So overall, it doesn’t seem unlikely that Russia would have been in the European mainstream in terms of social attitudes – but that that same European mainstream would be far less “cucked” than it is today.

Things went disastrously wrong in 1914 and we’re still suffering under the consequences; it’s sad that so few people in Europe have any historical awareness about what was lost or any positive vision for the future, it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness.

[For instance, gun rights were very strong in the Russian Empire, unlike in the Soviet Union and its successor the Russian Federation.]

There were large numbers of privately owned firearms in the USSR.

[a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”]

That’s Kudrin’s gang, and much as I deplore their, and his, continued enjoyment of life and liberty, you could hardly say that their advice tends to get promptly put into practice. They have been advising complete surrender to the USA from the beginning.

The Putin regime has in recent years made it increasingly clear that it sees Russia’s future in tight integration with Central Asia; just the other day, a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feel false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

What’s needed for Russia is a return to its imperial past to put it on its rightful course of future greatness. It’s clear that Putin just isn’t up to the task. Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire. An empire without a czar just doesn’t seem possible in Russia. I presume that tattoos are optional? 🙂

a Kremlin-linked think-tank released a report advocating an increase in pro-immigration propaganda and the introduction of administrative liability for politicians and bureaucrats who “feed false numbers to the media about immigrants” and “mention ethnic crime.”

Anatoly, do not misinform people–this CSR is a “container” into which Kudrin, who has now a minuscule influence on Russia’s actual policies, was moved to give him some sort of “status”. It is “connected to Kremlin” only because Kudrin used to be a FM and knows Putin personally–their economic views today are very different.

This is basically a rounding error by the standards of the Bolsheviks’ multicultural Coalition of the Fringes

Radical socioeconomic change is no joke. Of course it’s easier to maintain the existing (even rotten) system. Try to expropriate and nationalize all (or most) private property in any western society, and then make things work somehow. More than likely, you’ll make the same kind of mess, if not worse.

And in the end, one could easily argue, the experiment has been successful (so far), thanks to Comrades Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang…

Why not really get serious Anatoly, and write something about a future monarchy and what clan(s) might be able to provide Russia with a suitable dynasty? One with all of the high IQ attributes and trans humanist values needed to guide the new Russian Empire.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky needs a harem, I think.

Yeah, I wanted to tell you that your comment in the other thread should’ve been made into a separate post.

There were a few conservatives here and there among Russian pre-revolutionary elite, but in general there were quite bleeding heart liberal in the modern sense. You may even say there were “Cultural Marxists,” heh-heh. They felt guilty about their privileged position and worshiped the peasant, about whom they knew nothing. From here, it’s only a short step to idolizing the third world masses and wringing hands about “white priviledge.”

If not for the Revolution, it was only a matter of time before these people took over the machinery of the government.

The Revolution swept away the old elite and replaced it with the new one, who are still in charge today. Whatever else you may say about the new elite, it has a much more recent origin from among the common people. So in many respects it’s more grounded in reality. Perhaps this can explain the difference between the Eastern and Western Europe.

I was thinking of Zhirinovsky too! 🙂

The world would not be so boring with him in charge, I think we can all genuinely agree.

Hopefully, Karlin can provide us with some better candidates?…

Daniel,

Your understatement of the day: “The world would not be so boring with him [Zhirinovsky] in charge.”

Thanks.

Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America. And in many respects, Austria-Hungary – Franz Ferdinand with his dragon tattoo across his chest; modern art and music in Vienna; hijinks in the elite schools (Musil wrote a book about this). But it would be odd to consider the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires to be liberal rather than conservative.

In the other thread I mentioned that Puritinism is not necessarily the same as conservatism. Cromwell wasn’t more conservative than the monarchists whom he destroyed; Islamic State not more conservative than the tribal, multi-confessional society it replaced, etc. Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church, the monarchy and aristocracy were in power (rather than attractive manipulative swindlers with money, as often is the case in democracies), and ancient traditions were valued and upheld. It didn’t have to be cruel or morally strict to be “conservative.” Although, as you mentioned, a little more cruelty directed towards Bolsheviks would have saved millions of lives; Pinochet and Franco leaned that lesson. But the basically decent gentlemen running the Empire had no frame of reference, the French Revolution was along time ago and far away, mass murder was out of the box thinking for them.

One thing you didn’t mention was the strong and growing role of private property, as a result of Stolypin’s land reforms. There was a growing class of successful, productive individual farmers.

As for Russia without Bolshevism – probably like a heavily industrialized technologically advanced Argentina with hundreds of millions of people sitting on the world’s largest gas and oil reserves (or Brazil, with Central Asians instead of Africans, and fewer of them). A more humane, but less democratic, Christian mega-power in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon one. Instead of a genocidal atheistic one that the world got.

a lot of far-left bombers were acquitted by jurys. the rot set in and the ground for 1917 was laid way before 1917, probably in 1825.

Haven’t enough Jews ruled Russia already?

Beilis btw was acquitted (unlike Dreyfus), and the judgement in the Multan affair (some peasant kerfuffle between Russians and Finno-Ugrics) was just, too. It’s like the state cared about truth or something.

There are some things typical of Empire though, like when they call in ethnic experts to testify about some ethnic practice. This is no different than Western countries acquitting FGM and honor killing practitioners on some extreme culture relativist grounds and the like.

Would that all countries were ethnostates. Empire distorts EVERYTHING.

higher-IQ version of Latin America

I always suspected the periphery of the Western world is always where they test-run their theories. In that sense, Russia 1917 is no different than Chile 1973.

there were just 6,321 executions from 1825 to 1917

I thought it was much less. Once I tried to compare UK where executions were common with Russia where they were very rare in 19 century. Your high number of 6,321 includes revolution of 1905 and WWI periods. In peacetime the number will be lower by factor of 10.

Zhirinovsky is a patriot, a supreme intellectual, an entertainer, raconteur………just the type of person that Ukraine has needed in it’s last 25 years of abject failure and idiocy.

He has also been correct on the pseudo-country of “Ukraine” throughout his political career, with incredible accuracy

I am wary of Russian imperialism.

but certainly Tsar would be better than Commie.

Russian counter balance to West is needed, but hopefully to Central Europe it is more nice 🙂

Nicholas (the guy killed by Bolsheviks) actually killed far less Slavs (Russians, and others)
compared to Lenin or Stalin.

The drunk fascist idiot Polish President who ordered his pilot to land the plane , in conditions of poor visibility……is responsible for killing more slavs than Nicholas,Lenin and Stalin ever could conceive of.

I know that your’re a lying tramp with severe mental problems but this latest witless BS is beyond parody.

AK: Ok, Gerard2, I gave you fair warning, so I’m putting you on premoderation. I suggested that you and AP stop trolling each other – and in all fairness, in all the cases I can recall, AP was the one responding to you, as opposed to initiating – you said you would, but apparently that only lasted a couple of comments. This does not mean you are banned. The few people who are banned get their comments trashed automatically. My rules here don’t strictly forbid ad homs so it would be unfair to ban you. That said you will stay on premod until you work out a consistent way of commenting in a civilized manner, i.e. without “lying idiot”, “fucking shitbag”, etc. every other sentence.

One of the most hilarious episodes in history is the Narodniks “going to the people” in 1874. Turned out “the people,” showing unusual perspicacity, wanted nothing to do with them.

I think that the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand. Proof? Saakashvili, of course.

They tried to test him whether he has the high quality genes that they so fondly remembered and admired about Stalin by giving him the governorship of the Odessa region.

See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

Of course, the reason why Saakashvili’s test run in Odessa proved unsuccessful was because he wasn’t given the same authorization as Stalin had – which was a license to kill.

That’s the only way anything can be accomplished in Ukraine, but then again Saakashvili would have had to kill roughly about 99% of them in order to achieve the desired result, which kind of defeats the purpose.

: Unlike World War II (which was a total waste), World War I is more of a mixed big, IMHO. Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides–such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer.

Also, had your country avoided bringing the U.S. into World War I, you Germans could have really benefited from World War I. Basically, you would have had an Eastern European empire, you would have defeated your biggest enemy (Russia), and you would have had a very large part of the world’s (extremely high IQ) Ashkenazi Jewish population under your rule (specifically in your Eastern European puppet states). Imagine what great things a victorious* Germany in World War I could have achieved with the right leadership!

*Victorious in the East, with a stalemate and an eventual status quo ante bellum peace in the West.

: To be honest, I don’t think that a surviving Tsarist Russia could have resisted the democratizing trends in Europe during this time–something which would be especially true without World War I and the radicalism which it brought. Indeed, if Tsarist Russia would have refused to democratize, I don’t expect it to survive to the 21st century. (Of course, I could see something of a revival of authoritarianism after a period of democratization; however, this might require a major event such as a war or an economic depression.)

I do completely agree with you that a surviving Tsarist Russia–or even a non-Tsarist but also non-Bolshevik Russia–certainly had the potential to be an extremely formidable rival to the Anglo-American world. After all, as you said, it would have had an enormous population (probably the third-largest in the world), enormous natural resources, and an enormous number of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews to draw from (if it actually began to treat them decently, that is).

: While Anatoly voted for the LDPR, I would like to point out that Zhirinovsky would probably be a bad Russian neo-Tsar. After all, he wants Russian soldiers to be able to wash their boots in the Indian Ocean–something which implies a desire to have Russia annex a bunch of heavily Muslim-majority territories so that it can at long last have access to the Indian Ocean. In other words, we’re not only looking at a neo-Russian Central Asia here, but also at a neo-Russian Iran, Afghanistan, and/or Pakistan.

(Also, Yes, I am aware that Zhirinovsky–or Zhirik, as I like to call him–might simply be engaging in empty bluster. However, a literal reading of this part of his agenda suggests that he wants to extremely heavily Islamize Russia–something that I know that Anatoly detests!)

Doesn’t fix that 14% literacy rate, though, or the staggering debt or the foreign ownership of banks. Jews selling out Jews to Jews.

Basically, a lot of bad came out of it, but there were also some notable bright sides–such as the creation of new states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic countries as well as the redrawing of European borders to make them somewhat fairer

The creation of the little statelets such as Czechoslovakia was probably a bad idea. They were all too small to be able to defend themselves, and inevitably were conquered and became dominated by Germany and the Bolsheviks. It would have been much better for them to have remained in some federated form with a unified military and military-industrial complex but broad local cultural autonomy so they could collectively deal with larger neighboring powers. Of course, at that time everyone wanted to take Nationalism to its extreme, nobody wanted any kind of federation, so the tragedy was probably unavoidable. Pilsidski came closest to solving the problem with his Intermarium project, had it worked there might have been a viable solution, but he was sabotaged at home by domestic nationalists.

the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves

Bulgaria’s legitimate rulers do not have a drop of local blood. One of them was actually elected PM of the entire country, not merely an appointed governor of one province:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

Does that mean that the Bulgarian people are aware that they are “too stupid to govern themselves?”

It never fails. Everything you accuse others of, is far more true of your own people.

The lights went out all over Europe in 1914 and they’ve never really been turned back on. Was World War I just a “bad break,” or were there forces in Europe pre-war that made some kind of conflict of that nature and scope more or less inevitable?

: Actually, the creation of little states has worked pretty well in the post-World War II era. Indeed, the problem after the end of World War I was that Russia was Bolshevik and the U.S. demilitarized and withdrew back into semi-isolation.

Heck, it is worth noting that, right now, in spite of Europe being full of small states, Europe is actually very peaceful right now (minus a few trouble areas, such as the Donbass).

Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of–and perhaps even the expansion of–both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower (if this superpower is willing to grant them broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)? Similarly, why should Iran be a medium-sized player when it can become a part of a superpower through annexation by a Greater Russia (if they are granted broad cultural autonomy and economic freedom, that is)?

To clarify, I meant a reformed Soviet Union here (or, *perhaps,* alternatively, a Soviet Union that never ends the NEP).

Russia might have won the war in 1917-18 had not been for the high treason of the ‘bobos and aristos’. They made the ‘revolution’, not the ‘downtrodden masses’.

Actually, the creation of little states has worked pretty well in the post-World War II era.

That’s because the big powers within the union were largely destroyed or seriously weakened, and the whole thing was looked after by a distant USA.

Also, , your logic here could literally be used to justify the existence of–and perhaps even the expansion of–both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union

The point of a union of small peoples (as was Austria-Hungary) is that each one is of more or less equal size and incapable of dominating the others. But collectively they present a somewhat powerful united front. Obviously A-H was weaker than Germany or Russia, but not nearly as weak as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. alone were. The Czechs were better off in A-H than in the Reich, or under the Soviet boot because Vienna was not nearly as powerful in comparison, as were Berlin or Moscow.

After all, why should Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks be minor players when they can be a part of a superpower

The point isn’t to be part of a superpower but local rule. For small nations surrounded by much larger ones, the best way of insuring this is a federation of the small nations, who are collectively more powerful than any of them would be individually. This isn’t possible when the population ratios are lopsided.

Ukraine attached to Russia, three times its population, is terribly outnumbered. Two previous such unions have not worked out, for that reason. OTOH, a close Polish-Ukrainian alliance would be another story. Neither one is large enough to truly dominate the other. Austria-Hungary had been another example.

You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

Who imports leaders from countries that they not only have nothing in common with, but supposedly they should have bad memories about?

Wait, I know, it’s the superior Slavic genes that made them do it. I kind of suspect what is the “logic” behind this, but it’s just too much out there.

They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

But that logic is retarded, because the Russians kicked Saakashvili’s butt, so the debt was repaid and there are no reasons to hold further grudges against that failed anti-Russian villain. Then again, we are talking Ukrainians here, and no one has ever accused them of being too smart.

Much of this reminds me of a higher-IQ version of Latin America.

You are on to something here. A number of scholars have commented that Russia has traits of a New World nation located in the Old World. The Great Frontier and the drive to explore and colonize that expanse has given it a history and certain cultural values that parallels the larger American nations. Brazil is a particularly striking example, because if you really dig into Brazilian culture (and in particular the image its intelligentsia has built for itself), you see clear similarities with their Russian counterparts that are almost impossible to ignore. This study could probably make up a whole book if it were ever fully explored, but suffice to say I feel if you want to see how Russia would have functioned if it had not fallen straight from Autocracy into Bolshevism, studying Brazilian history after 1889 provides major clues.

I wish I could find it, but there was a post on the internet years ago to a published study by a certain professor who did a large study on the social values of nations across the globe and how their culture influences their politics. It more or less lined up with traditional observations, but what stood out was that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus clearly fell into the corner occupied by Spain, Portugal, and Latin America rather than other Eastern European countries, which clustered on the opposite side of the chart with Germany. Even other Orthodox countries did not match up with the East Slavs. The massive disconnect between the Russians and their neighbors may have deeper-rooted causes that go well beyond language and even religion.

gun rights

This proves your case even more – association of “gun rights” with conservatism is very novel idea, starting since 1970’s. Traditionally, “RKBA” was cause of left and extreme left. No conservative of 19th century called for “abolition of mercenary armies and universal arming of the people”.

Looking at the shop, Russian speaking will see that the shop belonged not to private owner, not to state, but to peasant consumer cooperative. Abomination both to pro feudal and pro capitalist conservatives.

Isn’t rather a disconnect between ‘the neighbours’ and the Russians?

They are either really good sports or just too demented to remember anything. I vote for the second option.

You project this on all ‘Ukrainians’, but since Feb 22, 2014 the place has been controlled (internally) and terrorized by brown-shirts. ‘They’ have nothing to do with it. Besides, ‘Ukrainians’ as political collective is a myth anyway. Zapadentsi are currently in control, and they got nothing in common, politically, with the population east of Dnieper. It’s more divergent/disjointed than Sicily vs Lombardy or Aosta.

Notice that no -shvilies are appointed in western regions; it would’ve been impossible. What’s happening, in effect, is that the west/center region is occupying and terrorizing the east/south region.

This is what Alexander Solzhenitsyn strongly argued in his “Archipelago Gulag” book – that in its last decades, the Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal, and pathetically inefficient in the suppression of leftist rebels, looking like a helpless befuddled old man. Solzhenitsyn openly said that people like him, who had felt the power of true totalitarian system on their skin, could not but laugh with bitter mockery at the early 20th century Russian liberals who felt they were so, SO oppressed by the Tsar.

Solzhenitsyn especially made fun of his fellow author Leo Tolstoy, who around 1907 was literally weeping and moaning about the horrible Stolypian “oppression” of Leftist revolutionaries. You could really sense that A.S. had no patience for the kind of pacifist-humanist bullshit that Tolstoy was peddling.

Tolstoyism might have even been directly connected to “The Camp of the Saints” kind of failure of nerve in the face of chaos:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/russia-putin-revolution-lenin-nicholas-1917/521571/?utm_source=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

“For those months, Russia’s strong, free civil society tried to take the country’s fate into its own hands, inspired by artists like Wassily Kandinsky, composer Igor Stravinsky, director Constantin Stanislavski, Ballet Russe founder Serge Diaghiliev, and writers and poets like Mikhail Bulgakov and Anna Akhmatova. Indeed, the first democratic prime minister of Russia, Georgy Lvov, was a friend and follower of Leo Tolstoy, and tried to implement a utopian ideal to create a non-violent state. He resigned in July 1917 after the first attempt by the Bolsheviks at a violent coup, saying he could not bring himself to use weapons to put down an uprising.”

Tsarist Russia had become way too liberal

Jeez, isn’t this a bit a much, considering its happy participation in WWI, with 12 million conscripted and 2 million killed? Which, without a doubt, was the main (by far) immediate cause of both revolutions in 1917.

What would Russian culture have been like without the Communist occupation?

Probably a great deal more liberal, actually.

But who cares about ‘liberal culture’? All these anti-communist analyses typically way overemphasize aspects of ‘high culture’, ‘freedom of speech’, and other such nonsense – while completely ignoring interests of the ordinary people. And that just makes them sound like whining with no substance or value whatsoever…

Pre-commie Russia was conservative in that it preserved a central role for the Church

False. The Russian Church was re-instated only after the February Revolution. In Tsarist times the Church was subjugated to the state and was run by atheist functionaries.

In Hungary it’s probably similar (but with less opportunities to hunt than in sparsely populated Russia), but actually the bureaucratic procedure is not difficult in the sense that once you are willing to go through the motions, you’ll get the licence (at least for a sports pistol or rifle) fairly easily. I know a guy who has a sports pistol and he told me the only basic requirement is a certain shooting proficiency, once you reach the required level, you’ll be able to buy your own gun fairly easily. For hunters it’s perhaps even easier. I think it’s mostly a question of people not really needing or wanting guns, basically a lack of gun culture.

Orbán is now planning on creating a gun culture, with shooting incorporated (at least facultatively) into high school curricula, we’ll see how far that’ll go.

Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance. The trend has clearly been in favor of a system where the masses have more and more say in the way things are run. Just look at the few remaining monarchies that are still around today, with Great Britain as a good example. The monarchy there is really just a showpiece, a parody of what it once was. If you read between the lines, you can quickly discern that even those that would benefit the most from this sort of an arrangement, don’t really have the certainty nor the turpitude necessary to make such an arrangement work. The need for even a small modicum of privacy is obviated by the incessant storm of exposure to public scrutiny, be it legitimized through the normal operations of journalism or the more intrusive form provided through the gossip columns underfed by the paparazzi. The onerous (and out of date) requirements of marrying within ones own caste has precluded several pretenders to the thrown, including the current Prince Charles, from assuming the royal office. The costs associated with running such an institution are often put under public scrutiny and really just doesn’t hold up well under a cost/benefit analysis. No, I think that Russia is slowly on the right tract of governance, by at least paying lip service and providing window dressing to a democratic form of governance where the country’s leadership is subject to elections every few years. The trick is to make it more and more a legitimate concern.

I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany

They started mobilization before any other major power (bar Austria-Hungary, which declared war on Serbia). Moreover, it was totally unnecessary, because Serbia would’ve accepted the Austrian-Hungarian ultimatum, had they not received assurances from Russia that Russia would go to war if Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary. Of course, the Serbian government really did have ties to the terrorist organization responsible for the terrorist attack, as the Russians must’ve been aware themselves, so they were only supporting terrorism. How terrible terrorism was, the Russian elites must’ve known from personal experience, just a few decades after a Tsar was murdered by some terrorists, and a few years after the murder of several Russian civil servants (including Stolypin).

Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”, just as stupid as the 21st century version (or probably way stupider). (Interestingly, Gavrilo Princip was kept in a prison for years, until tuberculosis killed him in his prison cell, just a few months before the end of the war. He was too young to receive capital punishment.) Austria-Hungary was the least stable of almost any of the European powers, it should’ve known better that it wouldn’t survive a war, at least not one which it didn’t win quickly. Besides, there was really no point, since annexation was totally out of the question, the Hungarian government was 100% opposed to annexing further Slavic lands, they didn’t like the previous annexation of Bosnia either – they asked, who needs another 2 million Slavs? So Austria-Hungary with its political elites and middle classes was absolutely responsible for the war which they joined for absolutely no reason, just as the idiotic German government, which was also pushing for a war. (At least the Germans would’ve been in a better position, had they won.) Basically any of these three countries could’ve prevented the outbreak of the war: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany. All three paid a heavy price for the war, which could be seen as poetic justice, though of course it was not only the political elites which paid the price, but the whole population.

We must pay more attention to the use of words. That would spare us nonsensical utterances like: the Russian Church was ‘reinstated’. That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!
Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.

I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany, could you point it out to me?

Yeh-yeh-yeh. I’m not an aficionado of irrelevant historical factoids, which is why I said “happy participation”. Surely they could avoid full-scale fighting and keep their ancient regime for a few more years. Which, perhaps, also applicable (if to a much lesser extent) to the Soviets brotherly helping the Afghan people in the 1980s.

And why should liberalism be incompatible with war anyway?

It’s not. Which explains the second, October revolution (or coup, if you prefer).

The point is, the word ‘liberal’ here seems to be used as synonym of ‘soft’, ‘nonbelligerent’, ‘conciliatory’. Active/aggressive participation in WWI doesn’t fit this image.

Russia’s participation in WWI was anything but ‘happy’. It was not Russia which wanted the war. The war was imposed on her, precisely with the aim to rekindle the revolution stifled after the other war imposed on Russia by the Anglo-American Jews through the good offices of the Japanese.

I don’t recall that part of the history textbook where Russia declared war on Germany,

Its general mobilization was a crucial step in the escalation of the crisis though, imo the point when a general European war – instead of a localized Austro-Serbian war – became almost inevitable (though I suppose relitigating this now is rather pointless).
Were Russian liberals really the most pro-war faction? I would have thought pan-Slavist right-wingers would have been more enthusiastic about going to war for Serbia.

the Ukrainians might have other ideas. They complain about Stalin being too rough on them, but they’ve secretly been craving a strong Georgian hand… See, the Ukrainians are aware that they are too stupid to govern themselves and they have been secretly hoping that some other Georgian might come along to whip them into shape.

