in Russia care about this?).
    The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I'm not going to argue with them since that's an internal Russian debate as far as I'm concerned).

    What’s weird about it?

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

    The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.

    Instead they quite literally wasted millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the ridiculous East German regime.

    If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would’ve gotten something out of it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AP
    Everythng you wrote in this post is correct.

    proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people
     
    This supports the idea that, really, the Russian people for the Bolsheviks weren't "their own people." Bolsheviks had merely hijacked Russia and used it for their ends (including imposing their system in eastern and central Europe). Working those people as slaves was no big deal to them. Starving them to prop up their Commie friends in Germany wasn't either. That some of those people being used, and their descendents, support and defend that system is very pathetic.
    , @German_reader

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?
     
    Well, what exactly should Russia have annexed then? And what would have been done to the non-Russian population already in place there? Forced population transfers like in East Prussia or former East Poland? If they had been left in place, that would obviously conflict with Russian nationalism in the narrow sense and be more in the tradition of multiethnic imperialism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Dmitry
    It's also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very 'ethical labour' inside the UK itself.

    Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

    Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

    After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power
    ...

    Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

    The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

     

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html

    That’s interesting, thanks. Haven’t had time to read it yet but here is an article by the author cited above (Jane Humphries), from the Economic History Review, on the same subject, based on her book

    http://pseweb.eu/ydepot/semin/texte1112/JAN2012CHI.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    What's weird about it?

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

    The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.

    Instead they quite literally wasted millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the ridiculous East German regime.

    If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would've gotten something out of it.

    Everythng you wrote in this post is correct.

    proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people

    This supports the idea that, really, the Russian people for the Bolsheviks weren’t “their own people.” Bolsheviks had merely hijacked Russia and used it for their ends (including imposing their system in eastern and central Europe). Working those people as slaves was no big deal to them. Starving them to prop up their Commie friends in Germany wasn’t either. That some of those people being used, and their descendents, support and defend that system is very pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Sure.

    Which strengthens further the point of Karlin and Kholmogorov that Stalin shouldn't be feted as some kind of Russian hero.

    He ought only to be hero to "anti-revisionist Marxist-Lenininsts" (lol).

    Likewise it's improper for Ukrainian nationalists to consider the Holodomor a Russian attack on the Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Thorfinnsson
    What's weird about it?

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

    The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.

    Instead they quite literally wasted millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the ridiculous East German regime.

    If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would've gotten something out of it.

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

    Well, what exactly should Russia have annexed then? And what would have been done to the non-Russian population already in place there? Forced population transfers like in East Prussia or former East Poland? If they had been left in place, that would obviously conflict with Russian nationalism in the narrow sense and be more in the tradition of multiethnic imperialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. AP says:
    @Beckow

    there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.
     
    I am not sure people put that much thought into it. If they did, the Whites were socially very unsympathetic for most people. The uniforms, rituals, pomposity. A friend of mine is a descendant of a White Russian officer, he says he wouldn't fight with the Whites either, too snotty and you had to polish your boots.

    Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?

    Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?

    The Reds had a lot of ethnic Russian troops from cities like Kharkiv. There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds (perhaps the most significant was Semyon Timoshenko, from Odessa region) but mostly it was a matter of anarchists or nationalists making temporary alliances with the Reds and placing themselves under Red command in order to keep the Whites out. Even some of the Galicians temporarily joined the Reds, in order to fight against Poland:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CE%5CRedUkrainianGalicianArmy.htm

    One of the commanders of these Red Galicians would later be a commander in the 14th Waffen SS Divison Galicia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Thanks. How does an anarchist-nationalist temporarily allied with the Reds look like in person? I am always amused by the ability of certain eastern European types to push the boundary of coherent thought. There is too much of something there, or maybe something missing. Many just want a gun to take a revenge on the crappy world.

    It is not different today: there are Pan-Slavic nationalists who hate anything Russian (or even Polish), are fanatically pro-Western, loudly admire Israel and more quietly the Nazis, their economic policy is quasi-communist and social views are to the right of a 19th century pope. Quite a mess.
    , @Mikhail

    There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds
     
    Another one of your gross understatements. Also keeping in mind that a number of folks from the territory of Russian Empire Ukraine could qualify as ethnic Ukrainian, but identified differently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Dmitry

    In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

     

    England and Ireland were the same country (under the union - the United Kingdom), ruled from London - until 1922. (Part of Ireland - Northern Ireland - is still with the United Kingdom).

    So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom, under the rule of London.

    Ireland’s population (North & South) is substantially (25%) lower than it was in 1840 — I’m not aware of any other country in the world where this is the case. In 1840, the Irish population was a bit more than half that of England & Wales (today slightly more than 10%).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @AP
    Everythng you wrote in this post is correct.

    proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people
     
    This supports the idea that, really, the Russian people for the Bolsheviks weren't "their own people." Bolsheviks had merely hijacked Russia and used it for their ends (including imposing their system in eastern and central Europe). Working those people as slaves was no big deal to them. Starving them to prop up their Commie friends in Germany wasn't either. That some of those people being used, and their descendents, support and defend that system is very pathetic.

    Sure.

    Which strengthens further the point of Karlin and Kholmogorov that Stalin shouldn’t be feted as some kind of Russian hero.

    He ought only to be hero to “anti-revisionist Marxist-Lenininsts” (lol).

    Likewise it’s improper for Ukrainian nationalists to consider the Holodomor a Russian attack on the Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Likewise it’s improper for Ukrainian nationalists to consider the Holodomor a Russian attack on the Ukraine.
     
    Correct. It was, however, a consequence of being ruled by Moscow, something for Ukrainians to avoid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @German_reader

    What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?
     
