Movatterモバイル変換

In 1908 Russia attempted to cut a deal with Austria allowing the latter to annex Bosnia in return for allowing Russia to sail its Black Sea fleet through the straits of Constantinople. The agreement fell apart in acrimony. But it demonstrates how Russia had begun to turn towards Constantinople after being blocked by the British and Japenese elsewhere.

It suited the interests of Britain to have Russia focused on Constantinople.

Replies: @Seraphim

Apparently you cannot get rid of the Eurocentric, Marxist cum Orientalist bias in assessing the profound causes of WW1. The language of 'Russia's expansionism', 'Russia's "ambitions", Russia 'plotting', Serbia 'plotting', every one plotting against the meek and peaceful Muslims perfidiously abandoned by the chief plotter Britain, is profoundly misleading, it is the language of war propaganda. As if there was never an Armenian question, Greek question, Bulgarian question, the general Christian question in the Ottoman Empire, of all these people 'plotting' the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, now taken under the protection of the Second German Reich (which made itself the champion of all Muslims oppressed by the Britisher and Russians - the [in]famous 'Damascus Speech' of Kaiser Wilhelm II) against the wise policy of Bismarck, dead set against such a blatant provocation to Russia (and Britain). One has to take into consideration the shift in the British public opinion, horrified (like all European public opinion) by the Hamidian massacres (about which the Kaiser remained silent - silence condemned, ironically, by the Jön Türkler).
There are many things you have to 'unlearn', before learning more. Like the appearance of the new kid on the block: America.

Replies: @Jon Halpenny

Если бы да кабы, да во рту выросли грибы.
Czarist russia had 200 years to solve all those problems that eventually led to 1905-1917 series of russian revolutions culminating with Great October Socialist Revolution.
So that you know that revolution is a sign of elites ultimate failure to solve problems which accumulate and cause outburst and change of paradigm called revolution. Bolsheviks did not cause the revolution but only used it. Revolution happen not because someone wants it.
You definitelly do not know that.
Now I wonder why local bleeding hearts do not concern themselves with 25% drop of population under Peter the great after he implemented his reforms or demographic catastroph that happened in the former soviet union after 1992 contra revolution and ongoing demographic catastroph with lost of vitality in every non Muslim former Soviet republic including russia. Are you aware that the loss of life in Russia alone since 1992 is between 12 to 20 million and the worst is the whole long term trend changed with women having so little kids that long term survival as russia is under threat.

In this case popular opinion is right and your fringe opinion is wrong.

Replies: @Korenchkin

"It was not that Britain ‘inveigled’ Russia to resume her ‘expansion’ towards Constantinople,"

I believe the British did inveigle the Russians. I have read that Sir Edward Grey made it known tto the Russians in about 1906 or 1907 that Britain would not object to the Russian possession of the straits of Constantinople. This was too much of temptation to the Russians and they began plotting to gain the straits. The implication of Grey's statement was that Britain would no longer protect the Turks. Other powers such as Italy, Austria and Serbia also began to plot to get their share of the spoils. The British decision to turn Russia against the Turks was the fuse for WW I.

Replies: @Seraphim

Their reply betrayed very good diplomatic skills on the Serb government’s part. Even the Austrians...
 

Replies: @but an humble craftsman

Answer just few questions yourself without usual at this blog bs. Why did revolution happen?
Regarding numbers I am sure you can read. There is sources where you can learn it all. Answer another question, if fantastic numbers of those losses according to some BStters are correct how come Soviet russia population grew to more than 190 million before ww2 and then despite losing 27 million population again grew to almost 300 million by 1990. Now , the system created by bolsheviks is no more and obviously population according to genius like yourself should be skyrocketing, how come population is actually in downfall.
Again, if you are so concerned about poor Russian, why you don't concern yourself with losses under Peter the great that were massive and recent after 1992 demographic collapse?
You cannot give truthful answers because your head is full of shit from reading Karlin and similar sources.

Replies: @Simpleguest, @Anatoly Karlin

I asked short, precise questions demanding exact numbers, death toll.

You responded with another long, retarded rant devoid of any facts and substance.

Well done, Sovok dogmatic.
I am not a fan of the narrative presented by the article’s author; I deal in numbers, facts, primary sources and causality.

Replies: @Sergey Krieger

but ruling classes refused to accept this fact
 

p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers
 

Replies: @Sergey Krieger, @dfordoom

Where have you been all this time genius.
Considering you are regular at Karlin blog and takes this article seriously you must be ignorant of the subject you started arguement with me about. I mean causes of Russian revolutions and Russian history that led to those events.
You are oblivious to the fact that by 1914 russian situation at home after first Russian revolution was tense and government took the country that had deep economic, structural and systemic problems into this grinder known as ww1 totally unprepared and contrary to the interests of russian population.
Now you as a genius you obviously know all about thing called catalist. Or playing with fire in gunpowder warehouse.
That what ww1 was for Russia. The country statyed falling apart even before Bolsheviks and Tsar was removed by his closest people along with people going to streets after 3 years of disastrous and unnecessary for Russia war. Now, you obviously have no clue about situation in the villages with rissian population being 85% agricultural and about same level of being illiterate. You have no damn clue that peasants and workers lived in abject poverty and hatred accumulated towards ruling classes over the past 200 years who completely sucked population dry.
Then bolsheviks took power that was basically lying on the streets but ruling classes refused to accept this fact and with assistance of intervened western powers started civil war which turned bloody but from what I was reading death from various contagious deceased took more lives than actual fighting. By 1917 february thanks to degenerate elites Russia basically was finished. It is great blessing that there was such man as,Lenin that basically saved Russia from being torn apart by partners and who set it on the road of modernization and greatness and finally resolved problem of backwardness that had been afflicting Russia.
It is obviously useless to argue with genius like you but considering you touched the topic of which you have no clue it makes you retarded for those who know the subject.
p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers while Karlin is trying to promote him to ignorant western public.

