The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Egor Kholmogorov: Russia and the Great War. Victory a Hundred Years Past.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Monument to the Heroes of World War I, erected in Victory Park, Moscow in 2014.

Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

After a more than a year-long hiatus, caused by certain geographic and occupational changes in his life, the author of these lines would like to resume his translations of Kholmogorov’s work. Remembrance/Veterans’ Day seems like a marvelous occasion to present his recent article on the resurgence of Russian memory of the Great War in recent years, as some old Communist myths regarding Russia’s contribution to the war that just won’t die. The translator dedicates this work to the loving memory of his great-grandfather Dmitry Ivanovich Fillipov, captain of an armored vehicle detachment in the Russian Imperial Army.

AK’s Foreword

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

***

Russia and the Great War: Victory a Hundred Years Past

Original: Почему Россия не проиграла Первую мировую войну (Tsargrad)

105 years after the onset of the Great War, it is finally clear: the Russian Empire and the Tsar did not lose it, and its losers the Bolsheviks were not Russia.

105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia. This was the start of the Great War, or “First World War”, as it is usually known in textbooks – a truly fateful even for the entire world, one that, in a certain sense, created reality as we know it. However, it is only now, a century past, when our country starts to recover the memory of its battles, exploits, and heroes, that the grand events of 1914-1918 reclaim their rightful place in Russian historical consciousness.

Why have we lost track of WWI for a hundred years? The answer is quite clear. By its end date, both the Russian Empire and Kerensky’s ephemeral “Russian Republic” ceased to exist. The Russian Army, once leading a steady fight in the front lines, was poisoned by Bolshevik propaganda, then proclaimed “disbanded” by Trotsky, and started to desert en masse.

Russian troops on Austro-Hungarian front c.August 1914.

The Bolsheviks, ruling over what was left of Russia for the next 70 years, first spent the Great War spreading overt defeatist propaganda, then usurped power – financed and supported by German intelligence – only to sign an “obscene” (in their own words) peace treaty and acquiesce to the role of German junior partners just to keep said power.

“This newly signed peace deprives us of entire swaths of land populated by Orthodox Christians and brings them under the reign of our faithless enemies, with dozens of millions of Orthodox facing a great spiritual temptation. This peace separates even the Ukraine, Orthodox since time immemorial, from the fraternal fold of Russia. The capital city of Kiev, the mother of Russian cities, the cradle of our baptism, the keeper of our holy relics, is no more a city of the Russian realm. A peace that gives our land and kinfolk away to harsh bondage is not one that would give the people their desired calm and solace. It brings nothing but the greatest damage to the Orthodox Church and untold losses to the Fatherland”. Such was the appraisal of this “treaty” by St. Patriarch Tikhon in his epistle from 18th March 1918.

Evidently, Soviet propaganda held a major interest in demeaning the importance of the Great War. Over the entirety of the Soviet period (save the four years of a new war with Germany), historians, propagandists, and writers were mostly concerned with the apologetics of the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

First, it was necessary to convince their audience that Russia’s war effort went poorly and the war had been de facto already lost by the Tsarist government when Bolshevik envoys signed an unavoidable capitulation. To achieve this end, one had to endlessly blow out of proportion every Russian military misfortune, paint the Tsar and his generals as clueless nincompoops, Russian military industry as obsolete, and, last but not least, repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.

Second, it needed to emphasize the idea that the Russian people found the war onerous beyond measure, that Russian soldiers couldn’t wait until they were permitted to desert from the front lines. Consequently, all instances of Russian military valor, self-sacrifice and gallantry had to be silenced, and Russian heroes forgotten or subjected to scornful ridicule, like the courageous Cossack Kozma Kryuchkov…

In the trenches.

Lamentably, the denigration of the Great War outlived the Bolshevik régime and integrated itself into Neo-Stalinist rhetoric: the Tsar “lost” the First World War, you see, while Comrade Stalin won the second one… What is more, given that they can no longer justify the Brest-Litovsk betrayal with “defending the conquests of the revolution” (who gives a damn about a revolution that led to the loss of Kiev?), Neo-Bolshevik apologetics have to assert that the war had already been lost by October 1917, and the Bolsheviks just accepted the facts on the ground. For this, they have to redouble their effort in belittling the military achievements of the Imperial Army and its home front.

Fortunately, the normalization of Russian national consciousness is slowly coming to pass. The centenary of the Great War was rather visibly commemorated. There are new monuments to its soldiers, new films and TV series taking place fully or partly on the front lines, excellent and informative documentaries. Archive data on WWI soldiers is published on the Internet, allowing, among others, the author of these lines to reconstruct his great-grandfather’s military progress in East Prussia.

However, the basic historical appraisal of the Great War is far from stable, as the main question still goes answered: Did Russia lose WWI?

An answer in the affirmative seems self-evident. During the war, the Russian Empire was destroyed, the Provisional Government was ousted from power, the Soviet Russia created by the Bolshevik signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and accepted herself as the losing party; therefore, our defeat is abundantly clear.

Let’s start with the latter. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was declared null and void by all signatories. The text of the Armistice signed between the Entente and Germany on November 11th 1918 included the German repudiation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the removal of German forces and military agents from the Russian soil. On November 13th, the Bolsheviks themselves publicly repudiated the treaty (however, as the future events leading up to the Rapallo treaty would show, Lenin never truly abandoned his loyalty to Germany).

The text of the Versailles Peace Treaty, signed on June 29th 1919, included Article 116, which included the following text:

Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire on 1 August 1914. … In accordance with the provisions of Article 259 of Part IX (Financial Clauses) and Article 292 of Part X (Economic Clauses) Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaties and of all other treaties, conventions, and agreements entered into by her with the Bolshevik Government in Russia. The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the rights of Russia to obtain from Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty.

Therefore, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was twice declared null and void by Germany herself, and the right to German reparations was shared by Russia (then practically non-existent as a state) among the victors of WWI.

Signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Needless to say, the Entente allies, largely complicit themselves in the betrayal of Russia and its push towards Revolution, could have done much more. For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty, much like the Allies did with a completely devastated France (signatory of a humiliating armistice with Germany) by recognizing General de Gaulle’s Free France government (a complete imposture according to the then-current French political system) and not only giving it a right to accept Germany’s surrender but also granting it an occupation zone.

It is quite clear why the Allies had no desire to do the same with the Russia. Recognizing a White Russian government implied accepting its pledge to restore a united and indivisible Russia; the Allies wanted the Empire to fragment as much as possible. That is why Russia is described as non-existent in the Versailles wording, and the Germans had to accept all new statelets in Russian territory that the Entente would care to set up (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).

All things considered, Russia is mentioned in the Versailles treaty without even existing and treated as the victor, with all agreements implying her defeat by Germany completely annulled.

Moving on to the next question: Was Russia ever defeated by Germany, and was the Brest-Litovsk treaty a Russian-German agreement? The answer is once again in the negative. As duly noted by the Versailles Treaty, Germany made peace not with Russia but with the Bolshevik government. Its signatories were Grigori Sokolnikov, Lev Karakhan, Georgy Chicherin, and Grigory Petrovsky on behalf of the “Russian Federative Soviet Republic” [sic] – that is, a previously unheard of and unrecognized legal entity that had no de jure relation to the Russian Empire that had entered the war with Germany in August 1914.

Bolshevik proclamations in late 1917–early 1918 and their much-vaunted “publication of secret agreements” (documents where Tsarist diplomacy drove a hard bargain for firm Allied guarantees of postwar Russian benefits, including Russian control of Constantinople) implied a breach of alliance and forfeiture of political succession. Germany’s negotiations and treaties with the Bolsheviks, their de facto agent, had and still have no legal implications for the Russian Empire, a truly sovereign state on Russian territory, whose functioning was interrupted in 1917.

By the way, this curse of illegitimacy and rupture of legal succession still hovers over the modern Russian Federation. As correctly claimed by Konstantin Malofeev, “We are in a period of enduring illegitimacy. We still have unresolved issues from the viewpoint of Russian Imperial law. From the viewpoint of the Russian Empire, we are still undergoing a revolution. The Russian Federation is not a legal a successor of the Russian Empire. Of the Soviet Union, yes, but the Russian Empire, no.

The hard work of restoring the legal succession between modern and historic Russia, the Russian Federation and the Russian Empire, must be done so that we assume the maximum possible amount of Imperial rights and benefits and divest from the maximum possible amount of toxic Soviet legacy. One of its most important steps is getting rid of the myth of Russia’s “defeat” in WWI, allegedly supported by a peace treaty signed by Bolshevik traitors.

Finally, the third part of the alleged “defeat” problem. Is it true that the Russian Empire was losing the war? No, it is not. At the moment of a treasonous overthrow of the Russian monarchy, the Empire, as a part of the Entente coalition, was rapidly moving towards victory in WWI and would doubtlessly have achieved it within a year.

The Great War was the war of a coalition of Great Powers against a Germany that had grown too economically powerful and decided to achieve hegemony in Europe and the wider world, gathering a bloc of so-called Central Powers (most importantly Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). To achieve its goals, Germany needed to crush her closest neighbor France, weaken Russia and possibly grab some of its territory, and force the British Empire to accept this new state of affairs. Therefore, the victory conditions for Germany implied a military destruction of France, then a painful defeat of Russia, then a peace with the UK. After achieving these results, Germany would have become the dominant power on the planet.

The reasons for Germany striking specifically in August 1914 were manifold: a hurry to start a war before Russia completed her rearmament program; checking the growing boldness of Serbia, Russia’s ally in the Balkans and a strong performer in the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913; and starting the conflict while Austrian Kaiser Franz Joseph, a fierce Russophobe, is still alive (none of his possible successors had a comparably strong enthusiasm for pro-German and anti-Russian policies).

Franz Joseph I of Austria.

Germany’s war plans involved a rapid defeat of France while an enormous and (in German opinion) awkward and cumbersome Russia is still mobilizing her armies, then crushing Russia herself. France hadn’t yet declared war on Germany when German forces had already invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, rushing towards Paris.

In these conditions, Russia’s rapid advance towards German lines became decisive for the course of the war. The 1st and 2nd Russian armies under Generals Rennenkampf and Samsonov, their mobilization still incomplete, rushed into East Prussia, forcing Germany to defend its border right at the height of their drive to the French capital. As a result, Germany’s strategic defeat was inflicted on Day 20 of the war during the Battle of Gumbinnen, where Rennenkampf’s 1st Army, mostly thanks to an excellent performance of Russian artillery, forced Gen. von Prittwitz’s 8th Army, tasked with defending East Prussia, into flight.

The victory at Gumbinnen was achieved thanks to the extraordinary qualities of first-line forces and the excellent peacetime military training led by Gen. Rennenkampf in his subordinate Vilna military district, writes military historian Gen. Nikolay Golovin (1875– 1944).

The result of the Gumbinnen debacle was von Prittwitz’s decision to evacuate East Prussia, which led the Kaiser and the German High Command to deploy two corps from the Western Front that proved to be the proverbial missing horseshoe nail during the Battle of the Marne. The victory at Gumbinnen saved Paris, and the relief of Paris doomed Germany to defeat in WWI. Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.

Unfortunately, a strategic reversal doesn’t always means that the doomed adversary immediately concedes defeat. Germany soldiered on for four years after the failure of the Paris offensive, dealing horrible strikes to her enemies and dooming millions of Russians, Frenchmen, and indeed Germans to death… However, the Germans had no wherewithal to break the deadlock and overcome the strategic supremacy of the Allies and particularly the British maritime blockade that had stifled German economy. This is once again proven by the fact the Germans, even after knocking out Russia from the war, freeing a huge mass of its forces, and harnessing the enormous resources of the occupied Ukraine, had to concede defeat in six months.

So Russia won WWI at the very start, albeit at a heavy price – the demise of Gen. Samsonov’s 2nd Army, encircled and devastated near Soldau. The defeat had the loathsome consequence of eclipsing Gumbinnen and forever slandering the name of its victor, Gen. Rennenkampf, who, alleged the all-knowing progressive anti-monarchist public opinion, “failed to help Samsonov”. In reality, Rennenkampf’s army advanced in a different direction, towards Königsberg, as per the orders of the Stavka and the front HQ, and knew nothing of Soldau before the battle had ended. The conqueror of Gumbinnen, the man who had decided the fate of the Great War, was vilified and his career buried.

Alexander Samsonov.

German propaganda fabricated a canard alleging that the two generals had a falling out during the Russo-Japanese war and as a result “Rennenkampf betrayed Samsonov”. This falsehood, with the usual addition of “well, what did you expect from an ethnic German?”, was oft-repeated by Soviet propaganda that latched onto the meme of “talentless Samsonov and Rennenkampf”. After taking Rennenkampf’s life, the Soviets also took away his honor.

In 1918, he was executed by a Bolshevik firing squad in Taganrog under Antonov-Ovseenko’s order after refusing to join the Red Army and fight the Civil War against his own Russian brothers. “I will not become a traitor and fight against my own kind to save my life. Give me a well-equipped army, and I will happily lead it against the Germans; but you do not have such an army”. Those were the last words of Pavel Karlovich Rennenkampf, the first victor of the Great War.

However, even the Soldau defeat had a silver lining for the fate of the Great War. After the triumph over Samsonov, the career of the Hindenburg – Ludendorff tandem soared. The German High Commanded started looking for ways of breaking the strategic deadlock on the Eastern Front, and by 1917 Russia was tying up 46% of German divisions. Instead of conquering France and keeping Russia at bay with defensive lines and Austro-Hungary, Germany had to fight a war on two fronts, with its forces thinly spread over Lithuanian and Belarusian swamps, Galician foothills, and, near the end, Romanian mountaintops. Russia, by paying with blood and overexertion but also immortal and majestic feats of gallantry, deprived Germany and its allies of the tiniest chance of turning the tides of war.

The military actions of the Imperial Army during WWI weren’t always up to the standard. Military historian Anton Kersnovsky (1907–1944), a staunch Monarchist, assailed the Russian strategic command in his excellent History of the Russian Army. He emphasized that Russia had good military planners, amazing individual commanders, but just one truly great military leader – Gen. Yudenich, relegated to the secondary Caucasus Front by wartime circumstance. Strategic errors often led to lost victories (such as the underused potential of the Brusilov Offensive) and excessive casualties (such as the bloodbath on the Stokhod, which undermined the gains of said offensive). All too often, Russian military planning was hamstrung by kowtowing before German doctrines and the demands of the Allies.

Nikolay Yudenich.

Some polemists make immature claims that Russia shouldn’t have exerted herself that much for her ungrateful allies. Indeed, the Entente and especially France all too often took Russia’s war effort for granted, and behaved like true traitors after Russia’s destruction in the Revolution. However, both world wars were those of coalitions: if you work for your allies, you work towards a common victory. If Russian soldiers hadn’t died in the swamps of Naroch, the French would have lost Verdun, causing an enormous crisis that would have also affected us. That is why Russia’s most bloodstained war effort would not have been in vain, had treason not deprived her of the well-earned spoils of war.

However, Russia did quite decently in achieving main strategic goals, leaving Germany with no chance of victory. The home front developed rapidly: the shortage of ordnance, artillery, and rifles came to an end; the army saw the introduction of automobiles and mass mechanization (in 1916, several automobile plants were founded, including the future ZiL), Russian artillery was seen as the best in the world both in its technical qualities and the skills of its personnel. In Russia, Igor Sikorsky created the first heavy bombers. The creation of Russian tanks was underway.

If in the early days of the war Germany and Austria needed to mobilize 5% of their total ordnance to match one Russian shell with three of their own, the second year called for 50%. During the third year, to keep the 1:3 ratio, the Central Powers would have had to turn all of their guns towards Russia. Just to maintain a simple 1:1 parity, one would have needed all Austrian and 25% of German ordnance.

In other words, victory was imminent, and Russia’s contribution was so decisive that it was recognized by the Allies, who in fall 1916 had to acquiesce to Russia’s territorial demands, including the Black Sea Straits and Constantinople. However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.

By the moment of the anti-royal coup, the Russian army had advanced into the territory of two out of three enemy Powers that shared a border with Russia. At no point did German armies advance into core Russian territories. There could be no talk of a “battle for Moscow”, “siege of Petrograd”, “surrender of Kiev”, to say nothing of a “battle for the Volga”. There were no circumstances that could lead to millions of civilian deaths caused by the occupier. Therefore, claiming that the Tsar “lost” while Stalin “won” is bald-faced cheating just going by respective casualty rates. WWI was fought in a much more “thrifty” way so far as soldiers’ lives were concerned, and mostly happened outside Russian territory. (Now compare the north of France dug over by German shells; even when Germany surrendered, there were German soldiers standing on French soil, but no French armies in German lands.) With their politicking, the Bolsheviks planted the seeds of World War II, so demographically disastrous for Russia, while Tsarist Russia was intent on terminating the war with a firm and harmonious peace that would have left Germany with neither cause nor the wherewithal for revanchism.

“If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro [Kotor] on the Adriatic”, said Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen in 1934.

For the West, WWI ended a hundred years ago. For Russia, excluded from the peace process and plunged into a bloody feud, this war still goes on and no one knows the day when it will end, if it ever will. Mostly importantly, it ceases to be a forgotten war. We rediscover its heroes, memorialize them, search for documents on our great- and great-great-grandparents. Like true heroes of the past, they appear to us in a romantic sheen, in films, monuments, and elsewhere.

And this is where we can discern a certain providential meaning of the tragic events of 1917-18, visible only from a century’s worth of historical distance. There are victories true and Pyrrhic; Pyrrhic victories break an army’s fighting spirit while true victories uplift it.

Without Russia, the Entente won a Pyrrhic victory. The Great War broke the spirit of the victors at least as strongly as that of the defeated. Postwar literature (represented by such figures as Erich Maria Remarque from the losing side and Henri Barbusse, Richard Aldington, and Ernest Hemingway from the victorious) was one long tale of pain and horror. The generation that had spent four years in the trenches lost itself in its terrible trauma, and the victorious French crumbled in a second world war. The modern memory of WWI in Europe is the memory of the fallen, devoid of any glimpse of victory.

Only the Russian memory of WWI as the last Great War of the Empire, which is slowly being reclaimed after a century, is colored in heroic and romantic hues. We see our ancestors as heroes, not victims. Nowadays, after a hundred years, the Great War is a bottomless wellspring for our national spirit in the modern unstable and perilous world. For us, the main poet of WWI is, once and forever, Nikolay Gumilev, decorated with two St. George Crosses:

Like thundering hammers
Or the waves of a raging sea,
The golden heart of Russia
Steadily beats in my chest.

Oh the joy of decking Victory,
Like a maiden, in ropes of pearl,
While following the smoking trail
Of a retreating enemy…

 
Hide 539 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you appreciate these translations, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here.

  2. I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, Kholmogorov is to be commended for alluding to the growing body of historical research showing that the Russian Empire’s economy adapted to World War I surprisingly well (by late 1916, it was producing as many artillery shells per month as the Soviet Union did in 1942, despite the latter being a much more industrialized and militarized country) while also maintaining civilian consumer power. Before the February Revolution, there was nothing remotely similar to the French mutinies after the Nivelle Offensive. I do think Kholmogorov strongly overdoes Russia’s contribution to the military effort against Germany (though not against Austria-Hungary and Turkey), starting from an exaggeration of the significance of the divisions diverted to East Prussia in 1914. That said, there was nothing wrong about that, going after easier targets while still in an under-equipped state relative to Germany. And Germany itself would have had a much worse time starting from 1917, had certain politicians postponed playing at democratic politics until the end of a total war.

    Ultimately, though, I disagree with the basic thesis. Even if we proclaim that Russia “won” World World I (powerful take), at the end of the day, it still ended up getting two wars for the price of one, the Civil War and WW2, which killed 15x as many Russians as the First. In this context, any post hoc victory proclamation will be so necessarily peppered with caveats as to make it meaningless. My powerful take: It was really Germany that won World War I. By installing the Bolsheviks, who lost Russia more than a decade’s worth of economic development and exterminated or expelled a large part of the Tsarist-era human capital stock, it massively postponed the day when Russian military-industrial power would supersede its own. This gave Germany the opportunity to make a second play for world hegemony in the 1940s, an opportunity it would not have had otherwise. Germany failed. But the attempt was respectable, and it maintained its status as a high income country, at no less than 80% of the population and GDP it would have otherwise had by 2000; whereas Russia by 2000 was a pathetic husk with just half of its potential population (and that’s just within its current borders) and no more than 20% of its potential GDP under a “normal” development scenario.

    • Replies: @Janusm
    ive often felt the great tragedy was germany in late 19th century siding with austria-hungary instead of russia.

    a germany-russia alliance would have been nigh unbeatable, a powerful conservative bulwark to anglo-american lunatic universalism.

    some hypothetical ww1 in this scenario would have germany gobbling up the german parts of AH, and Russia dominating balkans. Germany with Russian supplies/commodities/oil/food would be industrial powerhouse, Russia without concerns over european border could dominate in middle east and far east. Together, theyd provide world a rightwing ideological counterpart to 'muh liberal democracy' or communism.

    oh well. instead they bled each other white for 30 years and handed the world to the anglos and the chinese.
  3. There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.

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

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn’t hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn’t do Russia any good.

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

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

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

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson’s Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia’s record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

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

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

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

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

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

    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what’s the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    • Disagree: Denis, TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
    , @Denis

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.
     
    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    You're right, it was better for them to stay in Turkish hands, so that the Turks could exterminate the indigenous population. Anything to stick it in Russia's eye!

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).
     
    Do they regard their current status wrt the US as a nightmare?

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914
     
    Atrocities against civilians are unfortunate, but the Germans could have avoided these ones simply by not declaring war.
    , @utu
    Russian nationalists (presumably the anti-Bolshevik ones like Kolmogorov and probably Karlin) must outbid sovoks thus Russia w/o Revolution would be more bigger and more better hence they fall into the trap of imperialism. Perhaps they should be called white sovoks as opposed the proper sovoks who are red.
    , @Anarcho-Supremacist
    "Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what’s the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited."

    Well as AK likes to say nationalists tend to be low in human capital. Taking stances that make you look like a freak tends to be the norm.
    , @melanf

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    You can absolutely not worry about it. Anatoly Karlin (in those cases when it does not translate Yegor Kholmogorov) a reasonable person, but among the "Russian nationalists" such man is a very very rare exception. The so-called "Russian nationalists" in Russia today are a bunch of disgusting marginal freaks whose only contribution to politics is a complete discredit of nationalism.

    who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic state
     
    Well, Egor Kholmogorov is a private marginal person. But the Baltic States have at the state level claims to Russian lands - lands to which these States have absolutely no rights (neither historical nor demographic).

    for example:
    "Тhe head of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Estonia Mart Helme said that Tallinn has unresolved territorial claims to Russia. According to him, Moscow "holds" more than five percent of Estonian lands. Helme noted that the Russian side does not want to return these territories or pay compensation for them."


    These lands are Ivangorod where Grand Duke Ivan III built this castle in the 15th century.

    https://ivbg.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4-1024x676.jpg

    Before Ivan these lands belonged to Novgorod. However, since Estonia (having no legal rights) occupied these lands between the world wars, according to the Estonian government these are now Estonian lands. And these territorial requirements are not yet supported by NATO tanks solely because Russia has a thermonuclear bomb. I am not a fan of Kholmogorov, but it is strange to condemn him in matters relating to the Baltic States, despite the fact that the Baltic States have such a brazen state imperialism.

    , @Mr. XYZ

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    In regards to Russia, Russia should have obviously remained in WWI until the very end after that war would have actually begun. However, you're correct that the spoils that Russia could have acquired from World War I even if it would have been on the winning side were rather limited: Galicia (full of Ukrainian nationalists), Subcarpathian Ruthenia (more loyal to Russia but also dirt-poor and possibly with low human capital other than its 15% Jewish minority), Ottoman Armenia and Pontus (both of which Russia could have likely obtained at a much lower cost in the mid-1890s had it decided to go to war against the Ottomans in response to the Hamidian massacres back then), the Memelland (a good port, but very small), and East Prussia (full of Germans). Theoretically Russia could have also expanded Poland more but AFAIK the Russian Provisional Government had already pledged to give Poland its independence--as IMHO Tsarist Russia should have done even before World War I just as long as Poland would have accepted a (different) Romanov King and agreed to be allies with both Russia and France. Pyotr Durnovo was correct when he wrote to Tsar Nicholas II in February 1914 that a war with Germany would not be in Russia's best interests:

    https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/documents/Durnovo.pdf
    , @Mr. XYZ
    BTW, off-topic, but what are your thoughts on the 1803 Louisiana Purchase as well as the US conquest of what is now the Southwestern US from Mexico in 1848?
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia).
     
    A-H declared war on Serbia on 28th July. Since Russia chose to honor its alliance to Serbia, where they supposed to not mobilize for war?

    Of course, I suspect you would prefer that Russia simply ditched Serbia and let it disappear from the world map, instead of thinking about restraining the arrogance of the Habsburgs.

    As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.

     

    No, Austria-Hungary's decision to declare war on Serbia despite having the reasonable option of not doing so was what ensured a general European War.

    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn’t hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn’t do Russia any good.

     

    Maybe it wouldn't hurt for cucks like you to admit that trying to get rid of Serbia wasn't a good idea?
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.
     
    Here is a "pearl" of "strategy" by Egorushka (diminutive of Egor, because in Russia he is viewed mostly as a village fool)

    Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.
     
    This doesn't even make sense in a pure housewife's level of thinking, in terms of having any historic, let alone military meaning--it is beyond redemption. Evidently, Karlin doesn't care of about reputation, whatever that means in his world, bringing, granted his blog, a collection of meaningless phrases concocted by BS Artist of a first order. This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons. But facts be damned--numbers are too difficult for this fat idiot who couldn't even complete couple years of History Faculty in university. Obviously such things as weight of salvo, the same as why Osipov published his historic "Estimation of Victims of War" in 1915 are beyond Kholmogorov's grasp. I will omit here the fact of WHO Kholmogorov actually is in real life.
    , @Hhsiii
    I would imagine all Russia had to do was hold out another year and they’d have been on the winning side. But we’ll never know.
    , @Seraphim
    Kolchak, as it is known, was arrested by soldiers of the Czechoslovak Legion at the orders of the French General Maurice Janin, head of the French military mission in Russia, his supposed 'allies' against the Bolsheviks and handed over to the Bolsheviks. The Czechs have been rewarded with a portion of the Imperial Treasure which was in Kolchak's custody (the rest being handed over to the Bolsheviks). The gold constituted the first reserve of the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.
    , @Durruti

    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist
     
    I thank German_reader for his critique of Kholmogorov. It exposes the hypocrisy and flaws of Kholmogorov's 'analysis.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Good News:

    Russia has revived, and is in recovery mode.

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

    God Bless!

    Durruti alias-Dr. Peter J. Antonsen

    , @Charles Carroll
    In those days mobilization was the equivalent of actually WAGING war.
    , @Alfred
    I am really glad that Putin and the vast majority of Russians are not as deluded as the author of this piece. His writing reminds me of the nonsense of Ukraine's Neo-Nazis. A total rehash of history with no foundation in reality.
  4. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare

    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.

    I don’t know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 – collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    • Replies: @Yevardian

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
     
    Nationalists with pipe-dreams of raising the Imperial Flag in Prague and Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without. What even is your position anyway? Half the time you say Russia would be better off without the Caucasus, and then it's revanchism against the Baltics.
    , @German_reader

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
     
    If we're talking about German nationalists who dream of border revisions in Europe, I'd actually agree with that.
    But today the concerns of German nationalists are of a rather different, more existential kind. Maybe Kholmogorov needs a few central Asians in his neighbourhood, to concentrate his mind and take it off those silly dreams of empire.

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks.
     
    Maybe, but his arguments seem weak and ahistorical to me in any case.
    Bolshevism was of course disastrous, but its appeal didn't come out of nowhere and was clearly linked to the failures of the old order, of which WW1 was an especially egregious example. It may be difficult to comprehend for armchair imperialists like Kholmogorov, but a lot of ordinary people (not just in Russia) in WW1 weren't that keen on dying for nebulous visions of imperial greatness. Defense of the nation is a different matter, but as Kholmogorov himself makes clear again and again, that had become fatally blurred with more extensive goals which couldn't command general support.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
     
    TBH, even if German nationalists actually had the power to forcibly revise Europe's borders nowadays, I'm really not sure that they actually would. After all, countries such as Poland and Czechia could be useful allies to Germany in the war against Islamofascism.