    Well, what exactly should Russia have annexed then? And what would have been done to the non-Russian population already in place there? Forced population transfers like in East Prussia or former East Poland? If they had been left in place, that would obviously conflict with Russian nationalism in the narrow sense and be more in the tradition of multiethnic imperialism.

    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin’s shoes, I would’ve concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss “maximalist” objectives, I would’ve annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Stalin couldn't really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).

    1) The Western powers might've made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would've destroyed the USSR, and Stalin would've made a fool of himself.
    2) Hitler might've won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from here on.
    3) The Western allies might've defeated Hitler anyway, but would've been way more hostile to the USSR (which then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked by him), the USSR would've received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would've been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn't have sold the designs of their jet engine, by the way), and so would've been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.

    As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?
    , @German_reader

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.
     
    That would indeed be interesting, and I'd also like to see specific statements about how one should have dealt with non-Russian populations in those areas.
    In general, I find AK's stance on those issues somewhat contradictory. To me it seems like he's clearly a Russian ethnic nationalist. But then he lauds the multiethnic Tsarist empire with all its troublesome national minorities, and makes insinuations about lost chances for territorial annexations (as if Russia weren't a huge country even today) that would have brought even more non-Russians into that empire.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups
     
    I'm curious, just how exactly you envision the 'depopulation' of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any such violent and crazy proposals? As far as 'reliable East Slav groups' we can see today how that ha turned out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can't figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations? :-)
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.
     
    If talking about WW1 war aims, they are pretty much in line with the Imperial government's thinking at the start of 1917 (some of the below are real plans, some are my conjectures about what they planned to do - any corrections based on actual evidence of policy are welcome).

    * Pro-Russian kingdoms headed by Romanovs in Poland and Bohemia.
    The latter would not be a problem - the Czechs were highly Russophilic at the start of the century, even demanding the teaching of the Russian language in Czech schools (obviously this request was not granted by AH).
    The Poles would be more of a problem but with the prestige gained by the Russian brand after victory no doubt quite doable.
    * Obviously the Ukraine stays within the Russian *Empire* and even integrating Galicia will not be a problem due to the post-victory strength of the Russian brand. There was also a strand of Russophilia in Galicia that, if diminished relative to the 19th century, still existed, whereas today it is entirely absent.
    * Romania is an ally, having fulfilled its own national objectives (reunification with Bukovina and Transylvania).
    * The breakup of AH, it goes without saying.
    * The undoing in whole or part of German unification; Romanovs to be installed in many of the resulting principalities. And obviously, heavy reparations to turbocharge Russia's continuing postwar industrialization.
    * Austria and Germany/Prussia pressured into neutrality in the Cold War with Britain and France that may ensue a few years down the line.
    * The dual acquisition of Constantinople (Tsargrad), and of Western Armenia, opening a land route to the Holy Land, where Russia would establish basis. With control of the Bosphorus, the Mediterranean gradually becomes a Russian lake as the Great Naval Program is resumed post-1918.
    Turks are the big losers, getting bottled up into Anatolia. Greeks and Armenians are the two pincers of Russian control of the Mediterranean.
    * Ethnic cleansing of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in Central Asia to punish them for the Basmachi revolt. The area becomes permanently majority Russian.
    * Ethnic cleansing of Europeans is unrealistic and politically incorrect at this time, but there's no need for that anyway.

    Speaking of WW2, in retrospect, making peace with the Germans in 1943 may have indeed been the best move. Letting them do what they will with Poland would have been particularly amusing. However, it was not politically realistic, even for a totalitarian system such as the USSR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Thorfinnsson
    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

    Stalin couldn’t really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).

    1) The Western powers might’ve made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would’ve destroyed the USSR, and Stalin would’ve made a fool of himself.
    2) Hitler might’ve won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from here on.
    3) The Western allies might’ve defeated Hitler anyway, but would’ve been way more hostile to the USSR (which then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked by him), the USSR would’ve received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would’ve been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn’t have sold the designs of their jet engine, by the way), and so would’ve been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.

    As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This basically comes down to the thesis that Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what.

    I'm highly skeptical of this thesis.

    The Western allies had proven already in 1940 that they were completely unwilling to negotiate with Hitler. Granted, who knows what the reaction to a separate peace would have been.
    , @ussr andy
    OT
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2353265

    what exactly was the wrong way you were doing it? gradually turning the temp down then plateauing at ~20° when it becomes uncomfortable?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Thorfinnsson
    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    That would indeed be interesting, and I’d also like to see specific statements about how one should have dealt with non-Russian populations in those areas.
    In general, I find AK’s stance on those issues somewhat contradictory. To me it seems like he’s clearly a Russian ethnic nationalist. But then he lauds the multiethnic Tsarist empire with all its troublesome national minorities, and makes insinuations about lost chances for territorial annexations (as if Russia weren’t a huge country even today) that would have brought even more non-Russians into that empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. The trouble is that people like us have created a mental anchor by settling on the term "nationalism".

    A Russian ethnic nation-state is not necessarily more desirable than a Russian-dominated multiethnic empire, nor vice-a-versa. It depends on the particular circumstances and conditions.

    Or to move over to your country, would a federal Europe be a bad thing if it was led by people with ideas more like yours or the Magyar Miracle rather than Jean Claude Juncker?

    Steve Sailer likes to harp on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and points out that because "continentalism" isn't a political concept no one ever thinks of this. Hence the patriotic resistance in Europe gets itself into traps like Marine Le Pen campaigning for the abolition of the Euro.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @reiner Tor
    Stalin couldn't really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).

    1) The Western powers might've made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would've destroyed the USSR, and Stalin would've made a fool of himself.
    2) Hitler might've won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from here on.
    3) The Western allies might've defeated Hitler anyway, but would've been way more hostile to the USSR (which then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked by him), the USSR would've received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would've been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn't have sold the designs of their jet engine, by the way), and so would've been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.

    As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?