Really? And I think that you need to have your head examined for making such stupid statements!

Anatoly, I applaud your recent attempts to keep the tone and content of the comments here to a civilized manner, but I don’t see how one can let such blatantly asinine and demeaning statements go? Shouldn’t there be some sort of a litmus test for intelligence here too? After all, you’re really into that sort of thing, aren’t you? 🙂

Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum

In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that? In a way the real issue was about Austria-Hungary’s great power status and the fact that Britain, France and Russia expected Austria-Hungary just to accept being humiliated like that, because they didn’t really regard Austria-Hungary as an equal anymore.
And given that Austria-Hungary was Germany’s only reliable ally and German elites increasingly felt encircled by an hostile coalition (not without reason, though they themselves of course had contributed to bringing about that situation) the German reaction wasn’t irrational, they just felt they couldn’t let Austria-Hungary’s status be eroded like that. Given how it all turned out, it was still highly irresponsible policy, but there was a certain logic behind it that’s not easy to refute imo.

In response to the above comments:

Obviously WW1 and WW2 was tragic lose of lives. Europe stopped being the power center.
and US took over. But I am happy that countries like Poland, Czechslovakia, Yugoslavia came to being. (they got some freedom, but also had faults).

US/UK/Germany were messing with Russia, since the Japanese war right?
Schiff gave money to both Japan and later Bolsheviks afaik, with the same purpose in mind.

As for monarchy, maybe some type of mix between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy.

You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity. War against Russia was desired by Germany, by the Zionists, by the SDAP.
It was decided at the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912. Its immediate concerns were the successes of the Balkan League against the darling of the Germans, the Ottoman Empire, and the alarm of Austro-Hungary at the rise of Serbia. Kaiser Wilhelm urged that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia the following month, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too” adding that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway. The Army Chief of Staff, the General von Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion “a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better”. He wanted to launch an immediate attack, but the Admiral Tirpitz said that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded “only reluctantly. But it was clearly established that, if there was going to be a war, the German Army wanted it to commence before the new Russian armaments program began to bear fruit.
Well, yes, to catch Russia unprepared! The accusation that Russia engaged unprepared in such adventure because of the ineptitude of the Tsar and that led to the revolution is sheer idiocy.
There can be little doubt that the Russians were not only aware, but informed in detail of the Austro-German intentions (the case of Colonel Alfred Redl -1913). They could not have been unaware of the push of the Germans to capture the oil fields of the Caspian in cahoots with the Ottomans.
Not to take precautions would have been criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

The conservatism that you speak of has a much better name IMO – traditionalism.

Perhaps. However, “conservatism” without the modifier is defined by Oxford as “commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.” The language is clear, even though some radicals (from neocon Big State warmongers to religious fanatics and would-be theocrats) claim to be conservative and their enemies describe them as such.

These various Puritan movements (from Cromwell to ISIS), as well as fascists and Nazis are often violently opposed to traditionalism (the Nazi song by Horst Wessel includes the lines: “Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries/March in spirit within our ranks”). They radically alter society, often making it almost unrecognizable. It is the opposite of traditional. They do change society in different ways from what radical leftists do, with their gay parades, atheism, and such, but change it they do.

So humane and tolerant Russia under the Tsars, Austria-Hungary under the Habsburgs, were conservative in the real meaning of the word. Franco and Horthy were probably authoritarian conservatives; Hitler and Mussolini were not.

In hindsight that’s obviously true…but which great power could let a small “rogue state” like Serbia just get away with something like supporting the assassination of a major figure like Franz Ferdinand, without its prestige being severely damaged by that?

There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story). Russia was morally wrong to support Serbia, and moreover stupid to do so, given that every year its power was increasing. It would be like China choosing to go to war against major powers now (or rather, 5 years ago), rather than wait 20 years.

The tragedy was of course universal. The consequences were incredibly cruel but seemed to hit the guilty ones the worst. Regicidal Serbia saw 1/3 of its population slaughtered. The Tsars who supported the regicidal regime was himself murdered, along with his family. The Russian people who overthrew their legitimate king were themselves murdered by the millions. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns who were not ultimately the most guilty ones but who went along with the war against the other real monarch lost their thrones, but were relatively speaking okay, as were their peoples. The conservative/reactionary historian John Lukacs who sees a divine hand in 20th century events may be on to something, though so many innocents perished alongside the guilty.

Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance.

Does it? Obviously monarchies (real ones) have not survived, so probably they were not meant to. This does not mean they weren’t viable. They survived for centuries and while they existed people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives. We’ll see how long post-monarchial democracies survive – I suspect, not as long.

In addition to historical parallels involving settling a new frontier, and social ones (traditionally agricultural societies with educated landed gentry and peasants) I’ve noticed certain social or cultural ones.

Anecdotes: I have a few friends and colleagues from elite Latin American families. They strike me as being more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes. Most of them enjoy Russian literature. I notice that at parties they tend to congregate with Russians and Poles. I know a central European count who married the daughter of a diplomat from south of the border. There is something similar in their traditional relations to their “peasants” although due to the racial differences the disconnect is more extreme in Latin America than in Russia. Tolstoy’s peasant obsession reminds me of some upper class Mexicans with no Indian descent giving their kids Aztec names. When Karlin posted this, about more upper class Russian students:

The vast majority of our children enter university having lost their virginity. Who of us doesn’t know that in the senior classes of the gymnasiums there is hardly a boy to be a found who has yet to be acquainted with a maid, or a brothel

I’m reminded of the seemingly common practice in Latin America of fathers getting their high-school sons high-end prostitutes, to make sure the boys will know what they are doing (I know two guys from different Latin American countries who got such gifts, so I assume it’s not uncommon).
:::::::::::::::::

So, generally speaking, I see a non-Commie Russia as developing like a place such as Argentina or Brazil, only with a significantly higher average IQ (more potential for Russian peasants as the country modernizes, than for Brazilian ones) and much larger industrial base.

There are parallels between Austria-Hungary demanding things of Serbia and then invading in response to the regicidal act of terrorism supported by the Serbian state, and America doing the same to Afghanistan following 9-11 (Iraq, if course, was a completely different story)

Except Serbia acceded to the reasonable demands that would have allowed prosecution of the criminals. The demands were deliberately unreasonable to give an excuse for invasion.

You would think that any last name that ends on vili (Dzhugashvili, Saakashvili) will give the Ukrainians the willies, but apparently not.

Because every Georgian is the same, right? Simple Balkan thinking.

They imported Saakashvili as a leader of Odessa, because they thought as an anti-Russian villain they’ll piss off the Russians with him.

Saakashvili and Poroshenko studied together at university in Kiev – they were old friends. Saak had a record of reforming Georgia, and these were probably the main reasons why Poroshenko appointed him to head corrupt Odessa. Pissing off the Russians may have been icing on the cake.

Austria-Hungary demanded that Austrian investigators be sent into Serbia to root out the terrorists. Serbia said this violated their sovereignty (so elements of the Serbian state sent terrorists to commit regicide in Austria, but Austria couldn’t send its team into Serbia).

It was similar to the ultimatum given by the USA to the Taliban in response to the 9-11 terror attack, and equally justified.

Yet all of human history seems to mitigate against monarchy as a viable form of governance

And all of existence seems to testify against living as a form of existence, after all, everything that has lived has also died. That something has weaknesses does not mean that it is necessarily a poor form of governance – and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.

people produced their greatest literature, arts, etc. and lived generally good lives.

Did they? Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes? It reminded me a bit of a similar debate over which political system in Europe caused fewer deaths to its own and neighboring countries, Russian Communist or German Nazi. Although a tyrant himself, wasn’t a whole boatload of great European art created during and after the anti-monarchical sentiment unleashed during Bonaparte’s ‘liberating’ reign of terror? For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism?…

and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done better with newer technology that improves detection of the malcontent elements.

Quit talking in Orwellian doublespeak and tell us more about the wonders of a dystopian future guided by the omniscient and guiding Big Brother. It’s already been described in detail in Orwell’s ‘1984’. Thank god that more than 30 years have passed, and we’re still not quite there yet! Do we really need ‘thoughtpolice’ (the checka) to guide us in the future?

Wasn’t it you, that recently was involved in a debate with another reader here, over what monarchical system, Polish or Russian, provided the superior environment for its serf (slave) classes?

Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy? There had been no serfdom for a couple generations when the Russian monarchy fell.

For all of its shortcomings, I’d suspect that you’re a great fan of the Soviet school of realism

The golden and silver ages of Russian literature/culture were during the monarchy.

The Bolsheviks murdered Russia and created a grotesque Frankenstein’s monster out of the corpse. Of course this creature included some features of the beautiful thing that was destroyed.

without the Communist occupation?

You have a bad impression of your own country. What about Herzen, Bakunin or Radishchev? Would they be considered “occupants”? Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly), even Solzhenistyn blamed the Russians for communism

So what would a Russian Empire be like without communism? It would be like contemporary Western states, because “liberalism is communism in slow motion”. Liberalism and communism are the same thing, only they progress with different pace, but both towards unification of people and egalitarianism

The reason why bolshevism won in Russia is because since Peter the Great, the elites quickly rejected Orthodoxy and didn’t take it seriously (given it justified the injustices of the government in Russia), thus they have rejected traditional forms, decided to copy the West and engage in self-hatred

Over time, the same thing happened more or less to lower classes. Russia became a formless blob that wasn’t strongly enough bound together by its tradition, and so a small, ruthless elite aware of what they want to achieve, decided to give Russia a new form and the russian lumpenproletariat indifferent enough to anything, decided to serve them. The resistance was too weak, because over time the bonds of tradition faded and people became indifferent, divided and disoriented, except the bolsheviks

And are you happy with the fruit of cumulative mass ignorance? You like the ride that we’re going on, with a dystopia future guided by the omniscience and frantic cult of victimhood, that exchanges a single tyrant for a mob of mini-tyrants? Is a hereditary king worse than the self-appointed master that is Google and Facebook?

I’m not convinced. In a world of terrible choices, I’ll rather go with a slightly less terrible one.

Did the helots live better under the Athenian democracy?

Helots (basically a colonial population) were in Sparta…which was a very peculiar society even by ancient Greek standards.
Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city. Modern criticism of it as “undemocratic” because it excluded women, foreigners and slaves from political life seems rather misguided imo.
Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age.

Athens of course had lots of slaves (some of whom were basically worked to death in silver mines), but also a very large class of equal citizens who actively participated in the political life of the city.

I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens’ population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves. At that time, slaves weren’t even considered to be human (this idea came with Christianity), they were seen as some sort of animate tools to whom a person could do as he wished.

Coming back to the 19th century – were democratic systems really more humane than monarchies? The Irish were treated much worse by parliamentary Britain than anyone was treated by the Tsars and Kaisers. The death penalty was much more liberally applied in Britain than in Russia. Chattel slavery was far worse than serfdom. Etc. etc.

Anyway, I don’t see how monarchy could come back in this day and age

Agreed. Monarchy is dead, and cannot be resurrected. Which doesn’t mean that it’s loss isn’t a tragedy or that the world hasn’t become worse as a result.

it all just feels like a continuous descent into nothingness

Nietzsche 101.

Peace.