    As for Russia, considering just how many nukes it has, Germany certainly isn't going to be willing to make any moves on it regardless of whom it's led by. TBH, I'm not even sure that Hitler would have dared to attack Russia if Russia would have actually had lots and lots of nukes and the means to deliver them.
    , @AltSerrice
    Frankly the little hit on German nationalists at the end strikes me as being rather petty.

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

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

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

    Much like Germany and Russia, you two should kiss and make up, because Germany and Russia together (along with the rest of Europe) still has the chance to a power bloc like none seen in all history. And it is precisely little issues like this that threaten to derail nationalist cooperation.
    , @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia in 1914, see the desperate attempts of Poland to escape Russia's embrace, Romania joining the Central Powers in 1883 to protect herself from Russia after the fallout with Russia in 1878, and the tasty relations between Russia and Bulgaria after 1885.
    Only Serbia was favorable to Russia, especially after the murder of the last Obrenovic king by people who later organized the Sarajevo assassination that sparked WW1.
    , @S

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.
     
    Quite true. The support given was haphazard and ultimately rather paltry. I don't believe however (for the most part) that the Allies really truly wanted the Whites to win in Russia.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them..
     
    The Allies had to at least make a show (and I have to emphasize the term 'show' here) of 'fighting Communism'. With the possible exception of the Japanese (who had certain ulterior motives) they didn't seem to take the whole thing too seriously.

    ..while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.
     
    The British Empire showed far more resolve and dedication in fighting tiny Ireland (in the concurrent Irish War of Independence) sending about three times the troops (ie 20,000 in Ireland vs their 7500 in Russia) than they did in fighting the 'Bolshevik menace' in Russia. Still, that wasn't nearly enough to win in Ireland.

    Not surprisingly, the Brits lost in Ireland just as they lost in Russia.

    The United States sent somewhat more troops than the Brits in the Allied intervention, about thirteen thousand or so. The bulk of them (8000) got sent to Vladivostok under strict orders to stay out of the fighting, get the Czechs out if possible, and run the local Trans-Siberian Railway.

    They appeared to do just as they'd been told regarding the fighting. Looking at some of the available pictures, such as the one below in Vladivostok, it seemed they did a lot of parading.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG/800px-American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG

    And marching (ie 'hiking') too, in the Vladivostok region, as perhaps a 'demonstration' of the US presence in the area, or simple exercise.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/American_soldiers_from_the_31st_Infantry_marching_near_Vladivostok_Russia_April_27_1919.jpg/800px-American_soldiers_from_the_31st_Infantry_marching_near_Vladivostok_Russia_April_27_1919.jpg

    Fitting in with their assignment to run the local railway, below is a pic of a US hospital car of the Siberian expeditionary force.

    While no doubt they certainly did treat some real and serious injuries experienced in unavoidable fighting by US troops placed in the area, and, or treated their illnesses and sickness, considerering their standing orders to stay clear of the fighting, one wonders if the most common 'battlefield injury' treated for at the hospital car was for blisters on the men's feet.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/American_Expeditionary_Forces_Hospital_Car_No._1%2C_Train_No.1_at_Khabarovsk%2C_Russia%2C_1918-1919_%2818155799199%29.jpg/800px-American_Expeditionary_Forces_Hospital_Car_No._1%2C_Train_No.1_at_Khabarovsk%2C_Russia%2C_1918-1919_%2818155799199%29.jpg

    In the Arkhangelsk region, with about 5000 US troops, there was a bit more fighting on the US part, but still considering the entire picture, relatively limited.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    , @reiner Tor

    the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.
     
    What’s your source? Are you sure it wasn’t Austro-Hungarian captivity (a military trying to compensate for its abysmal incompetence with horrible brutality, especially against civilians), or maybe Bulgarian captivity (they didn’t like Romanians much, and probably didn’t have much resources to feed them either)?

    On Wikipedia it’s stated that the Germans took 147,986 Romanian POWs, and 12,512 of those died in captivity. Doesn’t look like some exceptional mortality, at least not in the context of WW1. I didn’t check all the numbers here, but it might be high mortality relative to other groups in German captivity, like some 70,000 Russians died out of 1.4 million, or 17,069 Frenchmen out of 535,411.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_prisoners_of_war_in_Germany?wprov=sfti1

  5. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    Nationalists with pipe-dreams of raising the Imperial Flag in Prague and Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without. What even is your position anyway? Half the time you say Russia would be better off without the Caucasus, and then it’s revanchism against the Baltics.

    • Troll: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @neutral

    Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without
     
    Actually liberating Constantinople from the Turks is something the world could all benefit from.
  6. A suggestion for Mr. Argenteus: translate Kholm’s reviews of Western movies. That should be a lot of fun for the readers, and there is a potential for one or two reviews to go viral, giving Kholmogorov exposure in the Anglosphere.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Thank you for the suggestion, I'll seriously considering doing an anthology of Kholmogorov's hot takes on relevant recent (or classical) movies.
  7. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    If we’re talking about German nationalists who dream of border revisions in Europe, I’d actually agree with that.
    But today the concerns of German nationalists are of a rather different, more existential kind. Maybe Kholmogorov needs a few central Asians in his neighbourhood, to concentrate his mind and take it off those silly dreams of empire.

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks.

    Maybe, but his arguments seem weak and ahistorical to me in any case.
    Bolshevism was of course disastrous, but its appeal didn’t come out of nowhere and was clearly linked to the failures of the old order, of which WW1 was an especially egregious example. It may be difficult to comprehend for armchair imperialists like Kholmogorov, but a lot of ordinary people (not just in Russia) in WW1 weren’t that keen on dying for nebulous visions of imperial greatness. Defense of the nation is a different matter, but as Kholmogorov himself makes clear again and again, that had become fatally blurred with more extensive goals which couldn’t command general support.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty... and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else's. So I hope you'll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren't much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.
  8. @inertial
    A suggestion for Mr. Argenteus: translate Kholm's reviews of Western movies. That should be a lot of fun for the readers, and there is a potential for one or two reviews to go viral, giving Kholmogorov exposure in the Anglosphere.

    Thank you for the suggestion, I’ll seriously considering doing an anthology of Kholmogorov’s hot takes on relevant recent (or classical) movies.

    • Replies: @inertial
    BTW, love your poetry translations and the original pieces as well.
  9. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    You’re right, it was better for them to stay in Turkish hands, so that the Turks could exterminate the indigenous population. Anything to stick it in Russia’s eye!

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

    Do they regard their current status wrt the US as a nightmare?

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914

    Atrocities against civilians are unfortunate, but the Germans could have avoided these ones simply by not declaring war.

    • Replies: @AP

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.
     
    A-H's demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.
    , @reiner Tor
    Russia threatened Bulgaria with military action in case they conquered Constantinople during the First Balkan War. (The Bulgarians attacked nevertheless, but the Turks successfully defeated them a few tens of kilometers from Constantinople.) So it's not like they wanted Constantinople liberated at any price, they were just as keen to prevent it from falling into anybody else's hands.
  10. @Fluctuarius
    Thank you for the suggestion, I'll seriously considering doing an anthology of Kholmogorov's hot takes on relevant recent (or classical) movies.

    BTW, love your poetry translations and the original pieces as well.

  11. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Russian nationalists (presumably the anti-Bolshevik ones like Kolmogorov and probably Karlin) must outbid sovoks thus Russia w/o Revolution would be more bigger and more better hence they fall into the trap of imperialism. Perhaps they should be called white sovoks as opposed the proper sovoks who are red.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Just a note that the Black sovok utu is on record demanding Russia conduct a nuclear strike on Israel, likely annihilating itself just to pursue his particular ideological obsession.
  12. @German_reader

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
     
    If we're talking about German nationalists who dream of border revisions in Europe, I'd actually agree with that.
    But today the concerns of German nationalists are of a rather different, more existential kind. Maybe Kholmogorov needs a few central Asians in his neighbourhood, to concentrate his mind and take it off those silly dreams of empire.

    What you tend to miss in your “takedowns” of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks.
     
    Maybe, but his arguments seem weak and ahistorical to me in any case.
    Bolshevism was of course disastrous, but its appeal didn't come out of nowhere and was clearly linked to the failures of the old order, of which WW1 was an especially egregious example. It may be difficult to comprehend for armchair imperialists like Kholmogorov, but a lot of ordinary people (not just in Russia) in WW1 weren't that keen on dying for nebulous visions of imperial greatness. Defense of the nation is a different matter, but as Kholmogorov himself makes clear again and again, that had become fatally blurred with more extensive goals which couldn't command general support.

    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty… and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else’s. So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.
     
    That's their right, but if you're taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov's screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you'll have to live with harsh criticism. I don't think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov's views? I simply can't think of a reason.
    , @German_reader
    Anyway, maybe you're right and a German shouldn't "lecture" Russians about anything given mid-20th century history. I won't be doing it again (though I'll also note that playing the Nazi card against me is a bit incongruous, given that much of Unz review is basically a Nazi site), so my participation in this thread ends here.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty… and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else’s. So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.
     
    To be fair, though, a German could explain Germany's WWI territorial changes in regards to Russia as simply giving freedom to various non-Russian peoples of Russia. True, it would have been a German-dominated freedom, but maybe if liberalization would have occurred in Germany, Eastern Europe would have had more leeway in determining its own policies--just as long as it would have agreed to remain allied to Germany.

    As for World War II, what the Nazis aimed to do to Russia was certainly extremely inexcusable. That said, though, if one wants to be fair, as far as I know, non-Nazi German nationalists between 1919 and 1932 didn't actually advocate in favor of stripping Russia of any of its territories. Rather, the idea of going to war with Russia and capturing vast swaths of Russian territory for Germany was a Nazi idea--one that was not shared even by other German conservatives in the interwar era (so, in 1919 or afterwards) until after the Nazis actually came to power in Germany.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.
     
    Does he also view Tsarist Russia's expansion into Central Asia as being a mistake given what we now know about Central Asia's demographic trajectory?

    I mean, Yes, Russia's position relative to Central Asia would have been much better without the demographic devastation that it endured during the 20th century. However, was it nevertheless wise to expand into territories that subsequently experienced such population growth (as a result of high fertility rates) up to the point that their total population consisted of tens of millions of people--and mostly low-IQ people at that (albeit ones that are not particularly crime-prone)?

    France's expansion into northern Algeria might have seemed like a good move at the time--and when northern Algeria was outright annexed by France in 1848, it had something like 15+ times less people than France had (2 million for northern Algeria versus 32 million for France). However, given what we now know about Algeria's future population growth trajectory, France's expansion into northern Algeria and especially France's annexation of northern Algeria was certainly a mistake--albeit one that was thankfully reversed by Charles de Gaulle in 1962.
  13. @Anatoly Karlin
    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty... and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else's. So I hope you'll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren't much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That’s their right, but if you’re taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov’s screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you’ll have to live with harsh criticism. I don’t think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.

    • Replies: @Denis

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.
     
    I do. I may not agree with him in full, but I certainly sympathize with him.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't, of course, since nationalisms tend to be particularist ideologies, not universal ones. They can have alliances of convenience (anti-Communism, today anti-immigration) but no real ones of conviction, unless the peoples in question are already very close.

    What I don't follow is how exactly you read a call for border revision into this article. Sure, Holmes - like 90% of Russian nationalists - supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia. But this is not what this article in particular is about. Of course this doesn't stop the demented armenoid Sovokdian (no offense to Armenians) extrapolated a defense of Russia's WW1 war aims to having designs on Istanbul or Prague *today*.
    , @French bystander responding to German reader

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views?
     
    Like Léon Bloy,
    Quant à moi, j’attends les cosaques et le Saint-Esprit ! Tout le reste n’est qu’ordure.

    I simply can’t think of a reason.
     
    Let me explain, GERMAN reader: the Cossacks have gotten us rid of the Napoleonic regime (itself a legacy of the Anglo black ops who overthrew the legitimate Bourbon monarchy) , and more importantly even, the predominantly RUSSIAN Red Army has played the decisive role of freeing my ancestors from yours, circa 70 years ago — and forever delivering us from the threat of GERMAN nationalism. I must say that images of the fall of Berlin in May 1945 never cease to rejoice me. See, your ancestors have left a trail
    of blood in my family. So I will take the Russian military pennant over the one from
    the German Huns — anytime.
  14. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, Kholmogorov is to be commended for alluding to the growing body of historical research showing that the Russian Empire's economy adapted to World War I surprisingly well (by late 1916, it was producing as many artillery shells per month as the Soviet Union did in 1942, despite the latter being a much more industrialized and militarized country) while also maintaining civilian consumer power. Before the February Revolution, there was nothing remotely similar to the French mutinies after the Nivelle Offensive. I do think Kholmogorov strongly overdoes Russia's contribution to the military effort against Germany (though not against Austria-Hungary and Turkey), starting from an exaggeration of the significance of the divisions diverted to East Prussia in 1914. That said, there was nothing wrong about that, going after easier targets while still in an under-equipped state relative to Germany. And Germany itself would have had a much worse time starting from 1917, had certain politicians postponed playing at democratic politics until the end of a total war.

    Ultimately, though, I disagree with the basic thesis. Even if we proclaim that Russia "won" World World I (powerful take), at the end of the day, it still ended up getting two wars for the price of one, the Civil War and WW2, which killed 15x as many Russians as the First. In this context, any post hoc victory proclamation will be so necessarily peppered with caveats as to make it meaningless. My powerful take: It was really Germany that won World War I. By installing the Bolsheviks, who lost Russia more than a decade's worth of economic development and exterminated or expelled a large part of the Tsarist-era human capital stock, it massively postponed the day when Russian military-industrial power would supersede its own. This gave Germany the opportunity to make a second play for world hegemony in the 1940s, an opportunity it would not have had otherwise. Germany failed. But the attempt was respectable, and it maintained its status as a high income country, at no less than 80% of the population and GDP it would have otherwise had by 2000; whereas Russia by 2000 was a pathetic husk with just half of its potential population (and that's just within its current borders) and no more than 20% of its potential GDP under a "normal" development scenario.

    ive often felt the great tragedy was germany in late 19th century siding with austria-hungary instead of russia.

    a germany-russia alliance would have been nigh unbeatable, a powerful conservative bulwark to anglo-american lunatic universalism.

    some hypothetical ww1 in this scenario would have germany gobbling up the german parts of AH, and Russia dominating balkans. Germany with Russian supplies/commodities/oil/food would be industrial powerhouse, Russia without concerns over european border could dominate in middle east and far east. Together, theyd provide world a rightwing ideological counterpart to ‘muh liberal democracy’ or communism.

    oh well. instead they bled each other white for 30 years and handed the world to the anglos and the chinese.

    • Agree: Poco, bluedog
  15. @Anatoly Karlin
    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty... and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else's. So I hope you'll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren't much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

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

    • Replies: @utu
    "...maybe you’re right and a German shouldn’t “lecture” Russians ..." - No, he is not.
    , @Anarcho-Supremacist
    I don't think he really played the "Nazi card" against you but whatever I guess
    , @iffen
    ... I won’t be doing it again ... so my participation in this thread ends here.

    Stop taking this attitude! Keep writing your comments.

    BTW, I'm about 20% (having to take time out for a new book on Reconstruction in the South) into Bombers and the Bombed, and to say that my eyes are being opened doesn't even come close to being descriptive.

    , @Hrw-500
    I don't know why but it reminds me of this meme then someone posted on a thread about what if the October Revolution never happened?
    https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-the-october-revolution-never-happened-in-russia.470714/#post-19262908
  16. @Denis

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.
     
    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    You're right, it was better for them to stay in Turkish hands, so that the Turks could exterminate the indigenous population. Anything to stick it in Russia's eye!

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).
     
    Do they regard their current status wrt the US as a nightmare?

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914
     
    Atrocities against civilians are unfortunate, but the Germans could have avoided these ones simply by not declaring war.

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

    • Replies: @Denis
    lolno
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

     

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could've easily chosen to accept Serbia's reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn't. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia's response to A-H's ultimatum removed any reason for war ...

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand's assassination (which they weren't, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would've acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830's and 1840's. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn't accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia ...

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

    “…maybe you’re right and a German shouldn’t “lecture” Russians …” – No, he is not.

  18. @AP

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.
     
    A-H's demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

    lolno

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

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

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think he really played the “Nazi card” against you

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

  20. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    “Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn’t a nationalist, he’s an imperialist who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what’s the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.”

    Well as AK likes to say nationalists tend to be low in human capital. Taking stances that make you look like a freak tends to be the norm.

  21. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    You can absolutely not worry about it. Anatoly Karlin (in those cases when it does not translate Yegor Kholmogorov) a reasonable person, but among the “Russian nationalists” such man is a very very rare exception. The so-called “Russian nationalists” in Russia today are a bunch of disgusting marginal freaks whose only contribution to politics is a complete discredit of nationalism.

    who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic state

    Well, Egor Kholmogorov is a private marginal person. But the Baltic States have at the state level claims to Russian lands – lands to which these States have absolutely no rights (neither historical nor demographic).

    for example:
    Тhe head of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Estonia Mart Helme said that Tallinn has unresolved territorial claims to Russia. According to him, Moscow “holds” more than five percent of Estonian lands. Helme noted that the Russian side does not want to return these territories or pay compensation for them.”

    These lands are Ivangorod where Grand Duke Ivan III built this castle in the 15th century.

    Before Ivan these lands belonged to Novgorod. However, since Estonia (having no legal rights) occupied these lands between the world wars, according to the Estonian government these are now Estonian lands. And these territorial requirements are not yet supported by NATO tanks solely because Russia has a thermonuclear bomb. I am not a fan of Kholmogorov, but it is strange to condemn him in matters relating to the Baltic States, despite the fact that the Baltic States have such a brazen state imperialism.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are "marginal disgusting freaks", including relative to, say, Goblin (he of "anti-Soviet equals Russophobe" fame)?
  22. @German_reader

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.
     
    That's their right, but if you're taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov's screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you'll have to live with harsh criticism. I don't think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov's views? I simply can't think of a reason.

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.

    I do. I may not agree with him in full, but I certainly sympathize with him.

    • Replies: @AP
    Because you are a Serb.
  23. @Denis

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views? I simply can’t think of a reason.
     
    I do. I may not agree with him in full, but I certainly sympathize with him.

    Because you are a Serb.

    • Replies: @Denis
    Precisely.
  24. @AP
    Because you are a Serb.

    Precisely.

  25. @Anatoly Karlin
    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty... and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else's. So I hope you'll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren't much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty… and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else’s. So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    To be fair, though, a German could explain Germany’s WWI territorial changes in regards to Russia as simply giving freedom to various non-Russian peoples of Russia. True, it would have been a German-dominated freedom, but maybe if liberalization would have occurred in Germany, Eastern Europe would have had more leeway in determining its own policies–just as long as it would have agreed to remain allied to Germany.

    As for World War II, what the Nazis aimed to do to Russia was certainly extremely inexcusable. That said, though, if one wants to be fair, as far as I know, non-Nazi German nationalists between 1919 and 1932 didn’t actually advocate in favor of stripping Russia of any of its territories. Rather, the idea of going to war with Russia and capturing vast swaths of Russian territory for Germany was a Nazi idea–one that was not shared even by other German conservatives in the interwar era (so, in 1919 or afterwards) until after the Nazis actually came to power in Germany.

  26. @Anatoly Karlin
    German nationalists embarked on one of the boldest projects of border revision in world history, failed (but respectable try!), lost their sovereignty... and then some of them have the gall to make moralistic postures about how wrong border revision is (most conveniently no longer having the capability to revise borders themselves) to the country whose borders they had sought to revise more than almost anybody else's. So I hope you'll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren't much interested in hearing you out, no offense.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    That said, Holmes is certainly a strong proponent of Central Asian immigration restriction.

    Does he also view Tsarist Russia’s expansion into Central Asia as being a mistake given what we now know about Central Asia’s demographic trajectory?

    I mean, Yes, Russia’s position relative to Central Asia would have been much better without the demographic devastation that it endured during the 20th century. However, was it nevertheless wise to expand into territories that subsequently experienced such population growth (as a result of high fertility rates) up to the point that their total population consisted of tens of millions of people–and mostly low-IQ people at that (albeit ones that are not particularly crime-prone)?

    France’s expansion into northern Algeria might have seemed like a good move at the time–and when northern Algeria was outright annexed by France in 1848, it had something like 15+ times less people than France had (2 million for northern Algeria versus 32 million for France). However, given what we now know about Algeria’s future population growth trajectory, France’s expansion into northern Algeria and especially France’s annexation of northern Algeria was certainly a mistake–albeit one that was thankfully reversed by Charles de Gaulle in 1962.

  27. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    TBH, even if German nationalists actually had the power to forcibly revise Europe’s borders nowadays, I’m really not sure that they actually would. After all, countries such as Poland and Czechia could be useful allies to Germany in the war against Islamofascism.

    As for Russia, considering just how many nukes it has, Germany certainly isn’t going to be willing to make any moves on it regardless of whom it’s led by. TBH, I’m not even sure that Hitler would have dared to attack Russia if Russia would have actually had lots and lots of nukes and the means to deliver them.

  28. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?

    In regards to Russia, Russia should have obviously remained in WWI until the very end after that war would have actually begun. However, you’re correct that the spoils that Russia could have acquired from World War I even if it would have been on the winning side were rather limited: Galicia (full of Ukrainian nationalists), Subcarpathian Ruthenia (more loyal to Russia but also dirt-poor and possibly with low human capital other than its 15% Jewish minority), Ottoman Armenia and Pontus (both of which Russia could have likely obtained at a much lower cost in the mid-1890s had it decided to go to war against the Ottomans in response to the Hamidian massacres back then), the Memelland (a good port, but very small), and East Prussia (full of Germans). Theoretically Russia could have also expanded Poland more but AFAIK the Russian Provisional Government had already pledged to give Poland its independence–as IMHO Tsarist Russia should have done even before World War I just as long as Poland would have accepted a (different) Romanov King and agreed to be allies with both Russia and France. Pyotr Durnovo was correct when he wrote to Tsar Nicholas II in February 1914 that a war with Germany would not be in Russia’s best interests:

    https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/documents/Durnovo.pdf

  29. [MORE]

    Its signatories were Grigori Sokolnikov, Lev Karakhan, Georgy Chicherin, and Grigory Petrovsky on behalf of the “Russian Federative Soviet Republic” [sic] – that is, a previously unheard of and unrecognized legal entity that had no de jure relation to the Russian Empire that had entered the war with Germany in August 1918.

    That’s August 1914–not August 1918!

    AK: Thanks, fixed.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius


    Good catch - and an awkward gaffe on my part...
  30. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    BTW, off-topic, but what are your thoughts on the 1803 Louisiana Purchase as well as the US conquest of what is now the Southwestern US from Mexico in 1848?

  31. @AP

    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.
     
    A-H's demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could’ve easily chosen to accept Serbia’s reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn’t. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia’s response to A-H’s ultimatum removed any reason for war …

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830’s and 1840’s. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia …

    • Replies: @AP
    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government.
     
    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia. It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.
     
    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It's important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly. The Serbs lost what - 25% of their population? Despite the Serbian government eventually executing the architect of this crime. The Tsar, otherwise a rather decent man, who shamefully went to war to protect this disgusting Serbian regime was himself murdered along with his family.
    , @reiner Tor
    Serbia wouldn't have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would've opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary ("Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?" - that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.
     
    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    It took almost a week for the incompetent investigation to establish incontrovertibly that the assassination was organized from Serbia by members of the Serbian military. Due to the strong opposition of the Hungarian prime minister Tisza, the Austrians couldn't even start anything before getting proof of Serbian involvement. After that, the moment for a swift action had already passed, and Austria tried to get diplomatic support from all parts of Europe to ensure that they won't have to face Russia alone in a war. This meant German assurances, and they also tried to get Russia and France out of this. (Impossible, since both the French and the Russians simply parroted the Serbian lies about their non-involvement without even looking much into the evidence.)

    I think it was stupid to press for war (Franz Ferdinand would've agreed, he thought that the internal weakness of Austria-Hungary precluded any war as much as possible), but not impossible to understand. Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people
     
    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he'd just leave them alone in a war. As to "Germanics in general," that's even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.
    , @reiner Tor

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family)
     
    That's also wrong. You might not like your nephew that much, and have disagreements with him over politics or his choice of a spouse, but it doesn't mean that you don't mourn when he's murdered. The Emperor Franz Joseph was weeping when hearing news of his death, he even bended some rules of etiquette afterwards, which deeply impressed people around him, like I think the foreign minister Berchtold.

    It's also true that he wasn't popular among the people, but paradoxically that changed after his death. His public persona was not very likable (he was prone to bursts of anger, for example), but after his death the press (not only the tabloids) reported his family life (how much he loved his wife and family), and a guy who marries the love of his life despite the opposition of his family and heavy social costs to be paid (his children couldn't have inherited the throne), and then loves his children very much, became a pretty sympathetic figure for the public, right after his death. Such personal details (other than the fact of his morganatic marriage) weren't published in the tabloid press of the time (the Habsburgs protected their privacy, and didn't understand effective media propaganda), only after his death, so after his death he became much more popular than before. His last words ("Sophie, don't die, you must live for the children..."), which were published immediately on the evening of his death, only confirmed this suddenly created popular image. While it was created by the press, this was still a genuine feeling. Even in Hungary his image improved after his death (though he was truly unpopular there due to his widely known negative view of Hungary and his plans to break up Hungary).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

  32. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia).

    A-H declared war on Serbia on 28th July. Since Russia chose to honor its alliance to Serbia, where they supposed to not mobilize for war?

    Of course, I suspect you would prefer that Russia simply ditched Serbia and let it disappear from the world map, instead of thinking about restraining the arrogance of the Habsburgs.

    As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.

    No, Austria-Hungary’s decision to declare war on Serbia despite having the reasonable option of not doing so was what ensured a general European War.

    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn’t hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn’t do Russia any good.

    Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for cucks like you to admit that trying to get rid of Serbia wasn’t a good idea?

  33. @Mr. XYZ

    Its signatories were Grigori Sokolnikov, Lev Karakhan, Georgy Chicherin, and Grigory Petrovsky on behalf of the “Russian Federative Soviet Republic” [sic] – that is, a previously unheard of and unrecognized legal entity that had no de jure relation to the Russian Empire that had entered the war with Germany in August 1918.
     
    That's August 1914--not August 1918!

    AK: Thanks, fixed.

    [MORE]

    Good catch – and an awkward gaffe on my part…

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    You're Holmes?
  34. I was reading a essay week or two ago by a scholar of Charles Maurras and his writings, stating that Maurras’ great failing was his romanticized view on the Ancien Regime, that he did not see the many fault points in the late stage French monarchy, that led to its demise. That’s the same way I feel about this article. All the military points made are valid, and valuable information. It particularly seems to disprove the assertion by Tankies that Russia “wouldn’t have been ready for war” without Stalin. But nowhere does Kholmogorov address the unpopularity and instability of the Imperial Russian State.

    The Tsar had already had a close call in 1905, so clearly the fall of the Tsardom was not a one-off tragedy of circumstances. Something about the nature of the Tsardom had set it off, and I say this as something of a Royalist myself. To not even attempt to address that, is sheer cowardice. It’s like the old boomer that says the US could have stayed in Vietnam and won the war. Ya, on paper maybe, but how are you going to convince your soldiers to keep fighting and dying, for some cause that will never affect them? Morale and faith in the government is part of war, and part of being a good sovereign. When Nicholas II let front and home conditions atrophy to the point that the military removed him from power, he lost the war.

  35. @melanf

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    You can absolutely not worry about it. Anatoly Karlin (in those cases when it does not translate Yegor Kholmogorov) a reasonable person, but among the "Russian nationalists" such man is a very very rare exception. The so-called "Russian nationalists" in Russia today are a bunch of disgusting marginal freaks whose only contribution to politics is a complete discredit of nationalism.

    who apparently hasn’t even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic state
     
    Well, Egor Kholmogorov is a private marginal person. But the Baltic States have at the state level claims to Russian lands - lands to which these States have absolutely no rights (neither historical nor demographic).

    for example:
    "Тhe head of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Estonia Mart Helme said that Tallinn has unresolved territorial claims to Russia. According to him, Moscow "holds" more than five percent of Estonian lands. Helme noted that the Russian side does not want to return these territories or pay compensation for them."