    This basically comes down to the thesis that Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what.

    I’m highly skeptical of this thesis.

    The Western allies had proven already in 1940 that they were completely unwilling to negotiate with Hitler. Granted, who knows what the reaction to a separate peace would have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what
     
    Not demonic, just driven by an ideology. He believed in his own mission to create the great Thousand Year Reich up to the Ural (and beyond, actually), and would've thought such a stroke of luck as a sign from Providence that he needs to press ahead with his plans. In any event, Hitler was unwilling to even seriously negotiate with Stalin, because he also didn't (and couldn't) trust Stalin, a man he'd already betrayed before. So the issue was mutual. Hitler was (must've been) afraid that Stalin would stab him in the back later. While Stalin was (must've been) afraid that Hitler would stab him in the back later, as he'd already done once.

    But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It's questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

    It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. There is one simple criteria when truing to evaluate a ruler or a statesman. Just compare the country before and after him/her. In this sense Stalin is as great as Peter the Great, just not in name. No amount of “what if”, “alternative history” or “cost and effect” analysis can change that.

    Of the topic (or precisely on the topic) both Russian Empire and more recently Soviet Union collapsed, and there must have been a perfectly mundane reasons for that.
    It’s a duty of current generations to learn the good and bad from both, avoid pitfalls and continue forward. There was plenty that the empire left to the SU that it could build upon, just as there is quite a bit of legacy left by the Soviet Union that modern RF can rely on.

    But, as someone here already mentioned here, and I agree, that is what Putin has been doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Ethnonationalism in its purest version - evacuation of compromised territories, good ports, etc. - is just counterproduce. Cucked, even.

    Ergo for civic nationalism. I assume we all agree on that.

    It seems obvious that the ideal combination is both. And the *late* Russian Empire was in fact just that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Marcus says:
    @AP
    Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.

    I agree the Makhnovists fought mainly against the Whites, who were the biggest threat for them, but neutrality and occassional collaboration with the Petliurists was purely tactical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Makhnovists were mostly ethnic Ukrainians and supported stuff like Ukrainian-language schools (Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher!) but were opposed to a Ukrainian nationalist state. They mostly had a deal with the Petliurists - you stay away from the areas we control, and we won't fight you. They really hated the Whites. IIRC Makhno writing in exile at some point suggested he should have cooperated with them more, because they weren't as bad to him as the Whites and Reds were.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @German_reader

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.
     
    That would indeed be interesting, and I'd also like to see specific statements about how one should have dealt with non-Russian populations in those areas.
    In general, I find AK's stance on those issues somewhat contradictory. To me it seems like he's clearly a Russian ethnic nationalist. But then he lauds the multiethnic Tsarist empire with all its troublesome national minorities, and makes insinuations about lost chances for territorial annexations (as if Russia weren't a huge country even today) that would have brought even more non-Russians into that empire.

    This isn’t as big of a deal as you’re making it out to be. The trouble is that people like us have created a mental anchor by settling on the term “nationalism”.

    A Russian ethnic nation-state is not necessarily more desirable than a Russian-dominated multiethnic empire, nor vice-a-versa. It depends on the particular circumstances and conditions.

    Or to move over to your country, would a federal Europe be a bad thing if it was led by people with ideas more like yours or the Magyar Miracle rather than Jean Claude Juncker?

    Steve Sailer likes to harp on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and points out that because “continentalism” isn’t a political concept no one ever thinks of this. Hence the patriotic resistance in Europe gets itself into traps like Marine Le Pen campaigning for the abolition of the Euro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Sure.

    Which strengthens further the point of Karlin and Kholmogorov that Stalin shouldn't be feted as some kind of Russian hero.

    He ought only to be hero to "anti-revisionist Marxist-Lenininsts" (lol).

    Likewise it's improper for Ukrainian nationalists to consider the Holodomor a Russian attack on the Ukraine.

    Likewise it’s improper for Ukrainian nationalists to consider the Holodomor a Russian attack on the Ukraine.

    Correct. It was, however, a consequence of being ruled by Moscow, something for Ukrainians to avoid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @AP
    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

    Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

    I’m afraid in this case your sense of nonsense is misplaced. I read the book a couple of years ago, and while it had its flaws I found it pretty convincing.

    The fact that “actual historians” don’t like it says nothing, since it is obviously an anti-PC book that could not possibly be embraced by the guardians of our past. However, before the “conventional wisdom” had coalesced to relegate it to the rubbish bin, an early review in the New York Times was far more favorable:

    “White Cargo” is meticulously sourced and footnoted — which is wise, given its contentious material — but it is never dry or academic. Quotations from 17th- and 18th-century letters, diaries and newspapers lend authenticity as well as color. Excerpts from wills, stating how white servants should be passed down along with livestock and furniture, say more than any textbook explanation could. The authors are not only historians, but also natural storytellers with a fine sense of drama and character.

    Despite the heaviness of the subject matter, their playful way with words and love of literary allusion come through. There are kidnapping victims of the kind written about in Daniel Defoe’s “Colonel Jack,” and a tumultuous ocean voyage that may have inspired Shakespeare’s writing of “The Tempest.”

    What little discussion there is about this forgotten bit of American history is sometimes linked to those with ulterior political motives, usually interested in delegitimizing current-day discourse about race or the teaching of black history. “White Cargo,” which was first published in Britain last year, has a refreshing sense of distance and neutrality. The authors take care to quote African-American sources and clearly state that they have no wish to play down the horrors of the much larger black slave trade that followed.

    If anything, Jordan and Walsh offer an explanation of how the structures of slavery — black or white — were entwined in the roots of American society. They refrain from drawing links to today, except to remind readers that there are probably tens of millions of Americans who are descended from white slaves without even knowing it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html

    By the way, one of the authors that you so belittle last year published a very well-received book entitled The King’s City: London under Charles II: A city that transformed a nation – and created modern Britain — the third volume in his trilogy about Charles II (the first two written jointly in collaboration with the second author of White Cargo).