Replies: @Korenchkin, @Epigon

but ruling classes refused to accept this fact
 

p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers
 

Replies: @Sergey Krieger, @dfordoom

I have heard that on radio traveling in car. It was a British broadcasting.
According to Wikipedia only one of them was student but it is not mentioned where.
He had a arsenic poison pill the question would be where he would get it.
The rest of course you could find in Wikipedia.

Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

Where have you been all this time genius.
Considering you are regular at Karlin blog and takes this article seriously you must be ignorant of the subject you started arguement with me about. I mean causes of Russian revolutions and Russian history that led to those events.
You are oblivious to the fact that by 1914 russian situation at home after first Russian revolution was tense and government took the country that had deep economic, structural and systemic problems into this grinder known as ww1 totally unprepared and contrary to the interests of russian population.
Now you as a genius you obviously know all about thing called catalist. Or playing with fire in gunpowder warehouse.
That what ww1 was for Russia. The country statyed falling apart even before Bolsheviks and Tsar was removed by his closest people along with people going to streets after 3 years of disastrous and unnecessary for Russia war. Now, you obviously have no clue about situation in the villages with rissian population being 85% agricultural and about same level of being illiterate. You have no damn clue that peasants and workers lived in abject poverty and hatred accumulated towards ruling classes over the past 200 years who completely sucked population dry.
Then bolsheviks took power that was basically lying on the streets but ruling classes refused to accept this fact and with assistance of intervened western powers started civil war which turned bloody but from what I was reading death from various contagious deceased took more lives than actual fighting. By 1917 february thanks to degenerate elites Russia basically was finished. It is great blessing that there was such man as,Lenin that basically saved Russia from being torn apart by partners and who set it on the road of modernization and greatness and finally resolved problem of backwardness that had been afflicting Russia.
It is obviously useless to argue with genius like you but considering you touched the topic of which you have no clue it makes you retarded for those who know the subject.
p.s. kholmogorov articles at Vzglyad are always ridiculed by russian bloggers while Karlin is trying to promote him to ignorant western public.

Replies: @Korenchkin, @Epigon

How many poor Russians died in WW1 from 1914 to 1917, and how many poor Russians died due to Revolution, Bolshevik Civil War, Red Terror and famines from 1917 to 1922?

How many poor Russians would die as a consequence of Bolshevik revolution, Brest-Litovsk betrayal and Bolshevik disastrous rules culminating in the disaster of WW2?

Are you trolling or are you genuinely this retarded?

Replies: @Sergey Krieger, @Anatoly Karlin

Replies: @Epigon

"Gavrilo Princip and his three conspirator helpers were students in London university"

Really? Any sources? Not saying I don't believe you....;-)

Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova

Go back at least another half century. The UK and France were allies against Russia during the Crimean War.

Replies: @Jon Halpenny

Your comment is valuable detail. but does not touch the validity of concept of my comment.
Your last sentence is is not valid if not an outright lie. Russians had no finger in assassination of archduke Ferdinand, It was English that orchestrated assassination of of Rasputin and Ferdinand.
These two assassinations were principal events that were the sparks that ignited the brush-fire of WW1
Gavrilo Princip and his three conspirator helpers were students in London university on vacation in Bosnia. All four of them were Serbs. Why they did not go on vacation to Serbia, to see their families? Hah?
Pattern of this English action was exactly repeated by England assassinating Heidrich.
Habsburgs were very benevolent rulers, It shows that after conquest of Hercegovina (Bosnia) did not try to convert the population to Christianity.

Replies: @Seraphim, @YetAnotherAnon

You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds

You my dear sir are so very naive. I suggest you read this book to help you understand how Machiavellian the rulers of England at that time could be. The English switched alliances and became friendly with their traditional enemy, France, 9 years before 1914. That was no accident.

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor

Replies: @Hank Yobo

Anyway, maybe you're right and a German shouldn't "lecture" Russians about anything given mid-20th century history. I won't be doing it again (though I'll also note that playing the Nazi card against me is a bit incongruous, given that much of Unz review is basically a Nazi site), so my participation in this thread ends here.

Replies: @utu, @Anarcho-Supremacist, @iffen, @Hrw-500

The books of Peter Frankopan: "The Silk Roads" and "The New Silk Roads" are indeed eye openers and should be mandatory readings for anyone who wants to understand what was/is/will be going on in the world without Eurocentric and Marxist blinkers. Although he apparently cannot get rid of an anti-Russian and 'Orientalist' bias. The 'Oriental Problem' was not about 'grabbing slices of the Ottoman cake' by imperialist powers (as it is suggested). Britain put and end to its 'Great Game' against Russia when it realized that Japan did not really won the war, instead becoming a threat for the British possessions in Asia, that it won't be capable to dislodge the Russians from the Far-East or from Persia. Also that Germany was stirring the Muslim populaces under the British rule (and Russian) to revolt and seeking an alliance with the Ottomans. It was not that Britain 'inveigled' Russia to resume her 'expansion' towards Constantinople, but seeking a settlement of their contentious problems in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet which led eventually to the 'Anglo-Russian Entente' of 1907 (Russian penetration in Persia and Central Asia predates the Russo-Japanese war and was not affected by it in the slightest), helped of course by the Anglo-Russian dynastic alliance. There was of course the run for oil.