    These lands are Ivangorod where Grand Duke Ivan III built this castle in the 15th century.

    https://ivbg.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4-1024x676.jpg

    Before Ivan these lands belonged to Novgorod. However, since Estonia (having no legal rights) occupied these lands between the world wars, according to the Estonian government these are now Estonian lands. And these territorial requirements are not yet supported by NATO tanks solely because Russia has a thermonuclear bomb. I am not a fan of Kholmogorov, but it is strange to condemn him in matters relating to the Baltic States, despite the fact that the Baltic States have such a brazen state imperialism.

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?

    • Replies: @melanf

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?
     
    And who are these nationalists? It is enough to look at any forum of nationalists-there (round the clock!) Two Minutes Hate on such topics as "Putin is a secret Jew", "Muslims make up the majority of the population of Moscow", "Russians are blond nordids-Aryans, oldest people on earth". The political influence of the nationalists is not even zero, but negative. Rallies of nationalists is a show of freaks, over which all laugh (below is real photo, not a frame from eccentric Comedy)

    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6304/80994503.3/0_76c82_fa7c9cd1_XXL.jpg

    Can you name me a reasonable Russian nationalist? I know two - you and Natalia Kholmogorova (not to be confused with Yegor Kholmogorov). Perhaps there are others but their number is sooooo small


    including relative to, say, Goblin
     
    Stalinist Goblin-Puchkov is a nationalist? Hmmm. He's definitely a freak because it always says stuff (like his claims that Ivan the terrible increased the territory of Russia 25 times)
  36. @German_reader

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.
     
    That's their right, but if you're taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov's screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you'll have to live with harsh criticism. I don't think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov's views? I simply can't think of a reason.

    I don’t, of course, since nationalisms tend to be particularist ideologies, not universal ones. They can have alliances of convenience (anti-Communism, today anti-immigration) but no real ones of conviction, unless the peoples in question are already very close.

    What I don’t follow is how exactly you read a call for border revision into this article. Sure, Holmes – like 90% of Russian nationalists – supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia. But this is not what this article in particular is about. Of course this doesn’t stop the demented armenoid Sovokdian (no offense to Armenians) extrapolated a defense of Russia’s WW1 war aims to having designs on Istanbul or Prague *today*.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Sure, Holmes – like 90% of Russian nationalists – supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia.
     
    Just how much border revision, though?
  37. @utu
    Russian nationalists (presumably the anti-Bolshevik ones like Kolmogorov and probably Karlin) must outbid sovoks thus Russia w/o Revolution would be more bigger and more better hence they fall into the trap of imperialism. Perhaps they should be called white sovoks as opposed the proper sovoks who are red.

    Just a note that the Black sovok utu is on record demanding Russia conduct a nuclear strike on Israel, likely annihilating itself just to pursue his particular ideological obsession.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Can Israeli nuclear missiles actually reach Russia's major population centers?
  38. Anatoly Karlin

    in my opinion the deepest and most talented Russian nationalist politologist is Egor Kholmogorov, who is based, economically literate

    Egor Kholmogorov

    Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …
     
    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political "theories" developed in the deep recesses of the Western "academia". But this is what Karlin, both out of ignorance and volition, is trying to do. Kholmogorov is a clown with zero academic background and he is mostly in promoting himself for a variety of reasons and "works" in a relatively safe (for him) field of "humanities", that is to say people who have no clue mostly, dealing with pre-revolutionary Russia. In general, Kholmogorov, as a man without good education, loves waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes. His attempts to argue with professional historians usually end up really badly for him.
    , @Seraphim
    A bit of honesty would have prevented you to suggest that it was Kholomogorov who said that 'not just Prague...', but the "Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen in 1934" praising the disappearance of Russia as an organized state (which was precisely one of the war aims of the Central Powers).
  39. @Daniel.I
    Anatoly Karlin

    in my opinion the deepest and most talented Russian nationalist politologist is Egor Kholmogorov, who is based, economically literate
     
    Egor Kholmogorov

    Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers
     
    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer ...

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    • Agree: Denis
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

     

    Serbia did not actually buy any S-400's at all to begin with (it only bought the Pantsir-S which Americans did not object to), so Serbia did not actually cancel anything under American pressure.

    Serbia actually can't afford to buy S-400's up front. Buying anything by taking out loans or making several payments over many installments is a bad idea, even if it concerns high quality Russian anti-air weapons systems.

    Just so everyone gets the basic facts correct about the matter:

    https://nationandstate.com/2019/11/10/us-threatens-sanctions-on-serbia-scrambles-to-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/

    , @Daniel.I
    Romania's rulers (with a few notable exceptions) never had a spine.
    That's what centuries of enslavement will do to you.

    But that's not my point.

    You obviously think I'm some sort of knee-jerk Russophobe.

    I'm not.
    I was against joining the EU (my friends thought I was insane).
    I am very much in favour of a positive identity for Eastern Europe - as opposed to just being defective Westerners.
    I very much think that Eastern Europe would do well to go its own way (my time in Belgium convinced me of that).
    And yes, that would require Russian leadership (obviously).

    But I'm having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia's mercy.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.
     
    There was no "cancellation" because there was no contract to start with, Serbia is still receiving S1 Pantsyr's for which there is a contract with Russia, the same as Russia providing 6 refurbished MiG-29s for Serbia Air Force. Main issue with S-400 is its price. For small nation such as Serbia the only way she can afford it is on loan issued by Russia. US pressure is a given no matter what Serbia does and this issue is a teeny-weeny "above" just Serbia's desires.
    , @for-the-record
    even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Are you sure of this? As far as I can tell, the only purchase that Syria announced was for the Pantsir, which remains on schedule for delivery over the next few months. The Serbian President did express an interest in the S-400 but was also quoted as saying “the only way would be if Russia left them with us [i.e. for free]. Otherwise we do not have the means to procure them.”

    https://thedefensepost.com/2019/11/10/us-serbia-russia-military-systems-pantsir-s-400/
    , @Denis
    I just looked into the matter regarding Serbia. Tyler Durden seems to support your interpretation:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-threatens-serbia-sanctions-scrambles-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/ri27846

    Although granted this was not out of deference to America, but due to the threat of sanctions.

    , @reiner Tor
    There's a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don't seem to understand it, instead - if your comments are an indication of their attitudes - they are still in the business of insulting or - at least implicitly - threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don't really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could've guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

  40. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Serbia did not actually buy any S-400’s at all to begin with (it only bought the Pantsir-S which Americans did not object to), so Serbia did not actually cancel anything under American pressure.

    Serbia actually can’t afford to buy S-400’s up front. Buying anything by taking out loans or making several payments over many installments is a bad idea, even if it concerns high quality Russian anti-air weapons systems.

    Just so everyone gets the basic facts correct about the matter:

    https://nationandstate.com/2019/11/10/us-threatens-sanctions-on-serbia-scrambles-to-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  41. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not hostile to German nationalists per se obviously. I don't feel like hunting down the particular thread but German_nationalist has expressed the sentiment before that it's not a bad thing that Putin represses Russian nationalists (before 282 was decriminalized). So just returning the well wishes.

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can't say I'll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn't for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Likewise Russian nationalism does support border revision because there are tens of millions of ethnic Russians and closely related peoples outside Russia. However, border revision to include the entirety of the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is ridiculous and does indeed stretch into the territory of Imperialism, as German_Reader correctly identifies.
     
    The interesting thing, though, is that the Baltic countries (especially Latvia and Estonia) would probably be easier to Russify than, say, western Ukraine or even central Ukraine would. After all, they could be flooded by a lot of Russian settlers--similar to what occurred in the post-WWII decades, but even further. In contrast, central and western Ukraine would require much more Russian settlers than the Baltic countries would. Of course, capturing the Baltic countries would obviously not be a viable option due to them being in NATO. Still, had Russia permanently held onto them (for instance, if there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917), I would think that the odds of a successful Russification of at least Latvia and Estonia would have been higher than a successful Russification of central and western Ukraine would have been. Of course, the ethnic Latvians and ethnic Estonians would have of course never actually become Russians; rather, they could have simply been outnumbered by ethnic Russian settlers.
    , @Bookish1
    I am glad you said border change is almost always based on kindred group. The fact is that Danzig and Prussia were German for over 8 centuries. There is a justification for it being German once again. Imagine if someone took North Dakota from the uS and drove out the americans populating with people from a different country. We would be screaming forever.
  42. @Anatoly Karlin
    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are "marginal disgusting freaks", including relative to, say, Goblin (he of "anti-Soviet equals Russophobe" fame)?

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?

    And who are these nationalists? It is enough to look at any forum of nationalists-there (round the clock!) Two Minutes Hate on such topics as “Putin is a secret Jew”, “Muslims make up the majority of the population of Moscow”, “Russians are blond nordids-Aryans, oldest people on earth”. The political influence of the nationalists is not even zero, but negative. Rallies of nationalists is a show of freaks, over which all laugh (below is real photo, not a frame from eccentric Comedy)

    Can you name me a reasonable Russian nationalist? I know two – you and Natalia Kholmogorova (not to be confused with Yegor Kholmogorov). Perhaps there are others but their number is sooooo small

    including relative to, say, Goblin

    Stalinist Goblin-Puchkov is a nationalist? Hmmm. He’s definitely a freak because it always says stuff (like his claims that Ivan the terrible increased the territory of Russia 25 times)

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I'll answer on more detail later, but I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum. Obviously, such examples can be multiplied.
  43. @melanf

    Could you identify how exactly Russian nationalists are “marginal disgusting freaks”, including relative to, say, Goblin (he of “anti-Soviet equals Russophobe” fame)?
     
    And who are these nationalists? It is enough to look at any forum of nationalists-there (round the clock!) Two Minutes Hate on such topics as "Putin is a secret Jew", "Muslims make up the majority of the population of Moscow", "Russians are blond nordids-Aryans, oldest people on earth". The political influence of the nationalists is not even zero, but negative. Rallies of nationalists is a show of freaks, over which all laugh (below is real photo, not a frame from eccentric Comedy)

    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6304/80994503.3/0_76c82_fa7c9cd1_XXL.jpg

    Can you name me a reasonable Russian nationalist? I know two - you and Natalia Kholmogorova (not to be confused with Yegor Kholmogorov). Perhaps there are others but their number is sooooo small


    including relative to, say, Goblin
     
    Stalinist Goblin-Puchkov is a nationalist? Hmmm. He's definitely a freak because it always says stuff (like his claims that Ivan the terrible increased the territory of Russia 25 times)

    I’ll answer on more detail later, but I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum. Obviously, such examples can be multiplied.

    • Replies: @melanf

    I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum
     
    This is undoubtedly true, but the problem is that Russia does not have a non-marginal and non-Frick nationalism as a minimally visible political force. And those freaks who are discredit any idea associated with nationalism.
  44. @Anatoly Karlin
    I'll answer on more detail later, but I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum. Obviously, such examples can be multiplied.

    I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum

    This is undoubtedly true, but the problem is that Russia does not have a non-marginal and non-Frick nationalism as a minimally visible political force. And those freaks who are discredit any idea associated with nationalism.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Wells, Yuneman is pretty respectable (if as yet low profile). Sergey Grigorov of the Russian Democrats. Vladimir Tor and Dmitry Bobrov, at least these days. Alexander Zhuchkovsky. Norin, the historian. A bunch of conservative intellectuals such as Mezhuev are more or less open nationalists.
  45. Karlin, I don’t know what’s the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I’ll give a hint–it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody’s ass with “new historic research” without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don’t expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about “psychometrics” and other “intelligence’ stuff–you constantly dragging into the “discussion” losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe “thinkers” scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
    • LOL: Yevardian
    • Replies: @AltSerrice
    Hello? Cringe Department?

    La creatura oscuro sovoko
    , @AP
    Kholomogorov does indeed write some nonsense. However:

    what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I’ll give a hint–it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom.
     
    So a graduate of a second-tier military academy that led to a brief and mediocre career as a low-level Soviet naval officer in Azerbaijan or wherever, followed by working as a tutor for American high school children (this is public info, I am not doxxing), makes fun of the history faculty at Russia's probably top university? LOL.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    You're a second-rate failed boomer Sovok living in the United States with shellacked Brezhnev-era hair obsessed with "education" credentials.

    If you're so highly educated why don't you understand how to space paragraphs in your unhinged rants?

    , @Dmitry
    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    He does not write about crazy conspiracy theories. He can read books, and can write and speak quite well. And when he is a television host of Anatoly Vasserman's show - where he seems an eccentric, but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    , @Anatoly Karlin

    ... presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University
     
    With all due respect (not much), as a graduate of a second-tier naval academy, I don't think you're optimally placed to invoke argument from credentials.

    I don’t expect from you any substantive answers...
     
    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
    https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258953

    This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons.
     
    Holmes goes into these statistics in this very article.

    Yes, Russia started from a low base, for which it can be criticized. But its growth rate in shell production from early 1916 to late 1916-February 1917 was explosive (by that latter point, production had converged to the level of the Big Three in 1916 - France, UK, and Germany).

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oldadmiral/1436531/38429/38429_original.jpg

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29592/29592_900.jpg

    Artillery production: Comparable to that of France, Great Britain, and A-H throughout the war.

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29269/29269_900.jpg

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it's not like the USSR even "caught up" relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    I am getting popcorn 😉
  46. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Romania’s rulers (with a few notable exceptions) never had a spine.
    That’s what centuries of enslavement will do to you.

    But that’s not my point.

    You obviously think I’m some sort of knee-jerk Russophobe.

    I’m not.
    I was against joining the EU (my friends thought I was insane).
    I am very much in favour of a positive identity for Eastern Europe – as opposed to just being defective Westerners.
    I very much think that Eastern Europe would do well to go its own way (my time in Belgium convinced me of that).
    And yes, that would require Russian leadership (obviously).

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    • Replies: @AP

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.
     
    Would you prefer that they conceal their real attitudes, which would probably be reflected in real policies if they were to come to power, so you can "sell" something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to?

    Reality is that the smaller countries between the West and Russia have to be wary of both of those forces. Ideally they would have to ally with one another and hopefully maintain good relations from a position of relative strength, rather than be divided and treated piecemeal by the Russians and the West (Franco-Germans).
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.
     
    Again, and for the n'th time, I am really curious where exactly in this article Holmes says anything at all about taking Prague or Istanbul or even the Baltics.

    Do people who think that the US was wrong to rebel against the British Empire suppose the UK invading Washington D.C.?

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian's fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).
  47. @Yevardian

    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.
     
    Nationalists with pipe-dreams of raising the Imperial Flag in Prague and Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without. What even is your position anyway? Half the time you say Russia would be better off without the Caucasus, and then it's revanchism against the Baltics.

    Istanbul Russia (and the world) can do without

    Actually liberating Constantinople from the Turks is something the world could all benefit from.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Sounds like a plan.

    On might ask the inhabitants before?
  48. OT

    The British Army guy who set up the White Helmet propaganda crew has been found dead in Istanbul. Had his usefulness come to an end? Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    "The security source said Le Mesurier’s wife told police that she and her husband had taken sleeping pills around 4 a.m. and went to bed. She said she was later woken by knocking on the door and discovered that her husband was lying on the street surrounded by police, the source added."
     
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-security-white-helmets/key-backer-of-syrian-white-helmets-found-dead-in-istanbul-idUKKBN1XL1B1
    , @for-the-record
    Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    Did Russia drive hero British aid boss to his death? Wife says former army officer who fell from Istanbul balcony was under 'intense stress' following year-long Moscow smear campaign branding him a spy

    The British co-founder of Syria's White Helmets who fell to his death from his Istanbul balcony was under 'intense stress' and had suffered a years-long Russian smear campaign against him . . . A security source has told Reuters that his death is being treated as suspected suicide. But mystery still surrounds his death, with suspicions raised that it may have been ordered by a state actor.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7672621/British-founder-White-Helmets-Syria-dead-days-Russia-accused-spy.html
     
  49. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.

    Here is a “pearl” of “strategy” by Egorushka (diminutive of Egor, because in Russia he is viewed mostly as a village fool)

    Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.

    This doesn’t even make sense in a pure housewife’s level of thinking, in terms of having any historic, let alone military meaning–it is beyond redemption. Evidently, Karlin doesn’t care of about reputation, whatever that means in his world, bringing, granted his blog, a collection of meaningless phrases concocted by BS Artist of a first order. This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons. But facts be damned–numbers are too difficult for this fat idiot who couldn’t even complete couple years of History Faculty in university. Obviously such things as weight of salvo, the same as why Osipov published his historic “Estimation of Victims of War” in 1915 are beyond Kholmogorov’s grasp. I will omit here the fact of WHO Kholmogorov actually is in real life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Dang, smoovie, don't sugar coat it, tell us what you really think.
    , @Philip Owen
    In the initial engagement with a small German force with limited artillery the Russians did use artillery to advantage. However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced. The Germans used the rail network to concentrate their forces so their one well equipped, well trained Arney fought the two separate Russian armies.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.
  50. @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin, I don't know what's the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-"historian" who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I'll give a hint--it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody's ass with "new historic research" without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don't expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about "psychometrics" and other "intelligence' stuff--you constantly dragging into the "discussion" losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe "thinkers" scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    Hello? Cringe Department?

    La creatura oscuro sovoko

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

    … I won’t be doing it again … so my participation in this thread ends here.

    Stop taking this attitude! Keep writing your comments.

    BTW, I’m about 20% (having to take time out for a new book on Reconstruction in the South) into Bombers and the Bombed, and to say that my eyes are being opened doesn’t even come close to being descriptive.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    BTW, I’m about 20% (having to take time out for a new book on Reconstruction in the South) into Bombers and the Bombed, and to say that my eyes are being opened doesn’t even come close to being descriptive.
     
    Is that the American or the British edition? Apparently the American edition only contains half of the original book.

    Either way it's definitely going on my shopping list.
  52. @Daniel.I
    Anatoly Karlin

    in my opinion the deepest and most talented Russian nationalist politologist is Egor Kholmogorov, who is based, economically literate
     
    Egor Kholmogorov

    Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers
     
    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer ...

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” developed in the deep recesses of the Western “academia”. But this is what Karlin, both out of ignorance and volition, is trying to do. Kholmogorov is a clown with zero academic background and he is mostly in promoting himself for a variety of reasons and “works” in a relatively safe (for him) field of “humanities”, that is to say people who have no clue mostly, dealing with pre-revolutionary Russia. In general, Kholmogorov, as a man without good education, loves waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes. His attempts to argue with professional historians usually end up really badly for him.

    • Agree: Daniel.I
    • Replies: @iffen
    waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes.

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” yada, yada, yada ...

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.
  53. @Andrei Martyanov

    There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.
     
    Here is a "pearl" of "strategy" by Egorushka (diminutive of Egor, because in Russia he is viewed mostly as a village fool)

    Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.
     
    This doesn't even make sense in a pure housewife's level of thinking, in terms of having any historic, let alone military meaning--it is beyond redemption. Evidently, Karlin doesn't care of about reputation, whatever that means in his world, bringing, granted his blog, a collection of meaningless phrases concocted by BS Artist of a first order. This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons. But facts be damned--numbers are too difficult for this fat idiot who couldn't even complete couple years of History Faculty in university. Obviously such things as weight of salvo, the same as why Osipov published his historic "Estimation of Victims of War" in 1915 are beyond Kholmogorov's grasp. I will omit here the fact of WHO Kholmogorov actually is in real life.

    Dang, smoovie, don’t sugar coat it, tell us what you really think.

  54. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    There was no “cancellation” because there was no contract to start with, Serbia is still receiving S1 Pantsyr’s for which there is a contract with Russia, the same as Russia providing 6 refurbished MiG-29s for Serbia Air Force. Main issue with S-400 is its price. For small nation such as Serbia the only way she can afford it is on loan issued by Russia. US pressure is a given no matter what Serbia does and this issue is a teeny-weeny “above” just Serbia’s desires.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Even though I think you are a Sovok wierdo, I still agree with your comment since it is factually correct, and you are surprisingly well informed on the matter.
  55. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

     

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could've easily chosen to accept Serbia's reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn't. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia's response to A-H's ultimatum removed any reason for war ...

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand's assassination (which they weren't, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would've acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830's and 1840's. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn't accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia ...

    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government.

    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia. It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It’s important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly. The Serbs lost what – 25% of their population? Despite the Serbian government eventually executing the architect of this crime. The Tsar, otherwise a rather decent man, who shamefully went to war to protect this disgusting Serbian regime was himself murdered along with his family.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

     

    No. You are the one falsifying history with your trashy Ukrop Catholic Triunism.

    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia.
     
    No. A-H's demand would have led to the end of the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state. After all, do countries not have the right to dare to fight to exist and survive as sovereign states? What's so wrong with that?

    It's also not entirely true that APIS (Dragutin Dimitrijevic) trained and armed the assassins since Gavrilo Princip went to London before the assassination and Young Bosnia plus Black Hand had extensive international Freemason connections.

    In the event, the Serbian government even expressed a willingness to accept this clause of A-H's ultimatum upon further negotiation. Of course, it's not good enough for you, since you consider it more than reasonable for Austria Hungary to start a World War in order to end the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state even though they had other realistic, viable and practical alternatives available to them in the moment.


    It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

     

    I'm glad you made this comparison since anyone who is well informed knows that Israel did 9-11 instead of how the Americans falsely claimed Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein did 9-11. Similarly, they can also tell in this regard that just like Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein are not truly at fault for 9-11, the same applies for Serbia and Serbs.

    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It’s important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly.
     
    That's nothing compared to what Austria-Hungary was encouraging against Serbs in the years before 1914 and would do later to Serbs from 1914-1918.

    Austria-Hungary actively supports majority Muslim Albanian massacres of Serb civilians on Kosovo in 1901 (mind you, this is before the 1903 coup in Serbia where the pro Austria-Hungary Obrenovic dynasty was overthrown):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    Austria-Hungary tries to crash Serbia's economy from 1906-1908 and fails:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1906%E2%80%9308)

    Austria-Hungary persecutes Serbs on false pretexts in order to silence their political voices and representation in the Empire from 1908 and onward:

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

    Then there's also the anti-Serb riots and pogroms in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in modern day Bosnia, Croatia and Vojvodina) encouraged by Austria-Hungary's authorities against Serbs on the same day of the assassination where 2 Serbs are killed and hundreds of Serb properties are burnt, destroyed and looted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Serb_riots_in_Sarajevo

    There are many more examples i can come up with which aren't available in English language sources, but that's just the top of the iceberg of what Austria-Hungary encouraged and actively did against Serbs and Serbia.

  56. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT

    The British Army guy who set up the White Helmet propaganda crew has been found dead in Istanbul. Had his usefulness come to an end? Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1193878679086129158

    “The security source said Le Mesurier’s wife told police that she and her husband had taken sleeping pills around 4 a.m. and went to bed. She said she was later woken by knocking on the door and discovered that her husband was lying on the street surrounded by police, the source added.”

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-security-white-helmets/key-backer-of-syrian-white-helmets-found-dead-in-istanbul-idUKKBN1XL1B1

  57. @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin, I don't know what's the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-"historian" who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I'll give a hint--it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody's ass with "new historic research" without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don't expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about "psychometrics" and other "intelligence' stuff--you constantly dragging into the "discussion" losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe "thinkers" scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    Kholomogorov does indeed write some nonsense. However:

    what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I’ll give a hint–it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom.

    So a graduate of a second-tier military academy that led to a brief and mediocre career as a low-level Soviet naval officer in Azerbaijan or wherever, followed by working as a tutor for American high school children (this is public info, I am not doxxing), makes fun of the history faculty at Russia’s probably top university? LOL.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  58. @Daniel.I
    Romania's rulers (with a few notable exceptions) never had a spine.
    That's what centuries of enslavement will do to you.

    But that's not my point.

    You obviously think I'm some sort of knee-jerk Russophobe.

    I'm not.
    I was against joining the EU (my friends thought I was insane).
    I am very much in favour of a positive identity for Eastern Europe - as opposed to just being defective Westerners.
    I very much think that Eastern Europe would do well to go its own way (my time in Belgium convinced me of that).
    And yes, that would require Russian leadership (obviously).

    But I'm having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia's mercy.

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    Would you prefer that they conceal their real attitudes, which would probably be reflected in real policies if they were to come to power, so you can “sell” something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to?

    Reality is that the smaller countries between the West and Russia have to be wary of both of those forces. Ideally they would have to ally with one another and hopefully maintain good relations from a position of relative strength, rather than be divided and treated piecemeal by the Russians and the West (Franco-Germans).

    • Replies: @Daniel.I

    something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to
     
    I'm not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    So ... I don't quite see the great harm in being Russia's little brother.
    At the very least, it wouldn't be worse than being ZOG's little brother.
  59. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    I don't think he really played the "Nazi card" against you but whatever I guess

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

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

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

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

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.
     
    Would you prefer that they conceal their real attitudes, which would probably be reflected in real policies if they were to come to power, so you can "sell" something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to?

    Reality is that the smaller countries between the West and Russia have to be wary of both of those forces. Ideally they would have to ally with one another and hopefully maintain good relations from a position of relative strength, rather than be divided and treated piecemeal by the Russians and the West (Franco-Germans).

    something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.
    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.

    • Replies: @AP

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.
     
    Correct. They also did not vote the Communists into power; their country was basically hijacked.

    Nevertheless, being under Moscow meant, for Ukrainians, about 3 million peasants starved to death. It was not a good deal. 1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania, either.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.
     
    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone's little brother.

    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.
     
    Would you really classify Poland that way? It has been far more successful than neighboring Belarus.
  61. @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin, I don't know what's the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-"historian" who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I'll give a hint--it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody's ass with "new historic research" without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don't expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about "psychometrics" and other "intelligence' stuff--you constantly dragging into the "discussion" losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe "thinkers" scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    You’re a second-rate failed boomer Sovok living in the United States with shellacked Brezhnev-era hair obsessed with “education” credentials.

    If you’re so highly educated why don’t you understand how to space paragraphs in your unhinged rants?

    • LOL: AP
  62. @Andrei Martyanov

    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer …
     
    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political "theories" developed in the deep recesses of the Western "academia". But this is what Karlin, both out of ignorance and volition, is trying to do. Kholmogorov is a clown with zero academic background and he is mostly in promoting himself for a variety of reasons and "works" in a relatively safe (for him) field of "humanities", that is to say people who have no clue mostly, dealing with pre-revolutionary Russia. In general, Kholmogorov, as a man without good education, loves waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes. His attempts to argue with professional historians usually end up really badly for him.

    waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes.

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” yada, yada, yada …

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.
     
    Some, probably, do. By far not all.
  63. @Daniel.I

    something that would be harmful to those you are selling it to
     
    I'm not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    So ... I don't quite see the great harm in being Russia's little brother.
    At the very least, it wouldn't be worse than being ZOG's little brother.

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.

    Correct. They also did not vote the Communists into power; their country was basically hijacked.

    Nevertheless, being under Moscow meant, for Ukrainians, about 3 million peasants starved to death. It was not a good deal. 1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania, either.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.

    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone’s little brother.

    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.

    Would you really classify Poland that way? It has been far more successful than neighboring Belarus.

    • Replies: @iffen
    They also did not vote the Communists into power

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Oh hell, let's skip the tedious details.

    Who was "worse" Stalin or Hitler?
    , @Daniel.I
    1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania

    True, but I do believe (some) things have changed.

    Would you really classify Poland that way?

    Yes I would.
    Do you really think you can dance with the Devil and avoid going to Hell ?
    ZOG has sunk its claws into Poland.
    Let's see how/if they can get out of this

    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone’s little brother.

    Romania has never been independent. NEVER.
    I don't expect that to change in the future.
  64. @AP

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.
     
    Correct. They also did not vote the Communists into power; their country was basically hijacked.

    Nevertheless, being under Moscow meant, for Ukrainians, about 3 million peasants starved to death. It was not a good deal. 1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania, either.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.
     
    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone's little brother.

    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.
     
    Would you really classify Poland that way? It has been far more successful than neighboring Belarus.

    They also did not vote the Communists into power

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?

    • Replies: @AP

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?
     
    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg/350px-Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg.png

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians - they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?
     
    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin's crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.
  65. @iffen
    waxing philosophical and in pathos-ridden generalities and platitudes.

    Russian nationalism is a complex phenomenon and can not be categorized in the framework born out of pseudo-political “theories” yada, yada, yada ...

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.

    Some, probably, do. By far not all.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    ok boomer
  66. @AP

    I’m not going to blame the Russian people for communism, since they suffered under it a lot more than (almost) everyone else.
     
    Correct. They also did not vote the Communists into power; their country was basically hijacked.

    Nevertheless, being under Moscow meant, for Ukrainians, about 3 million peasants starved to death. It was not a good deal. 1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania, either.