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, David In TN
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Thorfinnsson
    This basically comes down to the thesis that Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what.

    I'm highly skeptical of this thesis.

    The Western allies had proven already in 1940 that they were completely unwilling to negotiate with Hitler. Granted, who knows what the reaction to a separate peace would have been.

    Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what

    Not demonic, just driven by an ideology. He believed in his own mission to create the great Thousand Year Reich up to the Ural (and beyond, actually), and would’ve thought such a stroke of luck as a sign from Providence that he needs to press ahead with his plans. In any event, Hitler was unwilling to even seriously negotiate with Stalin, because he also didn’t (and couldn’t) trust Stalin, a man he’d already betrayed before. So the issue was mutual. Hitler was (must’ve been) afraid that Stalin would stab him in the back later. While Stalin was (must’ve been) afraid that Hitler would stab him in the back later, as he’d already done once.

    But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn’t have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It’s questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

    It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    People change their beliefs. Hitler for instance no longer consider slavs to be inferior at the end of his life. Supposing you're correct then we have my maximalist vision of a Russian Empire reaching the Elbe, ideally with a port on the North Sea as well if the army could've gotten there in time (plausible with a different offensive strategy in 1944-45).

    But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn’t have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It’s questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

    It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.
     
    I have complained bitterly about this before. American foreign policy took a permanently fatal wrong turn with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Previously American foreign policy had oscillated between isolationism and expansionism, but always with a clear pursuit of American self-interest. This was firmly established already in the 1790s, when George Washington flatly rejected airheaded nonsense about aiding revolutionary France b/c muh liberty.

    After FDR American foreign policy pursued idealistic, errant nonsense. The only significant departures from that have been Nixon and Trump.

    This started when FDR placed sanctions on Italy for the "crime" of invading Ethiopia. Willingly giving up commercial exports during the Great Depression.

    The outrages continued with FDR's refusal to punish Mexico from expropriating American oil interests in 1938.

    Our fate was sealed with the adoption of the Atlantic Charter (airheaded rubbish) and the passing of the Lend-Lease Program, where we gave weapons to countries fighting the Axis in exchange for...nothing (other than a 99 year lease of some British bases). Why not instead demand Bermuda and the British West Indies?

    The appropriate strategy in dealing with the Axis would've been either hemispheric defense (as proposed by the American First Committee) or joining them to dismember the British Empire.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Unrealistically long time horizons. The US did of course unambiguously win the war - it accounted for something like 50% of world manufacturing production by 1945. It dominated all the markets. In the late 1940s-early 1950s, if it had really wanted to, it could have conquered the entire world and/or instituted a one world government. (The Soviet nuclear deterrent was not credible until 1955 or so).

    To develop Thorfinnsson's idea of a 1943 Nazi-Soviet peace further (with the caveat that I do not consider it politically realistic even for the USSR):

    First off, I do not think the Allies would have made a separate peace with the Nazis. Public opinion there mattered more, for obvious reasons (democracy), and it's not even clear that the Russians hated the Germans more (there are accounts of German POWs being treated generously - disgracefully - well, by elderly babushkas with low national consciousness).

    With the Wehrmacht having its hands untied in the East, D-Day would no longer be feasible. However, the Manhattan Project would not be going away, with the result that a campaign of democidal atomic attrition against the German population would begin from 1945.

    The Nazis are not limp-wristed like the Kaiser or even Hindenburg/Ludendorff and will hold onto power as German city after city gets wiped off the Earth.

    At some point, Germany will be sufficiently weak for an Allied invasion to be possible, especially considering that there would have been years to prepare for it. Obviously, at this point, the USSR could use the opportunity to scavenge. Even the East Europeans will be less of a problem at this point, having been subjected to 2-3x the degree of democide by the Nazis as they were historically. There will at a basic level be much fewer of them. And they'd hate the Germans even more.

    The USSR could have used the armistice with Germany to refocus on science spending and turbocharge the nuclear program, developing it earlier and having a credible deterrent by 1950 instead of 1955. So no Operation Unthinkable in principle (IRL, the USSR in reality seriously lucked out on that score!!).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. AP says:
    @Marcus
    I agree the Makhnovists fought mainly against the Whites, who were the biggest threat for them, but neutrality and occassional collaboration with the Petliurists was purely tactical.

    Makhnovists were mostly ethnic Ukrainians and supported stuff like Ukrainian-language schools (Makhno’s wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher!) but were opposed to a Ukrainian nationalist state. They mostly had a deal with the Petliurists – you stay away from the areas we control, and we won’t fight you. They really hated the Whites. IIRC Makhno writing in exile at some point suggested he should have cooperated with them more, because they weren’t as bad to him as the Whites and Reds were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    When and where did he actually say such? That's something that svidos would tap dance on if actually true. As stated, should be viewed with suspicion.
    , @Marcus
    I thought they did collaborate at times? He collaborated more with the Bolsheviks though, which was a huge mistake in hindsight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @reiner Tor

    Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what
     
    Not demonic, just driven by an ideology. He believed in his own mission to create the great Thousand Year Reich up to the Ural (and beyond, actually), and would've thought such a stroke of luck as a sign from Providence that he needs to press ahead with his plans. In any event, Hitler was unwilling to even seriously negotiate with Stalin, because he also didn't (and couldn't) trust Stalin, a man he'd already betrayed before. So the issue was mutual. Hitler was (must've been) afraid that Stalin would stab him in the back later. While Stalin was (must've been) afraid that Hitler would stab him in the back later, as he'd already done once.

    But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It's questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

    It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.