Replies: @Jon Halpenny

When coming down with a disease, people with prior excellent health and good stores of fat stand a better chance to survive. It's the same with nations.

Replies: @iffen

Replies: @Jake, @Anatoly Karlin

Indeed, without England's (i.e., the English leadership caste) absolute will to choose war, both in 1914 and in 1939, we wouldn't have the existential crisis of the occidental world today.

Replies: @Philip Owen, @Jake

of our political class, consumed with the minutiae of day to day living and political struggle, obsessed with short-termism, with no sense for continuity or tradition and with mental and cultural horizons so diminished that one day is like all the others in endless succession.
 

Replies: @Romanian

It's fine if he wants to hate Germany for that, but if he's going to be consistent shouldn't he also hate England, the USA, and Sweden just as much?

For me, I prefer to give credit to those who tried to fight off the conspiracy of international finance. Notably, Jackson, Napoleon, and you-know-who.

Replies: @iffen

I do not really see him as that kind of person. He had, after all, a German king. And I am not well versed in Romanian political history (to know the parliamentarians and so on), but Romania was full of Greek noblemen, Armenian traders, Jewish and German bankers etc and industrialists of all stripes. I doubt he minded the diversity overmuch (could not have been so functional politically without a stomach for it), so long as it was clear who the majority was.

What may get him spinning so fast you could wrap him in copper wire and use him as a generator is the lack of concerns for anything approaching the national interest and the Geschichtslosigkeit (historylesness) of our political class, consumed with the minutiae of day to day living and political struggle, obsessed with short-termism, with no sense for continuity or tradition and with mental and cultural horizons so diminished that one day is like all the others in endless succession.

As for the obvious diversity of our political class, I think it's the most obvious retort against the disingenuous harangues about minority rights we keep getting from the Hungarians who want us to change the character of the unitary state to put them on the road to an ethno-state in the heart of the country.

Replies: @iffen

The war Britain was expecting in 1914 was Ireland. In 1939, Britain was in the very earliest sags of rearmanent. An expeditionary war was impossible as was demonstrated at Dunkirk.

Put aside your conspiracy theories.

Replies: @iffen

I am glad you said border change is almost always based on kindred group. The fact is that Danzig and Prussia were German for over 8 centuries. There is a justification for it being German once again. Imagine if someone took North Dakota from the uS and drove out the americans populating with people from a different country. We would be screaming forever.

Replies: @Romanian

Poor Bratianu, he probably wriggles in his tomb, seeing Romania run by a German President and a Hungarian Prime-Minister! But as a good friend of mine (Greek!) says: 'Prost nu e ăla de mănîncă cinci pite, prost e ăla care i le dă'.

Replies: @Romanian

“The Rumanian policy was now guided by Premier Bratianu, who attempted to gain riches, without making great sacrifices, at the expense of the party suffering defeat in the war…
Since the beginning of the world war Rumania has followed a policy of piracy, depending upon the general war situation."
 

Replies: @Seraphim

I don’t think he really played the “Nazi card” against you

AK has a hard-on for Germany and Germans (let's not mention the Latvians) and he will forever, because: Lenin.

Replies: @NobodyKnowsImADog

Replies: @Seraphim

Indeed, without England's (i.e., the English leadership caste) absolute will to choose war, both in 1914 and in 1939, we wouldn't have the existential crisis of the occidental world today.

Replies: @Philip Owen, @Jake

Frankly the little hit on German nationalists at the end strikes me as being rather petty.

Virtually no European nationalists advocate border revision these days, because border revision is almost always based around the presence of a kindred group outside one's own borders. In Germany's case, the only example is Austria. They hardly care to retake East Prussia when no Germans live in it. Western and central Europe is settled, barring a couple of small exceptions.

Likewise Russian nationalismdoes support border revision because there are tens of millions of ethnic Russians and closely related peoples outside Russia. However, border revision to include the entirety of the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is ridiculous and does indeed stretch into the territory of Imperialism, as German_Reader correctly identifies.

I believe that this argument between you two has at least some of its roots in your distaste for Germany (for all your 'but respectable try!' I think you still hold a grudge) and perhaps Western European nationalism in general.

Much like Germany and Russia, you two should kiss and make up, because Germany and Russia together (along with the rest of Europe) still has the chance to a power bloc like none seen in all history. And it is precisely little issues like this that threaten to derail nationalist cooperation.

Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Mr. XYZ, @Bookish1

Replies: @AltSerrice, @AP, @Thorfinnsson, @Dmitry, @Anatoly Karlin, @Sergey Krieger

I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views?
 

I simply can’t think of a reason.
 

Replies: @Seraphim, @NobodyKnowsImADog

Your comment is valuable detail. but does not touch the validity of concept of my comment.
Your last sentence is is not valid if not an outright lie. Russians had no finger in assassination of archduke Ferdinand, It was English that orchestrated assassination of of Rasputin and Ferdinand.
These two assassinations were principal events that were the sparks that ignited the brush-fire of WW1
Gavrilo Princip and his three conspirator helpers were students in London university on vacation in Bosnia. All four of them were Serbs. Why they did not go on vacation to Serbia, to see their families? Hah?
Pattern of this English action was exactly repeated by England assassinating Heidrich.
Habsburgs were very benevolent rulers, It shows that after conquest of Hercegovina (Bosnia) did not try to convert the population to Christianity.