    So … I don’t quite see the great harm in being Russia’s little brother.
     
    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone's little brother.

    At the very least, it wouldn’t be worse than being ZOG’s little brother.
     
    Would you really classify Poland that way? It has been far more successful than neighboring Belarus.

    1945-1989 was not a good deal for Romania

    True, but I do believe (some) things have changed.

    Would you really classify Poland that way?

    Yes I would.
    Do you really think you can dance with the Devil and avoid going to Hell ?
    ZOG has sunk its claws into Poland.
    Let’s see how/if they can get out of this

    Being one of several equals, is better than being anyone’s little brother.

    Romania has never been independent. NEVER.
    I don’t expect that to change in the future.

  67. @AP
    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government.
     
    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia. It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.
     
    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It's important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly. The Serbs lost what - 25% of their population? Despite the Serbian government eventually executing the architect of this crime. The Tsar, otherwise a rather decent man, who shamefully went to war to protect this disgusting Serbian regime was himself murdered along with his family.

    You are the last person to be arguing about historical details LOL.

    No. You are the one falsifying history with your trashy Ukrop Catholic Triunism.

    It refused the reasonable demand that Austrian investigators pursue within Serbia a crime that was created in Serbia by a high-ranking Serbian official, whose criminals were trained and armed in Serbia.

    No. A-H’s demand would have led to the end of the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state. After all, do countries not have the right to dare to fight to exist and survive as sovereign states? What’s so wrong with that?

    It’s also not entirely true that APIS (Dragutin Dimitrijevic) trained and armed the assassins since Gavrilo Princip went to London before the assassination and Young Bosnia plus Black Hand had extensive international Freemason connections.

    In the event, the Serbian government even expressed a willingness to accept this clause of A-H’s ultimatum upon further negotiation. Of course, it’s not good enough for you, since you consider it more than reasonable for Austria Hungary to start a World War in order to end the existence of Serbia as a sovereign state even though they had other realistic, viable and practical alternatives available to them in the moment.

    It was a comparable demand that the USA made of the Taliban after 9-11.

    I’m glad you made this comparison since anyone who is well informed knows that Israel did 9-11 instead of how the Americans falsely claimed Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein did 9-11. Similarly, they can also tell in this regard that just like Afghanistan, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein are not truly at fault for 9-11, the same applies for Serbia and Serbs.

    Whether someone liked FF or not, it was still the upcoming head of state, murdered with his wife in cold blood, by criminals organized, trained and armed by a figure in the Serbian government. It was murder of a crown prince. It’s important to note that everyone associated with this horrific crime suffered dearly.

    That’s nothing compared to what Austria-Hungary was encouraging against Serbs in the years before 1914 and would do later to Serbs from 1914-1918.

    Austria-Hungary actively supports majority Muslim Albanian massacres of Serb civilians on Kosovo in 1901 (mind you, this is before the 1903 coup in Serbia where the pro Austria-Hungary Obrenovic dynasty was overthrown):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    Austria-Hungary tries to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908 and fails:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1906%E2%80%9308)

    Austria-Hungary persecutes Serbs on false pretexts in order to silence their political voices and representation in the Empire from 1908 and onward:

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

    Then there’s also the anti-Serb riots and pogroms in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in modern day Bosnia, Croatia and Vojvodina) encouraged by Austria-Hungary’s authorities against Serbs on the same day of the assassination where 2 Serbs are killed and hundreds of Serb properties are burnt, destroyed and looted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Serb_riots_in_Sarajevo

    There are many more examples i can come up with which aren’t available in English language sources, but that’s just the top of the iceberg of what Austria-Hungary encouraged and actively did against Serbs and Serbia.

  68. @Andrei Martyanov

    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.
     
    There was no "cancellation" because there was no contract to start with, Serbia is still receiving S1 Pantsyr's for which there is a contract with Russia, the same as Russia providing 6 refurbished MiG-29s for Serbia Air Force. Main issue with S-400 is its price. For small nation such as Serbia the only way she can afford it is on loan issued by Russia. US pressure is a given no matter what Serbia does and this issue is a teeny-weeny "above" just Serbia's desires.

    Even though I think you are a Sovok wierdo, I still agree with your comment since it is factually correct, and you are surprisingly well informed on the matter.

  69. @Andrei Martyanov

    Just so you know that some of us can multi-task, that is, read and think.
     
    Some, probably, do. By far not all.

    ok boomer

    • Replies: @Denis
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-07/-ok-boomer-phrase-says-more-about-the-kids-than-about-us-boomers
  70. 3552231

    Lithuania is slightly different….but in Estonia and Latvia almost EVERYTHING there is because of either historical Germany or Russia you cretin. Every block of stone used for building, every railway…everything.

    Don’t forget Denmark and Sweden

  71. @iffen
    They also did not vote the Communists into power

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Oh hell, let's skip the tedious details.

    Who was "worse" Stalin or Hitler?

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?

    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians – they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?

    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin’s crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, Mr. XYZ
    • Replies: @iffen
    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn't admit it. Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won't admit it.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians – they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.
     
    The Left Socialist Revolutionaries were utter morons in supporting the Bolsheviks.
    , @reiner Tor
    This is a gross oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

  72. @AP

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?
     
    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg/350px-Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg.png

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians - they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?
     
    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin's crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it. Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.

    • Replies: @AP

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it
     
    I'm not an expert on Russian SRs, but they not commies. They were democratic, national-populist, agrarian (peasants) and dominated by ethnic Russians. Out of a sense of patriotism most of them supported Russia during World War I. Bolsheviks were non-democratic, urban prole (they genocided Russian and Ukrainian peasants), tried to undermine Russia's war effort during World War I, and dominated by a multinational gang of criminals.

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.


    Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.
     
    And Spaniards are Italians (Romans) but won't admit it.
  73. @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin, I don't know what's the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-"historian" who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I'll give a hint--it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody's ass with "new historic research" without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don't expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about "psychometrics" and other "intelligence' stuff--you constantly dragging into the "discussion" losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe "thinkers" scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    He does not write about crazy conspiracy theories. He can read books, and can write and speak quite well. And when he is a television host of Anatoly Vasserman’s show – where he seems an eccentric, but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.
     
    Again, Kholmogorov is not "nationalist", he is media persona who grew out of grim times (smuta) of late 1990s--early 2000s. Russia still fights the "belch" of this "intellectual" movement. Any opinion of Kholmogorov on any military matter of the 20th century is an opinion of an amateur. He is what in Russian language defined as недалекий человек (English version--narrow-minded--does not fully explain the meaning). He is no historian, he is low level propagandist which has zero expertise in history, let alone subjects which are beyond that.

    He can read books, and can write and speak quite well
     
    There is reading and then there is "reading". He is no autodidact, not even close. Him not being able to get any facts straight is a first proof of that. Yes, he can write--you know, letters, words. He even is able sometimes to string together couple of sentences.

    but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.
     
    I knew and, actually know, a rather large number of people who not only wear clean clothes, but drive really nice cars and own property, moreover, some of them have Ph.Ds, including in such subjects as Applied Physics, Computer Science etc. Yet, even among them I know at least few people who qualify as complete dumbfvcks. So it is rather an unconvincing criterion.
  74. @AltSerrice
    Frankly the little hit on German nationalists at the end strikes me as being rather petty.

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

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

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

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

    I am not hostile to German nationalists per se obviously. I don’t feel like hunting down the particular thread but German_nationalist has expressed the sentiment before that it’s not a bad thing that Putin represses Russian nationalists (before 282 was decriminalized). So just returning the well wishes.

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can’t say I’ll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn’t for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    • Replies: @German_reader

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again
     
    You're mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn't be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn't want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don't think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it's against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he's made it very clear again and again that he doesn't care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states...for him they're apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there's this crazy WW1 revisionism...Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the "correct" outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia's WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered "What if Russia wins?"), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don't you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I've been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can’t say I’ll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn’t for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).
     
    TBH, I strongly suspect that this boat has already passed long ago. After World War II, Austrians created a new, Austrian (or perhaps Neo-Austrian, following the identity that they had before 1918) identity for themselves and don't appear to be particularly fond of the idea of being viewed as Germans.

    For that matter, Hungary has already long renounced its territorial claims to its pre-Trianon territories. Hungary has, of course, been willing to give Hungarian passports to its ethnic confreres across the border, but I don't think that any serious Hungarian--even a nationalistic one--actually wants to wage war to recover some or all of Hungary's pre-Trianon territories.

    As for Russian nationalists, if they really want to acquire Belarus, they should offer Lukashenko the opportunity to become Russia's leader. This might have been what Lukashenko was thinking of doing eventually when he agreed to the Union State in the late 1990s before Putin's rise blocked Lukashenko's potential path to power in Russia. When one has one's own fiefdom, one might not want to be a small guppy in someone else's pond. Anyway, though, just like the US can survive without Canada, Russia can survive without Ukraine and Belarus. In any case, eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus aren't actually going to be worth that much by 2100--with eastern+southern Ukraine having a population of perhaps 10 million in 2100 (a roughly twofold decrease from right now) while Belarus will have a population of perhaps 7-8 million in 2100. This would be in contrast to Russia's 125 million people or so in 2100. So, a Russian annexation of eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus won't be worth all that much by 2100 considering that it would only increase Russia's total population by around one-sixth.

  75. @iffen
    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn't admit it. Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won't admit it.

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it

    I’m not an expert on Russian SRs, but they not commies. They were democratic, national-populist, agrarian (peasants) and dominated by ethnic Russians. Out of a sense of patriotism most of them supported Russia during World War I. Bolsheviks were non-democratic, urban prole (they genocided Russian and Ukrainian peasants), tried to undermine Russia’s war effort during World War I, and dominated by a multinational gang of criminals.

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.

    Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.

    And Spaniards are Italians (Romans) but won’t admit it.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.

    Close enough for government work.
  76. @melanf

    I cited goblin to illustrate that marginal freakism is hardly limited to the nationalist wing of the political spectrum
     
    This is undoubtedly true, but the problem is that Russia does not have a non-marginal and non-Frick nationalism as a minimally visible political force. And those freaks who are discredit any idea associated with nationalism.

    Wells, Yuneman is pretty respectable (if as yet low profile). Sergey Grigorov of the Russian Democrats. Vladimir Tor and Dmitry Bobrov, at least these days. Alexander Zhuchkovsky. Norin, the historian. A bunch of conservative intellectuals such as Mezhuev are more or less open nationalists.

  77. @Dmitry
    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    He does not write about crazy conspiracy theories. He can read books, and can write and speak quite well. And when he is a television host of Anatoly Vasserman's show - where he seems an eccentric, but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    Relative for a nationalist activist, Kholmogorov is high quality.

    Again, Kholmogorov is not “nationalist”, he is media persona who grew out of grim times (smuta) of late 1990s–early 2000s. Russia still fights the “belch” of this “intellectual” movement. Any opinion of Kholmogorov on any military matter of the 20th century is an opinion of an amateur. He is what in Russian language defined as недалекий человек (English version–narrow-minded–does not fully explain the meaning). He is no historian, he is low level propagandist which has zero expertise in history, let alone subjects which are beyond that.

    He can read books, and can write and speak quite well

    There is reading and then there is “reading”. He is no autodidact, not even close. Him not being able to get any facts straight is a first proof of that. Yes, he can write–you know, letters, words. He even is able sometimes to string together couple of sentences.

    but at least adjusted to society: he wears clean clothes, etc.

    I knew and, actually know, a rather large number of people who not only wear clean clothes, but drive really nice cars and own property, moreover, some of them have Ph.Ds, including in such subjects as Applied Physics, Computer Science etc. Yet, even among them I know at least few people who qualify as complete dumbfvcks. So it is rather an unconvincing criterion.

  78. @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin, I don't know what's the deal with you (actually, I do), but presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-"historian" who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University, as any authority on anything, such as this creep Kholmogorov, is preposterous. I understand that your readers, most of them, anyway, do not have a grasp of this simple fact what does it mean to drop out of History Faculty in MSU. I'll give a hint--it is about the same as drop from the class on beer drinking or visiting a bathroom. Can you people stay away from subjects which are beyond your comprehension and stop blowing smoke up everybody's ass with "new historic research" without having even basic understanding what the work with archives is, not to mention without opening any testimonials say from such people as Svechin, Triandafilov, Denikin, to name a few, who actually fought in that war? I don't expect from you any substantive answers but if you are so keen on writing about "psychometrics" and other "intelligence' stuff--you constantly dragging into the "discussion" losers of Prosvirnin, Kholmogorov and other pseudo-academic dopamine-driven fringe "thinkers" scale probably reflects more on you than on them.

    … presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University

    With all due respect (not much), as a graduate of a second-tier naval academy, I don’t think you’re optimally placed to invoke argument from credentials.

    I don’t expect from you any substantive answers…

    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
    https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258953

    This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons.

    Holmes goes into these statistics in this very article.

    Yes, Russia started from a low base, for which it can be criticized. But its growth rate in shell production from early 1916 to late 1916-February 1917 was explosive (by that latter point, production had converged to the level of the Big Three in 1916 – France, UK, and Germany).

    Artillery production: Comparable to that of France, Great Britain, and A-H throughout the war.

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it’s not like the USSR even “caught up” relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Karlin,

    I just finished the book about your kind, should you have been at least basically educated you wouldn't even post the comparative table of artillery produced, because it ends up as a sum against Russia's main enemy in the West which was Germany. I understand you have very vague understanding of logistics, or, e.g. how reserves are deployed to a front line or how they are maintained but even in your table Germany produced almost three times more artillery than Russia. While at it, check how many machine guns Russia produced compared to Germany. You also forgot that Russia had A-H as an opponent and A-H had her own armament production. But that is the whole thing here for me--wasting time, explaining to you what German Army was or what was Elastic Defense and how it worked is basically explaining....ha, just why bother. You also will continue to ignore Russian General Staff numbers. I am not even interested in discussing this with you. My surprise is with you still not understanding that some creeps such as Kholmogorov or similar "thinkers" reflect on you in a very peculiar light, not so much on clowns you are trying present to whoever reads your blog.

    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
     
    Sure. I still do. You, however, have very little knowledge of predictors and how they are calculated. For that, one has to attend even the lowest of the low second-tier military academy, such as I did, not some fraud of pseudo-education in "economics" from a shithole in Berkley. Karlin, friendly advise--find yourself a job somewhere as an accountant, at least you will earn an honest buck (pound, ruble?) stop pretending yourself any authority on anything--you are not, you don't have any background for that. It is not too late. Of course, movie and game reviewing business may still be available for application of your talents, but writing on military history or representing amateur concoctions by Kholmogorov as anyway representing Russia's or World's history is not a viable POV but merely an attempt to become what you never will.

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it’s not like the USSR even “caught up” relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.
     
    You just proved my point.
    , @Seraphim
    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Martianov, in all his rantings, only boasts about himself and his Soviet education which marked him so deeply. Narcissistic personality.
  79. @Daniel.I
    Romania's rulers (with a few notable exceptions) never had a spine.
    That's what centuries of enslavement will do to you.

    But that's not my point.

    You obviously think I'm some sort of knee-jerk Russophobe.

    I'm not.
    I was against joining the EU (my friends thought I was insane).
    I am very much in favour of a positive identity for Eastern Europe - as opposed to just being defective Westerners.
    I very much think that Eastern Europe would do well to go its own way (my time in Belgium convinced me of that).
    And yes, that would require Russian leadership (obviously).

    But I'm having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia's mercy.

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.

    Again, and for the n’th time, I am really curious where exactly in this article Holmes says anything at all about taking Prague or Istanbul or even the Baltics.

    Do people who think that the US was wrong to rebel against the British Empire suppose the UK invading Washington D.C.?

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian’s fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).

    • Replies: @Yevardian

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian’s fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).
     
    My fantasies? I just criticised your tacit endorsement of these stupid power fantasies, this Kholmorogov is basically Saker-tier, although that might be unfair to the Saker.
  80. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Are you sure of this? As far as I can tell, the only purchase that Syria announced was for the Pantsir, which remains on schedule for delivery over the next few months. The Serbian President did express an interest in the S-400 but was also quoted as saying “the only way would be if Russia left them with us [i.e. for free]. Otherwise we do not have the means to procure them.”

    https://thedefensepost.com/2019/11/10/us-serbia-russia-military-systems-pantsir-s-400/

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Are you sure of this?
     
    Karlin is a shill for the Russophobic "elites" in the West, hence the cover of his Russian "nationalism"--he is not Russian "nationalist", he is a typical Western millennial liberal, formed as a person in the United States, as well as being a product of its grossly flawed "humanities" education part, probably with an agenda. In fact, he doesn't even know what Russian nationalism is. He cannot be sure on anything geopolitically or military-related (in any aspect: tactically, operationally, strategically or technologically) because he has zero background in that, hence pseudo-"academic" platitudes and those ever-so-present "slight" misrepresentations of facts.
  81. @AP

    The SRs were commies, they just wouldn’t admit it
     
    I'm not an expert on Russian SRs, but they not commies. They were democratic, national-populist, agrarian (peasants) and dominated by ethnic Russians. Out of a sense of patriotism most of them supported Russia during World War I. Bolsheviks were non-democratic, urban prole (they genocided Russian and Ukrainian peasants), tried to undermine Russia's war effort during World War I, and dominated by a multinational gang of criminals.

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.


    Kind of like the Ukrainians are Russkies, but won’t admit it.
     
    And Spaniards are Italians (Romans) but won't admit it.

    They shared in common with Bolsheviks a violent hatred of the traditional order, and the desire to steal the land from the nobles.

    Close enough for government work.

  82. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT

    The British Army guy who set up the White Helmet propaganda crew has been found dead in Istanbul. Had his usefulness come to an end? Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1193878679086129158

    Whatever the story, I imagine Russia will be blamed.

    Did Russia drive hero British aid boss to his death? Wife says former army officer who fell from Istanbul balcony was under ‘intense stress’ following year-long Moscow smear campaign branding him a spy

    The British co-founder of Syria’s White Helmets who fell to his death from his Istanbul balcony was under ‘intense stress’ and had suffered a years-long Russian smear campaign against him . . . A security source has told Reuters that his death is being treated as suspected suicide. But mystery still surrounds his death, with suspicions raised that it may have been ordered by a state actor.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7672621/British-founder-White-Helmets-Syria-dead-days-Russia-accused-spy.html

  83. @Anatoly Karlin

    ... presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University
     
    With all due respect (not much), as a graduate of a second-tier naval academy, I don't think you're optimally placed to invoke argument from credentials.

    I don’t expect from you any substantive answers...
     
    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
    https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258953

    This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons.
     
    Holmes goes into these statistics in this very article.

    Yes, Russia started from a low base, for which it can be criticized. But its growth rate in shell production from early 1916 to late 1916-February 1917 was explosive (by that latter point, production had converged to the level of the Big Three in 1916 - France, UK, and Germany).

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oldadmiral/1436531/38429/38429_original.jpg

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29592/29592_900.jpg

    Artillery production: Comparable to that of France, Great Britain, and A-H throughout the war.

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29269/29269_900.jpg

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it's not like the USSR even "caught up" relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

    Karlin,

    I just finished the book about your kind, should you have been at least basically educated you wouldn’t even post the comparative table of artillery produced, because it ends up as a sum against Russia’s main enemy in the West which was Germany. I understand you have very vague understanding of logistics, or, e.g. how reserves are deployed to a front line or how they are maintained but even in your table Germany produced almost three times more artillery than Russia. While at it, check how many machine guns Russia produced compared to Germany. You also forgot that Russia had A-H as an opponent and A-H had her own armament production. But that is the whole thing here for me–wasting time, explaining to you what German Army was or what was Elastic Defense and how it worked is basically explaining….ha, just why bother. You also will continue to ignore Russian General Staff numbers. I am not even interested in discussing this with you. My surprise is with you still not understanding that some creeps such as Kholmogorov or similar “thinkers” reflect on you in a very peculiar light, not so much on clowns you are trying present to whoever reads your blog.

    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:

    Sure. I still do. You, however, have very little knowledge of predictors and how they are calculated. For that, one has to attend even the lowest of the low second-tier military academy, such as I did, not some fraud of pseudo-education in “economics” from a shithole in Berkley. Karlin, friendly advise–find yourself a job somewhere as an accountant, at least you will earn an honest buck (pound, ruble?) stop pretending yourself any authority on anything–you are not, you don’t have any background for that. It is not too late. Of course, movie and game reviewing business may still be available for application of your talents, but writing on military history or representing amateur concoctions by Kholmogorov as anyway representing Russia’s or World’s history is not a viable POV but merely an attempt to become what you never will.

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it’s not like the USSR even “caught up” relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

    You just proved my point.

  84. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not hostile to German nationalists per se obviously. I don't feel like hunting down the particular thread but German_nationalist has expressed the sentiment before that it's not a bad thing that Putin represses Russian nationalists (before 282 was decriminalized). So just returning the well wishes.

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can't say I'll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn't for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again

    You’re mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn’t be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn’t want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don’t think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it’s against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there’s this crazy WW1 revisionism…Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the “correct” outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered “What if Russia wins?”), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I’ve been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.

    • Replies: @AP

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Too bad. Your comments are worth reading.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
     
    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance...
     
    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany... what specifically was "utterly" grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely "grotesque" by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    ... why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?
     
    They didn't, and they helped make sure it didn't happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn't owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?
     
    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1193574542372933632

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it's extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?
     
    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Yeah, sure. /s
    , @Mr. XYZ

    If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn’t be opposed.
     
    Personally, I would oppose this movement but still support allowing it to do what it wants if they will gain enough support among the Belarusian people. As I previously said, I am attached to Belarus due to me having a Belarusian maternal grandmother.
  85. @for-the-record
    even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    Are you sure of this? As far as I can tell, the only purchase that Syria announced was for the Pantsir, which remains on schedule for delivery over the next few months. The Serbian President did express an interest in the S-400 but was also quoted as saying “the only way would be if Russia left them with us [i.e. for free]. Otherwise we do not have the means to procure them.”

    https://thedefensepost.com/2019/11/10/us-serbia-russia-military-systems-pantsir-s-400/

    Are you sure of this?

    Karlin is a shill for the Russophobic “elites” in the West, hence the cover of his Russian “nationalism”–he is not Russian “nationalist”, he is a typical Western millennial liberal, formed as a person in the United States, as well as being a product of its grossly flawed “humanities” education part, probably with an agenda. In fact, he doesn’t even know what Russian nationalism is. He cannot be sure on anything geopolitically or military-related (in any aspect: tactically, operationally, strategically or technologically) because he has zero background in that, hence pseudo-“academic” platitudes and those ever-so-present “slight” misrepresentations of facts.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    Congrats, you've reached peak retard take
  86. @German_reader

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again
     
    You're mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn't be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn't want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don't think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it's against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he's made it very clear again and again that he doesn't care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states...for him they're apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there's this crazy WW1 revisionism...Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the "correct" outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia's WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered "What if Russia wins?"), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don't you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I've been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog.

    Too bad. Your comments are worth reading.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    TBH, I wonder if German_reader got offended way too easily here. I mean, it's the Internet--where it's extremely easy to get butthurt!
  87. @Fluctuarius


    Good catch - and an awkward gaffe on my part...

    You’re Holmes?

  88. @German_reader

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again
     
    You're mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn't be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn't want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don't think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it's against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he's made it very clear again and again that he doesn't care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states...for him they're apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there's this crazy WW1 revisionism...Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the "correct" outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia's WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered "What if Russia wins?"), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don't you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I've been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.

    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance…

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    … why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?

    They didn’t, and they helped make sure it didn’t happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn’t owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.

    Yeah, sure. /s

    • Agree: Dreadilk
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?
     
    Technically speaking, though, couldn't Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun? It was simply that Germany doesn't appear to have seen any point in actually doing this. Else, theoretically speaking, Germany could have tried advancing much deeper inside of Russia in 1916. However, again, the fall of, say, Kiev or Minsk or whatever wouldn't actually have resulted in Russia being knocked out of the war.

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.
     
    Yes, because in a coalition war, winners are entitled to make gains--sometimes large gains--even if their contribution to the overall victory wasn't that large. As a side note, though, Romania had a claim to Transylvania on ethnic grounds. So, it would be comparable to a Russian annexation of Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland after the end of World War I.

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?
     
    I thought that your IQ was way too high for a Russian vatnik? ;)

    In any case, though, it's worth noting that someone (a relative neo-isolationist) such as Donald Trump might be relatively ambivalent about the US having a sphere of influence in Europe. At the very least, Trump doesn't actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.
     
    Would these other Romanovs have renounced their succession rights to the Russian throne similar to what King Philip V of Spain did in regards to the French throne in 1713?

    Also, as a side note, this is what Russia should have done in regards to Poland even before World War I. As in, give it its independence but under a Romanov King and with the requirement that Poland be a military ally of both Russia and France.
    , @Daniel.I

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.
     
    And then Russians wonder why the rest of Eastern Europe wants to stay as far away from them as possible.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?
     
    Karlin, I understand that they don't teach basic math in Berkley in your department but if you have heard of such thing as ratios of casualties, or, say more specific things like FER (Fractional Exchange Rates) you would immediately start trying to find actual data on those rates between German and Russian armies and those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7, NOT in favor of Russian Army. That means for a single German killed, Russian Army 7 (seven) its own KIA. This is called slaughter. You obviously need to enlighten yourself (and your cretin idol Kholmogorov) on how Brusilov's offensive ended up in catastrophic casualties fro Russian Army which almost equaled those of routed A-Hs. All despite brilliant zamysel (concept) by Brusilov and some new techniques such as Rolling Artillery Wall which used in it.

    I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.
     
    How about you start learning actual history of "your" forefathers. Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich. Not to mention false in the extreme.
  89. @German_reader
    There's so much wrong with this piece one doesn't even know where to start.

    105 years ago, on August 1st 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
     
    It's not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia's mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth - something Russia denied at the time - even before Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia's mobilization which ensured a general European war.
    A hundred years later, maybe it wouldn't hurt that much to admit that this was a stupid idea which didn't do Russia any good.

    repeat the spiel about a war fought for “imperialist interests” that was unnecessary for Russia and the Russians.
     
    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia's righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)...if this wasn't imperialism, what exactly was it?
    Or this gem:

    If Russia had remained an organized state in 1918, all the Danube countries would today be little more that Russian governorates. Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers. Russian military pennants would have flown over Constantinople on the Bosporus and over Catarro
     
    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision...not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the "Russophile" Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).

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

    Not sure that's something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn't really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 (see British historian Alexander Watson's Unheard-of Brutality”: Russian Atrocities against Civilians in East Prussia, 1914–1915 in Journal of modern history 86 (2014) about that).
    There are other dubious elements to Russia's record in WW1. Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%. It seems to have been similarly high for Austrian, Hungarian and Jewish pows from Austria-Hungary, but not for Slavic ones (source: Peter Lieb, Der deutsche Krieg im Osten von 1914 bis 1919, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 65 (2017), p. 479/480).

    For example, they could have recognized the government of Admiral Kolchak and given it a right to sign the Versailles peace treaty
     
    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn't even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.

    However, they were successful in depriving Russia of those gains by pushing her towards a catastrophic revolution.
     
    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917...which shouldn't have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.

    (in all fairness, the separatist governments of the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan were all creations of Germany and its allies).
     
    Once again Kholmogorov shows his true colours. He isn't a nationalist, he's an imperialist who apparently hasn't even really reconciled himself to the independence of the Baltic states (or of Azerbaijan) with their clearly non-east Slavic nations.
    One could probably write a lot more, but really, what's the point? This kind of resentment-driven chauvinist fantasy will have almost no appeal outside Russia. Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.

    I would imagine all Russia had to do was hold out another year and they’d have been on the winning side. But we’ll never know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The interesting thing, though, is that the Baltic countries (especially Latvia and Estonia) would probably be easier to Russify than, say, western Ukraine or even central Ukraine would. After all, they could be flooded by a lot of Russian settlers–similar to what occurred in the post-WWII decades, but even further. In contrast, central and western Ukraine would require much more Russian settlers than the Baltic countries would. Of course, capturing the Baltic countries would obviously not be a viable option due to them being in NATO. Still, had Russia permanently held onto them (for instance, if there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917), I would think that the odds of a successful Russification of at least Latvia and Estonia would have been higher than a successful Russification of central and western Ukraine would have been. Of course, the ethnic Latvians and ethnic Estonians would have of course never actually become Russians; rather, they could have simply been outnumbered by ethnic Russian settlers.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Welcome to Ireland 1922.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Good points.