Makes sense. But this also explains why monarchies tended to be more humane and decent. Monarchs were born to rule (power was taken for granted, it wasn’t something to take), they viewed their lands as their patrimony, their subjects as their people. They were often very dedicated and conscientious (old Franz Josef worked 12 hour days up until his death in old age). I’m not trying to idealize monarchs as heroic humanitarians necessarily, but at the least they viewed their country as a guy who inherited his family farm views his farm- something to look after, take care of, and pass on to his heirs in decent condition. In democracies, in contrast, getting to the top involves not birth but the ability to manipulate others, a thirst for power, fame or both.* So the leaders are indeed going to be smarter, but probably less moral and less decent as people.

*To be sure, this is still better than post-monarchial non-democracies. Democracy at least involves persuasion rather than coercion, so the end product is more humane. Hitler being an obvious counterexample, but he’s an exception.

Dag yo! I thought that video was a joke or something and then the women start screaming and stuff and I’m thinking – oh crap, they’re going nahi anil munkar Saudi-style on these people!

Saudi Police: “No, no – you’re doing it all wrong – you’re suppose to whip them and put the mask on their faces! Silly Russians!”

Peace.

I may be mistaken, but only something like 10% of Athens’ population were citizens with rights, most of the rest were slaves.

That seems exaggerated to me; but it’s true that only a minority of the Athenian population were male citizens with political rights; they were outnumbered by women, slaves and resident foreigners (metics).
Anyway, you’re probably right that democratic regimes aren’t necessarily more humane than monarchies, e.g. democratization certainly can lead to intolerant majorities acting out harshly against other groups.

Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much…but I know he’s beloved by religious people like yourself since he seems to confirm your view that secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results (“finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!”).

Monarchy is dead

True; the exceptions prove the rule.

cannot be resurrected

This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.

OT:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-27/catalan-police-ordered-close-and-occupy-polling-stations-stop-vote-going-ahead

Waiting for the Wrath of the Catalan in 3, 2, 1…

Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi whose thought really doesn’t interest me much

You think the first because of the second statement in that phrase.

Nietzsche was at various and increasing stages of dementia which can be seen in his work; his philosophy as a whole is not really a result of mental illness as such. I’ll leave it to Nietzscheans, of whom I know there are a number on Unz, to debate the issue.

Nothingness is way more Sartre than Nietzsche imo anyway. Nietzsche would be better described as somethingness. Incidentally I think a lot of the popular appeal of Islam (as opposed to its actual content) is a sort of will-to-power Nietzshceanism, which will open a rabbit hole here but which I might want to expand on elsewhere. Talha quoted to me the other day a Muslim apologist who was only just shy of describing Christian ethics as a slave morality– I think this sort of rhetoric is not actually that uncommon.

finally an honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!

You mean one more honest atheist who gets what loss of faith will lead to!

Bolshevism was a russian creation, not that of the bad jooz or ethnic minorities (if I got your point correctly)

Funny then that the Communist revolution involved very few actual Russians

The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

NAME NATIONALITY
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Lourie (Larine) Jew
Ouritski Jew
Volodarski Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian

“The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
Food Schlichter Jew
Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
State Control Lander Jew
State Lands Kauffman Jew
Works V. Schmidt Jew
Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
Religions Spitzberg Jew
Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Hygiene Anvelt Jew
Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
Press Volodarski Jew
Elections Ouritski Jew
Justice I. Steinberg Jew
Refugees Fenigstein Jew
Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

“The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

NAME NATIONALITY
Sverdlov (president) Jew
Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
Bruno Lett
Babtchinski Jew
Bukharin Russian
Weinberg Jew
Gailiss Jew
Ganzburg Jew
Danichevski Jew
Starck German
Sachs Jew
Scheinmann Jew
Erdling Jew
Landauer Jew
Linder Jew
Wolach Czech
Dimanstein Jew
Encukidze Georgian
Ermann Jew
Joffe Jew
Karkline Jew
Knigissen Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Krylenko Russian
KrassikofSachs Jew
Kaprik Jew
Kaoul Lett
Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
Latsis Jew
Lander Jew
Lounatcharski Russian
Peterson Lett
Peters Lett
Roudzoutas Jew
Rosine Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Stoutchka Lett
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Sosnovski Jew
Skrytnik Jew
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Teodorovitch Jew
Terian Armenian
Ouritski Jew
Telechkine Russian
Feldmann Jew
Froumkine Jew
Souriupa Ukranian
Tchavtchevadze Georgian
Scheikmann Jew
Rosental Jew
Achkinazi Imeretian
Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
Rose Jew
Sobelson (Radek) Jew
Sclichter Jew
Schikolini Jew
Chklianski Jew
Levine (Pravdine) Jew

“The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

NAME NATIONALITY
Dzerjinski (president) Pole
Peters (vice-president) Lett
Chklovski Jew
Kheifiss Jew
Zeistine Jew
Razmirovitch Jew
Kronberg Jew
Khaikina Jewess
Karlson Lett
Schaumann Jew
Leontovitch Jew
Jacob Goldine Jew
Glaperstein Jew
Kniggisen Jew
Latzis Lett
Schillenkuss Jew
Janson Lett
Rivkine Jew
Antonof Russian
Delafabre Jew
Tsitkine Jew
Roskirovitch Jew
G. Sverdlof Jew
Biesenski Jew
Blioumkine Jew
Alexandrevitch Russian
I. Model Jew
Routenberg Jew
Pines Jew
Sachs Jew
Daybol Lett
Saissoune Armenian
Deylkenen Lett
Liebert Jew
Vogel German
Zakiss Lett

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

Nietzsche was a demented proto-Nazi

Possibly. Nazism is Darwinism taken to a logical conclusion based on certain key assumptions.

secularization will inevitably lead to catastrophical results

It won’t any more than modernization as long as it’s kept in check. Nietzche was solid! He at least made an attempt to think the whole thing through in its long term prospects. I take him far more seriously than the buffoon New-Atheists that think they can remove the “ground of being” from beneath man and everything will turn out OK because they got rid of “evil religion” and “muh humanism” will save the day.

“The death of the spirit is the price of progress. Nietzsche revealed this mystery of the Western apocalypse when he announced that God was dead and that He had been murdered. This Gnostic murder is constantly committed by the men who sacrificed God to civilization. The more fervently all human energies are thrown into the great enterprise of salvation through world–immanent action, the farther the human beings who engage in this enterprise move away from the life of the spirit. And since the life the spirit is the source of order in man and society, the very success of a Gnostic civilization is the cause of its decline. A civilization can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time—but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves; the limit is reached when an activist sect which represents the Gnostic truth organizes the civilization into an empire under its rule. Totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists, is the end form of progressive civilization.” —Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics, 1952

Peace.

Nice Voegelin citation!

Peace.
Et cum spiritu tuo.

This is going too far: “is incredibly unlikely to be resurrected by conscious effort” more suits the case.

Perhaps. Monarchial systems developed organically over hundreds of years. I suppose they could theoretically develop once again, but it seems highly unlikely. The chance for a return would have been after World War II in central Europe due to a brief break of 25 years (it came close, in Bavaria and perhaps Austria, but the Americans shot it down).

will-to-power Nietzshceanism

Definitely the discourse among many modernist-Islamist types – that is for sure. Completely lacking any spiritual nuance or reflection or metaphysical grounding; which is why they tend to lose miserably. This is delusion, there is no might or power except by God’s will.

For the traditional-minded – there is no “will to power” because that assumes we humans can will ourselves into success:
“Say: ‘O God, absolute Master of all dominion! You give sovereignty to whom You will, and take away sovereignty from whom You will. And You exalt and honor whom You will, and abase whom You will. In Your hand is all good; surely You have full power over everything.’” (3:26)

Sometimes the best place for one to be is in a state of powerlessness and humiliation (you will not hear this from the will-to-power types):

Christian ethics as a slave morality

Which guy was that again?

Actually – ours is pretty much a slave morality too. When the Creator gives you rules to abide by, obedient slaves don’t balk at following orders.
“…And they say, ‘We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.’” (2:285)

Peace.

When we were discussing international law– I didn’t recall the exact phrasing but did remember the impression which I now see was made by the conjunction of words: “Christianity seeks to remake human nature … makes hypocrites of its warriors. Islam’s great advantage is that it seeks only to govern human nature as it is”

Probably there is nothing wrong with this guy’s orthodoxy, but he seems to have a tendency to strange turns of phrase sometimes.

Oh – no that was a non-Muslim journalist (Tom Junod) writing about the life of John Walker Lindh.

Peace.

Okay, that explains it. I hadn’t actually read the whole article but assumed you were quoting Lindh.

As per the Odd Couple, I should know what happens when one assumes…

Thanks for clearing that up!

Doubly stupid of me because Lindh’s orthodoxy is certainly less than could be desired!

It does make you think – many of the Bolshevik leaders seem to have had a pleasant life in “internal exile” — while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door.

Talha – I believe the “slave morality” quote is originally from Nietzsche.

my argument is against communism responsible for Nazism.

1.just because the name of nazi party has socialist in it does not mean nazism is a reaction to socialism/communism.
2.why nazism rose only in Germany only?
3.communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )
4.germany ruling elites must have been influenced by France,UK,USA etc., than Russia which is less developed than other EU countries(Russia GDP 10% of UK in 1900)
5.communists did not come to power in Germany and were murdered by nazi’s. a reaction can come only if they are strong .(So,communism was strong neither inside Germany or USSR doesnot have a sufficient influence on ruling classes in Germany )
6.Also germans might be thinking about west europeans more due to versailles treaty(1919) than say USSR
7.Hitler & his ideas must be central to rise of nazism
8.Also USSR wasable to raise it’s GDP to 50% of Developed countries in a very short span (1928-1950) unequalled by any country except China(1980-2010).To top it there was the second world war when russia lost 27 million population.

Regardless, of course it was equally stupid of Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum and start that “war on terror”,

Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately used the Sarajevo incident to start the war (this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated). Serbia rejected not the whole the ultimatum,of Austria, but only one point of ultimatum – this Franz Joseph and Wilhelm happily used. This people (and their entourage), started WWI

communist ideas were there since 1867 ( Kapital publishing year)before Nazism since 1923 (may be)(nearly 2 generations too long for a reaction )

Don’t be silly, the argument clearly is that Nazism (and other forms of fascism in interwar Europe) was, at least in part, a reaction to the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, to the experience of shorter-lived commie regimes like Bela Kun’s regime in Hungary and to the subversive activities of communist parties during the 1920s and early 1930s (e.g. communists attempted several insurgencies during the early Weimar republic).
And Germany’s communist party was fairly strong in the late Weimar republic, they got 13,1% in the 1930 elections, 16,9% in the November 1932 elections; the commies also had paramilitary party militias and employed political violence (not just in street fighting against Nazis, also things like killing policemen, like young Erich Mielke, the later head of East Germany’s Stasi, did in 1931).
There were other factors in the rise of Nazism (and Nazism’s core ideas had been around in preWW1-Germany, but then they were limited to a political fringe), but (maybe exaggerated) fear of a Communist takeover certainly was an important factor…in a way Commie universalism bred an extreme racist particularism as a reaction, something today’s enthusiasts for globalism and mass immigration would do well to consider.

this is still Fritz Fischer demonstrated

Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology and paid no attention to the actions of the other great powers; it’s more relevant as a source for the intellectual climate of 1960s West Germany and debates about the Nazi past than for what actually happened in 1914. It amazes me it’s still taken seriously.