Replies: @Seraphim, @YetAnotherAnon

This is a gross oversimplification.

First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag. Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.

Third, in Russia, most peasants didn't know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war. They were quickly pushed aside by the Whites, because it quickly turned out that the SRs (despite their nominally strong election results) had no actual support among the peasantry (or anyone else). There are a few explanations for this. One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies. Another explanation is that they actually supported the Left SRs, who in turn supported Lenin. Or it could be both. What is sure is that during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks never found it hard to recruit or conscript peasants in the areas immediately behind the front, whereas the Whites could never replenish their losses in the areas they "liberated" from Bolshevik rule. It's easy to understand why: the peasants feared that the Whites would give lands back to the gentry.

Anyway, it's untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin. More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.

There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust, and very few people voting for the Bolsheviks expected the famine or the Great Terror. (The latter was obviously not expected by the Bolsheviks themselves, probably not even Stalin knew he would do that...)

Replies: @AP, @Mr. XYZ, @Philip Owen, @John Gruskos

Relative to Scotland's population, there is a far higher proportion of Scottish politicians in the UK overall than English politicians. Many politicians in English constituencies are Scottish.

Likewise some of the biggest banks and financial institutions in the UK are Scottish and based in Scotland. One could easily make a credible case that the English are dominated by the Scots in reality. Was Ukraine's position within Russia (or the USSR more accurately) really comparable to that?

Replies: @Mikhail

It was alleged that the entry of Romania in WW1 combined with the Brusilov offensive had an impact on the end of the Verdun operation.
Interesting is the declaration of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg at the moment of Romania's entry in the war:
"The Rumanian policy was now guided by Premier Bratianu, who attempted to gain riches, without making great sacrifices, at the expense of the party suffering defeat in the war...
Since the beginning of the world war Rumania has followed a policy of piracy, depending upon the general war situation. Rumania's military capitulation will prove as mistaken as her political capitulation to her Entente friends, which already has been proved to have been wrong.
They must have hoped earnestly that Rumania's participation in the war would cause the defection of Bulgaria and Turkey, but Turkey and Bulgaria are not the same as Rumania and Italy. Firm and inviolable stands their faithfulness as allies, and they have won glorious victories in the Dobrudja".

Replies: @Romanian

Good points.

Still wouldn’t take much to tip Latvia and Estonia to a Russian majority and culture given those countries’ tiny populations, high and rising average and median ages, and failure to reproduce at anywhere near replacement level.

Latvia’s population has declined every year for thirty consecutive years, with no end in sight.
2.66 million, 1990
2.52 million, 1995
2.38 million, 2000
2.25 million, 2005
2.12 million, 2010
1.997 million, 2015
1.906 million, 2019

Latvia’s average age is 43, their total fertility rate is only 1.5, and they are losing a net 22,000 to 25,000 every year. Just fifteen years from now, Latvia could be down to 1.5 or even 1.4 million with an average age of at least 45. And the rate of decrease is likely to accelerate soon because the number of Latvian women of childbearing age is declining.

Latvia’s territory will belong to someone, but seemingly it won’t be Latvians after a few more generations. Personally I’d rather it be colonized by Russia instead of by the hordes that will otherwise spill over from the emerging Islamic/African Europe (largely Muslim Arabs, Turks, Africans, etc.), China, or some such alternative.

Russia may not have enough population to hold its own current vast territory in time. But if the place is emptying out as the people die off, it would take only half a million Russians to start build a Russified province out of the former Latvia. Perhaps just a few hundred thousand Russians, especially if they can be families incentivized to have multiple children and restore vitality and hope to the place.

Replies: @Korenchkin, @Dmitry, @mikemikev

You talk as if most English people would know what a Germanic or Slav even is. English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.

You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds with deeply ingrained ethnic rivalries, most English people wouldn't understand any of that.

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Commentator Mike, @Alfred

105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
 

repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
 

If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
 

the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.
 

For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
 

However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
 

(in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
 

Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Denis, @utu, @Anarcho-Supremacist, @melanf, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @TheTotallyAnonymous, @Andrei Martyanov, @Hhsiii, @Seraphim, @Durruti, @Charles Carroll, @Alfred

Being friendly to POWs is possible even if you knew that there was a war and they were captured enemy soldiers. The good treatment of POWs was one of the Tsar’s pet projects, he was the initiator of the Hague Convention.

By the way are we even sure that the stories are mostly about ethnically German or Hungarian soldiers? Slavs received a friendly reception from Russian officials and nationalists due to Pan-Slavism. Not to mention that they spoke a language similar to Russian.

Replies: @iffen, @Seraphim, @Dmitry

105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
 

repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
 

If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
 

the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.
 

For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
 

However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
 

(in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
 

Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Denis, @utu, @Anarcho-Supremacist, @melanf, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @TheTotallyAnonymous, @Andrei Martyanov, @Hhsiii, @Seraphim, @Durruti, @Charles Carroll, @Alfred

Replies: @Fox

Apologies.

Of course, Anatoly Karlin is the author that I am critiquing, and Kholmogorov, the translator.

Replies: @Durruti

because the British contribution has been almost continually minimalised
 

That is regrettable indeed.