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

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

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

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

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

  91. @Anatoly Karlin

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
     
    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance...
     
    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany... what specifically was "utterly" grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely "grotesque" by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    ... why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?
     
    They didn't, and they helped make sure it didn't happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn't owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?
     
    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1193574542372933632

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it's extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?
     
    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Yeah, sure. /s

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun? It was simply that Germany doesn’t appear to have seen any point in actually doing this. Else, theoretically speaking, Germany could have tried advancing much deeper inside of Russia in 1916. However, again, the fall of, say, Kiev or Minsk or whatever wouldn’t actually have resulted in Russia being knocked out of the war.

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    Yes, because in a coalition war, winners are entitled to make gains–sometimes large gains–even if their contribution to the overall victory wasn’t that large. As a side note, though, Romania had a claim to Transylvania on ethnic grounds. So, it would be comparable to a Russian annexation of Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland after the end of World War I.

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    I thought that your IQ was way too high for a Russian vatnik? 😉

    In any case, though, it’s worth noting that someone (a relative neo-isolationist) such as Donald Trump might be relatively ambivalent about the US having a sphere of influence in Europe. At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Would these other Romanovs have renounced their succession rights to the Russian throne similar to what King Philip V of Spain did in regards to the French throne in 1713?

    Also, as a side note, this is what Russia should have done in regards to Poland even before World War I. As in, give it its independence but under a Romanov King and with the requirement that Poland be a military ally of both Russia and France.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.
     
    And why do you think it is the case? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I just, if you will, want to see some rational explanation to that, which is germane, in fact very important, to this whole WW I "discussion".
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation
  92. @AP

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Too bad. Your comments are worth reading.

    TBH, I wonder if German_reader got offended way too easily here. I mean, it’s the Internet–where it’s extremely easy to get butthurt!

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Modern German nationalists tend to get extremely touchy. Their obviously cannot (aren't allowed to) replicate the methods of Kaiser Wilhelm or, perish the thought, That Man With The Moustache to advance their goals, and usually despise the Multi-Kulti policies of the Merkelreich too much to admit they like it.

    So they have to resort to a very roundabout, contorted, and hypocritical way of cultural posturing, condemning all forms of "muh imperialism" (sour grapes!) and praising "muh Kultur" (overrated TBH) and "muh postwar economy" (which only exists because the US allowed it to).

    Also, let me remind everyone that modern Germany is not a fully sovereign state, and only regained near-full sovereignty around 1990 (again, only because the US and the USSR allowed it to while the UK and France howled bloody murder), which explains everything.
  93. @Mr. XYZ

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?
     
    Technically speaking, though, couldn't Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun? It was simply that Germany doesn't appear to have seen any point in actually doing this. Else, theoretically speaking, Germany could have tried advancing much deeper inside of Russia in 1916. However, again, the fall of, say, Kiev or Minsk or whatever wouldn't actually have resulted in Russia being knocked out of the war.

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.
     
    Yes, because in a coalition war, winners are entitled to make gains--sometimes large gains--even if their contribution to the overall victory wasn't that large. As a side note, though, Romania had a claim to Transylvania on ethnic grounds. So, it would be comparable to a Russian annexation of Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland after the end of World War I.

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?
     
    I thought that your IQ was way too high for a Russian vatnik? ;)

    In any case, though, it's worth noting that someone (a relative neo-isolationist) such as Donald Trump might be relatively ambivalent about the US having a sphere of influence in Europe. At the very least, Trump doesn't actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.
     
    Would these other Romanovs have renounced their succession rights to the Russian throne similar to what King Philip V of Spain did in regards to the French throne in 1713?

    Also, as a side note, this is what Russia should have done in regards to Poland even before World War I. As in, give it its independence but under a Romanov King and with the requirement that Poland be a military ally of both Russia and France.

    At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    And why do you think it is the case? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I just, if you will, want to see some rational explanation to that, which is germane, in fact very important, to this whole WW I “discussion”.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.
  94. @Mr. XYZ

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?
     
    Technically speaking, though, couldn't Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun? It was simply that Germany doesn't appear to have seen any point in actually doing this. Else, theoretically speaking, Germany could have tried advancing much deeper inside of Russia in 1916. However, again, the fall of, say, Kiev or Minsk or whatever wouldn't actually have resulted in Russia being knocked out of the war.

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely “grotesque” by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.
     
    Yes, because in a coalition war, winners are entitled to make gains--sometimes large gains--even if their contribution to the overall victory wasn't that large. As a side note, though, Romania had a claim to Transylvania on ethnic grounds. So, it would be comparable to a Russian annexation of Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and the Memelland after the end of World War I.

    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?
     
    I thought that your IQ was way too high for a Russian vatnik? ;)

    In any case, though, it's worth noting that someone (a relative neo-isolationist) such as Donald Trump might be relatively ambivalent about the US having a sphere of influence in Europe. At the very least, Trump doesn't actually appear to care that much for NATO.

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it’s extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.
     
    Would these other Romanovs have renounced their succession rights to the Russian throne similar to what King Philip V of Spain did in regards to the French throne in 1713?

    Also, as a side note, this is what Russia should have done in regards to Poland even before World War I. As in, give it its independence but under a Romanov King and with the requirement that Poland be a military ally of both Russia and France.

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.
     
    Yes, I get the logic behind Verdun. I'm just saying that, as an alternative to Verdun, Germany could have tried advancing further east.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation
     
    But would a German offensive into Russia in 1916 have actually been decisive? I mean, even if Petrograd falls (which I'm highly uncertain about for logistical reasons), couldn't Russia still decide to continue the war against Germany?
    , @iffen
    No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans

    What could have been worse for the Germans beyond the Treaty of Versailles?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Also, as a side note, I wonder if Russia would have managed to avoid the February Revolution had it had more competent leadership in Petrograd during World War I. After all, I believe that Rodzinako warned Nicholas II about the risk of a revolution in Russia by Nicholas simply ignored him. That, combined with the Tsarina Alexandra playing musical chairs with her ministers, didn't exactly result in an impression of governmental competence among the Russian people.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917.
     
    Karlin, wars, especially industrialized wars are fought with a teeny-weeny bigger number of varieties of war materiel than just artillery shells (however important). I deliberately asked you about production of machine guns and, just mentioned, elastic defense by Germans, especially on the Eastern Front. I know I will not get an answer from you but how come this "explosion" of war production didn't result in Russia closing 10-fold gap with Germany in production of the machine guns--a main cause, together with artillery, of casualties in WW I. A-H produced more machine guns than Russia. I am not talking, of course, about Russia producing 11 times fewer aircraft than Germany (fewer even than A-H) unless British and French motors were supplied. How's that working? But that is just a small materiel part. Here is Svechin for ya, not that it will help but still.

    Несколько слов о 2-й Финляндской стрелковой дивизии. Эта прекрасная дивизия выступила на войну в составе четырех 2-батальонных полков и одного 3-батарейного дивизиона; одна бата-рея была горная. На батальон приходилось нормальное в русской армии количество орудий — 3. Но затем полки дивизии разверну-лись сначала в 3-батальонный, а затем в 4-батальонный состав, батареи же перешли к 6-орудийному составу; фактически, осенью 1915 г., в батареях имелось только по 5, даже по 4 орудия. Горная батарея бралась иногда в отдел от дивизии: например в период 925 сентября 1915 г., излагаемый во второй части настоящего труда. Таким образом в лучшем случае дивизия при мне была обеспечена полутора орудиями на батальон, а иногда всего одним орудием, что являлось совершенно недопустимым в условиях ми-ровой войны. Мы с завистью смотрели на нормальные дивизии, располагавшие 6 батареями, а о германской норме — 12 батарей — и мечтать не могли. За недостаток артиллерии приходилось рас-плачиваться дорогой ценой пехоте
     
    You should read, Karlin, what is Command and Control are and how they were implemented in WW I. Again, Svechin, Triandafilov and Denikin may help. I understand that ecconomics "majors" are not really keen on those C2 issues but there were few, how to put it, issues. Hint: they matter, great deal. The work of Stavka in WW I is altogether a whole other story.
    , @Thorfinnsson


    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.
     
    Allegedly.

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn's postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    Tellingly, the Kaiser, as well as Falkenhayn's contemporaries Groener and Schulenberg, recalled after the war that Verdun was to be the start of a multi-phase plan which would end with the destruction of the BEF.

    We'll never know what really happened, but it seems to me like Verdun turned into more than the Germans bargained for and Falkenhayn, who always played his cards close to his chest, justified the failed strategy after the fact as having been his cunning plan all along--vindicated by the later French mutiny.

    Unfortunately the German Army's archives were destroyed in WW2 by Allied bombing, and in general the dysfunctional German government of WW1 with its lack of clear power centers makes it very difficult to sort out what really happened and why.
  95. @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    Yes, I get the logic behind Verdun. I’m just saying that, as an alternative to Verdun, Germany could have tried advancing further east.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    But would a German offensive into Russia in 1916 have actually been decisive? I mean, even if Petrograd falls (which I’m highly uncertain about for logistical reasons), couldn’t Russia still decide to continue the war against Germany?

  96. @Andrei Martyanov

    At the very least, Trump doesn’t actually appear to care that much for NATO.
     
    And why do you think it is the case? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I just, if you will, want to see some rational explanation to that, which is germane, in fact very important, to this whole WW I "discussion".

    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.
     
    Not the only one, but undeniably one of the major factors, agree. I will, however, slightly "edit" your correct statement: while the US spends a lot of money and resources on their behalf. Resources matter, in a kinetic global conflict patterned after WW I (and WW II) they were deciders of the outcome. Not only resources, but how they were used. The list of predictors, including economic growth for warring sides by 1914 was not in Russia's favor. She lagged in every single real economic category when compared to both Entente and Central Powers with the exception of Bulgaria and Turkey.
  97. @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans

    What could have been worse for the Germans beyond the Treaty of Versailles?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?
  98. @Anatoly Karlin
    Just a note that the Black sovok utu is on record demanding Russia conduct a nuclear strike on Israel, likely annihilating itself just to pursue his particular ideological obsession.

    Can Israeli nuclear missiles actually reach Russia’s major population centers?

  99. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't, of course, since nationalisms tend to be particularist ideologies, not universal ones. They can have alliances of convenience (anti-Communism, today anti-immigration) but no real ones of conviction, unless the peoples in question are already very close.

    What I don't follow is how exactly you read a call for border revision into this article. Sure, Holmes - like 90% of Russian nationalists - supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia. But this is not what this article in particular is about. Of course this doesn't stop the demented armenoid Sovokdian (no offense to Armenians) extrapolated a defense of Russia's WW1 war aims to having designs on Istanbul or Prague *today*.

    Sure, Holmes – like 90% of Russian nationalists – supports some form of border revision with the Ukraine and Belorussia.

    Just how much border revision, though?

  100. @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    Also, as a side note, I wonder if Russia would have managed to avoid the February Revolution had it had more competent leadership in Petrograd during World War I. After all, I believe that Rodzinako warned Nicholas II about the risk of a revolution in Russia by Nicholas simply ignored him. That, combined with the Tsarina Alexandra playing musical chairs with her ministers, didn’t exactly result in an impression of governmental competence among the Russian people.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    There were long term issues with the Russian forces. The army was huge but undersupplied.. That not only means production but logistics. The guage of the sparse Russian rail network changed at the border. The border roads were deliberately bad. Limited rail meant horses and even more supplies.
  101. @Anatoly Karlin

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
     
    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance...
     
    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany... what specifically was "utterly" grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely "grotesque" by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    ... why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?
     
    They didn't, and they helped make sure it didn't happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn't owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?
     
    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1193574542372933632

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it's extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?
     
    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Yeah, sure. /s

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    And then Russians wonder why the rest of Eastern Europe wants to stay as far away from them as possible.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    What does EE have to offer Russia? Advanced technologies, capital investments? Western Europe, at least, is still pretty useful in that regard.
    , @Yevardian
    Karlin and Kholmorogov are fringe figures, they don't represent popular or political opinion in the Russian Federation anyway whatsoever. His obvious disdain for Eastern Europe reflect his real contempt for real Russian culture and achievements (as if his spitting on victory day was not enough). But it's curious to follow such ambitious and unscrupulous characters, one day he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.
  102. @iffen
    No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans

    What could have been worse for the Germans beyond the Treaty of Versailles?

    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    • Replies: @iffen
    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    I don't know about it in depth, but there was a proposal to do away with Germany as a country.
  103. @AP

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?
     
    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg/350px-Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg.png

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians - they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?
     
    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin's crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians – they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    The Left Socialist Revolutionaries were utter morons in supporting the Bolsheviks.

  104. @Andrei Martyanov

    Are you sure of this?
     
    Karlin is a shill for the Russophobic "elites" in the West, hence the cover of his Russian "nationalism"--he is not Russian "nationalist", he is a typical Western millennial liberal, formed as a person in the United States, as well as being a product of its grossly flawed "humanities" education part, probably with an agenda. In fact, he doesn't even know what Russian nationalism is. He cannot be sure on anything geopolitically or military-related (in any aspect: tactically, operationally, strategically or technologically) because he has zero background in that, hence pseudo-"academic" platitudes and those ever-so-present "slight" misrepresentations of facts.

    Congrats, you’ve reached peak retard take

  105. @Mr. XYZ
    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    The peace settlement that Germany got after the end of World War II?

    I don’t know about it in depth, but there was a proposal to do away with Germany as a country.

  106. @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917.

    Karlin, wars, especially industrialized wars are fought with a teeny-weeny bigger number of varieties of war materiel than just artillery shells (however important). I deliberately asked you about production of machine guns and, just mentioned, elastic defense by Germans, especially on the Eastern Front. I know I will not get an answer from you but how come this “explosion” of war production didn’t result in Russia closing 10-fold gap with Germany in production of the machine guns–a main cause, together with artillery, of casualties in WW I. A-H produced more machine guns than Russia. I am not talking, of course, about Russia producing 11 times fewer aircraft than Germany (fewer even than A-H) unless British and French motors were supplied. How’s that working? But that is just a small materiel part. Here is Svechin for ya, not that it will help but still.

    Несколько слов о 2-й Финляндской стрелковой дивизии. Эта прекрасная дивизия выступила на войну в составе четырех 2-батальонных полков и одного 3-батарейного дивизиона; одна бата-рея была горная. На батальон приходилось нормальное в русской армии количество орудий — 3. Но затем полки дивизии разверну-лись сначала в 3-батальонный, а затем в 4-батальонный состав, батареи же перешли к 6-орудийному составу; фактически, осенью 1915 г., в батареях имелось только по 5, даже по 4 орудия. Горная батарея бралась иногда в отдел от дивизии: например в период 925 сентября 1915 г., излагаемый во второй части настоящего труда. Таким образом в лучшем случае дивизия при мне была обеспечена полутора орудиями на батальон, а иногда всего одним орудием, что являлось совершенно недопустимым в условиях ми-ровой войны. Мы с завистью смотрели на нормальные дивизии, располагавшие 6 батареями, а о германской норме — 12 батарей — и мечтать не могли. За недостаток артиллерии приходилось рас-плачиваться дорогой ценой пехоте

    You should read, Karlin, what is Command and Control are and how they were implemented in WW I. Again, Svechin, Triandafilov and Denikin may help. I understand that ecconomics “majors” are not really keen on those C2 issues but there were few, how to put it, issues. Hint: they matter, great deal. The work of Stavka in WW I is altogether a whole other story.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    We covered this before. Russian industry started to collapse from February 1917. At that point, it was no longer the Russian Empire fighting the war, but the Russian Republic, continuously paralyzed by labor strikes and run by cretins and incompetents. From October 1917, it was in turn replaced by a terrorist organization. Production fell to zero or as close to it as makes no difference. Meanwhile, in other countries, war production continued soaring right through to the end. Comparing "Russia" from 1914-1918 with Germany, France, A-H, etc. is an apples to oranges comparison.

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29888/29888_900.jpg

    Example of airplanes in particular: Ratio of 2:1 relative to England, and 4:1 relative to Germany; almost four times as good as A-H, during the 1914-16 period for which normal comparisons can be made. Far from catastrophic, given that these were all fully industrialized countries. Huge numbers of all factories of all kinds were being built - no less than 7 factories for vehicle production by 1916 alone (one of them was later appropriated by the Soviets under the better known name "ZiL"). All of these capacities would have been coming online throughout 1917-18.

    I note that your example, tellingly, refers to 1915 - Russia's worst year in terms of the military balance vis-a-vis the Central Powers.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    He died as a result of the Great Purge.[2] He was arrested again on 30 December 1937. His name was included in death list № 107, dated 26 July 1938 and signed by Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov. On 29 July 1938, he was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on charges of "participating in a counter-revolutionary organization" and "training terrorists".
     
  107. @Daniel.I

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.
     
    And then Russians wonder why the rest of Eastern Europe wants to stay as far away from them as possible.

    What does EE have to offer Russia? Advanced technologies, capital investments? Western Europe, at least, is still pretty useful in that regard.

    • Replies: @Daniel.I
    Since you keep asserting Russia's right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Anyways, you might want to consider toning down your belligerent autism - believe it or not, I'm not playing for Team ZOG.

    Is the idea that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar that far-fetched for you ?
  108. @Mr. XYZ
    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.

    The impression that I get is that Trump views the other NATO countries as a bunch of freeloaders while the US spends a lot of money on their behalf.

    Not the only one, but undeniably one of the major factors, agree. I will, however, slightly “edit” your correct statement: while the US spends a lot of money and resources on their behalf. Resources matter, in a kinetic global conflict patterned after WW I (and WW II) they were deciders of the outcome. Not only resources, but how they were used. The list of predictors, including economic growth for warring sides by 1914 was not in Russia’s favor. She lagged in every single real economic category when compared to both Entente and Central Powers with the exception of Bulgaria and Turkey.

  109. @Anatoly Karlin
    What does EE have to offer Russia? Advanced technologies, capital investments? Western Europe, at least, is still pretty useful in that regard.

    Since you keep asserting Russia’s right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Anyways, you might want to consider toning down your belligerent autism – believe it or not, I’m not playing for Team ZOG.

    Is the idea that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar that far-fetched for you ?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Since you keep asserting Russia’s right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.
     
    Please remind me again, where do I "assert" the right to rule anything west of Brest and Transnistria (you can have Bessarabia)? Where does even Kholmogorov assert anything to that effect in this text?
  110. @Anatoly Karlin

    But I’m having a really hard time selling my ideas when Russians keep going on record saying small countries like Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia/Hungary (and the list can go on) exist at Russia’s mercy.
     
    Again, and for the n'th time, I am really curious where exactly in this article Holmes says anything at all about taking Prague or Istanbul or even the Baltics.

    Do people who think that the US was wrong to rebel against the British Empire suppose the UK invading Washington D.C.?

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian's fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).

    (That is almost as exotic as Yevardian’s fantasies about Russian boots in Prague).

    My fantasies? I just criticised your tacit endorsement of these stupid power fantasies, this Kholmorogov is basically Saker-tier, although that might be unfair to the Saker.

    • LOL: iffen
  111. @Andrei Martyanov

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917.
     
    Karlin, wars, especially industrialized wars are fought with a teeny-weeny bigger number of varieties of war materiel than just artillery shells (however important). I deliberately asked you about production of machine guns and, just mentioned, elastic defense by Germans, especially on the Eastern Front. I know I will not get an answer from you but how come this "explosion" of war production didn't result in Russia closing 10-fold gap with Germany in production of the machine guns--a main cause, together with artillery, of casualties in WW I. A-H produced more machine guns than Russia. I am not talking, of course, about Russia producing 11 times fewer aircraft than Germany (fewer even than A-H) unless British and French motors were supplied. How's that working? But that is just a small materiel part. Here is Svechin for ya, not that it will help but still.

    Несколько слов о 2-й Финляндской стрелковой дивизии. Эта прекрасная дивизия выступила на войну в составе четырех 2-батальонных полков и одного 3-батарейного дивизиона; одна бата-рея была горная. На батальон приходилось нормальное в русской армии количество орудий — 3. Но затем полки дивизии разверну-лись сначала в 3-батальонный, а затем в 4-батальонный состав, батареи же перешли к 6-орудийному составу; фактически, осенью 1915 г., в батареях имелось только по 5, даже по 4 орудия. Горная батарея бралась иногда в отдел от дивизии: например в период 925 сентября 1915 г., излагаемый во второй части настоящего труда. Таким образом в лучшем случае дивизия при мне была обеспечена полутора орудиями на батальон, а иногда всего одним орудием, что являлось совершенно недопустимым в условиях ми-ровой войны. Мы с завистью смотрели на нормальные дивизии, располагавшие 6 батареями, а о германской норме — 12 батарей — и мечтать не могли. За недостаток артиллерии приходилось рас-плачиваться дорогой ценой пехоте
     
    You should read, Karlin, what is Command and Control are and how they were implemented in WW I. Again, Svechin, Triandafilov and Denikin may help. I understand that ecconomics "majors" are not really keen on those C2 issues but there were few, how to put it, issues. Hint: they matter, great deal. The work of Stavka in WW I is altogether a whole other story.

    We covered this before. Russian industry started to collapse from February 1917. At that point, it was no longer the Russian Empire fighting the war, but the Russian Republic, continuously paralyzed by labor strikes and run by cretins and incompetents. From October 1917, it was in turn replaced by a terrorist organization. Production fell to zero or as close to it as makes no difference. Meanwhile, in other countries, war production continued soaring right through to the end. Comparing “Russia” from 1914-1918 with Germany, France, A-H, etc. is an apples to oranges comparison.

    Example of airplanes in particular: Ratio of 2:1 relative to England, and 4:1 relative to Germany; almost four times as good as A-H, during the 1914-16 period for which normal comparisons can be made. Far from catastrophic, given that these were all fully industrialized countries. Huge numbers of all factories of all kinds were being built – no less than 7 factories for vehicle production by 1916 alone (one of them was later appropriated by the Soviets under the better known name “ZiL”). All of these capacities would have been coming online throughout 1917-18.

    I note that your example, tellingly, refers to 1915 – Russia’s worst year in terms of the military balance vis-a-vis the Central Powers.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    He died as a result of the Great Purge.[2] He was arrested again on 30 December 1937. His name was included in death list № 107, dated 26 July 1938 and signed by Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov. On 29 July 1938, he was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on charges of “participating in a counter-revolutionary organization” and “training terrorists”.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Again, get you facts and numbers straight from Archives of Russian MoD as represented by Krivosheev in Russia And USSR In The Wars of the XX Century.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?
     
    A "profound" argument. I also have Mein Kampf at home, read many German and Nazi military leaders, I also have a rather good insight into the American military theorists and historians. But sure, let's call it that--I am Stalinist. While at it, just browse some of Egorushka "pearls" throughout his "career" as a "historian". I would rather be Stalinist than post excrement of a yurodivyi cretin and present it as a viable "work".

    http://lurkmore.to/%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

    But if you would do your due diligence you would learn a whole lot more about your "idol".
  112. @Anatoly Karlin

    e.g. he’s made it very clear again and again that he doesn’t care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states…for him they’re apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
     
    Again, I am waiting to see where exactly Kholmogorov expresses that intention wrt the *modern* Baltic states. You seem to be very good at telepathy.

    No offense, but your apparent inability to distinguish a legitimate, sane, and/or realistic viewpoint c.1914 vs. c.2019 strikes me as verging on the autistic.

    Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia’s WW1 performance...
     
    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany... what specifically was "utterly" grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Romania getting control of Transylvania was extremely "grotesque" by that standard, but it was certainly good for Romania and ended up working out well for them.

    ... why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that?
     
    They didn't, and they helped make sure it didn't happen. Useful historical illustration that Russia doesn't owe foreigners anything.

    Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent?
     
    Yes.

    I am sure e.g. most Americans would agree. Why should I, a Russian vatnik, consider myself to be inferior to an American redneck?

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1193574542372933632

    Anyhow, can I just point out that Kholmogorov (most specifically, the guy he was quoting) envisioned Russia setting up client states in the former Habsburg domains after WW1.

    I think it's extremely improbable that e.g. Moravia would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Most likely scenario is a bunch of constitutional monarchies with Romanov family branches providing heads of state, bound together in a military alliance.

    Don’t you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?
     
    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    It will be my last comment in this blog.
     
    Yeah, sure. /s

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?

    Karlin, I understand that they don’t teach basic math in Berkley in your department but if you have heard of such thing as ratios of casualties, or, say more specific things like FER (Fractional Exchange Rates) you would immediately start trying to find actual data on those rates between German and Russian armies and those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7, NOT in favor of Russian Army. That means for a single German killed, Russian Army 7 (seven) its own KIA. This is called slaughter. You obviously need to enlighten yourself (and your cretin idol Kholmogorov) on how Brusilov’s offensive ended up in catastrophic casualties fro Russian Army which almost equaled those of routed A-Hs. All despite brilliant zamysel (concept) by Brusilov and some new techniques such as Rolling Artillery Wall which used in it.

    I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.

    How about you start learning actual history of “your” forefathers. Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich. Not to mention false in the extreme.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    ... those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7
     
    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) - yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    Overall - LOL, no chance, and not even close. How are the figures even supposed to add up.

    The casualty ratio on the Eastern Front overall was 1.5:1 in favor of the Central Powers. This is comparable to the ratio during WW2, although that is based on Overmans' and Krivosheev's figures, who almost certainly overstate German casualties and understate Soviet casualties, respectively.

    Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich.
     
    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don't have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.
  113. @110

    The “right to rule over” seems to apply to early 20th century EE, a time when that region was for instance a relevant source of oil.

  114. @Daniel.I
    Since you keep asserting Russia's right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Anyways, you might want to consider toning down your belligerent autism - believe it or not, I'm not playing for Team ZOG.

    Is the idea that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar that far-fetched for you ?

    Since you keep asserting Russia’s right to rule over them, they certainly must be worth something.

    Please remind me again, where do I “assert” the right to rule anything west of Brest and Transnistria (you can have Bessarabia)? Where does even Kholmogorov assert anything to that effect in this text?

  115. @Anatoly Karlin
    We covered this before. Russian industry started to collapse from February 1917. At that point, it was no longer the Russian Empire fighting the war, but the Russian Republic, continuously paralyzed by labor strikes and run by cretins and incompetents. From October 1917, it was in turn replaced by a terrorist organization. Production fell to zero or as close to it as makes no difference. Meanwhile, in other countries, war production continued soaring right through to the end. Comparing "Russia" from 1914-1918 with Germany, France, A-H, etc. is an apples to oranges comparison.

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29888/29888_900.jpg

    Example of airplanes in particular: Ratio of 2:1 relative to England, and 4:1 relative to Germany; almost four times as good as A-H, during the 1914-16 period for which normal comparisons can be made. Far from catastrophic, given that these were all fully industrialized countries. Huge numbers of all factories of all kinds were being built - no less than 7 factories for vehicle production by 1916 alone (one of them was later appropriated by the Soviets under the better known name "ZiL"). All of these capacities would have been coming online throughout 1917-18.

    I note that your example, tellingly, refers to 1915 - Russia's worst year in terms of the military balance vis-a-vis the Central Powers.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    He died as a result of the Great Purge.[2] He was arrested again on 30 December 1937. His name was included in death list № 107, dated 26 July 1938 and signed by Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov. On 29 July 1938, he was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on charges of "participating in a counter-revolutionary organization" and "training terrorists".
     

    Again, get you facts and numbers straight from Archives of Russian MoD as represented by Krivosheev in Russia And USSR In The Wars of the XX Century.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?

    A “profound” argument. I also have Mein Kampf at home, read many German and Nazi military leaders, I also have a rather good insight into the American military theorists and historians. But sure, let’s call it that–I am Stalinist. While at it, just browse some of Egorushka “pearls” throughout his “career” as a “historian”. I would rather be Stalinist than post excrement of a yurodivyi cretin and present it as a viable “work”.

    http://lurkmore.to/%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

    But if you would do your due diligence you would learn a whole lot more about your “idol”.

    • Replies: @Epigon

    as represented by Krivosheev
     
    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev's work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses?

    It seems the man unironically proclaimed all disabled, damaged, detracked, broken Soviet AFVs (counted as losses on reports due to not being combat capable) as total losses.
    His claim of 97000 destroyed Soviet tanks and SPGs is mind-boggingly stupid.
  116. @Daniel.I

    It will then be mostly their problem. I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.
     
    And then Russians wonder why the rest of Eastern Europe wants to stay as far away from them as possible.