    People change their beliefs. Hitler for instance no longer consider slavs to be inferior at the end of his life. Supposing you’re correct then we have my maximalist vision of a Russian Empire reaching the Elbe, ideally with a port on the North Sea as well if the army could’ve gotten there in time (plausible with a different offensive strategy in 1944-45).

    But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn’t have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It’s questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

    It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.

    I have complained bitterly about this before. American foreign policy took a permanently fatal wrong turn with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Previously American foreign policy had oscillated between isolationism and expansionism, but always with a clear pursuit of American self-interest. This was firmly established already in the 1790s, when George Washington flatly rejected airheaded nonsense about aiding revolutionary France b/c muh liberty.

    After FDR American foreign policy pursued idealistic, errant nonsense. The only significant departures from that have been Nixon and Trump.

    This started when FDR placed sanctions on Italy for the “crime” of invading Ethiopia. Willingly giving up commercial exports during the Great Depression.

    The outrages continued with FDR’s refusal to punish Mexico from expropriating American oil interests in 1938.

    Our fate was sealed with the adoption of the Atlantic Charter (airheaded rubbish) and the passing of the Lend-Lease Program, where we gave weapons to countries fighting the Axis in exchange for…nothing (other than a 99 year lease of some British bases). Why not instead demand Bermuda and the British West Indies?

    The appropriate strategy in dealing with the Axis would’ve been either hemispheric defense (as proposed by the American First Committee) or joining them to dismember the British Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Anatoly Karlin
    Standard in the 18th century:

    * Indentured servants - People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

    * Press-ganging into the Royal Navy - Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

    All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.

    I’m surprised you have such a PC view of American history. As multiple sources make clear, the information presented in White Cargo is correct — large numbers of (white) people were effectively involuntarily “enslaved” in colonial America, in conditions that were no better (and often worse) than enslaved Africans.

    Where do you think the word kidnap comes from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Dmitry says:
    @Yevardian
    Please stop using 'we'. You are a decent blogger and all that, but I can say without one drop of Russian blood in my veins I can say my outlook is more 'Russian' than yours.

    Surely his views and outlook are a little distinctive, in every country, not just Russia (or America). But it doesn’t make them less entertaining/interesting/funny, etc.

    From the perspective of a blog, if the viewpoint of the blogger is more frequently found in the public , then they would be easier to find, less rare – and there would be less reason for audience to visit the blog. If all the blogger’s views are ‘typical’ – then why would anyone visit the blog? They could read the main news sites and encounter the identical content.

    More generally, the more thinking or thoughtful people, will usually have more unusual and unpredictable combinations of views, which cannot be categorized into simple groups.

    If you encounter that your views can ‘map’ predictably onto any political movement, common ideology, or political party in your country -then you need to question your views (and the influence of conformism in the predictability).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    I agree, just when anyone uses the royal 'we' when describing their own beliefs is more than a little pretentious, its as if one is embarrassed to admit their opinion is highly idiosyncratic. Kholmogorov is on the same level as Dugin or the Saker imo. Starikov looks like Karmazinov in comparison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?
     
    The Reds had a lot of ethnic Russian troops from cities like Kharkiv. There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds (perhaps the most significant was Semyon Timoshenko, from Odessa region) but mostly it was a matter of anarchists or nationalists making temporary alliances with the Reds and placing themselves under Red command in order to keep the Whites out. Even some of the Galicians temporarily joined the Reds, in order to fight against Poland:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CE%5CRedUkrainianGalicianArmy.htm

    One of the commanders of these Red Galicians would later be a commander in the 14th Waffen SS Divison Galicia.

    Thanks. How does an anarchist-nationalist temporarily allied with the Reds look like in person? I am always amused by the ability of certain eastern European types to push the boundary of coherent thought. There is too much of something there, or maybe something missing. Many just want a gun to take a revenge on the crappy world.

    It is not different today: there are Pan-Slavic nationalists who hate anything Russian (or even Polish), are fanatically pro-Western, loudly admire Israel and more quietly the Nazis, their economic policy is quasi-communist and social views are to the right of a 19th century pope. Quite a mess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Both Reds and anarchists were opposed to the landlords and capitalists, so they had common cause against the Whites and could cooperate against them in order to prevent White victory. Similarly, both Reds and non-Russian nationalists were opposed to the Whites who were Russian nationalists. In the Galicians' case, it was opposition to the Poles who had just conquered their country.

    In reality cooperation between Reds and nationalists wasn't as substantial as between anarchists and Reds.

    It wasn't the product of ideological twisting, it was simply a matter of - we hate them more than each other, so let's cooperate against them, for now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

    Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups

    I’m curious, just how exactly you envision the ‘depopulation’ of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any such violent and crazy proposals? As far as ‘reliable East Slav groups’ we can see today how that ha turned out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can’t figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I’m curious, just how exactly you envision the ‘depopulation’ of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place?
     
    Well, the USSR practiced wholesale, semi-genocidal deportations of entire peoples within its borders before and into the war (e.g. the Chechens).

    It was also done in Koenigsberg after the German neutrality gambit failed. (Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.)

    So why not. That said, it might have been best to wait until the USSR had a serious nuclear deterrent (that is, post-1955) before going ahead with it.

    This is what I would have done if I didn't have any pretensions to morality, etc. but only naked self-interest in mind.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would've been very useful for that.

    Depopulation isn't a euphemism here for execution or even necessarily deportations. Unlike Hitler and his gang I don't have fantasies of wiping people out.

    Look instead at something like, say, the history of England and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The preceding Brittonic and Romano-British populations weren't eliminated at all. The ruling classes were replaced, the cities transformed, and overtime the countryside itself.

    If Canute the Great had established a real dynasty then today there wouldn't even be an England, but not because demonic vikings had some demented plot to butcher every Englishman.

    As far as I can tell Ukrainians were generally reliable in Tsarist and Soviet times.