The British contribution to these wars cannot be overestimated.

Replies: @Fox

Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist
 

No! Russia did not win WW I. They DID SAVE FRANCE. But that was in 1914. The Russian Army suffered huge military casualties thereafter. General Samsonov's Army was surrounded and captured (Samsonov committing suicide). By 1917, the Russian Army and Government were tottering. Kholmogorov might as well claim that Russia also defeated Japan in 1905, or that Foreman defeated Ali. (Japan sank most of the Russian fleet in the battle of Tsushima), or in Kholmogorov's new history, did the Russians sink the Japanese Navy?).

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-tsushima-strait

The Russian defeat by Japan, in 1905, set up shock waves throughout the Russian Empire. World War I, increased the shock waves to the level of an earthquake against Russia's Gvernment and society.

The Secret Treaties Leninwrote about - existed. Millions of Russians were fighting expand into others' countries, or to save the French & British Empires (both controlled by the Rothschilds). In Particular, Russia and Italy received promises of other peoples' territory, if they joined the Allies. [Italy's desire for the Trentino (in Northern Italy), was justified, but its acquisition of portions of the Yugoslavian coastline, were not.]

I might remind Kholmogorov, & some of our commenters, that both Trotsky & Stalin OPPOSED the Treaty of Brest Litovsk (they took the position of defending Russia, and its territories). Lenin forced through the Bolshevik Central Committee an acceptance of the ruinous Treaty.

Lenin did predict that after the war, Russia would recover almost all of the lands ceded to Germany by the treaty, and he was correct.

The Communists, including the Russian Communists were not as neatly portrayed by the old Political Right, the old Political left, or the Zionist mainstream media, in the last 100 years. The resistance of most of the Communist Party to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was documented by Isaac Deutscher, Solzhenitsyn's history of Samaonov, also reveals the unprepared nature of the Russian military. Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution, contains more useful analysis, and dozens of other sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1914_%28novel%29

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

I am not recruiting for Trotsky's 4th International, just looking for some accuracy in the 'alternate media.' Accuracy is so completely lacking in the Mainstream media, that we may learn more from carefully reading it than, at times, from reading supposed 'alternate' sources.

One again, I am not permitted to post Articles on this forum, but am allowed to comment. I do my best, or as some of you might say, my worst.

The Good News:

Russia has revived, and is in recovery mode.

I believe that we Americans will in the not too distant future join our Russian brothers in that same recovery, as soon as we Restore Our Republic!

God Bless!

Durruti alias-Dr. Peter J. Antonsen

Replies: @Durruti

You love the romantic side of history. What a romantic story, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir of the throne, marrying a Czech Princess and then united in death. The truth is that she was not a Princess at all, but a mere countess, Sophie Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin. As such their liaison provoked a scandal at the court and the old Franz Josef, informed FF that he could not marry Sophie, who could not become an empress consort. To be an eligible consort for any member of the Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine, one needed to belong to one of the reigning or formerly reigning dynasties of Europe. Eventually love triumphed, but the marriage had to be declared morganatic, she being deprived of the titles of empress, queen or archduchess, and acknowledging that their descendants would neither inherit nor be granted dynastic rights or privileges in any of the Habsburg realms. She was given the titles of Princess and Duchess only after the marriage, but the couple was not treated well at court (the only court that received them warmly was the British one). His relations with the Emperor remained tense at all times, and he was intensely disliked by the Magyars (dislike that he reciprocated) and favored the Slavs and Rumanians with whom he projected the transformation of the Dual Monarchy into a Federation (the United States of Greater Austria). He was even more sympathetic to the Serbs and wanted to avoid a war with! That was not displeasing the Russians and one can hardly see why they masterminded the assassination, as the rumor persist.

Replies: @Old and grumpy, @Ilyana_Rozumova

105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
 

repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
 

If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
 

the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.
 

For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
 

However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
 

(in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
 

Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Denis, @utu, @Anarcho-Supremacist, @melanf, @Mr. XYZ, @Mr. XYZ, @TheTotallyAnonymous, @Andrei Martyanov, @Hhsiii, @Seraphim, @Durruti, @Charles Carroll, @Alfred

You love the romantic side of history. What a romantic story, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir of the throne, marrying a Czech Princess and then united in death. The truth is that she was not a Princess at all, but a mere countess, Sophie Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin. As such their liaison provoked a scandal at the court and the old Franz Josef, informed FF that he could not marry Sophie, who could not become an empress consort. To be an eligible consort for any member of the Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine, one needed to belong to one of the reigning or formerly reigning dynasties of Europe. Eventually love triumphed, but the marriage had to be declared morganatic, she being deprived of the titles of empress, queen or archduchess, and acknowledging that their descendants would neither inherit nor be granted dynastic rights or privileges in any of the Habsburg realms. She was given the titles of Princess and Duchess only after the marriage, but the couple was not treated well at court (the only court that received them warmly was the British one). His relations with the Emperor remained tense at all times, and he was intensely disliked by the Magyars (dislike that he reciprocated) and favored the Slavs and Rumanians with whom he projected the transformation of the Dual Monarchy into a Federation (the United States of Greater Austria). He was even more sympathetic to the Serbs and wanted to avoid a war with! That was not displeasing the Russians and one can hardly see why they masterminded the assassination, as the rumor persist.

Replies: @Old and grumpy, @Ilyana_Rozumova

You talk as if most English people would know what a Germanic or Slav even is. English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.