    Karlin and Kholmorogov are fringe figures, they don’t represent popular or political opinion in the Russian Federation anyway whatsoever. His obvious disdain for Eastern Europe reflect his real contempt for real Russian culture and achievements (as if his spitting on victory day was not enough). But it’s curious to follow such ambitious and unscrupulous characters, one day he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.
     
    Not might, he will most likely. It is the issue of not "if", but "when". He runs a classic routine of US "Russia Studies" field who end up either in neocon think-tanks or analysts in CIA or any other org in the West and who are one of the main drivers behind Western decline since are good (not really, actually) at promoting narratives, however absurd they are--but that is where the main answer lies to West's decline.
  117. @Andrei Martyanov

    Winning against AH and Turkey, largely holding the line (not losing any core territories) against Germany… what specifically was “utterly” grotesque about it before February 1917?
     
    Karlin, I understand that they don't teach basic math in Berkley in your department but if you have heard of such thing as ratios of casualties, or, say more specific things like FER (Fractional Exchange Rates) you would immediately start trying to find actual data on those rates between German and Russian armies and those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7, NOT in favor of Russian Army. That means for a single German killed, Russian Army 7 (seven) its own KIA. This is called slaughter. You obviously need to enlighten yourself (and your cretin idol Kholmogorov) on how Brusilov's offensive ended up in catastrophic casualties fro Russian Army which almost equaled those of routed A-Hs. All despite brilliant zamysel (concept) by Brusilov and some new techniques such as Rolling Artillery Wall which used in it.

    I am not going to betray the memory of my forefathers for the drooling of foreigners.
     
    How about you start learning actual history of "your" forefathers. Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich. Not to mention false in the extreme.

    … those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    Overall – LOL, no chance, and not even close. How are the figures even supposed to add up.

    The casualty ratio on the Eastern Front overall was 1.5:1 in favor of the Central Powers. This is comparable to the ratio during WW2, although that is based on Overmans’ and Krivosheev’s figures, who almost certainly overstate German casualties and understate Soviet casualties, respectively.

    Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich.

    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don’t have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.
     
    You wouldn't be able to know what real victory is, because you have zero instruments for that.

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).
     
    You see, you obviously do not know the difference between battle and war, between strategy and operations.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don’t have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.
     
    Obviously WWII was easily avoidable (especially if Russia would have avoided the Bolshevik coup back in 1917), but considering that the immediate alternative (as in, from 1941 onward--as opposed to alternative options further back in time) to losing that many people was to have Germany take over the European part of Russia and very possibly deport tens of millions of Slavs or more to the Urals over the next several decades, well, Victory Day does seem like something worth celebrating--and I say this as someone who had some relatives (including at least one ancestor) serve in the Red Army during WWII and whose family endured Bolshevik rule for all 75 years or so.

    If, purely hypothetically, someone would have tried to take over all US territory east of the Mississippi and expel the Americans who were living there further west, and, in the process of victory, the US would have lost 20% of its male population (and 40% of its young adult male population), then this victory would have still been worth it relative to the immediate alternative--and thus worth celebrating to a certain extent. Of course, one would also naturally wonder whether there were any options further back in time that could have prevented this extremely massive bloodshed in the first place.

  118. @Yevardian
    Karlin and Kholmorogov are fringe figures, they don't represent popular or political opinion in the Russian Federation anyway whatsoever. His obvious disdain for Eastern Europe reflect his real contempt for real Russian culture and achievements (as if his spitting on victory day was not enough). But it's curious to follow such ambitious and unscrupulous characters, one day he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.

    he might make it to some US think-tank following a national disaster and do some real damage.

    Not might, he will most likely. It is the issue of not “if”, but “when”. He runs a classic routine of US “Russia Studies” field who end up either in neocon think-tanks or analysts in CIA or any other org in the West and who are one of the main drivers behind Western decline since are good (not really, actually) at promoting narratives, however absurd they are–but that is where the main answer lies to West’s decline.

  119. @Anatoly Karlin

    ... those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7
     
    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) - yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    Overall - LOL, no chance, and not even close. How are the figures even supposed to add up.

    The casualty ratio on the Eastern Front overall was 1.5:1 in favor of the Central Powers. This is comparable to the ratio during WW2, although that is based on Overmans' and Krivosheev's figures, who almost certainly overstate German casualties and understate Soviet casualties, respectively.

    Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich.
     
    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don't have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    You wouldn’t be able to know what real victory is, because you have zero instruments for that.

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    You see, you obviously do not know the difference between battle and war, between strategy and operations.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    It sure doesn't involve having 27M of your own people die to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald's... and in some particular cases, getting the hell out of at the first opportunity.
  120. @German_reader

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again
     
    You're mixing different things up. If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn't be opposed. Ukraine obviously would be trickier, since a large part of its population obviously doesn't want to be part of Russia and has a different national identity with different historical myths etc. Still, if it was possible to split up Ukraine in a mutually acceptable way, that would be alright too. I also believe Crimea should be part of Russia, since that seems to be in accordance with the wishes of most of its population.
    So I don't think borders should be sacrosanct in every case. Unilateral annexations though obviously raise a lot of problems for the international order. And when it's against the will of the affected population, one enters ugly territory of repression and forced assimilation pretty soon.
    But anyway, your buddy Kholmogorov obviously goes well beyond what most people outside of Russia could ever regard as legitimate national Russian interests, e.g. he's made it very clear again and again that he doesn't care at all about the national rights of the Baltic states...for him they're apparently simply part of the Russian imperial space, to be absorbed and Russified.
    Then there's this crazy WW1 revisionism...Kholmogorov (and you too, in the comments here) is basically arguing that Russian hegemony over all of Eastern/central Europe should have been the "correct" outcome of WW1. Quite apart from the fact that this is utterly grotesque given Russia's WW1 performance (and why should Britain and France, let alone the US with its crusade for democracy and self-determination of peoples, have considered such an outcome as desirable? Even in August 1914 there were people in Britain who anxiously wondered "What if Russia wins?"), why should anybody outside of Russia feel even the slightest sympathy for that? Do you think that the superiority of Russian civilization is somehow so self-evident that its hegemony over a vast part of Europe should just be considered as natural and intrinsically benevolent? Did the Polish subjects of the Russian empire see it that way?
    Don't you realize that views of this kind with all their implications will always be a hindrance to any constructive relations between Russia and its western neighbours? Or do you simply not care?

    Anyway, I wrote this just to clarify my position. It will be my last comment in this blog. tbh I've been disturbed by the implications of many of your statements for a long time. imo you should seriously think about the potential consequences of those imperial fantasies with their might makes right-cynicism, should they ever move beyond fringe sectors of the internet where one can fantasize about destroying or annexing other countries without any repercussions. It might turn out to be a pretty bad idea even from a perspective of pure self-interest.

    If there was some sort of movement within Belarus to voluntarily join Russia, of course I wouldn’t be opposed.

    Personally, I would oppose this movement but still support allowing it to do what it wants if they will gain enough support among the Belarusian people. As I previously said, I am attached to Belarus due to me having a Belarusian maternal grandmother.

  121. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    I just looked into the matter regarding Serbia. Tyler Durden seems to support your interpretation:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-threatens-serbia-sanctions-scrambles-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/ri27846

    Although granted this was not out of deference to America, but due to the threat of sanctions.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I haven't followed the story at all, I just saw a headline towards that effect on one of my feeds or discussion groups so deferred to your differing interpretation.

    That said, if true after all, I'd say that pulling out due to US sanctions threats definitely qualifies as deferring to America.
  122. @Anatoly Karlin

    ... those were grossly, many-fold, some estimates put it as high as 1 to 7
     
    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) - yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).

    Overall - LOL, no chance, and not even close. How are the figures even supposed to add up.

    The casualty ratio on the Eastern Front overall was 1.5:1 in favor of the Central Powers. This is comparable to the ratio during WW2, although that is based on Overmans' and Krivosheev's figures, who almost certainly overstate German casualties and understate Soviet casualties, respectively.

    Such statement from a dude who refuses to mark Victory Day on May 9 is rich.
     
    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don't have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.

    Correct, I see no reason to celebrate 13M Russian deaths, since I don’t have ghoulish and masochistic inclinations.

    Obviously WWII was easily avoidable (especially if Russia would have avoided the Bolshevik coup back in 1917), but considering that the immediate alternative (as in, from 1941 onward–as opposed to alternative options further back in time) to losing that many people was to have Germany take over the European part of Russia and very possibly deport tens of millions of Slavs or more to the Urals over the next several decades, well, Victory Day does seem like something worth celebrating–and I say this as someone who had some relatives (including at least one ancestor) serve in the Red Army during WWII and whose family endured Bolshevik rule for all 75 years or so.

    If, purely hypothetically, someone would have tried to take over all US territory east of the Mississippi and expel the Americans who were living there further west, and, in the process of victory, the US would have lost 20% of its male population (and 40% of its young adult male population), then this victory would have still been worth it relative to the immediate alternative–and thus worth celebrating to a certain extent. Of course, one would also naturally wonder whether there were any options further back in time that could have prevented this extremely massive bloodshed in the first place.

  123. @Andrei Martyanov

    I would much rather celebrate actual victories.
     
    You wouldn't be able to know what real victory is, because you have zero instruments for that.

    In certain particularly bad battles (Tannenberg, Gorlice) – yes, accurate. (Of course, even they pale besides the 20:1 ratios reached during the much bigger 1941 and some of the 1942 encirclement battles).
     
    You see, you obviously do not know the difference between battle and war, between strategy and operations.

    It sure doesn’t involve having 27M of your own people die to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s… and in some particular cases, getting the hell out of at the first opportunity.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s
     
    Are you suggesting that Russia should have permanently kept this empire?

    Also, you forgot to mention Coca-Cola here.
  124. @Denis
    I just looked into the matter regarding Serbia. Tyler Durden seems to support your interpretation:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-threatens-serbia-sanctions-scrambles-thwart-possible-s-400-purchase/ri27846

    Although granted this was not out of deference to America, but due to the threat of sanctions.

    I haven’t followed the story at all, I just saw a headline towards that effect on one of my feeds or discussion groups so deferred to your differing interpretation.

    That said, if true after all, I’d say that pulling out due to US sanctions threats definitely qualifies as deferring to America.

  125. @Anatoly Karlin
    It sure doesn't involve having 27M of your own people die to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald's... and in some particular cases, getting the hell out of at the first opportunity.

    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn’t compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Because I am well known for caring very much about foreign opinions as demonstrated throughout this thread.
    , @Simpleguest
    It's ironic how this guy's arrogance is based mostly on legacy "sovok" military industrial know-how.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence,
     
    Um ... the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?
    , @Fluctuarius
    The Soviet Union capitulated at the first sight of a sausage pointed at its heart.
    , @Korenchkin

    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people
     
    Pretty sure they just didn't want to live in a shithole anymore
    , @Philip Owen
    I am being pedantic but the British beat them in '1812'.They also had a civil war.
  126. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    Because I am well known for caring very much about foreign opinions as demonstrated throughout this thread.

  127. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    It’s ironic how this guy’s arrogance is based mostly on legacy “sovok” military industrial know-how.

  128. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence,

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?
     
    This is not even serious. But that brings us to the point I am trying to advance here--apart from Kholmogorov being a cretin and creep, obviously--no serious history buff, let alone serious military history or military professional will advance this "argument" because the United States does not know what continental warfare is absolutely. American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you--well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia's Civil War (so civil that shitload foreign invaders took part in it), let alone of WW II. No American soldier EVER died in modern era, or, for that matter since Revolutionary War, defending United States proper from the invasion. Moreover, numbers are simply not there for the United States to have what is known as shared historic experience of the warfare. Some US military veterans here and there, but that is about it. In general, it is better to avoid avoiding actual numbers and scales which, otherwise, give a good insight into the nature of warfare, especially warfare of the XX Century. Just recall what Lloyd George told Woodrow Wilson after he proposed peace without reparations and such, reflected in Wilson's 14 Points. yes, something-something-something about Empire's casualties. Some of those points were appropriated by... Bolsheviks. I elaborate on real continental warfare in length in my first book. French didn't like it--not the book, they actually were OK with it--the elaboration;) I wonder why? //s.
  129. @Anatoly Karlin
    It sure doesn't involve having 27M of your own people die to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald's... and in some particular cases, getting the hell out of at the first opportunity.

    to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s

    Are you suggesting that Russia should have permanently kept this empire?

    Also, you forgot to mention Coca-Cola here.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Depends on which Empire.

    The USSR could have got a much better deal in 1989.

    For example, earlier in the year, the Soviets could have rounded up the opposition leaders in Warsaw Pact countries and told them: "Okay, listen up, we are not complete idiots. When we allow open and free elections, you will win them fair and square, no arguing with that, no one believes in Communism anymore. But here's a catch, we will only allow them if you make certain pledges. When you write your new constitutions, make sure that a) non-participation in any military blocs is enshrined there; b) there are provisions for a limited contingent of Russian troops staying for 5-10-20 years to ensure a "peaceful transition to democracy". Understood? If you don't like this, we'll go full North Korea on you".

    That is just one out of an infinity of options.
  130. As always in this thread we can read that WW1 was avoidable without those pesky Serbs.
    What will happen if Russia and France didn’t honored Entente agreements with Serbia?
    My 2c:
    1. Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
    2. Rest will be WW2 but 25 years earlier:
    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
    • Ottomans with German support will restore rule on middle east, Saudis and other British puppets will be impaled
    • US will stay neutral, England will be forced to sign peace with new German super state
    • Habsburgs will be forced to abdicate, Austria will be attached to Germany
    • Most of Serbs and other Balkan people will be transferred to African colonies :D, German settlers will colonize Balkan. Turkey will be forced to transfer Istanbul to Germany.
    • Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    • Replies: @AP

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
     
    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
     
    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.
     
    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.
    , @reiner Tor
    This is assuming the German leadership in 1914 had the same ideas as Hitler. Which they had not.
  131. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not hostile to German nationalists per se obviously. I don't feel like hunting down the particular thread but German_nationalist has expressed the sentiment before that it's not a bad thing that Putin represses Russian nationalists (before 282 was decriminalized). So just returning the well wishes.

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can't say I'll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn't for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    And if Germany was to Anschluss Austria again I can’t say I’ll really care one or way another (so long as it wasn’t for something gay like Austria deporting Muslims).

    TBH, I strongly suspect that this boat has already passed long ago. After World War II, Austrians created a new, Austrian (or perhaps Neo-Austrian, following the identity that they had before 1918) identity for themselves and don’t appear to be particularly fond of the idea of being viewed as Germans.

    For that matter, Hungary has already long renounced its territorial claims to its pre-Trianon territories. Hungary has, of course, been willing to give Hungarian passports to its ethnic confreres across the border, but I don’t think that any serious Hungarian–even a nationalistic one–actually wants to wage war to recover some or all of Hungary’s pre-Trianon territories.

    As for Russian nationalists, if they really want to acquire Belarus, they should offer Lukashenko the opportunity to become Russia’s leader. This might have been what Lukashenko was thinking of doing eventually when he agreed to the Union State in the late 1990s before Putin’s rise blocked Lukashenko’s potential path to power in Russia. When one has one’s own fiefdom, one might not want to be a small guppy in someone else’s pond. Anyway, though, just like the US can survive without Canada, Russia can survive without Ukraine and Belarus. In any case, eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus aren’t actually going to be worth that much by 2100–with eastern+southern Ukraine having a population of perhaps 10 million in 2100 (a roughly twofold decrease from right now) while Belarus will have a population of perhaps 7-8 million in 2100. This would be in contrast to Russia’s 125 million people or so in 2100. So, a Russian annexation of eastern+southern Ukraine and Belarus won’t be worth all that much by 2100 considering that it would only increase Russia’s total population by around one-sixth.

  132. @Mr. XYZ

    with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it’s entire existence,
     
    Um ... the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?

    This is not even serious. But that brings us to the point I am trying to advance here–apart from Kholmogorov being a cretin and creep, obviously–no serious history buff, let alone serious military history or military professional will advance this “argument” because the United States does not know what continental warfare is absolutely. American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War (so civil that shitload foreign invaders took part in it), let alone of WW II. No American soldier EVER died in modern era, or, for that matter since Revolutionary War, defending United States proper from the invasion. Moreover, numbers are simply not there for the United States to have what is known as shared historic experience of the warfare. Some US military veterans here and there, but that is about it. In general, it is better to avoid avoiding actual numbers and scales which, otherwise, give a good insight into the nature of warfare, especially warfare of the XX Century. Just recall what Lloyd George told Woodrow Wilson after he proposed peace without reparations and such, reflected in Wilson’s 14 Points. yes, something-something-something about Empire’s casualties. Some of those points were appropriated by… Bolsheviks. I elaborate on real continental warfare in length in my first book. French didn’t like it–not the book, they actually were OK with it–the elaboration;) I wonder why? //s.

    • Replies: @AP

    American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War
     
    American Civil War had about 640,000 war dead.

    Napoleon's invasion of Russia had about 610,000 war dead.

    Spanish Civil War had a total of 275,000 killed.

    They didn't teach much history in Soviet second tier military schools?
  133. @anonlb
    As always in this thread we can read that WW1 was avoidable without those pesky Serbs.
    What will happen if Russia and France didn’t honored Entente agreements with Serbia?
    My 2c:
    1. Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
    2. Rest will be WW2 but 25 years earlier:
    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
    • Ottomans with German support will restore rule on middle east, Saudis and other British puppets will be impaled
    • US will stay neutral, England will be forced to sign peace with new German super state
    • Habsburgs will be forced to abdicate, Austria will be attached to Germany
    • Most of Serbs and other Balkan people will be transferred to African colonies :D, German settlers will colonize Balkan. Turkey will be forced to transfer Istanbul to Germany.
    • Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.

    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.
     
    TBF, Germany was thinking of annexing Briey-Longwy from France due to its massive iron ore deposits after WWI broke out. However, Yes, AFAIK, Germany had no territorial designs on either France or Russia before the start of WWI.

    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.
     
    If France is no longer a problem, Germany can easily take Russia on for a while after 1917.
    , @Fluctuarius

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories.
     
    You forgot colonies.
    , @anonlb
    My whole point was that without Entente agreements Germany can easy take down rivals one-by-one.
    Germany attacked France in order to eliminate old rival and force Europe/world designs on German terms. After France defeat Germany self confidence will reach new heights, he will get even stronger each year with access to vast colonial resources and middle eastern oil(via Ottomans).
    Imperial Russia and Britain will not have a chance to do anyting to disrupt Germany development and transformation of Europe into German dominion.
  134. @Andrei Martyanov

    Um … the American Revolutionary War? The War of 1812? The American Civil War?
     
    This is not even serious. But that brings us to the point I am trying to advance here--apart from Kholmogorov being a cretin and creep, obviously--no serious history buff, let alone serious military history or military professional will advance this "argument" because the United States does not know what continental warfare is absolutely. American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you--well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia's Civil War (so civil that shitload foreign invaders took part in it), let alone of WW II. No American soldier EVER died in modern era, or, for that matter since Revolutionary War, defending United States proper from the invasion. Moreover, numbers are simply not there for the United States to have what is known as shared historic experience of the warfare. Some US military veterans here and there, but that is about it. In general, it is better to avoid avoiding actual numbers and scales which, otherwise, give a good insight into the nature of warfare, especially warfare of the XX Century. Just recall what Lloyd George told Woodrow Wilson after he proposed peace without reparations and such, reflected in Wilson's 14 Points. yes, something-something-something about Empire's casualties. Some of those points were appropriated by... Bolsheviks. I elaborate on real continental warfare in length in my first book. French didn't like it--not the book, they actually were OK with it--the elaboration;) I wonder why? //s.

    American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War

    American Civil War had about 640,000 war dead.

    Napoleon’s invasion of Russia had about 610,000 war dead.

    Spanish Civil War had a total of 275,000 killed.

    They didn’t teach much history in Soviet second tier military schools?

    • Replies: @Denis
    Where did you get those numbers? I found 1 mil. dead for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. For the Spanish civil war, I found a wide variety of estimates.
  135. @AP

    American Civil War pales in comparison to both 1812 Napoleon invasion of Russia (mind you–well before industrialization) which lasted less than 6 months, it is roughly equaled by much more closer to us Spanish Civil War and is just but a small footnote against slaughterhouse of WW I, not to speak of Russia’s Civil War
     
    American Civil War had about 640,000 war dead.

    Napoleon's invasion of Russia had about 610,000 war dead.

    Spanish Civil War had a total of 275,000 killed.

    They didn't teach much history in Soviet second tier military schools?

    Where did you get those numbers? I found 1 mil. dead for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. For the Spanish civil war, I found a wide variety of estimates.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Wikipedia?
    , @AP
    I just went with wiki.

    Britannica:

    It is estimated that of the 612,000 combatants who entered Russia only 112,000 returned to the frontier. Among the casualties, 100,000 are thought to have been killed in action, 200,000 to have died from other causes, 50,000 to have been left sick in hospitals, 50,000 to have deserted, and 100,000 to have been taken as prisoners of war. The French themselves lost 70,000 in action and 120,000 wounded, as against the non-French contingents’ 30,000 and 60,000. Russian casualties have been estimated at 200,000 killed, 50,000 dispersed or deserting, and 150,000 wounded.
  136. @AP

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
     
    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
     
    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.
     
    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    TBF, Germany was thinking of annexing Briey-Longwy from France due to its massive iron ore deposits after WWI broke out. However, Yes, AFAIK, Germany had no territorial designs on either France or Russia before the start of WWI.

    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    If France is no longer a problem, Germany can easily take Russia on for a while after 1917.

  137. @Denis
    Where did you get those numbers? I found 1 mil. dead for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. For the Spanish civil war, I found a wide variety of estimates.

    Wikipedia?

  138. @Denis
    Where did you get those numbers? I found 1 mil. dead for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. For the Spanish civil war, I found a wide variety of estimates.

    I just went with wiki.

    Britannica:

    It is estimated that of the 612,000 combatants who entered Russia only 112,000 returned to the frontier. Among the casualties, 100,000 are thought to have been killed in action, 200,000 to have died from other causes, 50,000 to have been left sick in hospitals, 50,000 to have deserted, and 100,000 to have been taken as prisoners of war. The French themselves lost 70,000 in action and 120,000 wounded, as against the non-French contingents’ 30,000 and 60,000. Russian casualties have been estimated at 200,000 killed, 50,000 dispersed or deserting, and 150,000 wounded.

  139. @Anatoly Karlin

    Technically speaking, though, couldn’t Germany have tried to conquer more Russian territory in 1916 as opposed to launching an attack on Verdun?
     
    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense - they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    You can see from the graph I posted above the explosion in Russian military production from second half of 1916-early 1917. No February Revolution, and this may have worked out very badly for the Germans, with the decision not to continue the focus on Russia after Gorlice/Tarnow, when it was its relative weakest, perhaps to be subsequently identified as the huge error that lost them the war. /speculation

    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.

    Allegedly.

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn’s postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    Tellingly, the Kaiser, as well as Falkenhayn’s contemporaries Groener and Schulenberg, recalled after the war that Verdun was to be the start of a multi-phase plan which would end with the destruction of the BEF.

    We’ll never know what really happened, but it seems to me like Verdun turned into more than the Germans bargained for and Falkenhayn, who always played his cards close to his chest, justified the failed strategy after the fact as having been his cunning plan all along–vindicated by the later French mutiny.

    Unfortunately the German Army’s archives were destroyed in WW2 by Allied bombing, and in general the dysfunctional German government of WW1 with its lack of clear power centers makes it very difficult to sort out what really happened and why.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn’s postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.
     
    I've heard Indy Neidell express a theory that this memo never actually existed and that Falkenhayn simply made it up later.
    , @Seraphim
    It was alleged that the entry of Romania in WW1 combined with the Brusilov offensive had an impact on the end of the Verdun operation.
    Interesting is the declaration of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg at the moment of Romania's entry in the war:
    "The Rumanian policy was now guided by Premier Bratianu, who attempted to gain riches, without making great sacrifices, at the expense of the party suffering defeat in the war...
    Since the beginning of the world war Rumania has followed a policy of piracy, depending upon the general war situation. Rumania's military capitulation will prove as mistaken as her political capitulation to her Entente friends, which already has been proved to have been wrong.
    They must have hoped earnestly that Rumania's participation in the war would cause the defection of Bulgaria and Turkey, but Turkey and Bulgaria are not the same as Rumania and Italy. Firm and inviolable stands their faithfulness as allies, and they have won glorious victories in the Dobrudja".
  140. @Mr. XYZ
    TBH, I wonder if German_reader got offended way too easily here. I mean, it's the Internet--where it's extremely easy to get butthurt!

    Modern German nationalists tend to get extremely touchy. Their obviously cannot (aren’t allowed to) replicate the methods of Kaiser Wilhelm or, perish the thought, That Man With The Moustache to advance their goals, and usually despise the Multi-Kulti policies of the Merkelreich too much to admit they like it.

    So they have to resort to a very roundabout, contorted, and hypocritical way of cultural posturing, condemning all forms of “muh imperialism” (sour grapes!) and praising “muh Kultur” (overrated TBH) and “muh postwar economy” (which only exists because the US allowed it to).

    Also, let me remind everyone that modern Germany is not a fully sovereign state, and only regained near-full sovereignty around 1990 (again, only because the US and the USSR allowed it to while the UK and France howled bloody murder), which explains everything.

  141. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    The Soviet Union capitulated at the first sight of a sausage pointed at its heart.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  142. @Mr. XYZ

    to set up an empire that in a few decades you end up selling out for jeans and McDonald’s
     
    Are you suggesting that Russia should have permanently kept this empire?

    Also, you forgot to mention Coca-Cola here.

    Depends on which Empire.

    The USSR could have got a much better deal in 1989.

    For example, earlier in the year, the Soviets could have rounded up the opposition leaders in Warsaw Pact countries and told them: “Okay, listen up, we are not complete idiots. When we allow open and free elections, you will win them fair and square, no arguing with that, no one believes in Communism anymore. But here’s a catch, we will only allow them if you make certain pledges. When you write your new constitutions, make sure that a) non-participation in any military blocs is enshrined there; b) there are provisions for a limited contingent of Russian troops staying for 5-10-20 years to ensure a “peaceful transition to democracy”. Understood? If you don’t like this, we’ll go full North Korea on you”.

    That is just one out of an infinity of options.

  143. @AP

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
     
    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
     
    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.
     
    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories.

    You forgot colonies.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    German colonies were practically all just the worthless scraps of desert and jungle no other major power particularly wanted. Bismark despised the idea of a colonial empire and only embarked on it due to popular pressure for a prestige project, the Kaiser didn't have strong feelings either.
  144. @Thorfinnsson


    The Germans wanted to bleed the French white. Which made some perverted sense – they had twice the manpower, and the individual German soldier was 25% more combat effective.
     
    Allegedly.

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn's postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    Tellingly, the Kaiser, as well as Falkenhayn's contemporaries Groener and Schulenberg, recalled after the war that Verdun was to be the start of a multi-phase plan which would end with the destruction of the BEF.

    We'll never know what really happened, but it seems to me like Verdun turned into more than the Germans bargained for and Falkenhayn, who always played his cards close to his chest, justified the failed strategy after the fact as having been his cunning plan all along--vindicated by the later French mutiny.

    Unfortunately the German Army's archives were destroyed in WW2 by Allied bombing, and in general the dysfunctional German government of WW1 with its lack of clear power centers makes it very difficult to sort out what really happened and why.

    The basis for this claim is Falkenhayn’s postwar writing, in which he claims he wrote a memo to the Kaiser in late 1915 proposing the strategy. No such memo has ever been found.

    I’ve heard Indy Neidell express a theory that this memo never actually existed and that Falkenhayn simply made it up later.

  145. @Fluctuarius

    Germany had no issue with France over French territories.
     
    You forgot colonies.

    German colonies were practically all just the worthless scraps of desert and jungle no other major power particularly wanted. Bismark despised the idea of a colonial empire and only embarked on it due to popular pressure for a prestige project, the Kaiser didn’t have strong feelings either.

  146. @AP

    Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
     
    Ottoman Empire was neutral until after early victories in the war. It might have remained neutral or been enticed by Britain.

    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
     
    Germany had no issue with France over French territories. France had an issue with Germany over German territories (Alsace-Lorraine). France needed Russia to be at war with Germany so it could go to war against Germany in order to get those lands. Germany did not need war with France.

    Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.
     
    With no war or Bolshevism, Russia will continue to get stronger, more industrialized, etc. Doubtful there would be a war with the Central Powers in that case.