    And no, Russia didn't need extra territory. I said that myself. But I figured German_reader was curious about a maximalist proposal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. AP says:
    @Beckow
    Thanks. How does an anarchist-nationalist temporarily allied with the Reds look like in person? I am always amused by the ability of certain eastern European types to push the boundary of coherent thought. There is too much of something there, or maybe something missing. Many just want a gun to take a revenge on the crappy world.

    It is not different today: there are Pan-Slavic nationalists who hate anything Russian (or even Polish), are fanatically pro-Western, loudly admire Israel and more quietly the Nazis, their economic policy is quasi-communist and social views are to the right of a 19th century pope. Quite a mess.

    Both Reds and anarchists were opposed to the landlords and capitalists, so they had common cause against the Whites and could cooperate against them in order to prevent White victory. Similarly, both Reds and non-Russian nationalists were opposed to the Whites who were Russian nationalists. In the Galicians’ case, it was opposition to the Poles who had just conquered their country.

    In reality cooperation between Reds and nationalists wasn’t as substantial as between anarchists and Reds.

    It wasn’t the product of ideological twisting, it was simply a matter of – we hate them more than each other, so let’s cooperate against them, for now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...we hate them more than each other...
     
    You are getting warmer, it is about unbounded hatred. Any enemy will do. Did they have flow-charts mapping out the complexity? Or does this kind of well-calculated hatred come to them intuitively?

    My intuition tells me that when you mess with people repeatedly, and they end up living worse and worse, at some point the 'kill them all' mentality takes over. It happened in Ukraine in 1917-20, in WWII and after. I hope we can avoid it from happening again. But if Ukraine lives as today in 2020-25 (lousy living standards), if there are guns everywhere, something could spark the downward spiral again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Beckow says:
    @inertial

    Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.
     
    Actually, Russians are generally not like that. Or at least they weren't in the past. What you are seeing is a natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.

    natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years

    Possibly, although I would say that messages have been mixed. I have argued with my comprador friends that full devotion to the Atlanticist West limits one’s options, that it is the worst game strategy, and that burning bridges is a often a bad idea. But rationality is in short supply when salmon buffets call and that umpteenth trip to a DC 3- star hotel for ‘training’ is dangled in front of them.

    To be fair, Russians for most of the last 25 years were not that different, and would probably do it again. Human weakness has few boundaries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. ussr andy says:
    @reiner Tor
    Stalin couldn't really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).

    1) The Western powers might've made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would've destroyed the USSR, and Stalin would've made a fool of himself.
    2) Hitler might've won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from here on.
    3) The Western allies might've defeated Hitler anyway, but would've been way more hostile to the USSR (which then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked by him), the USSR would've received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would've been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn't have sold the designs of their jet engine, by the way), and so would've been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.

    As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?

    OT

    [MORE]

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2353265

    what exactly was the wrong way you were doing it? gradually turning the temp down then plateauing at ~20° when it becomes uncomfortable?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    on topic, Stalin kinda sucked, what with the random arrests, the Doctors' Affair,... the random arrests, but with all the degeneracy and decivilization going on - rap battles, corruption, gopniks, RSP-shki, "kowtowing to the West" - you sometimes wish he was back.
    , @reiner Tor
    Many errors.

    1) hyperventilating while under the cold water

    2) doing it at night right before going to sleep

    3) also doing it right after workouts (not recommended, to my knowledge)

    4) changing back and forth several times

    5) often taking cold baths only (I don’t think it’s bad in itself, but it’s more difficult to properly clean yourself without warm water, plus all the above problems)

    6) no methods or regularity, for example I swam in 3 Celsius water after having missed a few weeks during my Christmas vacation, and then I felt a little too cold, so I decided I could miss another few days, then plunged into the 3 degree water again, and so on; it’s like a guy missing workouts and then trying to make up for it by suddenly lifting several times larger weights than his normal workout weights; it probably worsened my chronic hyperventilation problem (which is a problem for most people, by the way)

    Things like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia
     
    1930s was typical and peak Stalinism, it was no cherry-picking or strawman.

    1930s was typical and peak Stalinism

    No, it was the peak, but it was not typical. ‘Typical’ is defined as ‘faithfully representing’. 1930′s were an extreme, the 1917-1991 period as a whole was very different. So yes, you are cherry-picking.

    How about them 5-year olds in the British mines? Ok, with that?

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

    Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups
     
    I'm curious, just how exactly you envision the 'depopulation' of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any such violent and crazy proposals? As far as 'reliable East Slav groups' we can see today how that ha turned out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can't figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations? :-)

    I’m curious, just how exactly you envision the ‘depopulation’ of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place?

    Well, the USSR practiced wholesale, semi-genocidal deportations of entire peoples within its borders before and into the war (e.g. the Chechens).

    It was also done in Koenigsberg after the German neutrality gambit failed. (Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.)

    So why not. That said, it might have been best to wait until the USSR had a serious nuclear deterrent (that is, post-1955) before going ahead with it.

    This is what I would have done if I didn’t have any pretensions to morality, etc. but only naked self-interest in mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.
     
    Korolevets?
    , @Marcus
    Stalins worst sin was exiling the Chechens within the USSR instead of expelling or exterminating them
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Mr. Hack

    Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups
     
    I'm curious, just how exactly you envision the 'depopulation' of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any such violent and crazy proposals? As far as 'reliable East Slav groups' we can see today how that ha turned out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can't figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations? :-)

    The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would’ve been very useful for that.

    Depopulation isn’t a euphemism here for execution or even necessarily deportations. Unlike Hitler and his gang I don’t have fantasies of wiping people out.

    Look instead at something like, say, the history of England and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The preceding Brittonic and Romano-British populations weren’t eliminated at all. The ruling classes were replaced, the cities transformed, and overtime the countryside itself.

    If Canute the Great had established a real dynasty then today there wouldn’t even be an England, but not because demonic vikings had some demented plot to butcher every Englishman.