You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds with deeply ingrained ethnic rivalries, most English people wouldn't understand any of that.

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Commentator Mike, @Alfred

Replies: @Patriot right, @Seraphim

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @byrresheim

Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without
 

Replies: @byrresheim

English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.
 

Replies: @iffen

Scotland.

Replies: @Patriot right

I know the story of a Romanian (from Austro-Hungarian Army) prisoner in Russia. He seemed to have not been treated too badly since a Russian woman fell in love with him. He was returned to Transylvania after Brest-Litovsk, to the great grief of the girl, but after the turmoil of the civil war ended he went to Russia and brought her, who was waiting for him all this time, to Romania, got married and lived happily ever after, had children who loved to tell the story. It's not hearsay, you may guess.

Replies: @iffen, @reiner Tor, @Bardon Kaldian

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @byrresheim

You talk as if most English people would know what a Germanic or Slav even is. English people are just like everyone else in Europe, concerned with their job, with making ends meet, with the football, with drinking at the weekends.

You give the English too much credit as conspiratorial masterminds with deeply ingrained ethnic rivalries, most English people wouldn't understand any of that.

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Commentator Mike, @Alfred

Replies: @Patriot right, @Seraphim

I know the story of a Romanian (from Austro-Hungarian Army) prisoner in Russia. He seemed to have not been treated too badly since a Russian woman fell in love with him. He was returned to Transylvania after Brest-Litovsk, to the great grief of the girl, but after the turmoil of the civil war ended he went to Russia and brought her, who was waiting for him all this time, to Romania, got married and lived happily ever after, had children who loved to tell the story. It's not hearsay, you may guess.

Replies: @iffen, @reiner Tor, @Bardon Kaldian

I know the story of a Romanian (from Austro-Hungarian Army) prisoner in Russia. He seemed to have not been treated too badly since a Russian woman fell in love with him. He was returned to Transylvania after Brest-Litovsk, to the great grief of the girl, but after the turmoil of the civil war ended he went to Russia and brought her, who was waiting for him all this time, to Romania, got married and lived happily ever after, had children who loved to tell the story. It's not hearsay, you may guess.

Replies: @iffen, @reiner Tor, @Bardon Kaldian

Being friendly to POWs is possible even if you knew that there was a war and they were captured enemy soldiers. The good treatment of POWs was one of the Tsar’s pet projects, he was the initiator of the Hague Convention.

By the way are we even sure that the stories are mostly about ethnically German or Hungarian soldiers? Slavs received a friendly reception from Russian officials and nationalists due to Pan-Slavism. Not to mention that they spoke a language similar to Russian.

Replies: @iffen, @Seraphim, @Dmitry

Being friendly to POWs is possible even if you knew that there was a war and they were captured enemy soldiers. The good treatment of POWs was one of the Tsar’s pet projects, he was the initiator of the Hague Convention.

By the way are we even sure that the stories are mostly about ethnically German or Hungarian soldiers? Slavs received a friendly reception from Russian officials and nationalists due to Pan-Slavism. Not to mention that they spoke a language similar to Russian.

Replies: @iffen, @Seraphim, @Dmitry

No they don't understand they are going to Siberia. They simply don't understand who these people are, are not understanding the First World War - i.e. if you don't understand not only that Austria is an enemy, but also that the people are Austrians, or even where Austria is.

Replies: @reiner Tor

Their reply betrayed very good diplomatic skills on the Serb government’s part. Even the Austrians...
 

Replies: @reiner Tor

Another issue reading this kind of comment, is that people here often present a racial aspect as a “deep level”, while a civilizational aspect as a “shallow level”.

But in real life, a civilizational aspect usually overwhelms your impression above everything else.
 

Replies: @Dmitry

Without sufficient literacy and education, many of the peasants did not understand about the war, or what was the correct relation to the Austrians who had been captured, and they viewed them with welcoming customs if they were any other (during peacetime) guests.

Maybe, maybe not, perhaps they knew intuitively that anyone being sent to Siberia was on "their side."

Replies: @Dmitry

Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson

Replies: @iffen

I need a good book on nationalism in my reading queue. It is in the back of my mind that Napoleon deserves a lot of credit (blame) for giving a major kickstart, but I don't know where I got that idea.

Replies: @Dmitry, @dfordoom, @AP, @Rattus Norwegius

Iron smelting

Steelmaking
 

Do you know why German plans gambled on a quick victory in France? Because they knew that their army was way smaller than that of France and Russia combined. And they also knew that they cannot fight a war of attrition against these countries. (On that, we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were wrong. They could actually win a war of attrition against these two countries only.)

Also, after 1908 German planners assumed (correctly) that Britain would join the Russo-French effort against Germany. Now winning a war of attrition against these three powers was out of the question, at least to German planners before 1914.

When attacking in the West, they were actually facing slightly stronger forces (French+Belgian armies + BEF), but they recognized that they had a qualitative advantage. This is why they thought that a quick victory was even possible.

It must be noted that Moltke himself was actually highly pessimistic about the chances of a quick victory, he wrote that the next war would be "a long arduous struggle," and that no state would capitulate "until its entire national strength is broken," and even the victor would be "utterly exhausted," too. This would be a "people's war." Moltke basically foresaw total war.

The Serbs accepted Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner), rejecting only one point in order to “save face”.
 