    My whole point was that without Entente agreements Germany can easy take down rivals one-by-one.
    Germany attacked France in order to eliminate old rival and force Europe/world designs on German terms. After France defeat Germany self confidence will reach new heights, he will get even stronger each year with access to vast colonial resources and middle eastern oil(via Ottomans).
    Imperial Russia and Britain will not have a chance to do anyting to disrupt Germany development and transformation of Europe into German dominion.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You don't understand German thinking in 1914, you just imagine that their thinking was the same as Hitler in 1939.
  147. @anonlb
    As always in this thread we can read that WW1 was avoidable without those pesky Serbs.
    What will happen if Russia and France didn’t honored Entente agreements with Serbia?
    My 2c:
    1. Serbia will surrender to AH, probably without any hot war. Germany and AH will achieve continental link with Ottomans/Turkey.
    2. Rest will be WW2 but 25 years earlier:
    • Germany will offer Russia to stay neutral, some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. After Serbia affair it will be hard to convince Russians to die for France or England.
    • Germany will attack and steamroll France, English forces (if any) in France will be captured. Some kind of German puppet state will be created in France; all colonies will be de facto transferred to Germany.
    • Ottomans with German support will restore rule on middle east, Saudis and other British puppets will be impaled
    • US will stay neutral, England will be forced to sign peace with new German super state
    • Habsburgs will be forced to abdicate, Austria will be attached to Germany
    • Most of Serbs and other Balkan people will be transferred to African colonies :D, German settlers will colonize Balkan. Turkey will be forced to transfer Istanbul to Germany.
    • Russia will be forced to transfer most of western territories: Poland, Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine to Germany, or will be vanquished. Russia probably survives as Germany satellite/buffer state in Asia.

    This is assuming the German leadership in 1914 had the same ideas as Hitler. Which they had not.

  148. @anonlb
    My whole point was that without Entente agreements Germany can easy take down rivals one-by-one.
    Germany attacked France in order to eliminate old rival and force Europe/world designs on German terms. After France defeat Germany self confidence will reach new heights, he will get even stronger each year with access to vast colonial resources and middle eastern oil(via Ottomans).
    Imperial Russia and Britain will not have a chance to do anyting to disrupt Germany development and transformation of Europe into German dominion.

    You don’t understand German thinking in 1914, you just imagine that their thinking was the same as Hitler in 1939.

    • Replies: @anonlb
    I beg to differ. Hitler didn't come out of thin air, without support of powerful military fractions in Germany he will never become chancellor, and many of his policies are only extension of Prussian/German policies pursued for centuries.
  149. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

     

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could've easily chosen to accept Serbia's reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn't. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia's response to A-H's ultimatum removed any reason for war ...

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand's assassination (which they weren't, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would've acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830's and 1840's. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn't accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia ...

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.

    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    It took almost a week for the incompetent investigation to establish incontrovertibly that the assassination was organized from Serbia by members of the Serbian military. Due to the strong opposition of the Hungarian prime minister Tisza, the Austrians couldn’t even start anything before getting proof of Serbian involvement. After that, the moment for a swift action had already passed, and Austria tried to get diplomatic support from all parts of Europe to ensure that they won’t have to face Russia alone in a war. This meant German assurances, and they also tried to get Russia and France out of this. (Impossible, since both the French and the Russians simply parroted the Serbian lies about their non-involvement without even looking much into the evidence.)

    I think it was stupid to press for war (Franz Ferdinand would’ve agreed, he thought that the internal weakness of Austria-Hungary precluded any war as much as possible), but not impossible to understand. Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people

    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war. As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.
     
    Hungarian opposition is cool and all, but it has never changed the course of history in the past 200 years and most probably never will in the future (sorry to disappoint, although it would be cool if it did). Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed and Tisza's opposition to war with Serbia in 1914 was also quickly dismissed. It only logically follows that the opposition of Tisza and Hungarians to annexing Serbia after a theoretical victory by Austria-Hungary would also have been further ignored.

    Just as an interesting side-note, there is an uncanny similarity between Tisza and Orban imo. Orban has not been able to stop any US-EU-NATO agendas, he has only been able to delay, temper or restrain them a bit. For example, collective EU-NATO resolution on Ukraine, EU infinity migration, etc.


    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

     

    My bad. Still doesn't change the fact that the Austria-Hungary did not immediately act upon the assassination as it was only interested in using it as a pretext to eliminate Serbia, which it could only do in a more prolonged time period of careful planning.

    Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.
     
    Does your definition of "further provocations" including Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia's economy from 1906-1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary's unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Also Austria-Hungary's support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    Do none of those things count as provocations on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia?

    Austria-Hungary whining about the assassination as an unacceptable provocation and a legitimate reason to start a world war is just pure hypocrisy.


    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war.
     
    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign, just to get things clear, in case you have a different conception of what it means to be sovereign.

    Your comment only further proves the fact that Austria-Hungary simply could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia free from its control. 1 million+ dead Serbs (Macva War Crimes, Austria-Hungary's concentration camps for Serbs, Habsburg Army mass murdering of Serb civilians, etc.) is ultimate proof that Austria-Hungary could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia (or for that matter the existence of the Serbian people, period), if any was ever needed.

    By the way, Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.


    As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

     

    Sure, the opinion of Scandinavians in general is basically irrelevant. Still, Britain was also strongly anti-Serbian and involved in many anti-Serb schemes including 1878 and 1912-1913 by deliberately sabotaging Serb territorial gains (not to mention Britain having no diplomatic relations with Serbia from 1903-1905 and refusing to help the Serb Army retreat in 1915).
  150. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A-H’s demands of Serbia were entirely reasonable.

     

    Again with the WW1 historical revisionism.

    A-H received a more than reasonable response to the ultimatum that it sent to Serbia, which amounted to near 100% acceptance by the Serbian government. A-H even had the option of marching its army into Belgrade and then going back as a show of force that Serbia was willing to accept. They could've easily chosen to accept Serbia's reasonable reply to their ultimatum, but they didn't. Also, even German Kaiser Wilhelm II (the same guy that said Serbs were orientals and bandits, btw) stated that Serbia's response to A-H's ultimatum removed any reason for war ...

    Also, your ranting about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand's assassination (which they weren't, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would've acted more immediately upon it.

    The Habsburgs never liked the existence of Serbia. Klemens von Metternich was contemptuous and mocking of the fact that Serbia even existed as an autonomous principality in the Ottoman Empire, had a flag and its own government back in the 1830's and 1840's. The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn't accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people and were willing to plunge Europe and the world into a bloody war in order to remove Serbia from the world map is their problem, not that of Serbs or Serbia ...

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family)

    That’s also wrong. You might not like your nephew that much, and have disagreements with him over politics or his choice of a spouse, but it doesn’t mean that you don’t mourn when he’s murdered. The Emperor Franz Joseph was weeping when hearing news of his death, he even bended some rules of etiquette afterwards, which deeply impressed people around him, like I think the foreign minister Berchtold.

    It’s also true that he wasn’t popular among the people, but paradoxically that changed after his death. His public persona was not very likable (he was prone to bursts of anger, for example), but after his death the press (not only the tabloids) reported his family life (how much he loved his wife and family), and a guy who marries the love of his life despite the opposition of his family and heavy social costs to be paid (his children couldn’t have inherited the throne), and then loves his children very much, became a pretty sympathetic figure for the public, right after his death. Such personal details (other than the fact of his morganatic marriage) weren’t published in the tabloid press of the time (the Habsburgs protected their privacy, and didn’t understand effective media propaganda), only after his death, so after his death he became much more popular than before. His last words (“Sophie, don’t die, you must live for the children…”), which were published immediately on the evening of his death, only confirmed this suddenly created popular image. While it was created by the press, this was still a genuine feeling. Even in Hungary his image improved after his death (though he was truly unpopular there due to his widely known negative view of Hungary and his plans to break up Hungary).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    For the record, my opinion is that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a strategically bad decision (obviously).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

     

    Again, the Habsburgs had other viable options available to them besides declaring war on Serbia.
  151. There were many imperial ambitions involved in starting what we call WWI. Blaming Germany allows us to overlook England, France, Austo-Hungary and Russia’s own Machiavellian motives and actions.

    Regardless of why they began, by the end, the world wars should have taught us the limits of abstract propositional nationalism colonialism and multi-ethnic hundred-million man polities in general. They should have led to near-universal respect for ethno-nationalism based on popular sovereignty.

    For sure there would have been bloodshed from this post-Westphalian adjustment. No war will ever end all war and only the grave delivers absolute peace. But these conflicts would have been regional, not worldwide and would have offered the best prospects for lasting peace through ethnic separation for the greatest possible number of people (and peoples).

    Instead, we tried the opposite approach – first the absurd fiction of world governance then the bi-polar superpower conflict.

    On the century-long timeline our biological reality is fortunately beginning to re-assert itself. Regional quasi-ethnic powers are again rising despite the dying U.S. pretender hyperpower’s best efforts.

    Full disclosure I say this as an American who believes the death of empire is necessary to save my country before it falls harder & faster than Britain has from 1945-2019.

    100 years on let’s finally learn the necessary lessons of decentralization, regionalized “world policing,” ethno-nationalism and peace through separation.

  152. @reiner Tor
    You don't understand German thinking in 1914, you just imagine that their thinking was the same as Hitler in 1939.

    I beg to differ. Hitler didn’t come out of thin air, without support of powerful military fractions in Germany he will never become chancellor, and many of his policies are only extension of Prussian/German policies pursued for centuries.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You have already convinced me that you know nothing about history (other than some rough caricature), no need to press the case further.
  153. @anonlb
    I beg to differ. Hitler didn't come out of thin air, without support of powerful military fractions in Germany he will never become chancellor, and many of his policies are only extension of Prussian/German policies pursued for centuries.

    You have already convinced me that you know nothing about history (other than some rough caricature), no need to press the case further.

    • Replies: @anonlb
    I'm not historian but learned some basic facts from various sources. And my post was about my hipotetical scenario in which Entete aliance failed on beginnig of WW1 and Germany achieved victory over France, not actual history.
  154. @AP

    Hmmm, can we say that the Russians voted the commies in more than we can say that the Germans voted the Nazis into power?
     
    Germans actually voted the Nazis into power:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg/350px-Reichstagswahl_November_1932.svg.png

    Bolsheviks lost the election, then seized power:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election

    True, they had enough support within Russia to seize power in that country (in contrast their attempt in Kiev was crushed by Ukrainians - they came to power in Ukraine thanks to an invasion from Russia). But they were clearly a minority in Russia.

    Oh hell, let’s skip the tedious details.

    Who was “worse” Stalin or Hitler?
     
    Overall Hitler was a bit worse. However they came close and various peoples were treated better either by Hitler or Stalin. So for Jews, Russians, and Poles Hitler was clearly worse. For Balts, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Tatars, and western Ukrainians Stalin was clearly worse. Overall Stalin was worse for central and eastern Ukrainians, but by the late 1930s and 1940s Hitler was worse (Stalin's crimes mostly happened in the early 1930s so by the time the Nazis occupied central and eastern Ukraine their behavior was much worse than recent Soviet behavior). It is not rocket science why certain people allied with Hitler or with Stalin against the other.

    This is a gross oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @AP

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag.
     

    It was nevertheless a solid victory in a multiparty election. They got 33% of the popular vote, their partners got another 8%.

    The next rival got only 20%.

    Turnout was 80.5%.

    Compare to the last German election: Merkel got 33% of the vote.

    Compare to the last Canadian election: Liberal Party won with 33%.


    Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.
     
    A good point. Still, Nazis won a popular election.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war.
     
    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies
     
    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin.
     
    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn't zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.
     
    Correct, but majority of the population tried not to fight. Turnout in the German election was 80%. "Turnout" in the Civil War in the beginning (later Bolsheviks were able to force people to fight for them through conscription) was miniscule. Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Russian masses can be blamed for being passive and not stopping the Bolsheviks. But they didn't choose them, either.


    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust
     
    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Technically speaking, though, in Mein Kampf, Hitler did talk about acquiring territories at Russia's expense and resuming that Ostsiedlung. That said, though, it's possible that some or even many Germans viewed this as being empty rhetoric and not as an actual statement of Hitler's desired policies for Germany.
    , @Philip Owen
    Disagree. The key to the Bolshevik takeover was their focus on building strength in the army and among most communication workers. The SRs had a lot of support but it was not armed and it was not coherent. Even so, until Lenin's German money arrived, the Bolsheviks were a nuisance not amthreat to Kerensky. I speak of the Volga Region rather than the capitals. Until Lenin's sisters arrived in Saratov with money, even the Kadets were more effective.
    , @John Gruskos

    They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered.
     
    The Bolsheviks promised peace and land, but they delivered civil war and collectivization, and there was good reason to suspect that this would be the case.

    Perhaps the SR voters had more wisdom than you give them credit for.
  155. @Anatoly Karlin
    Instead they are following the whims of their American rulers, even including Serbia, which recently canceled its S-400 purchases under American pressure.

    There’s a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don’t really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could’ve guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.
     
    You seem to be going off on another tangent. Where did I say anything about conquering? (apart from during the exigencies of wartime, but propaganda all over the world portrays that as "liberation" by default).

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?
     
    The Germanophile Romanian king lobbied against joining the Entente, in opposition to his deeply Francophile elites.

    The latter turned out stronger than the former, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case everywhere.

    Incidentally, the Germans regarded this as a betrayal on Romania's part, which partly explains why Romanian soldiers had the highest death rates of any warring state in enemy POW camps.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    It would probably be a good idea if these Romanov Kings would have been installed with the consent of the people and elite of the relevant Eastern European countries as opposed to being installed by Russian bayonets similar to the various post-WWII Communist leaderships of Eastern Europe.

    As a side note, though, I think that the logic would be to have Russia appeal to these countries through a sense of Pan-Slavic and/or Pan-Orthodox solidarity.
    , @utu
    There’s a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    Soft power is not a Russian thing. Never was. In 2018 Russian actor Alexey Serebryakov got in some trouble for pretty much stating it:

    “I think if you drive 30, 50 or 70 kilometers away from Moscow, you will see that the 90s there never ended. No matter how you look at it, today neither knowledge, enterprise, intelligence nor dignity are part of our national idea. Our national idea is brutal power, arrogance, and rudeness.
     
    Interesting guy who was in several very good films. Here is an interview with him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJL4GsSrcc
  156. @reiner Tor
    You have already convinced me that you know nothing about history (other than some rough caricature), no need to press the case further.

    I’m not historian but learned some basic facts from various sources. And my post was about my hipotetical scenario in which Entete aliance failed on beginnig of WW1 and Germany achieved victory over France, not actual history.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.
  157. @Andrei Martyanov
    Again, get you facts and numbers straight from Archives of Russian MoD as represented by Krivosheev in Russia And USSR In The Wars of the XX Century.

    But as a loyal Stalinist, what are you doing citing the counter-revolutionary and terrorist Svechin anyway?
     
    A "profound" argument. I also have Mein Kampf at home, read many German and Nazi military leaders, I also have a rather good insight into the American military theorists and historians. But sure, let's call it that--I am Stalinist. While at it, just browse some of Egorushka "pearls" throughout his "career" as a "historian". I would rather be Stalinist than post excrement of a yurodivyi cretin and present it as a viable "work".

    http://lurkmore.to/%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

    But if you would do your due diligence you would learn a whole lot more about your "idol".

    as represented by Krivosheev

    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev’s work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses?

    It seems the man unironically proclaimed all disabled, damaged, detracked, broken Soviet AFVs (counted as losses on reports due to not being combat capable) as total losses.
    His claim of 97000 destroyed Soviet tanks and SPGs is mind-boggingly stupid.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev’s work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses
     
    I value Krivosheev's work on personnel losses. It is universally praised and accepted as one of the most important contributions to the issue of human losses in WW II. Any technological (tanks, self-propelled guns, aircraft etc.) "accounting" is more difficult, but if you would see the numbers of tanks and other vehicles produced by the USSR throughout the WW II, you will see that 97 000 vehicles destroyed doesn't seem as something out of ordinary. USSR by different estimates produced throughout WW II roughly 120, 000 tanks and armored vehicles. I don't have Voznesensky's memoirs at hand to give you comparative number--the monstrous scale of the war on Eastern Front should not be overlooked. In general, while it is important issue, it is somewhat off-topic here, since the thread is about Kholmogorov and his and Karlin's "interpretation" of WW I.
  158. I can only laugh at people proclaiming border changes and imperialism as evil and illegitimate, denial of ethnic and historic borders, self-determination…

    In reality, here is how it goes – you conquer/draw the border, then look to exterminate, expell and/or assimilate the foreigners who ended up in those borders.

    This is the modus operandi of the Habsburgs, of the French, of Germans, Russians historically AND Titoists/Yugocommunists, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosniaks locally etc.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    An interesting perspective and thought process that most people would truthfully not be brave enough to admit that they actually seriously think along those lines (or smart enough to not admit it), whether consciously or unconsciously.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

     

    I couldn't agree more. If you have any detailed and comprehensive sources on the matter I would greatly appreciate you stating them.

    From what I last remember reading about the matter some time ago was that some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current "Albanian flag". Of course, the language, "government", and everything else to do with "Albania" is fake.

    , @Korenchkin

    entirely foreign manufactured
     
    Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say it's

    entirely
     
    manufactured
  159. @reiner Tor
    Serbia wouldn't have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would've opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary ("Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?" - that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a few threads back and pretending it was a big deal, was as everyone knew for all practical intents and purposes, a non-issue, since A-H waited 2 months after the assassination in order to send its carefully and cunningly planned ultimatum to Serbia. If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family), they would’ve acted more immediately upon it.
     
    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    It took almost a week for the incompetent investigation to establish incontrovertibly that the assassination was organized from Serbia by members of the Serbian military. Due to the strong opposition of the Hungarian prime minister Tisza, the Austrians couldn't even start anything before getting proof of Serbian involvement. After that, the moment for a swift action had already passed, and Austria tried to get diplomatic support from all parts of Europe to ensure that they won't have to face Russia alone in a war. This meant German assurances, and they also tried to get Russia and France out of this. (Impossible, since both the French and the Russians simply parroted the Serbian lies about their non-involvement without even looking much into the evidence.)

    I think it was stupid to press for war (Franz Ferdinand would've agreed, he thought that the internal weakness of Austria-Hungary precluded any war as much as possible), but not impossible to understand. Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    The fact that A-H, the Habsburgs, and Germanics in general couldn’t accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia or Serbian people
     
    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he'd just leave them alone in a war. As to "Germanics in general," that's even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.

    Hungarian opposition is cool and all, but it has never changed the course of history in the past 200 years and most probably never will in the future (sorry to disappoint, although it would be cool if it did). Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed and Tisza’s opposition to war with Serbia in 1914 was also quickly dismissed. It only logically follows that the opposition of Tisza and Hungarians to annexing Serbia after a theoretical victory by Austria-Hungary would also have been further ignored.

    Just as an interesting side-note, there is an uncanny similarity between Tisza and Orban imo. Orban has not been able to stop any US-EU-NATO agendas, he has only been able to delay, temper or restrain them a bit. For example, collective EU-NATO resolution on Ukraine, EU infinity migration, etc.

    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

    My bad. Still doesn’t change the fact that the Austria-Hungary did not immediately act upon the assassination as it was only interested in using it as a pretext to eliminate Serbia, which it could only do in a more prolonged time period of careful planning.

    Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.

    Does your definition of “further provocations” including Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    Do none of those things count as provocations on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia?

    Austria-Hungary whining about the assassination as an unacceptable provocation and a legitimate reason to start a world war is just pure hypocrisy.

    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war.

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign, just to get things clear, in case you have a different conception of what it means to be sovereign.

    Your comment only further proves the fact that Austria-Hungary simply could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia free from its control. 1 million+ dead Serbs (Macva War Crimes, Austria-Hungary’s concentration camps for Serbs, Habsburg Army mass murdering of Serb civilians, etc.) is ultimate proof that Austria-Hungary could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia (or for that matter the existence of the Serbian people, period), if any was ever needed.

    By the way, Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.

    As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

    Sure, the opinion of Scandinavians in general is basically irrelevant. Still, Britain was also strongly anti-Serbian and involved in many anti-Serb schemes including 1878 and 1912-1913 by deliberately sabotaging Serb territorial gains (not to mention Britain having no diplomatic relations with Serbia from 1903-1905 and refusing to help the Serb Army retreat in 1915).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed
     
    The issue is, Hungary didn't oppose the occupation in 1878 (which was decided by the concert of the great powers of Europe, it was not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy), actually it was brokered by the common Austrian-Hungarian foreign minister Count Andrássy, who had been the first prime minister of Hungary after the Compromise with the Habsburgs in 1867. He belonged to the first generation of Hungarian leaders, who were not very nationalistic (the nationalities law in 1868, the first of its kind in Europe, was so good that some Hungarian MPs trolled the Romanian parliament in the 1990s by proposing a Romanian translation of it to be made law in Romania), and so he didn't care that much. However, after the 1870s the Hungarian leadership started to become increasingly apprehensive of the fact that Hungarians were in fact just a plurality in Hungary, and so opposition to foreign adventures got more prominent.

    There was already opposition to the annexation of Bosnia in 1908, but because it was basically just the legalization of an already de facto state of affairs, it was possible to push through Hungary. Annexations in Serbia would've been a different issue, especially because there was considerable opposition to it in Vienna as well. Many in the Austrian leadership were also strongly opposed to annexing further unruly South Slavs, and for the same reason the Hungarians opposed it: it made the empire even less stable.

    Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?
     
    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn't so bad.

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?
     
    Serbia ended the trade agreements with Austria-Hungary and entered a customs union with Bulgaria. They also started buying French ammunitions, from the enemies of Austria-Hungary's only ally Germany. This resulted in a trade war.

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?
     
    It was not unilateral. The Ottomans (according to international law, the rightful owners of the place) got paid a hefty sum, so they didn't complain. Austria-Hungary also secretly notified Russia and made a secret agreement with them, which they then broke when it turned out that the Russian nationalist press was furious. Anyway, Austria-Hungary first tried to placate all the great powers, I'm not sure what's unilateral in that.

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?
     
    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn't want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.
     
    I'm not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don't know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn't accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power... no.)

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign
     
    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.
     
    They decided to prepare for war against the Triple Entente, for example increase the production of U-Boats. And then they did... nothing. They didn't even increase the production of U-Boats. Why not? Well, it cost a lot of money, and apparently they weren't seriously planning for a world war, rather just a contingency.
  160. @reiner Tor

    If the Habsburgs really were so bothered by Ferdinand’s assassination (which they weren’t, since he was the black sheep of their family)
     
    That's also wrong. You might not like your nephew that much, and have disagreements with him over politics or his choice of a spouse, but it doesn't mean that you don't mourn when he's murdered. The Emperor Franz Joseph was weeping when hearing news of his death, he even bended some rules of etiquette afterwards, which deeply impressed people around him, like I think the foreign minister Berchtold.

    It's also true that he wasn't popular among the people, but paradoxically that changed after his death. His public persona was not very likable (he was prone to bursts of anger, for example), but after his death the press (not only the tabloids) reported his family life (how much he loved his wife and family), and a guy who marries the love of his life despite the opposition of his family and heavy social costs to be paid (his children couldn't have inherited the throne), and then loves his children very much, became a pretty sympathetic figure for the public, right after his death. Such personal details (other than the fact of his morganatic marriage) weren't published in the tabloid press of the time (the Habsburgs protected their privacy, and didn't understand effective media propaganda), only after his death, so after his death he became much more popular than before. His last words ("Sophie, don't die, you must live for the children..."), which were published immediately on the evening of his death, only confirmed this suddenly created popular image. While it was created by the press, this was still a genuine feeling. Even in Hungary his image improved after his death (though he was truly unpopular there due to his widely known negative view of Hungary and his plans to break up Hungary).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

    For the record, my opinion is that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a strategically bad decision (obviously).

    So certainly there was some public pressure to do something against the Serbs.

    Again, the Habsburgs had other viable options available to them besides declaring war on Serbia.

  161. @Epigon
    I can only laugh at people proclaiming border changes and imperialism as evil and illegitimate, denial of ethnic and historic borders, self-determination...

    In reality, here is how it goes - you conquer/draw the border, then look to exterminate, expell and/or assimilate the foreigners who ended up in those borders.

    This is the modus operandi of the Habsburgs, of the French, of Germans, Russians historically AND Titoists/Yugocommunists, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosniaks locally etc.


    Regarding identity - the case study of "Albania" and "Albanian" identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

    An interesting perspective and thought process that most people would truthfully not be brave enough to admit that they actually seriously think along those lines (or smart enough to not admit it), whether consciously or unconsciously.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

    I couldn’t agree more. If you have any detailed and comprehensive sources on the matter I would greatly appreciate you stating them.

    From what I last remember reading about the matter some time ago was that some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”. Of course, the language, “government”, and everything else to do with “Albania” is fake.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”
     
    Ethnic groups can exist without a flag. Hungarians didn't have a national flag until the early 19th century (the national colors were occasionally in use already in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example during coronation ceremonies or for some official documents), and it only got its final form and became official first in 1848 (and then again in 1867).

    Albanians were Muslims (or Catholics in smaller numbers), not Orthodox like the Serbs, and spoke Albanian, not Serb, had different customs, different (though not extremely different) genetic origins, different national consciousness (they were aware that they weren't Serbs), that's enough to mark them as a different ethnic group. Regardless of whether they had a flag or not.
  162. @Epigon

    as represented by Krivosheev
     
    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev's work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses?

    It seems the man unironically proclaimed all disabled, damaged, detracked, broken Soviet AFVs (counted as losses on reports due to not being combat capable) as total losses.
    His claim of 97000 destroyed Soviet tanks and SPGs is mind-boggingly stupid.

    Mr. Martyanov, what is your opinion of Krivosheev’s work on Soviet WW2 losses, in particular, AFVs losses

    I value Krivosheev’s work on personnel losses. It is universally praised and accepted as one of the most important contributions to the issue of human losses in WW II. Any technological (tanks, self-propelled guns, aircraft etc.) “accounting” is more difficult, but if you would see the numbers of tanks and other vehicles produced by the USSR throughout the WW II, you will see that 97 000 vehicles destroyed doesn’t seem as something out of ordinary. USSR by different estimates produced throughout WW II roughly 120, 000 tanks and armored vehicles. I don’t have Voznesensky’s memoirs at hand to give you comparative number–the monstrous scale of the war on Eastern Front should not be overlooked. In general, while it is important issue, it is somewhat off-topic here, since the thread is about Kholmogorov and his and Karlin’s “interpretation” of WW I.

  163. The “flaw” in the thinking of right wing nationalists is the ever present desire to disavow the legitimacy of different groups within the polity. This applies to present day nation states and it applies to fading Empires. The Latvian Riflemen, and other groups, were good enough to fight and die for Imperial Russia, but when they asserted their political rights and input into what the future of the Empire would be they are “disenfranchised” from that discussion by people like AK. This thinking has limited appeal in the Western world.

  164. @reiner Tor
    This is a gross oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag.

    It was nevertheless a solid victory in a multiparty election. They got 33% of the popular vote, their partners got another 8%.

    The next rival got only 20%.

    Turnout was 80.5%.

    Compare to the last German election: Merkel got 33% of the vote.

    Compare to the last Canadian election: Liberal Party won with 33%.

    Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.

    A good point. Still, Nazis won a popular election.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin.

    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.

    Correct, but majority of the population tried not to fight. Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning (later Bolsheviks were able to force people to fight for them through conscription) was miniscule. Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Russian masses can be blamed for being passive and not stopping the Bolsheviks. But they didn’t choose them, either.

    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust

    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.
     
    The SRs subsequently split--with the Left SRs supporting the Bolsheviks, no? So, the Bolsheviks were initially able to get a part of the SRs onto their side.

    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.
     
    Jew persecution, Yes, mostly likely. As for territorial changes, please keep in mind that, AFAIK, it wasn't only the Nazis who were advocating this. For instance, Germany waged a years-long trade war against Poland between 1925 and 1934 (I believe that this trade war was started under the "moderate" Weimar German Chancellor Gustav Stresemann) in an unsuccessful attempt to coerce Poland to agree to revise its border with Germany and agree to a German re-acquisition of Danzig and the Polish Corridor (and *maybe* eastern Upper Silesia as well). So, the fact that most Germans voted for non-Nazi parties does not necessarily mean that they were against the idea of border revisions--including the idea of coercing neighboring countries (especially Poland) to agree to revise their border with Germany.
    , @reiner Tor

    a solid victory in a multiparty election
     
    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.
     
    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn't desert much and didn't resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they'd take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren't exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.
     