    As far as I can tell Ukrainians were generally reliable in Tsarist and Soviet times.

    And no, Russia didn’t need extra territory. I said that myself. But I figured German_reader was curious about a maximalist proposal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would’ve been very useful for that.
     
    The populations of Russia and Eastern Europe had already been depopulated severely due to the savagery of the war. The returning Soviet soldiers, including the remnant of the remaining population, had their hands full with rebuilding of what was left of their own settlements, not in a position to 'repopulate' nor rebuild Eastern Europe without the direct participation of its own indigenous populations. A prolonging of the war at the expense of millions of more lives, either resettled (to where?) or exterminated, would not have been in the cards. Besides, what makes you think that Eastern Europe would have fared any better than it did, with a new race of Russian ubermensch calling all of the shots anyway? History has shown us that they did a rather lousy job of things in their own country and in those that it did end up controlling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. ussr andy says:
    @ussr andy
    OT
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2353265

    what exactly was the wrong way you were doing it? gradually turning the temp down then plateauing at ~20° when it becomes uncomfortable?

    on topic, Stalin kinda sucked, what with the random arrests, the Doctors’ Affair,… the random arrests, but with all the degeneracy and decivilization going on – rap battles, corruption, gopniks, RSP-shki, “kowtowing to the West” – you sometimes wish he was back.

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

    You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them?
     
    Complaining that Russians didn't get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria...does anybody in Russia care about this?).
    The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I'm not going to argue with them since that's an internal Russian debate as far as I'm concerned).

    I am sure it sounds weird to you, but what Kholmogorov is doing here, is telling the Stalinists that even by their own criteria their hero is a failure. What they say are his greatest achievements are not so great after all, even from the Imperial Stalinist POV.

    Another way Kholmogorov likes to troll Stalinists is to take a Soviet accomplishment (like going into space) and credit Nicholas II.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Beckow says:
    @AP
    Both Reds and anarchists were opposed to the landlords and capitalists, so they had common cause against the Whites and could cooperate against them in order to prevent White victory. Similarly, both Reds and non-Russian nationalists were opposed to the Whites who were Russian nationalists. In the Galicians' case, it was opposition to the Poles who had just conquered their country.

    In reality cooperation between Reds and nationalists wasn't as substantial as between anarchists and Reds.

    It wasn't the product of ideological twisting, it was simply a matter of - we hate them more than each other, so let's cooperate against them, for now.

    …we hate them more than each other…

    You are getting warmer, it is about unbounded hatred. Any enemy will do. Did they have flow-charts mapping out the complexity? Or does this kind of well-calculated hatred come to them intuitively?

    My intuition tells me that when you mess with people repeatedly, and they end up living worse and worse, at some point the ‘kill them all‘ mentality takes over. It happened in Ukraine in 1917-20, in WWII and after. I hope we can avoid it from happening again. But if Ukraine lives as today in 2020-25 (lousy living standards), if there are guns everywhere, something could spark the downward spiral again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You are getting warmer, it is about unbounded hatred. Any enemy will do.
     
    Not really. Here are the ethnic policies of the West Ukrainian National Republic:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic#Policies_towards_national_minorities_and_inter-ethnic_relations
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I’m curious, just how exactly you envision the ‘depopulation’ of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place?
     
    Well, the USSR practiced wholesale, semi-genocidal deportations of entire peoples within its borders before and into the war (e.g. the Chechens).

    It was also done in Koenigsberg after the German neutrality gambit failed. (Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.)

    So why not. That said, it might have been best to wait until the USSR had a serious nuclear deterrent (that is, post-1955) before going ahead with it.

    This is what I would have done if I didn't have any pretensions to morality, etc. but only naked self-interest in mind.

    Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.

    Korolevets?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    LOL, but no. And not for exactly "humanitarian" reasons.

    Koenigsberg would make it the war trophy that it is, not an accolade to a Soviet apparatchik. Germans will be reminded of it every time they look at a map of Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Mr. Hack says:

    But wait Karlin, you generally seem to take the position of being opposed to the sinister and most pernicious acts of the Soviet Union. What pretensions to morality do you hold that keep you from embracing this sort of a ‘final solution’ for Eastern Europe, anyway? Regardless, the whole idea is nonsense and not analogous to what went on within the Soviet Union’s own backyard. East European countries had a long history of being in close proximity with Western Europe and could not be treated like the Chechens, Tatars, Ukrainians etc; The whole idea is nonsense and isn’t even worth considering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. @ussr andy
    OT
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2353265

    what exactly was the wrong way you were doing it? gradually turning the temp down then plateauing at ~20° when it becomes uncomfortable?

    Many errors.

    1) hyperventilating while under the cold water

    2) doing it at night right before going to sleep

    3) also doing it right after workouts (not recommended, to my knowledge)

    4) changing back and forth several times

    5) often taking cold baths only (I don’t think it’s bad in itself, but it’s more difficult to properly clean yourself without warm water, plus all the above problems)

    6) no methods or regularity, for example I swam in 3 Celsius water after having missed a few weeks during my Christmas vacation, and then I felt a little too cold, so I decided I could miss another few days, then plunged into the 3 degree water again, and so on; it’s like a guy missing workouts and then trying to make up for it by suddenly lifting several times larger weights than his normal workout weights; it probably worsened my chronic hyperventilation problem (which is a problem for most people, by the way)

    Things like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    thank you so much!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    First off, we're talking about a replacement religion for the bozos who march around with Stalin icons.

    But I'll defend them anyway.

    First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a6/d3/c9a6d325d453234bded21bcb61893635.jpg

    This is also in line with Kholmogorov's vision of Atomic Orthodoxy, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!