For example, to Point 7, which requested the immediate arrest of Tankosic and Ciganovic (two persons already implicated weeks earlier in the Austrian inquiry), the reply said that they had already arrested Tankosic right at the time the Austrians demanded it, and that it was impossible to arrest Ciganovic. (This was a lie: when Austria had requested the arrest the week after the assassination, they replied after a few days that no person by the name of Milan Ciganovic existed or had ever existed in Belgrade. Meanwhile, they took Ciganovic out of the city and hid him in the countryside.) They also requested that Austria provide the "presumptive evidence of guilt, as well as the proofs of guilt, if there are any." This was, again, the reply of a government which didn't intend to cooperate at all. So you can say that they rejected point 7.

Point 4 requested that they remove all persons implicated in the assassination from the military. The Serb reply said that they'd do that, provided Austria gives them "the names and acts of these officers and functionaries." Given how they responded to the case of Ciganovic, it was obvious that what would have happened would've been an endless haggling what the term "implicated" meant or what they wanted to do. It was a highly disingenuous answer, clearly they planned to not do anything, until the Austrians themselves found the names, and probably even then they'd have tried to sabotage the whole thing.

To Point 5 (which called for the creation of a mixed Austrian-Serb commission to investigate the crimes, and without which the Austrians obviously couldn't have found the names they needed - all they knew that the investigation led to Serbia, but was stonewalled by the Serbs), they replied that they "didn't clearly grasp the meaning or the scope for this demand," but that they would agree to it, provided that it could be shown to agree with "the principle of international law, with criminal procedure and with good neighborly relations." This was, again, a highly disingenuous answer: international law didn't regulate this kind of thing (it was anyway unusual for a country's intelligence services to organize the murder of its neighbor's crown prince), there were no international bodies capable of arbitrating, etc. Basically, this was not a "yes" answer to this point either.

Christopher Clark in his The Sleepwalkers goes through the points, well over half of the points were accepted only under so heavy conditions so as to render it meaningless. It's possible that they would've cooperated afterwards, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, and I'd say it'd be foolish of you to do so either.

Besides, the outright rejected Point 6 (together with the also controversial and basically not accepted Point 5) was a requirement if the Austrians wanted any kind of compliance from the Serbs. Because it was at that point obvious that the Serbian government didn't intend to cooperate with the investigation or anything else, really.

Again, if our Serb commenters want to be truly proud of things in their history, this masterful reply (which made it look like an acceptanceto anyone who wanted to see an acceptance, but without truly accepting anything substantial) should be on their list. It was such a good reply that even most historians accepted it uncritically that they "only rejected point 6." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner)
 

Germany/Austria began war, assuming win such a victory over Russia and France to forever provide its (German world) superiority.
 

With benefit of hindsight, we can say that they overestimated their chances of a quick victory (but they understood that it was a gamble with a high probability of failure) and underestimated their chances of winning a war of attrition (which, after all, they nearly won, had they not foolishly provoked the US into entering the war), but hindsight is always 20/20. Also, it's entirely possible that they were lucky in East Prussia in August 1914. Had they not won there, Russians would've captured Berlin 31 years earlier than they really did, and then it'd have been a quick game over for Germany.

Replies: @melanf, @melanf

Nationalism required preconditions like some degree of literacy and education.

In the First World War, when tens of thousands of Austrian soldiers were captured, and transported across Russia by train (to prison in Siberia) - local peasants massed to welcome them in their stops, viewing them as interesting guests, bringing them food and gifts.

Without sufficient literacy and education, many of the peasants did not understand about the war, or what was the correct relation to the Austrians who had been captured, and they viewed them with welcoming customs if they were any other (during peacetime) guests.

Replies: @Dmitry, @iffen

Iron smelting

Steelmaking
 

Do you know why German plans gambled on a quick victory in France? Because they knew that their army was way smaller than that of France and Russia combined. And they also knew that they cannot fight a war of attrition against these countries. (On that, we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were wrong. They could actually win a war of attrition against these two countries only.)

Also, after 1908 German planners assumed (correctly) that Britain would join the Russo-French effort against Germany. Now winning a war of attrition against these three powers was out of the question, at least to German planners before 1914.

When attacking in the West, they were actually facing slightly stronger forces (French+Belgian armies + BEF), but they recognized that they had a qualitative advantage. This is why they thought that a quick victory was even possible.

It must be noted that Moltke himself was actually highly pessimistic about the chances of a quick victory, he wrote that the next war would be "a long arduous struggle," and that no state would capitulate "until its entire national strength is broken," and even the victor would be "utterly exhausted," too. This would be a "people's war." Moltke basically foresaw total war.

The Serbs accepted Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner), rejecting only one point in order to “save face”.
 

For example, to Point 7, which requested the immediate arrest of Tankosic and Ciganovic (two persons already implicated weeks earlier in the Austrian inquiry), the reply said that they had already arrested Tankosic right at the time the Austrians demanded it, and that it was impossible to arrest Ciganovic. (This was a lie: when Austria had requested the arrest the week after the assassination, they replied after a few days that no person by the name of Milan Ciganovic existed or had ever existed in Belgrade. Meanwhile, they took Ciganovic out of the city and hid him in the countryside.) They also requested that Austria provide the "presumptive evidence of guilt, as well as the proofs of guilt, if there are any." This was, again, the reply of a government which didn't intend to cooperate at all. So you can say that they rejected point 7.