Ah OK – I was thinking from a different angle. I didn’t know he may have been hinting at the basis/roots of ethics that Nietzsche was writing about:
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Nietzsche/NietzscheMasterSlave.pdf

while in the UK a man can die in prison for the crime of hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door

Wow – did this actually happen? Sounds a bit like of Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

Peace.

Fischer’s thesis was just political demonology…

Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia? That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?

Apparently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

I should have put “slave morality” in quotes or something– it wasn’t necessarily obvious that I was making that reference.

More on Tom Junod: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600497.html . I don’t know if he is a Nietzschean but he is certainly no Muslim.

Do you think that Germany and Austria-Hungary didn’t want to start a war with Russia?

Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.
If it means evil Germans plotting a war of conquest (like actually happened in WW2), no, I don’t think so.
If it means not doing enough to avoid war, out of a somewhat fatalistic idea “It’s inevitable anyway, better now than in 5-10 years when our position is weaker”, that attitude certainly was present among German decision-makers in 1914.

That the ultimatum to Serbia was not a conscious provocation?

The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists who went on to murder the Austrian heir to the throne. Austria-Hungary had to react in some way to that.
Russia shouldn’t have backed Serbia…its alliance with Serbia was hardly a vital national interest (certainly much less so than the alliance with Austria-Hungary was for Germany), and without Russian support the Serbs might have surrendered to the Austrian ultimatum without war.

Awesome. Surprise is information.

I always thought Russian Empire was the ideal of NRx. Moldbug quoted that one Russian ambassador/writer quite a bit. Carlyle and his circle certainly liked the Empire.

Seems like the perfect combination of good governance and SWPL culture that Moldbug was going for.

Apparently some people are confused as to what the purpose of a bacon sandwich is*. Too bad he had to go to prison – I think third grade may have been more appropriate to learn about basics of nutrition (food pyramid and all that). Would have cost the tax payers far less.

Peace.

*Though I can see various deli-meat purveyors trying to up-sell the other guys:
“Oscar Meyer, for when only the juiciest and choicest ham will do for the sandwich you want to staple to the local mosque carpet.”

: Are you sure that IQ is a good proxy for competency? After all, by your own calculations, Hitler had an IQ of around 125, and yet he committed one of the most atrocious, immoral, and stupidest blunders in history by murdering most of Europe’s Ashkenazi Jewish cognitive elite. (This would be especially felt at the utmost right tail of the IQ bell curve, where Jews can be disproportionately represented by a factor of up to 100!)

Also, the high-IQ Western European leaders who are flooding their countries with Third World migrants don’t appear to be that competent. After all, competent leaders wouldn’t do that.

In addition to this, in regards to Tsarist Russia, while your post here is certainly pretty good and very interesting, it does neglect to mention Tsarist Russia’s awful treatment of its Jewish population. Even if Tsarist Russia’s Jewish university quotas could be justified as being a form of affirmative action for the non-Jewish population (though the quotas were still sometimes too low, considering that Jews made up over 10% of the total population in certain parts of the Pale of Settlement), this still doesn’t excuse the existence of the Pale of Settlement in the first place as well as the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. Indeed, even in the racist Jim Crow Southern U.S., I don’t think that there were restrictions on movement for Black people; in other words, unlike Russian Jews who wanted to move out of the Pale of Settlement, Blacks in the Southern U.S. who disliked the Jim Crow system could move to other, more tolerant U.S. states.

Also, in regards to its treatment of Jews, had Tsarist Russia treated its Jews better, less of them would have probably emigrated and less of them would have probably supported the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries. Indeed, in its treatment of the Jews, Tsarist Russia appears to have been *very* boneheaded! 🙁

Depends what you mean by “want to start a war with Russia”.

Want to start a war with Russia that’s what I mean. German elite thought that the Sarajevo incident is a a great opportunity to start a war. The incident can be resolved peacefully – but the Kaiser deliberately acted to provoke a war

“Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, returning to his post from leave in the middle of July 1914, already knew about the conversation at Potsdam on 5 July, when Wilhelm assured the Austrian Ambassador that Germany would support Austria against Serbia, and against Russia . He (Austrian Ambassador ) learned from the leaders of German policy that “there will be nothing wrong if these events will cause a war with Russia” (es wird auch nichts schaden wenn daraus ein Krieg mit Russland entstehen soil)…… Lichnowsky did everything to prevent the catastrophe, but his efforts failed. Lichnowsky writes: “Of course, one sign from Berlin was enough to make count Berchtold satisfied with a diplomatic success and to solve the Serbian crisis, but this sign was not followed. On the contrary, (Austro-Hungary) was pushing for war… All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior in question, which after all did not concern us directly. Persistent requests Sazonova, even humiliated telegrams of the tsar, repeated proposals of sir Edward Grey, the warnings of the Marquis San Giuliano my persistent advice, nothing helped”
Yevgeny Tarle “History of imperialism”

And no doubt, Germany had planned vast conquests in Europe and in the colonies (of course the Entente had similar plans).

The real – and pretty extreme – provocation was Serbian authorities training and supplying terrorists

“Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy”
The same Tarle.

As far as I know, for the past 90 years (after the publication of the “History of imperialism”), the evidence has not been found

: By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no? After all, both the Slavs and the Muslims would compromise about half of the population in such a union and thus no one side would be able to utterly nominate the other, no?

Likewise, by your logic here, if one ignores the IQ issue (which should hopefully eventually become a moot point due to IQ-enhancing technology), increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct? (Indeed, the U.S. was around 85% white in the mid-20th century but the youngest cohorts right now are only about 50% White and shrinking with every new year of children being born.)

: In regards to Russia going to war in 1914, Yes, it could certainly be viewed as a blunder. However, please keep in mind that going to war in 1914 ensured that Russia would have Britain, Italy, and eventually the U.S. as its allies.

In contrast, had Russia waited a couple of decades to go to war, it would have only had France as an ally and it might have very well had Britain and perhaps eventually even the U.S. among the ranks of its enemies. Indeed, had Russia and France had to fight a coalition of Britain, Germany, *and* the U.S., I could certainly see such a war ending in a Franco-Russian defeat even if this war had broken out in, say, 1940 or 1950 rather than in 1914.

“Never been proven that the Serbian government was directly involved in the conspiracy”
The same Tarle.

Well, maybe not Serbia’s government, but the Serbian intelligence service certainly was behind the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand; iirc they trained the terrorists in Serbia, supplied them with Serbian army weapons etc. How deeply civilian authorities were involved in this, is hard to tell, maybe they really couldn’t control the extremist elements in their intelligence service, maybe they deliberately gave them the liberty to pursue Serbian foreign policy objectives by unconventional means while the civilian leadership maintained plausible deniability.
Regarding the extent of German responsibility for WW1, I disagree; I can only suggest you take a look at Clark’s Sleepwalkers book (which may be somewhat too easy on the German leadership, but is a useful corrective imo to the Fischer view which really isn’t tenable anymore imo).

I love the picture in the article– somehow they got a baconless door, though. With the 95 theses– if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke.

I hope there’s a typo in this sentence:

A St George flag with the words ‘no mosques’ was also tied to the fence outside the building in Totterdown, Bristol, and shouted racial abuse at a worshipper.

if they could have written their political statement on the bacon it would have been a masterstroke

I would certainly have been impressed – it may have eventually been placed in a museum as the “shot” of fatty meat heard round the world as Europe wakens from its stupor – realizes what is at steak – sorry, stake – and prepares for a final push to expunge all the non-bacon eaters from its hallowed shores!

“Pork – there’s a reason why it’s called ‘the other White meat’!”

To think it all started with a few strips of greasy meat…

Peace.

Did Bacon write Shakespeare?

A news social hierarchy will arise! A White man shall be at its center and the rankings of its elite will be well-defined:

https://oracleofbacon.org/

Peace.

Damn – Adam West has a bacon-factor of 2!!! Impressive!

Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. To say anything else is a conspiracy theory and I propose an automatic permaban for anyone who suggests as much.

I don’t understand why Putin banned the DailyStormer. Putin wants to increase civil discord in the US right? DailyStormer did more than any other website to do just that.

Big own goal by Putin on this one. I’m still really pissed and feel betrayed.

Nietzsche was a demented filo-semite and rabid anti-Christian. His toxic influence appealed to anarchists (he has almost prophetic status among the ‘post-leftists’ anarchists and ‘Third Positionists’) as well as to Zionists (“Nietzsche and Herzl both opposed the Christian God as the degeneration of the primordial, Dionysian deity of Yahweh, the tribal God of Israel, instead of the passive sufferer of cosmopolitan Christianity. It has been argued, not without reason, Nietzsche’s work greatly influenced Theodore Herzl, and Martin Buber went so far as to extol Nietzsche as a “creator” and “emissary of life”).
He did indeed influence Mussolini (and Jabotinski, for that matter – he compared himself with Nietzsche’s ‘superman’). “A girlfriend of Mussolini, Margherita Sarfatti, who was Jewish, relates that Nietzsche virtually was the transforming factor in Mussolini’s “conversion” from hard socialism to spiritualistic, ascetic fascism… It has been suggested that Theodore Roosevelt read Nietzsche and was profoundly influenced by him”.
It had a strong influence on the likes of Adorno and Horkheimer who insisted that Nietzsche must be rescued from fascist and racist appropriations!
The reality was that Nietzsche was an opponent of volkist pan-Germanism and advocated a nobiliary, trans-national pan-Europeanism incorporating the cultural-spiritual elite from all Western nations, including Judea or Israel (direct inspiration for the ‘Praktischer Idealismus’ of Coudenhove-Kalergi).
Here is what Nietzsche had to say about the Germans: “They are my enemies, these Germans… They have twisted and tangled everything they touched.” He called German hatred of Jews, Poles and French a “stupidity” and said anti-Semites should be expelled from the country, that they try to excite blockheads and one should “associate with no man who takes part in the mendacious race swindle.”

Proto-Nazi? Give us a break.

Re Shakespeare: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

You evidently didn’t read the link…

Perhaps. The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?

The crown of Hungary was offered to Emperor Carl, with even the insinuation of being reinstated in Austria, although he was already in exile in Switzerland, but he would not give the necessary concessions. Do you know why and which Americans shot it down?

I don’t remember the details. I think the Americans shot down Otto’s bid after World War II.

It is anyway interesting that both Tsar Nicholas and Emperor Carl are on the path to sainthood. Who would have thought?

I have an old photo of my grandfather’s brother with Karl, taken outside in somewhere in Italy. There is a weird lighting effect of rays of sunshine over Karl, almost like a halo. If he is recognized as a saint maybe I’ll crop it, print it, get blessed and turn it into an icon 🙂

By your logic here, though, a union between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian countries which also includes Iran and Afghanistan would be pretty balanced, no?

Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power. Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks.

Increased diversity in multiethnic countries such as the U.S. is a good thing because it prevents any one group from becoming dominant, correct?

It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc.

And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands.

* This was the Austrian part. With Hungary it was a little more complicated.