    Second image is the book cover to a sci-fi novel by Alexander Zorich, which is a collective pen-name for a male and female writer from Kharkov. Their series takes place in the 27th century where Russia and Ukraine are united, and constitute a space empire.

    First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

    This is also in line with Kholmogorov’s vision of Atomic Orthodoxy, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!

    Atomic Orthodoxy doesn’t fit to this dream of future religion though. It’s just kind of tacky, inharmonious disjunction of unrelated, pre-fabricated words, which reflect embarrassingly on each other.

    No offense to Kholmogorov, but it feels the reflection of weak, 1990s, inauthentic, post-modern mentality, like ‘Swedish Goths’ pretending to be Satanist pirates or something. And then it also has some aspect of being put together as a way of ass kissing to the government.

    -

    This dream of future religions is something beautiful though.

    But can you imagine this conjunction Atomic Orthodox as something real, except after some kind of nuclear apocalypse?

    E.g. All copies of the Bible are somehow lost in the atomic fire, but a half-burnt second year graduate textbook of physics discovered, along with a file containing various unrelated problem sets in advanced calculus. In the survivors’ confused imagination, figures of Einstein and Jesus somehow become combined (along with “the apostles” – Heisenberg, Landau, Fermi, etc)…. In worship to the atomic fires, priests recite incantations to the ‘holy texts’ of calculus from morning to night. Etc.

    Ok… now we have real Atomic Orthodoxy

    By the way in Volgodonsk there is already the peaceful monument to the atom which can be used as a pilgrimage site:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think that you assume that things have to make a lot more sense than they have to. The Adeptus Mechanicus is honestly not a terrible response to overwhelming complexity - which is pretty likely if we ever get to the point where we have code creating code creating code.

    They're dealing with machines they don't fully understand, realize that it has very real "demons" within(viruses), and the safest way to handle it has just been to keep doing whatever works. Thus the stories of prayers ending with hitting the "on" switch: the functionality is still there, it has just been couched in ritual.

    At some point, the only realistic way of handling it is ritual - which is very human anyway. I've been involved in a lot of pretty high tech stuff for awhile and while its not quite religious, the tendency toward some form of ritual really does gradually take over, even if we tend to call them procedures or "best practices." There's a lot of weirdness, cultishness and bubble insanity in SV, and this isn't even considering the more fringe things like transhumanism or immortality organizations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Thorfinnsson
    Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

    I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

    Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

    If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

    I’m not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

    If talking about WW1 war aims, they are pretty much in line with the Imperial government’s thinking at the start of 1917 (some of the below are real plans, some are my conjectures about what they planned to do – any corrections based on actual evidence of policy are welcome).

    * Pro-Russian kingdoms headed by Romanovs in Poland and Bohemia.
    The latter would not be a problem – the Czechs were highly Russophilic at the start of the century, even demanding the teaching of the Russian language in Czech schools (obviously this request was not granted by AH).
    The Poles would be more of a problem but with the prestige gained by the Russian brand after victory no doubt quite doable.
    * Obviously the Ukraine stays within the Russian *Empire* and even integrating Galicia will not be a problem due to the post-victory strength of the Russian brand. There was also a strand of Russophilia in Galicia that, if diminished relative to the 19th century, still existed, whereas today it is entirely absent.
    * Romania is an ally, having fulfilled its own national objectives (reunification with Bukovina and Transylvania).
    * The breakup of AH, it goes without saying.
    * The undoing in whole or part of German unification; Romanovs to be installed in many of the resulting principalities. And obviously, heavy reparations to turbocharge Russia’s continuing postwar industrialization.
    * Austria and Germany/Prussia pressured into neutrality in the Cold War with Britain and France that may ensue a few years down the line.
    * The dual acquisition of Constantinople (Tsargrad), and of Western Armenia, opening a land route to the Holy Land, where Russia would establish basis. With control of the Bosphorus, the Mediterranean gradually becomes a Russian lake as the Great Naval Program is resumed post-1918.
    Turks are the big losers, getting bottled up into Anatolia. Greeks and Armenians are the two pincers of Russian control of the Mediterranean.
    * Ethnic cleansing of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in Central Asia to punish them for the Basmachi revolt. The area becomes permanently majority Russian.
    * Ethnic cleansing of Europeans is unrealistic and politically incorrect at this time, but there’s no need for that anyway.

    Speaking of WW2, in retrospect, making peace with the Germans in 1943 may have indeed been the best move. Letting them do what they will with Poland would have been particularly amusing. However, it was not politically realistic, even for a totalitarian system such as the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Seems like a possible outcome of this proposed peace is a future war against Britain and Japan at the same time. Oddly, Russia might be able to gain America as an ally in such a conflict.

    And obviously, heavy reparations to turbocharge Russia’s continuing postwar industrialization.
     
    Of what nature?
    , @German_reader
    These war aims are so extreme that Brest-Litovsk looks reasonable by comparison. Also pretty ridiculous given Tsarist Russia's actual performance in the war (yes, yes, I know, you think Russia would have "won" WW1 if not for the Bolshevik coup...because the Americans had entered the war, certainly eager to die for dreams of a greater Russian empire, lol).
    Compared with that the Soviet Union with its friendship of peoples actually doesn't look so bad, at least they paid lip service to denouncing imperialism.
    , @DFH
    Thank goodness for the Revolution
    , @Jayce

    Ethnic cleansing of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in Central Asia to punish them for the Basmachi revolt. The area becomes permanently majority Russian.
     
    The true meaning of Eurasianism is to make Central Asia Indo-European again and permanently expel the Turkic interlopers. This is where Jorjani succeeds and Duginites fail. Russia, as the leading the r1a power, should not shirk its holy duty to restore the steppes to their proper order.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @inertial

    Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.
     
    Korolevets?

    LOL, but no. And not for exactly “humanitarian” reasons.

    Koenigsberg would make it the war trophy that it is, not an accolade to a Sovi