Point 4 requested that they remove all persons implicated in the assassination from the military. The Serb reply said that they'd do that, provided Austria gives them "the names and acts of these officers and functionaries." Given how they responded to the case of Ciganovic, it was obvious that what would have happened would've been an endless haggling what the term "implicated" meant or what they wanted to do. It was a highly disingenuous answer, clearly they planned to not do anything, until the Austrians themselves found the names, and probably even then they'd have tried to sabotage the whole thing.

To Point 5 (which called for the creation of a mixed Austrian-Serb commission to investigate the crimes, and without which the Austrians obviously couldn't have found the names they needed - all they knew that the investigation led to Serbia, but was stonewalled by the Serbs), they replied that they "didn't clearly grasp the meaning or the scope for this demand," but that they would agree to it, provided that it could be shown to agree with "the principle of international law, with criminal procedure and with good neighborly relations." This was, again, a highly disingenuous answer: international law didn't regulate this kind of thing (it was anyway unusual for a country's intelligence services to organize the murder of its neighbor's crown prince), there were no international bodies capable of arbitrating, etc. Basically, this was not a "yes" answer to this point either.

Christopher Clark in his The Sleepwalkers goes through the points, well over half of the points were accepted only under so heavy conditions so as to render it meaningless. It's possible that they would've cooperated afterwards, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, and I'd say it'd be foolish of you to do so either.

Besides, the outright rejected Point 6 (together with the also controversial and basically not accepted Point 5) was a requirement if the Austrians wanted any kind of compliance from the Serbs. Because it was at that point obvious that the Serbian government didn't intend to cooperate with the investigation or anything else, really.

Again, if our Serb commenters want to be truly proud of things in their history, this masterful reply (which made it look like an acceptanceto anyone who wanted to see an acceptance, but without truly accepting anything substantial) should be on their list. It was such a good reply that even most historians accepted it uncritically that they "only rejected point 6." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Austria’s ultimatum (which was drafted in a highly offensive manner)
 

Germany/Austria began war, assuming win such a victory over Russia and France to forever provide its (German world) superiority.
 

With benefit of hindsight, we can say that they overestimated their chances of a quick victory (but they understood that it was a gamble with a high probability of failure) and underestimated their chances of winning a war of attrition (which, after all, they nearly won, had they not foolishly provoked the US into entering the war), but hindsight is always 20/20. Also, it's entirely possible that they were lucky in East Prussia in August 1914. Had they not won there, Russians would've captured Berlin 31 years earlier than they really did, and then it'd have been a quick game over for Germany.

Replies: @melanf, @melanf

racial gap is too just too wide for any cultural similarities
 

I've been a gastarbaiter (in a quite multinational world), for a few years now and previously I often studied at summer schools with many different nationalities.

Nationalities that are usually easiest for my experience as a gastarbaiter, include Poles, Spanish, Japanese, Italians, Irish, etc (at least the young generation of these nationalities).

On the hand, some nationalities where there is sometimes immediately some kind of "gap" - French, Germans (although I met some funny and friendly Germans as well), Americans (although I don't know well any Americans), English, Indians, etc.

-

I'm very sceptical there is any "racial explanation" for why Poles are usually raconteurs, or why French people usually are quite difficult.

It's maybe plausible Japanese have been "racially selected" to be polite and civilized but I don't see how this can explain a difference in charm between many French and Italians.

-

Another issue reading this kind of comment, is that people here often present a racial aspect as a "deep level", while a civilizational aspect as a "shallow level".

But in real life, a civilizational aspect usually overwhelms your impression above everything else.

For example - we were invited last month for meal in the apartment of a Japanese engineer and his wife, and they charmed everyone by teaching us origami for an hour. (Like a cartoon stereotype of being invited to Japanese family's apartment).

I feel often surprised by e.g. "how strongly matching every French stereotype", French people seem. Or how funny raconteurs, seem to be almost all Polish people.

Maybe there is some genetic aspect of this within nationalities - but more in the distribution of personality types selected in a nationality. For example, perhaps people with "high agreeableness" were selected for in Japan (where samurais decapitate rude people that were not polite to them), or people with narcissism selected more in France, and people needed charm to survive in medieval Italian city-states.

But this just results a population to be more "suitable for running French, Japanese or Italian software". It does not determines its actual content (e.g. most Italian people you meet obsessed with clothes or food).

Replies: @silviosilver

Although in England, effects of lack of education, could possibly be extreme in the opposite direction (if this story is actually true).

A French ship was spotted floundering and sinking off the Hartlepool coast. Suspicious of enemy ships and nervous of possible invasion, the good folk of Hartlepool rushed down to the beach, where amongst the wreckage of the ship they found the only survivor, the ship’s monkey which was apparently dressed in a miniature military-style uniform.

Hartlepool is a long way from France and most of the populace had never met, or even seen, a Frenchman. Some satirical cartoons of the time pictured the French as monkey-like creatures with tails and claws, so perhaps the locals could be forgiven for deciding that the monkey, in its uniform, must be a Frenchman, and a French spy at that. There was a trial to ascertain whether the monkey was guilty of spying or not; however, not unsurprisingly, the monkey was unable to answer any of the court’s questions and was found guilty. The townsfolk then dragged him into the town square and hanged him.

So is the legend true? Did the good folk of Hartlepool REALLY hang a poor defenceless monkey?

There could perhaps be a darker side to the tale – maybe they didn’t actually hang a ‘monkey’ but a small boy or ‘powder-monkey’. Small boys were employed on warships of this time to prime the canons with gunpowder and were known as ‘powder-monkeys’.

 

Replies: @Seraphim