@Latin-Americans “more “Slavic” than Anglo in demeanor and attitudes”

That may come as a surprise only for the Anglos. Their demeanor and attitudes are the exception here.
Both Latin-American and ‘Slavic’ societies were traditional societies sharing the values, the demeanor and attitudes of the ‘Old World’ fashioned by the Christian ‘Weltanschauung’ and perpetuated by the Church. They are not so obsessed with their ‘whiteness’ and superior IQ as the WASPs. They are less materialistic, individualistic and self-centered and appreciate more spiritual things and warm human relations than the worshippers of the Golden Calf and ‘manifest destinies’.
Latin America is more of an ‘Old World’ located in the ‘New World’ . Like it or not, Latin America is by and large a creation of the Catholic Church and of the Spanish Golden Age (one of the peak moments of European culture) in a syncretic process with the native cultures (‘La Nuestra Signora de Guadalupe’, whose image is the lovingly worshipped protectrice of Mexico, was the banner of the supposedly hated conquistadores!).
Anyhow the ‘New World’ here has to be taken in geographical terms only. The real ‘New World’ in civilizational terms is just the spread over the American continent of the essentially ‘non-European’ (and actually ‘anti-European’) simple-minded mental disease of the Judeo-Anglo-Dutch-German-Protestant ‘culture’, in its obstinate attempt to replace the Spanish (and destroy their cultural paradigm) in their settlements in America and beyond (in the Pacific, that’s it).
Russia was an ‘Old World’ operating in the traditional framework of the ‘Old World’ (of the Silk Roads, if you want). Her expansion in Siberia has no resemblance whatsoever with the paradigm of the ‘conquest of the Canaan’ which infested the minds of the first Judaized Puritan colonists of America. It doesn’t fit the Marxo-Lenino-Trotskoid memes of ‘colonialism’, ‘imperialism’ either. Of course, Russians fought the twin scourges of Judaism and Islam, did convert many retarded tribes to Orthodoxy, integrating them into a higher form of civilization (that of the Roman-Christian Empire). Her expansion is not a ‘New World frontier’ type phenomenon. Hence the futile ramblings about the belonging of Russia to ‘Europe’ or to ‘Eurasia’. This cannot be a basis for a value judgement of Russia. Russia has ‘an elbow in Europe and the other in Asia’ by her sheer geographical position (as the famous Westernizing ‘madman’ Chaadaev was forced to admit). What we are facing today is the reassertion of the traditional order of things, which cannot but raise the frantic alarm among the ‘new worlders’ that their time of unbridled piracy – called euphemistically ‘free trade’, ‘free market’, ‘open seas’, ‘open societies’, ‘open sphincters’ -, comes to an inglorious end.
Just as an aside, since we touched the subject of Argentina, we may meditate on ‘Borges becoming, in a way, an agent of distribution of Russian culture among Spanish-speaking reading public’.

Yes, when I think of 1905’s Bloody Sunday and broader semi-revolution, and the ensuing response by Tsarist state security forces, what comes to mind is an overwhelming impression of a kindly and naïve government that simply didn’t realize you could deal with political dissent through violent repression.

And yes, yes, of course, there were Stolypin’s famous neckties, if you want to be tedious. Liberals, Marxists, etc. like to bring up this piece of factual evidence that contradicts my argument, but because they bring it up so often it can be dismissed as evidence. (I hasten to note that I genuinely think Stolypin was a great and courageous statesman who, had his reforms not been stymied and he not been assassinated, would have had a perhaps immensely positive effect on 20th century history.)

Yes, Stolypin’s neckties and all that. What Communist propagandists don’t like to mention as much is that just during the three years 1904-1907 some 4,500 Tsarist officials were murdered by what would today be classified as Far Left terrorist groups.This is basically a rounding error by the standards of the Bolsheviks’ multicultural Coalition of the Fringes, including during their “progressive” Trotskyist phase that Western leftist academics and journalists love to laud so much.

Certainly, the Communist-controlled Russian state killed far more people than the Tsarist-controlled one. (Though to be fair, some of this was during the civil war, in which anti-Communist right-wing forces, though less systematic about it than the Bolsheviks, were hardly blushing innocents themselves.)

But the early USSR was one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th century, not the modal European polity circa 1914. It would make much more sense to compare Tsarist Russia’s record to that of Victorian England, France’s Third Republic, the German Kaiserreich, etc. And such nations were indeed generally notably further along the path to liberal democracy than Tsarist Russia, which is why the stereotype of Russian governance as tyrannical was popular in that era. (Generally, stereotypes tend to be decent if imperfect guides to reality.)

Russia by 1913 had the largest number of university students in Europe (127,000 to 80,000 in Germany, around 40,000 in France and Austria each).

Obviously per capita numbers, as well as evidence for the quality of education such as the literacy rate and scientific/technical accomplishments, compared to other European countries at the time, would be more relevant here.

In closing, I’d like to note that I generally very much enjoy Mr. Karlin’s writing—I just have a strong tendency to want to disagree with contrarian pieces that go like: “Most, even educated, people think [x]. But ACTUALLY, it’s [y], why does everyone suffer from the insane delusion that it’s [x]?”

“Not quite, because Russia would be by far the largest power.”

On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia). Thus, the same logic that you use to reject a Ukrainian union with Russia could have been used by other countries to reject Poland’s Intermarium project in the past.

Plus, this is not to mention that even when one ethnic group enjoys overwhelming dominance, sufficiently large-scale autonomy can be given to majority-minority areas. For instance, take a look at South Tyrol in Italy or Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in the U.K.

“Also, union with Muslim countries would have its own negative consequences, no thanks.”

True; however, some of these consequences might be alleviated if IQ-enhancing technology becomes widespread.

“It would be good for the minorities. By why would the majority acquiesce to ending its own dominance?”

As you and I both know, Western countries have their reasons for doing this.

“Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The reason why a federation such as Austria-Hungary was good for the small nations in central Europe was because individually they were small, powerless, and therefore victims of their larger neighbors. Collectively, however, they were sort of a power, something to be reckoned with. Germany did what it wanted with Czechoslovakia. But it couldn’t just easily grab the Czechs’ lands when the Czechs were united with the Hungarians, Austrians, Galician Poles and Ukrainians, Croats, etc.”

I get your point; I just don’t think that I fully agree with it. After all, I could just as easily say that the reason that Czechoslovakia was able to be bullied by Germany is because Britain and France refused to stand up for it. Indeed, had Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. been able to establish collective security in Europe after the end of World War I–similar to what was done after the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War–small countries such as Czechoslovakia would be able to resist bullying by other, more powerful countries.

Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state during World War I in real life, I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary’s unity wouldn’t have protected it from being dismantled and dismembered (even if Britain and France would have tried militarily intervening to save it) due to the simple fact that Germany and Russia combined were much more powerful than it was (even if one adds Britain and France to the war on Austria-Hungary’s side).

“And because the small nations were of similar size, none were controlled by the others.* Sure, the Germans had the dynasty and were at an advantage relative to their population, but they weren’t nearly as dominant as were Russians within the Russian Empire/USSR, or English within Britain; they weren’t numerous enough to be. The smaller ones weren’t subjugated, they could develop as they wished within their traditional lands.”

True, the ethnic balance in Austria helped prevent German domination of the country. However, this didn’t fully eliminate this problem. As I said above, Austria-Hungary’s increasing dependence on Germany gradually allowed the former to dominate the latter more and more (true, World War I certainly helped, but with Russia’s growing power, Germany would have been more and more crucial for Austria-Hungary’s defense either way). In addition, had Germany allied with Russia around 1890 and threw Austria-Hungary under the bus, Austria-Hungary’s size and population probably wouldn’t have prevented it from eventually being dismembered if that is what Germany and Russia would have wished to jointly do.

Indeed, for what it’s worth, having Germany throw Austria-Hungary and ally with Russia might have been the best for Europe. In such a scenario, Austria-Hungary would have either attempted to joint he German-Russian alliance *on German-Russian terms* or would have resisted and probably eventually gotten dismembered. True, an eventual dismemberment of Austria-Hungary might have still eventually sparked World War I, but the different power balance might have very well ensured that it wouldn’t have been as nasty of a war–with consequences as nasty as in real life–in this scenario.

You naturally fall for the fallacy that Russia is the main culprit for starting WWI, exonerating Germany and Austro-Hungary for their lethal stupidity.

That’s projection. In fact, I stated in no uncertain terms that I considered both of these powers stupid, especially Austria-Hungary. You, on the other hand, are only willing to talk about Austrian-Hungarian and German culpability and seem to totally exonerate Russia, when in fact Russia could have simply opted out of the whole affair by not backing Serbia and not assuring the Serbs that Russia would go to war for them and then not mobilizing. By the way, mobilization was considered more important than a formal declaration of war, since with telegraph etc. the latter could be done in an hour, whereas the former required weeks.

Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war. They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence (not controlling their intelligence services) or malice (if they did control the intelligence services perpetrating the terrorist attack).

Perhaps, but I think the Austrians at first weren’t sure what to do, or how strong the ultimatum had to be. After German assurances that in case of war with Russia they’d help them out and that war was inevitable anyway and preferable at that point in time than later, they opted for the strongest possible demand list. I can understand why they did what they did, but I think it’s wrong to think that they had no other choice or that all criticism is just hindsight – even at that time they weren’t entirely sure.

You’re probably right about this, the German leadership certainly took several key decisions which tended to escalate the crisis instead of defusing it, and their unconditional backing of Austria-Hungary was one of them. They thought a general European war was an acceptable risk or maybe inevitable anyway, so they didn’t try hard enough to avoid it. It certainly was very irresponsible policy. However, they took those decisions based on assumptions (Germany being more or less encircled by an hostile bloc, Austria-Hungary the only real ally who had to be kept at Germany’s side and whose status had to be preserved) that at least weren’t totally wrong in the international situation of 1914. The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened imo; it surprises me how common it still is.

That would mean that in the time of Tsarism it was abolished!

And indeed it was abolished. There was no organization fit to be called a ‘Church’ in Russia in Tsarist times. (Of course there were believers who were part of the transcendental community of Christians, but there was no Church. Similar to how there’s no Church today in Brazil or China.)

Anyhow, to call a Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the ‘bigoted, ultra-orthodox arch-conservative, anti-semitic, you name it’, an ‘atheist’ is to stretch credibility.

First, don’t cherry-pick, the majority of Chief Procurators were, indeed, atheist.

Second, to call Pobedonostsev “ultra-orthodox” is incorrect. He was a conservative and a moralizer, yes, but his orthodoxy was paper-thin.

The view that scheming Germans deliberately instigated the war while all the other powers were totally innocent and had done nothing to bring about the catastrophe simply is a caricature of what actually happened

Exactly. We were focusing on Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, but even France and the UK weren’t entirely blameless either. Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre. They saved some European countries against some other European countries, eventually leading to the destruction of those other European powers. That’s not “saving Europe”.

Also the American view that they “saved Europe” is astonishingly bizarre.

Tbh my impression has always been that most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1, they’re totally focused on their WW2 victory cult (and there mostly on the European theater, the war against the Japanese with its firebombings and use of nuclear weapons seems to have become un-pc in retrospect).
I did once encounter an annoying American (a naturalized ex-German, so he had all the zeal of a convert) who said shortly after 9/11 “We beat the Kaiser, the Nazis, the communists…and now we’re gonna beat the terrorists too!”, but WW1 in general seems to be more prominent for anti-interventionist Americans who regret America’s intervention and the loss of civil liberties during it.
And yes, I’d agree that even France and Britain weren’t entirely guiltless regarding WW1, though with them (especially Britain) it was probably more what they had done in the years before 1914 to bring about an international situation full of tensions than what they did during the July crisis itself.

most Americans aren’t even really aware of WW1

I’ve frequently encountered some version of the claim that “we [i.e. the US] saved Europe twice in the world wars and then again with NATO”, so at least a lot of the American chattering classes are aware of it.

I’m confused… are we becoming Soviet America or Tsarist America?

Yes, you’re right, that’s quite common…but if you asked most of those people what actually happened in 1917/18 they probably couldn’t tell you much (maybe, if they make an effort, how imperial Germany was simply a proto-Nazi empire…I doubt they would make a cogent case for why exactly Austria-Hungary needed to be broken up). Details don’t matter anyway if you’re convinced that America is always a force for good in the world (and even if it f***s up spectacularly, “hey, at least we meant well!”).

Why are you pussyfooting around the incontrovertible proof of the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912?
Germany was on the course of war against Russia since the ‘dropping of the pilot’ Bismarck, the cool head of German politics who never tired to warn the hothead war hawks against the insanity of engaging in an unwinnable war with the Bear and against dabbling in the maze of Balkan politics with the silly intention of pissing off Russia (he is on record saying in 1888, after the lapsing of the ‘League of the three Emperors’: “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans”).
You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia (or any other pesky ‘balkaniks’, who didn’t like too much the ‘nemtsi’ – they still don’t).

You are talking absolute nonsense.

The German Imperial War Council is not “incontrovertible proof” of anything, except that many in the German leadership thought a war was inevitable, and that if war was to be started, it was better to start earlier than later. In July 1914 the same thoughts would resurface. I have already criticized this thinking, so I’m not sure what’s your point here.

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact that a European war was easily avoidable by the Russians. You ignore the fact that the Serbian intelligence services were sponsoring terrorism in order to destabilize Austria-Hungary.

You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia

Where the hell did you get this idea? I surely didn’t write anything about it.

You didn’t write it specifically, but it is implicit in all you have written. Austria good, Serbia bad, Russia the worst.

Post-Napoleon, British imperial foreign policy was that no single nation would control the European continent and again freeze British trade from that market.

Moving forward, this meant that Britain would actively engage to play one European power off against another to ensure no one country could dominate the continent. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Germany was ascendant … so, Britain sided with France and Russia against Germany. Post-WWI, France was ascendant, which accounted for Britain siding with Germany to moderate the Treaty of Versailles and make other concessions to Germany, which facilitated the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. The ultimate Anglo-Saxon fear was an alliance between Germany and Russia that would control and Asian landmass (recognizing that Europe is nothing but a promontory of Asia).

Post-WWII, Britain returned to the pre-WWI policy of acting to “keep the Russians out and the Germans down.” (Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down?) In the 1950s, when the political, financial, and military center of the Anglo-Saxon Empire moved from London to Washington (and the US Navy replaced the Royal Navy in controlling the world’s sea lanes), Washington continued the British policy of “keeping the Russians out and the Germans down”, and, God forbid, an alliance between the two.

This will not last forever. Although the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that returned sovereignty to a united Germany specified that the Oder-Neisse Line formed the boundary between Germany and Poland, there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

Indeed, when living in Germany in the 1970s, I asked a friend of mine in the German air force what the line in Poland was on a map in the train station. He said they were the “occupied territories”. I ran across an Internet short the other day that related that there are circles in the newly assurgent (nationalist) AfD party in Germany that would like to revisit those boundaries.

Here we go again!

@Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918”:
“For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).

this reminds me of an article by H. H. Hoppe on the Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy>https://mises.org/library/political-economy-monarchy-and-democracy

basically, it boils down to the same conflict that a firm faces between managers and owners. Obviously, both have different incentives and behavior derived from it. It comes down to scaling and unfortunately, there is limited supply of Peter the Greats.

Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925

Well, perhaps, in part, because his list is bullshit. Just looking at the Central Committee, and thinking of some well-known names: Stalin certainly was there, as well as Dzerzhinsky. Volodarsky, however, never was. And this is just from looking at his list for 10 seconds.

Then you’ll appreciate this story. It was told by one of Zita’s descendants, archduchess Sophia (not the actress). On the eve of Carl being beatified, Zita was received by John Paul II. She knelt and kissed the Fisherman’s ring. Then John Paul took both her hands and said: “Now allow me to kiss the hand of my Empress.” His father hand been an officer in the Empire.

John Paul once sent a laconic message to a european historian: “Canes debent latrare”. Also, there’s “Zita, intimate portrait of an empress” by Cyrille Debris I think, and she gives out interesting details of their deposing.

Cropping might be in your future.

Do you believe Intermarium
would be enough to stop both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union?

more accurate:

Americans helped “save” Western Europe.
Americans helped “save” China
Soviets helped “save” Eastern and Central Europe.

there are signs of the beginning of a revanchist movement in Germany to reclaim those lands.

No, there aren’t. Granted, the AfD may have some deranged people in their ranks who care about that issue (or rather non-issue since it was settled long ago). But most German right-wingers today don’t care…we don’t want present-day Germany overrun by Muslims and Africans, the lost Eastern territories don’t matter anymore.

Wow – how the mighty have fallen! These are Germans we are talking about.

German right-wing circa 1940’s: “We are the master race – the world is ours!”

German right-wing currently: “Can’t we just get the niggers out? Please?”

Peace.

The Prussian soul is good at everything it sets its mind to: methodical, unsentimental, and efficient. This includes self-destruction.

Russia also deliberately used to opportunity to start a war.

Prince Lichnowsky (German Ambassador in Britain in 1914):
“All the more strengthened the impression that we want war under any circumstances. Otherwise it is impossible to understand our behavior ….Persistent requests of Sazonov (Russian foreign Minister), even humiliated (for Nicholas II) telegrams of the tsar…. nothing helped””

So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

They could’ve opted out by just telling the Serbs to live with the consequences of their incompetence

In 1938 England and France just telling the Czechs (which oppressed the German population of the annexed German territories) to live with the consequences of their incompetence . This has helped?

@Why is it always a problem, it seems, to keep the Germans down? (and Russians out)

The answer is in a short phrase taken from the indispensable book of John Wheeler-Bennet, “Brest-Litovsk. The Forgotten Peace. March 1918″:

“For an industrialized Russia exploited by the organizing genius of Germany conjures up a vision which no Western European can contemplate with equanimity” (p. XVIII).

Thank you for the book reference. It was not available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon … but it was available as a free Nook ebook at Barnes and Noble.

Although the MSM totally ignored the existence much less the implications of the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, I’m starting to sense it was another version of the Treaty of Versailles (Act 2) with major consequences for the future.

The intent of the EU was to keep Germany “down”. Germany’s economy would be monitored through the EU Brussel’s bureaucracy to prevent another secret German rearmament, and the 1990 treaty would limit the German military forces to no more than 370,000 personnel (which includes civilian support personnel). By comparison, at the height of the Cold War, the German military forces consisted of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. The 1990 treaty also “froze” Germany’s borders in the east through a declaration that current borders constituted a final settlement.

However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually “frozen” by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost. I thought they tried that in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles.

I’m beginning to sense that contemporary Germany under Merkel has been another version of the Weimar Republic (Act 2). Merkel’s charter was to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement with Germany’s WWII adversaries and the terms of the 1992 revamped Treaty of European Union ( Maastricht). However, Germany’s economy is escaping foreign control just as it did in the 1930s. Germany is starting to scare the Americans and the British, especially if this leads to the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. As an aside, it is interesting to speculate whether a significant factor in BRITEX was to prevent Britain, while there was still time, from coming under Germany economic control as has happened to the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.

Germany is “up” … not “down”. What next?

You consider natural that Austro-Hungary had more rights in the Balkans than Serbia

He didn’t write that, but in the case of a Serbian government agency responsible for the murder of Austria-Hungary’s crown prince and his wife, Serbia was clearly in the wrong and Austria-Hungary was morally correct in its demands (even if, practically speaking, the resulting events ended in disaster).

Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?

So no, Russia in 1914, wanted to avoid war

I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won (how else would you explain Russia’s mobilization? And again, Serbia could hardly be called a vital national interest of Russia…in a way it could even be said that the Serbs with their insane machinations dragged Russia into a war that proved to be catastrophically ruinous for Russia).
Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo, the issues weren’t comparable. Sorry, but this reminds me somewhat of US neocons for whom it’s always a repeat of Munich and about avoiding “appeasement”.

Not both at the same time, but it would have been formidable enough for there to be different calculations by each of the powers after World War II. An Intermarium might have forced Germany to stop rearming in the mid 1930’s; Poland alone could not do it when the French refused.

The division and domination of the lands between Germany and Russia would not have been assured.

Some sort of mixed system seems to be the best. An owner ultimately in charge, looking after long-term interests, hiring the most skilled managers; the relationship between Wilhelm I and Bismarck comes to mind. In contrasting Wilhelm I to Wilhelm II, Ernst Junger observed that the most important piece on the chessboard, the king, does not move the most.

Are you quoting from the Stalin-era Soviet historian again?

If that’s important to you, it’s “pre-Stalin era” book, polemizing with the official party line of the time

But regardless of this, enlighten me – excerpt from the memoirs of Prince Lichnowski (below) is a forgery? Or Lichnowsky, too, was “Stalin-era ….”

«Конечно, достаточно было одного знака из Берлина, чтобы заставить графа Берхтольда удовлетвориться дипломатическим успехом и успокоиться на сербском ответе, — пишет Лихновский, — но этот знак не последовал. Напротив, толкали к войне… Все больше укреплялось впечатление, что мы хотим войны при всяких обстоятельствах. Иначе вовсе нельзя было понять нашего поведения в вопросе, который ведь совсем нас не касался прямо. Настойчивые просьбы и определенные заявления г. Сазонова, позже даже униженные телеграммы царя, повторные предложения сэра Эдуарда Грея, предостережения маркиза Сан-Джулиано и г. Болати, мои настойчивые советы, — ничто не помогало»

On an individual level? Yes, certainly. However, the other territories combined would have a population which far exceeds Russia’s. Thus, if the other territories work together against Great Russian chauvinism, they certainly have a chance of stopping it (especially in a democratic state).

Or, Russia could have cut a deal with one of the non-Russian groups and then run roughshod over the others. There would have simply been too much of an imbalance. Moreover, each of the smaller peoples have their own interests, and rather than pursuing those they would just spend their energy containing Russia.

Also, if we are using individual level-criteria here, I would like to point out that, in the Intermarium project, Poland would have been by far the largest power if Ukraine would have been excluded (due to it being a part of the Soviet Union/Greater Russia).

True. For them it would have been a lesser evil scenario. They are all much closer to Poland in terms of population than to Russia or Germany. So while some sort of second-status would have been likely, it would have been less total. For example, the Baltics collectively have about 15% of Poland’s population but only 4% of Russia’s population. The Czech Republic has 1/4 of Poland’s population but a fraction of Germany’s. USA lightens, somewhat, discrepancies between small and large states though the electoral college, presumably Intermarium would do something similar.

That being said, Intermarium, really depended/depends on Ukraine to provide balance. Russia is correct in terms of pursuing its own interests, to build up animosity between the two countries and pursuing policies designed to make Ukraine a poor, unstable and unworthy partner (emphasizing divisive issues such as Bandera. etc.)

Also, if you think that being in Austria-Hungary ensures that Czechs wouldn’t be dominated by Germany, you are–*to a large extent*–wrong. In addition to the fact that Austria-Hungary increasingly became a German satellite state

Even a satellite state (and it would never quite get that far – A-H was too big to simply become a Warsaw Pact-era Czechoslovakia to Germany’s USSR) would have been far preferable to annexation and total submission. Moreover, the internal workings of Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian peoples within the A-H junior partner were beyond the scale of Berlin’s relationship.

I would like to point out that, had Germany wanted to, it could have tried to establish an alliance with Russia around 1890 and eventually tried partitioning Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia, Romania, Serbia, and Italy.

This is true. Although Germany and Russia were fundamentally different with respect to the Ottoman lands – Russia wanted the Balkans and Constantinople, Germany was reliant on Middle Eastern oil and wanted guaranteed access to it through its own allies. This was a difficult circle to square.

Moreover, invading and partitioning a genuine power with millions of soldiers would have been much harder than grabbing a bunch of little countries, one at a time. Just because it could have been done does not mean that it would have been done.

I can’t remember the details (and have no time to look them up), but iirc there was a war party and a peace party in Russia in 1914, just like in the other powers…unfortunately the war party won

This is true, but the military party won only after attempts to negotiate with Germany had failed… Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

Comparing the 1914 situation to 1938 doesn’t really work imo

Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

People can be quote historical figures out of context or produce memories of one person that contradict those of others, in pursuit of their agenda. Tarle’s biography indicates that he was not free to publish what he wanted and that “his” views changed with the requirements of the Bolshevik state overseers. Not a credible source.

Serbia accepted the ultimatum, declining just one point – but Austria still go to the Serbia war. And it was a deliberate provocation

It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

The point it rejected was no wildly unreasonable – to allow Austrian investogators onto Serbian soil to root out the culprits. This is what the Americans demanded of the Taliban afer 9-11.

Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

Allowing Austrian investigators into Serbia was not “destruction.”

And if you mean destruction by war – Serbia lost 1/3 of its population anyways. That didn’t change by Russian entrance into the war.

I don’t know if some event would have triggered a war in 1915 or 1916. But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

Suppose Russia gave Serbia for destruction – do you believe that the war would not have started in 1915 or 1916?

Very hard question…maybe a major war would eventually have happened anyway. On the other hand it’s also possible international tensions would have declined in the years after 1914 (e.g. there still was potential for some Anglo-German rapprochement, the issue of Germany’s naval programme that had poisoned Anglo-German relations was essentially over by 1914 iirc; I also can’t see any fundamental clash in interests between Russia and Germany…the whole Balkans issue was a stupid diversion imo).
And I’m not sure Serbia would have been destroyed if it had surrendered to Austria’s ultimatum (which it might well have done without Russian backing)…more likely it would have lost part of its sovereignty. But a state whose intelligence services do something as insane as concocting a plot to assassinate the heir to the throne of a neighbouring great power couldn’t really complain about that imo.

Notice the mangled French spelling of the names. These “lists of Jews” were composed by White emigres in Paris sometimes in 1920’s and copied ever since (and the names were even more distorted with each transcription).

Not down so much as hooked up to a eco-political framework where Germany would invest its energies into doing a lot of economic good while being politically unable to invade its neighbors. The Western Allies figured out pretty quickly after the war that if Europe was to avoid starving, let alone reach prosperity, West Germany-still the industrial and population hub of the region, no matter how prostrate-would need to get back on its feet, ASAP.

Germany is reverting to its long-time cultural pre-1945 (and especially pre-1933) position as the “third way” bridge between Western Europe and the Slavic World. This is causing a lot of discomfort in Washington, but it should have been eminently predictable with the reunification of Germany and the fall of the USSR in 1990. It’s a testament to the long shadow of 1945 and the success of Adenauer’s efforts to permanently integrate into the West that it has taken long, really. Stupid Wilsonians.

>However, it is hard to accept that Germany has been given back its sovereignty when the size and capability of its military are perpetually limited and its borders are perpetually “frozen” by a treaty again forced on Germany by adversaries from a war that Germany lost.

You give the former Allies too much credit. The Germans themselves, or at least the generation in charge, don’t want a real military, let alone go to war for… just about anything, even probably to defend themselves. This is a country whose political establishment, and their media allies, will not even tolerate the mere suggestion that Germany should remain… German in any way, shape, or form, from a moral basis. All of Western Europe suffers from this to some extent, but Germany takes it to a completely different level. Given that Holocaust memorialism and WWII guilt have been turned into a religion (a completely negative one, defined only by what they are against) by the public establishment, it shouldn’t be surprising that Germans find their youth tentatively exploring the concept of national pride to be a sign of incipient fascism.

You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”. The don’t want to be “Western”, they don’t have either the geography or the religion – like Ukraine ”has” – to back up those claims of being western.

As I said before, Serbs and the Russians are in a class of their own compared to the rest of the Slavs. The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

It could have accepted all points, and there would have been no war.

Well, of course.
“ This ultimatum demanded that the Serbian government’s formal condemnation of all propaganda against Austria waged in Serbia, the condemnation of all Serbian officials and officers involved in this propaganda, the statement that it is the Serbian government, disapproves and rejects every thought of any intervention in the fate of the inhabitants of any part of Austro-Hungarian territory. All this the king is obliged to report in order for the Serbian army and printed in the official organ of the Serbian army and the Serbian government on “the first page”. In addition, the Serbian government undertakes to prohibit all publications hostile to Austria-Hungary or the “General direction of which is against the territorial integrity of Austria”; immediately close the society “national defense”; to confiscate the means of propaganda and to do the same with all the other hostile to Austro-Hungarian companies; to remove immediately all those teachers who are agitating against Austria; to eradicate, in addition, in teaching all that “can serve as” propaganda against Austria; to remove from military service and from the administration all officers and officials whose names the Austro-Hungarian government will indicate to Serbian; start a judicial investigation of all circumstances relating to the participants in the conspiracy, a victim who was Franz Ferdinand, and “delegates of the Austro-Hungarian government will take part in the investigation “; the arrest of major Lapkovich and Ciganovich; to punish customs officials, who helped the murderers of the Archduke to cross the border; to provide explanations about the “unacceptable” words of the highest Serbian officials concerning the Sarajevo murders. To do all this immediately and within forty-eight hours to answer all these requirements ”

Now let’s imagine that such an ultimatum to Russia put forward against Ukraine (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism). Ukraine will agree to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Ukraine whatever FSB wants. After that, Russia will move tanks to Kiev. AP what do you think which country is the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict?

Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported). Germany agrees to all the conditions, except the condition under which the FSB will have the right to do in Germany whatever FSB want. After that, Russia will start air strikes on German cities.

All the debunkers of bloody Serbia must agree that the aggressor in this hypothetical conflict is Germany

But every year Russia was getting more capable, so the longer the delay, the better for Russia.

I agree that Russia was better not to participate in the conflict and did not support the Serbs. But this has no relation to the question – who started WWI?

The Russians used to call the Ukrainians “little Russians”, but I think that title should go to the Serbs. Because the current “little Russians” are actually big traitors.

The Serbs can pretend to be Russia’s best friends, because they have a lot of real estate between them to separate them. Besides, the Serbs don’t have to experience the incessant attempts to denigrate their language and culture, as the Ukrainians do. And then there’s the little thing about ripping off their neighbor’s real estate and fomenting war in other parts of Ukraine. How can you try to have good relations with such an avaricious neighbor?…

Or for example, assume that such ultimatum Russia will push against Germany (under the pretext of fighting Chechen terrorism, which Germany undoubtedly supported).

That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.
Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials at the investigations was a sensible demand, Serbia proved that it didn’t want to reform itself by rejecting it. The Austrians should have considered other options than full-scale war though like an economic blockade.

That site is more interesting than I would have imagined.

Will making tukey bacon be a criminal offense?

I think that living in a shadow of such a powerful neighbour like Russia, prevents Ukraine from getting sunburn. On the other hand, living in their shadow, might cause Ukraine to catch a cold from time to time, which is better than the rabies that they are currently suffering from.

The sunburn that has turned into rabies is in no small part due to the war that is being instigated at Russia’s direction. Had Yanukovych signed the EU Associate Agreement, as he was preparing to do, instead of doing an about face, things would be much better in Ukraine today. Your beloved Serbia seems to be doing everything possible to gain entrance into the EU. Why is that? I don’t hear you making deprecating remarks regarding this ongoing phenomena?…Only a very few crackpots would want to trade Serbia’s accession to the EU in favor of joining the Russian dominated CIS.

That’s news to me. I suppose Germany with its demented liberalism let Chechens do a lot of dubious things in Germany, but I very much doubt German intelligence services actively supported anti-Russian terrorism.

Harbouring of terrorists is calculated as direct aid? Austria was definitely involved:

In January 2010, Akhmed Сhatayev (terrorist wanted by Russia) detained in Ukraine….However, the extradition did not happen. The reason for this was the European court of human rights (ECHR) which urged Ukraine not to extradite Сhatayev, since Chatayev was granted political asylum in Austria … In June 2016 Chatayev blew himself up as a “suicide bomber” at the airport in Istanbul (killing several dozen passengers )

approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)

Anyway, thanks for citing the text of the Austrian ultimatum, its demands seem eminently reasonable to me…since it was to be expected that the Serbs would try a cover-up, the presence of Austrian officials

I also think that the destruction of the fugitive Chechen terrorists (in Europe) should be entrusted to the FSB, since it was to be expected that the Europeans would try a cover-up….

However, any such request of Russia (that FSB freely operate on foreign territory), will be categorically rejected by any European country. This justifies the war aganist these countries?

approximate analogue – Serbia in 1914 granted political asylum to Gavrilo Princip (who escaped from Sarajevo)

The Serbs (or rather the nationalist nutcases in the Serbian intelligence service) did much more than that – they trained Princip and his fellow conspirators, provided them with weapons and bombs from Serbian army depots and helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand. The equivalent today would be German BND training ethnic Germans from Russia for an operation to kill Putin or one of his chief aides.
As for Chechen terrorists being granted asylum in European countries, I don’t agree with that, Western coddling of Islamists disgusts me.

Russia has never objected to the eastern European cockroaches joining EU. They have repeatedly said so. Joining NATO is a different matter. Unfortunately, almost all of EU members are NATO members as well.

This is seen kind of as a badge of honor for the Eastern Europeans which they get for “successfully” passing the test of “democracy” and their commitment to capitalism.

Russia offered far better deal to Ukraine than EU can ever even contemplate of doing. Ukraine thought that they can continue to milk Russia for the true benefits that they offer – transit of Russian gas, and using Russia as a market for their crappy goods and at the same time getting integrated into EU.

Russia would have been OK with all of that, except for Ukraine joining NATO. Anybody who doesn’t see why Russia would have problems with that, doesn’t understand the basic principles of geopolitics.

The membership in EU was offered to Ukraine simply as a bribe to get them into NATO – not because the west (US) cares for the economic well-being of Ukraine. They don’t give a rat’s a** about the Ukraine’s standard of living.

helped plan the operation to kill Franz Ferdinand.

That a**hole had no business parading in the conquered Slavic lands. He got what he deserved. The rest – as they say – is history.

You see, Serbs are not Ukrainians, they don’t live by the motto “it’s better to live on your knees than to die on your feet”

Serbs were on their knees to the Turks for about 500 years. They just don’t like Europeans.

Given that the war that resulted from Franz Ferdinand’s assassination (and which the plotters around Apis may actually have intended to instigate) killed a very substantial part of Serbia’s population, it was a spectacularly dumb move.
Ok, the Serbs got a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia as a result. But in the long run that wasn’t exactly a success story either.
I suppose I should feel some sympathy for Serbs given their unhappy history and the suffering inflicted on them. But that some of them still worship Gavrilo Princip as an hero (instead of a deluded fool who helped bring about a catastrophe)…simply retarded.