    Well, Bolsheviks also massacred industrial workers, Jews, Latvians, or damn near anybody who resisted them. Established industrial workers with roots in the cities actually preferred the Mensheviks or other moderates, Bolshevik support was strongest among the soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant stock. That's how the Bolsheviks controlled the Petrograd Soviet: the population of the city actually didn't support the Bolsheviks much, but the Soldiers' Soviets had a much higher representation, and because they had weapons, nobody dared say anything against them.

    Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.
     
    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many? What we know is that the SRs were pretty ineffectual in starting an uprising against the Bolsheviks, and were pushed aside by more radical anti-Bolsheviks (commonly known as the Whites), because they didn't add anything to the equation: they couldn't muster much support.

    Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning
     
    You cannot compare the effort required to cast a vote in an election compared to participate in a civil war with weapons.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.
     
    Didn't the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while? 1970s and 1980s communist textbooks in Hungary actually ascribe to them the start of the civil war and they were blamed for why the Whites nearly recaptured Russia.

    Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.
     
    Territorial changes are not evil in and of themselves. Poles wanted territorial changes before 1914, Ukrainians 1920-1991, etc. They lost a world war and wanted to reverse their fortune. Interestingly, the vast majority of Germans considered the job finished by the summer of 1938, and didn't really want to fight a war for the Sudetenland. After 1938, the gap between Hitler's adventurism and the people's wish to just enjoy the peace grew enormously.

    The biggest issue was ending the humiliation: French occupation in the Ruhr was already solved by 1933, but the demilitarized zone, getting back the Saar, building a strong army like other European states, and to allow the Anschluss of German Austria. These could be achieved without a war. Perhaps the Polish corridor was considered important, but it was unclear if diplomacy or diplomacy combined with some military threats could be sufficient to achieve this. Nobody expected Hitler to risk world war for the corridor, nor did people that much care for the issue by 1939 anyway.

    Regarding Jew persecution, Gestapo and SD reports kept complaining that even committed Nazis considered the Jewish Question to have been solved as early as fall 1933.

    Of course, Russians voting for the Bolsheviks or even the SRs could expect some persecution of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, couldn't they? After all, both parties wanted to take land away from them (though with the SRs it was unclear if they wanted to compensate them to an extent, it was pretty clear from the beginning that not much compensation would be forthcoming even under a purely SR government). Not to forget that beating up or killing officers etc. started already in the summer of 1917.

  165. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust

    I’d expect people around here to be a tad more skeptical regarding the 6 gorillion.

  166. @Epigon
    I can only laugh at people proclaiming border changes and imperialism as evil and illegitimate, denial of ethnic and historic borders, self-determination...

    In reality, here is how it goes - you conquer/draw the border, then look to exterminate, expell and/or assimilate the foreigners who ended up in those borders.

    This is the modus operandi of the Habsburgs, of the French, of Germans, Russians historically AND Titoists/Yugocommunists, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosniaks locally etc.


    Regarding identity - the case study of "Albania" and "Albanian" identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

    entirely foreign manufactured

    Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to say it’s

    entirely

    manufactured

  167. @reiner Tor
    There's a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don't seem to understand it, instead - if your comments are an indication of their attitudes - they are still in the business of insulting or - at least implicitly - threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don't really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could've guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    You seem to be going off on another tangent. Where did I say anything about conquering? (apart from during the exigencies of wartime, but propaganda all over the world portrays that as “liberation” by default).

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    The Germanophile Romanian king lobbied against joining the Entente, in opposition to his deeply Francophile elites.

    The latter turned out stronger than the former, but that wouldn’t necessarily be the case everywhere.

    Incidentally, the Germans regarded this as a betrayal on Romania’s part, which partly explains why Romanian soldiers had the highest death rates of any warring state in enemy POW camps.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Actually, Romania was inclining towards Russia. Her intervention in 1913 in support of Serbia, backed by Russia against Bulgaria backed by Germany and Austria seriously worried the Central Powers with which Romania had a treaty of alliance kept secret because the public opinion was dead set against Austro-Hungary even without the Francophile leanings of the 'elites', because of the problem of Romanians in Transylvania.
    The visit of the Imperial family to Romania in June 1914 with the aim to arrange the marriage of the son of Crown Prince Ferdinand, the future King Carol II, with the Grand Duchess Olga, the eldest daughter of Nicholas II, was even more alarming. The Crown Princess Maria, the future Queen, was herself the daughter of the Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of the Tsar Alexandre II. In early 1914, Marie traveled to Russia in order to visit her mother and other relatives. She formed a “triple alliance” of her own with two of her female relatives, her sister Victoria Melita (known as “Ducky” to her friends) and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna ("Miechen" to her friends), wife of Grand Duke Vladimir, the third son of Alexander II, in order to improve relations between Romania and Russia.
    Russia, since the reign of Catherine the Great, supported the creation of a Kingdom of Dacia, which would include Transylvania.
    , @reiner Tor

    Where did I say anything about conquering?
     
    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest. (Incidentally, after Romania acquiring Transylvania, its only remaining irredentist goal would be Bessarabia...)

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).
     
    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.
     
    These countries often had issues with each other. Hungarians and Romanians, Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, etc. Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence. Probably the negative effect of communism and accompanying impoverishment was needed even for American soft power to accomplish that. (See South Korea and Japan, both in the American camp, nearing war with each other.)

    Not to mention that Russian troops would have stood deep in Russian territory at the end of the war. Why do you think that France and Britain would've just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe? After all, France couldn't achieve its maximalist goals in 1918, for example Germany wasn't dismantled, France didn't get to annex the Saarland (only temporarily) and other similar areas, etc. etc. If France couldn't achieve much (other than Alsace and getting a few League of Nations mandates), why would Russia achieve so much more? Similarly, Italy couldn't achieve much (granted, it was the weakest of the great powers). Russia was probably the weakest member of the Triple Entente (though stronger than Italy), so not very likely that its maximalist goals would've been honored.
  168. Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan

    Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stand_on_the_Ugra_River

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @melanf

    Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/
     
    This of course victory but "overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke" this a clear legend. Then it is necessary to celebrate the events of July 1472 (standing on the Oka). However by that time the power of the Horde over Moscow had long been pure fiction

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan
     
    This is funny, because Tatarstan (i.e. Kazan khanate) as well as the Crimean khanate were allies of Russia against Khan Akhmat (the opponent of Russia in standing on the Ugra)
    , @TheTotallyAnonymous
    I always thought it was strange that Russia never had its own equivalent to the 1389 Battle of Kosovo commemorations like Serbia does. Instead, Russians seemed to be permanently fixated upon the whole un-Russian "Victory Day" as the core of their national mythology.

    Making the main day of national celebration or commemoration something like the Great Stand on the Ugra River wipes the floor with "Victory Day". Commemorating the Ugra River would actually be a sort of cool and exotic commemoration as the Russians actually won without even fighting a battle.
  169. @Anatoly Karlin
    Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan
     
    Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stand_on_the_Ugra_River

    Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    This of course victory but “overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke” this a clear legend. Then it is necessary to celebrate the events of July 1472 (standing on the Oka). However by that time the power of the Horde over Moscow had long been pure fiction

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan

    This is funny, because Tatarstan (i.e. Kazan khanate) as well as the Crimean khanate were allies of Russia against Khan Akhmat (the opponent of Russia in standing on the Ugra)

  170. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia in 1914, see the desperate attempts of Poland to escape Russia’s embrace, Romania joining the Central Powers in 1883 to protect herself from Russia after the fallout with Russia in 1878, and the tasty relations between Russia and Bulgaria after 1885.
    Only Serbia was favorable to Russia, especially after the murder of the last Obrenovic king by people who later organized the Sarajevo assassination that sparked WW1.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia
     
    Hate is a strong word
    Bulgaria and Romania changed sides because their Alliance with Russia didn't seem to benefit them economically and politically as much as one with France or Germany would
    The Soviet Union brought with it total social upheavals, destruction of local cultures and repressive dictatorships (The Tsarist regime at it's worst wasn't even close to the Soviet average)

    The hatred people felt for the USSR is not comparable to the miffed attitude towards the Russian Empire, one that could easily be changed (those same Romanians would later entrust their treasures to the Russians during the war)

    Had the Russian Empire stayed in the war and avoided Bolshevism the end result would've been an Eastern Europe being allied with a rising superpower and without a retarded economic system to hamper them
    A capitalist Russia today is starting to attract Eastern Europeans to it's side, at least to balance out the EU

    You also avoided mentioning the massive Slavophilic movement happening in Austro-Hungarian territory, the first Slavic congress was held in Prague after all
    , @Mikhail
    Montenegro, as well as the Czechs and Slovaks, in addition to Serbia. The Bulgarian situation had to do with its government, as opposed to how the Bulgarian population en masse viewed and still views Russia.
  171. @AP

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag.
     

    It was nevertheless a solid victory in a multiparty election. They got 33% of the popular vote, their partners got another 8%.

    The next rival got only 20%.

    Turnout was 80.5%.

    Compare to the last German election: Merkel got 33% of the vote.

    Compare to the last Canadian election: Liberal Party won with 33%.


    Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.
     
    A good point. Still, Nazis won a popular election.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war.
     
    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies
     
    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin.
     
    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn't zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.
     
    Correct, but majority of the population tried not to fight. Turnout in the German election was 80%. "Turnout" in the Civil War in the beginning (later Bolsheviks were able to force people to fight for them through conscription) was miniscule. Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Russian masses can be blamed for being passive and not stopping the Bolsheviks. But they didn't choose them, either.


    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust
     
    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    The SRs subsequently split–with the Left SRs supporting the Bolsheviks, no? So, the Bolsheviks were initially able to get a part of the SRs onto their side.

    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    Jew persecution, Yes, mostly likely. As for territorial changes, please keep in mind that, AFAIK, it wasn’t only the Nazis who were advocating this. For instance, Germany waged a years-long trade war against Poland between 1925 and 1934 (I believe that this trade war was started under the “moderate” Weimar German Chancellor Gustav Stresemann) in an unsuccessful attempt to coerce Poland to agree to revise its border with Germany and agree to a German re-acquisition of Danzig and the Polish Corridor (and *maybe* eastern Upper Silesia as well). So, the fact that most Germans voted for non-Nazi parties does not necessarily mean that they were against the idea of border revisions–including the idea of coercing neighboring countries (especially Poland) to agree to revise their border with Germany.

  172. @reiner Tor
    This is a gross oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

    Technically speaking, though, in Mein Kampf, Hitler did talk about acquiring territories at Russia’s expense and resuming that Ostsiedlung. That said, though, it’s possible that some or even many Germans viewed this as being empty rhetoric and not as an actual statement of Hitler’s desired policies for Germany.

  173. @reiner Tor
    There's a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don't seem to understand it, instead - if your comments are an indication of their attitudes - they are still in the business of insulting or - at least implicitly - threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don't really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could've guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    It would probably be a good idea if these Romanov Kings would have been installed with the consent of the people and elite of the relevant Eastern European countries as opposed to being installed by Russian bayonets similar to the various post-WWII Communist leaderships of Eastern Europe.

    As a side note, though, I think that the logic would be to have Russia appeal to these countries through a sense of Pan-Slavic and/or Pan-Orthodox solidarity.

  174. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia in 1914, see the desperate attempts of Poland to escape Russia's embrace, Romania joining the Central Powers in 1883 to protect herself from Russia after the fallout with Russia in 1878, and the tasty relations between Russia and Bulgaria after 1885.
    Only Serbia was favorable to Russia, especially after the murder of the last Obrenovic king by people who later organized the Sarajevo assassination that sparked WW1.

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia

    Hate is a strong word
    Bulgaria and Romania changed sides because their Alliance with Russia didn’t seem to benefit them economically and politically as much as one with France or Germany would
    The Soviet Union brought with it total social upheavals, destruction of local cultures and repressive dictatorships (The Tsarist regime at it’s worst wasn’t even close to the Soviet average)

    The hatred people felt for the USSR is not comparable to the miffed attitude towards the Russian Empire, one that could easily be changed (those same Romanians would later entrust their treasures to the Russians during the war)

    Had the Russian Empire stayed in the war and avoided Bolshevism the end result would’ve been an Eastern Europe being allied with a rising superpower and without a retarded economic system to hamper them
    A capitalist Russia today is starting to attract Eastern Europeans to it’s side, at least to balance out the EU

    You also avoided mentioning the massive Slavophilic movement happening in Austro-Hungarian territory, the first Slavic congress was held in Prague after all

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @iffen
    massive Slavophilic movement

    I may not know what I'm talking about, but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries (Poland and Ukraine) to Russia the most bitter opponents?

    Wasn't Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise?

    , @Fluctuarius
    Also, let's not forget that Czechs and Slovaks surrendered/defected to Russia in numbers large enough to form a Czechoslovak Corps (that would have triumphantly marched into Prague in 1918), and the first president of an independent Czechoslovakia was a staunch Russophile who admitted tens of thousands of White Russian fugitives.
  175. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people

    Pretty sure they just didn’t want to live in a shithole anymore

  176. @Korenchkin

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia
     
    Hate is a strong word
    Bulgaria and Romania changed sides because their Alliance with Russia didn't seem to benefit them economically and politically as much as one with France or Germany would
    The Soviet Union brought with it total social upheavals, destruction of local cultures and repressive dictatorships (The Tsarist regime at it's worst wasn't even close to the Soviet average)

    The hatred people felt for the USSR is not comparable to the miffed attitude towards the Russian Empire, one that could easily be changed (those same Romanians would later entrust their treasures to the Russians during the war)

    Had the Russian Empire stayed in the war and avoided Bolshevism the end result would've been an Eastern Europe being allied with a rising superpower and without a retarded economic system to hamper them
    A capitalist Russia today is starting to attract Eastern Europeans to it's side, at least to balance out the EU

    You also avoided mentioning the massive Slavophilic movement happening in Austro-Hungarian territory, the first Slavic congress was held in Prague after all

    massive Slavophilic movement

    I may not know what I’m talking about, but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries (Poland and Ukraine) to Russia the most bitter opponents?

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise?

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Ukraine shouldn't be confused with Poland. (Although there is an at east 15% Russophile element among Poles). Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia are more diverse and somewhat similar to how Scots have differing views among themselves on English dominated Britain.
    , @Korenchkin

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries
     
    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise
     
    It wasn't

    I may not know what I’m talking about
     
    Correct
  177. @reiner Tor
    There's a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don't seem to understand it, instead - if your comments are an indication of their attitudes - they are still in the business of insulting or - at least implicitly - threatening them.

    Had Russia conquered these countries, there would have been widespread discontent against Russian rule there. I don't really think Russia (which was still dirt poor at the time) could've guaranteed their friendship in any way.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?

    There’s a difference. America never conquered these countries, instead they joined America through its soft power. Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.

    Soft power is not a Russian thing. Never was. In 2018 Russian actor Alexey Serebryakov got in some trouble for pretty much stating it:

    “I think if you drive 30, 50 or 70 kilometers away from Moscow, you will see that the 90s there never ended. No matter how you look at it, today neither knowledge, enterprise, intelligence nor dignity are part of our national idea. Our national idea is brutal power, arrogance, and rudeness.

    Interesting guy who was in several very good films. Here is an interview with him:

  178. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia in 1914, see the desperate attempts of Poland to escape Russia's embrace, Romania joining the Central Powers in 1883 to protect herself from Russia after the fallout with Russia in 1878, and the tasty relations between Russia and Bulgaria after 1885.
    Only Serbia was favorable to Russia, especially after the murder of the last Obrenovic king by people who later organized the Sarajevo assassination that sparked WW1.

    Montenegro, as well as the Czechs and Slovaks, in addition to Serbia. The Bulgarian situation had to do with its government, as opposed to how the Bulgarian population en masse viewed and still views Russia.

    • Replies: @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    Bulgarians wanted to annex Northern Macedonia (macedonian language is basically a dialect of bulgarian) which was occupied by Serbia during the balkan wars. Serbia was Russia's favorite, which led to Bulgaria joining WW1 on the side of the Central Powers.
    Russian divisions were sent to southern Romania on the idea that bulgarian soldiers will be unenthusiastic to fight their slavic brothers but on the contrary the bulgarians fought well and with the help of some german forces they routed both the russians and the romanians, the Central Powers eventually conquering southern Romania.
  179. @iffen
    massive Slavophilic movement

    I may not know what I'm talking about, but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries (Poland and Ukraine) to Russia the most bitter opponents?

    Wasn't Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise?

    Ukraine shouldn’t be confused with Poland. (Although there is an at east 15% Russophile element among Poles). Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia are more diverse and somewhat similar to how Scots have differing views among themselves on English dominated Britain.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks.

    Are you sure The Ukraine is not more like Ireland than Scotland?
  180. @Andrei Martyanov

    There’s so much wrong with this piece one doesn’t even know where to start.
     
    Here is a "pearl" of "strategy" by Egorushka (diminutive of Egor, because in Russia he is viewed mostly as a village fool)

    Strategically, the Great War was won on August 20th 1914 by Russian gunners whose shells, fired from their well-defended position, wrecked German artillery and August von Mackensen’s XVII Corps.
     
    This doesn't even make sense in a pure housewife's level of thinking, in terms of having any historic, let alone military meaning--it is beyond redemption. Evidently, Karlin doesn't care of about reputation, whatever that means in his world, bringing, granted his blog, a collection of meaningless phrases concocted by BS Artist of a first order. This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons. But facts be damned--numbers are too difficult for this fat idiot who couldn't even complete couple years of History Faculty in university. Obviously such things as weight of salvo, the same as why Osipov published his historic "Estimation of Victims of War" in 1915 are beyond Kholmogorov's grasp. I will omit here the fact of WHO Kholmogorov actually is in real life.

    In the initial engagement with a small German force with limited artillery the Russians did use artillery to advantage. However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced. The Germans used the rail network to concentrate their forces so their one well equipped, well trained Arney fought the two separate Russian armies.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced.
     
    Generally agree, even when less capable A-H is thrown into the mix, the ratio of losses (KIAs) between Russia and Germany-A-H is more than two fold NOT in favor of Russia. Once Germany is singled out in KIAs against Russian KIAs minus equal number of KIAs by A-H for a very rough compensation, we still get an appaling 1 to 7 ratio of KIAs in favor of Germans. Kholmogorv using a single operational episode for passing judgement on the whole war is a first sign of an illiterate ignoramus. Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically, as I stated--it is tantamount to failing to pass "academics" on beer drinking or missing a toiled completely when pissing. That is the level of "complexity" he couldn't even handle. Yet, here we are, discussing this cretin's scribbles.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.
     
    Some, certainly were, but as for actual numbers and definition of what "large numbers" actually are--it takes combat and transpiration logs to arrive to a good number. I simply do not have materials at hand to know the number. There is no denial that some Central Powers troops were transferred. In the end Germans needed to stabilize front during Brusilov Offensive which did have a serious influence on Verdun.
  181. @Mr. XYZ

    Likewise Russian nationalism does support border revision because there are tens of millions of ethnic Russians and closely related peoples outside Russia. However, border revision to include the entirety of the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is ridiculous and does indeed stretch into the territory of Imperialism, as German_Reader correctly identifies.
     
    The interesting thing, though, is that the Baltic countries (especially Latvia and Estonia) would probably be easier to Russify than, say, western Ukraine or even central Ukraine would. After all, they could be flooded by a lot of Russian settlers--similar to what occurred in the post-WWII decades, but even further. In contrast, central and western Ukraine would require much more Russian settlers than the Baltic countries would. Of course, capturing the Baltic countries would obviously not be a viable option due to them being in NATO. Still, had Russia permanently held onto them (for instance, if there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917), I would think that the odds of a successful Russification of at least Latvia and Estonia would have been higher than a successful Russification of central and western Ukraine would have been. Of course, the ethnic Latvians and ethnic Estonians would have of course never actually become Russians; rather, they could have simply been outnumbered by ethnic Russian settlers.

    Welcome to Ireland 1922.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    A violent Baltic insurgency is, of course, very possible. That said, though, the Russian population advantage over Latvia and Estonia is several times greater than Britain's population advantage over Ireland. That, and the fact that it might be harder to clearly and neatly divide Latvia and Estonia than it was to divide Ireland--and even Ireland's division resulted in decades of terrorism and bloodletting in real life.
  182. @Mr. XYZ
    Also, as a side note, I wonder if Russia would have managed to avoid the February Revolution had it had more competent leadership in Petrograd during World War I. After all, I believe that Rodzinako warned Nicholas II about the risk of a revolution in Russia by Nicholas simply ignored him. That, combined with the Tsarina Alexandra playing musical chairs with her ministers, didn't exactly result in an impression of governmental competence among the Russian people.

    There were long term issues with the Russian forces. The army was huge but undersupplied.. That not only means production but logistics. The guage of the sparse Russian rail network changed at the border. The border roads were deliberately bad. Limited rail meant horses and even more supplies.

  183. @Yevardian
    The USSR collapsed because it was infiltrated by traitors and useful idiots who cared more about the opinion of Westerns than their own people (And getting filthy rich in the process). Familiar much?
    Of course a country utterly ruined by half a century of war couldn't compete on an equal playing field with a super-state that has never experienced war on its own soil for it's entire existence, a lowbrow culture accessible to anyone and a very easily learned language, there were bound to be self-serving traitors eventually.

    I am being pedantic but the British beat them in ‘1812’.They also had a civil war.

  184. @reiner Tor
    This is a gross oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

    Disagree. The key to the Bolshevik takeover was their focus on building strength in the army and among most communication workers. The SRs had a lot of support but it was not armed and it was not coherent. Even so, until Lenin’s German money arrived, the Bolsheviks were a nuisance not amthreat to Kerensky. I speak of the Volga Region rather than the capitals. Until Lenin’s sisters arrived in Saratov with money, even the Kadets were more effective.

  185. @Anatoly Karlin
    Here are the (actual) victories that Russia should be celebrating: https://66.ru/news/freetime/226175/

    Vladimir Putin supported the idea of celebrating the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Against only Tatarstan
     
    Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stand_on_the_Ugra_River

    I always thought it was strange that Russia never had its own equivalent to the 1389 Battle of Kosovo commemorations like Serbia does. Instead, Russians seemed to be permanently fixated upon the whole un-Russian “Victory Day” as the core of their national mythology.

    Making the main day of national celebration or commemoration something like the Great Stand on the Ugra River wipes the floor with “Victory Day”. Commemorating the Ugra River would actually be a sort of cool and exotic commemoration as the Russians actually won without even fighting a battle.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Ca. 1980, the so-called "Russian Party within the CPSU" succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of "legal" Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.
  186. @Daniel.I
    Anatoly Karlin

    in my opinion the deepest and most talented Russian nationalist politologist is Egor Kholmogorov, who is based, economically literate
     
    Egor Kholmogorov

    Not just Prague but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would be following the whims of Russian rulers
     
    If this is the best that nationalists have to offer ...

    A bit of honesty would have prevented you to suggest that it was Kholomogorov who said that ‘not just Prague…’, but the “Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen in 1934” praising the disappearance of Russia as an organized state (which was precisely one of the war aims of the Central Powers).

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  187. @Anatoly Karlin

    ... presenting an ignorant demagogue and self-proclaimed pseudo-“historian” who dropped out of History Faculty of Moscow State University
     
    With all due respect (not much), as a graduate of a second-tier naval academy, I don't think you're optimally placed to invoke argument from credentials.

    I don’t expect from you any substantive answers...
     
    Person who believes industry and manufacturing are one and the same thing expects substantive answers:
    https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258953

    This is not to mention the fact that Kholmogorov never heard about ratio of field gunnery between Russian Army and Germans which sometimes was reaching 5 to 1 in favor of Germans, while some regiments of Russian Army had only two-three cannons.
     
    Holmes goes into these statistics in this very article.

    Yes, Russia started from a low base, for which it can be criticized. But its growth rate in shell production from early 1916 to late 1916-February 1917 was explosive (by that latter point, production had converged to the level of the Big Three in 1916 - France, UK, and Germany).

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oldadmiral/1436531/38429/38429_original.jpg

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29592/29592_900.jpg

    Artillery production: Comparable to that of France, Great Britain, and A-H throughout the war.

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/nikital2014/71133484/29269/29269_900.jpg

    Also worth noting that German shell expenditure was 2.5x that of the USSR during WW2, and that was just on the Eastern Front. So on at least this crucial indicator, it's not like the USSR even "caught up" relative to the Russian Empire at start of 1917, vis-a-vis Germany.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Martianov, in all his rantings, only boasts about himself and his Soviet education which marked him so deeply. Narcissistic personality.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    The Soviet education system, the best education system in the world*.


    *According to the Soviet education system.
    , @iffen
    So he is not representative of Slavs?
  188. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    I always thought it was strange that Russia never had its own equivalent to the 1389 Battle of Kosovo commemorations like Serbia does. Instead, Russians seemed to be permanently fixated upon the whole un-Russian "Victory Day" as the core of their national mythology.

    Making the main day of national celebration or commemoration something like the Great Stand on the Ugra River wipes the floor with "Victory Day". Commemorating the Ugra River would actually be a sort of cool and exotic commemoration as the Russians actually won without even fighting a battle.

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.
     
    Right now in Russia there is an official holiday "national unity day", which celebrates the expulsion of Polish invaders from Russia in 1612.
    Mark as official holidays the victory over the Tatars silly, because Tatars now are the second largest ethnic group in Russia.

    From the point of view of "national policy" instead of idiotic holidays, it would be better to spend some money on films / monuments/paintings dedicated to the victories that disappeared from mass memory (for example, the epoch-making victory over the Lithuanian army at Vedrosh in 1500). Although it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

  189. @Korenchkin

    East Europeans already hated Tsarist Russia
     
    Hate is a strong word
    Bulgaria and Romania changed sides because their Alliance with Russia didn't seem to benefit them economically and politically as much as one with France or Germany would
    The Soviet Union brought with it total social upheavals, destruction of local cultures and repressive dictatorships (The Tsarist regime at it's worst wasn't even close to the Soviet average)

    The hatred people felt for the USSR is not comparable to the miffed attitude towards the Russian Empire, one that could easily be changed (those same Romanians would later entrust their treasures to the Russians during the war)

    Had the Russian Empire stayed in the war and avoided Bolshevism the end result would've been an Eastern Europe being allied with a rising superpower and without a retarded economic system to hamper them
    A capitalist Russia today is starting to attract Eastern Europeans to it's side, at least to balance out the EU

    You also avoided mentioning the massive Slavophilic movement happening in Austro-Hungarian territory, the first Slavic congress was held in Prague after all

    Also, let’s not forget that Czechs and Slovaks surrendered/defected to Russia in numbers large enough to form a Czechoslovak Corps (that would have triumphantly marched into Prague in 1918), and the first president of an independent Czechoslovakia was a staunch Russophile who admitted tens of thousands of White Russian fugitives.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  190. @Seraphim
    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Martianov, in all his rantings, only boasts about himself and his Soviet education which marked him so deeply. Narcissistic personality.

    The Soviet education system, the best education system in the world*.

    *According to the Soviet education system.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I'd like to see the average Western teenager today make it through any standard textbook from that era. Meanwhile the education system in Russia went into free-fall during the 90's and still hasn't recovered. The same story in Romania, Central Asia and Ukraine.
  191. @Anatoly Karlin

    Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.
     
    You seem to be going off on another tangent. Where did I say anything about conquering? (apart from during the exigencies of wartime, but propaganda all over the world portrays that as "liberation" by default).

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?
     
    The Germanophile Romanian king lobbied against joining the Entente, in opposition to his deeply Francophile elites.

    The latter turned out stronger than the former, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case everywhere.

    Incidentally, the Germans regarded this as a betrayal on Romania's part, which partly explains why Romanian soldiers had the highest death rates of any warring state in enemy POW camps.

    Actually, Romania was inclining towards Russia. Her intervention in 1913 in support of Serbia, backed by Russia against Bulgaria backed by Germany and Austria seriously worried the Central Powers with which Romania had a treaty of alliance kept secret because the public opinion was dead set against Austro-Hungary even without the Francophile leanings of the ‘elites’, because of the problem of Romanians in Transylvania.
    The visit of the Imperial family to Romania in June 1914 with the aim to arrange the marriage of the son of Crown Prince Ferdinand, the future King Carol II, with the Grand Duchess Olga, the eldest daughter of Nicholas II, was even more alarming. The Crown Princess Maria, the future Queen, was herself the daughter of the Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of the Tsar Alexandre II. In early 1914, Marie traveled to Russia in order to visit her mother and other relatives. She formed a “triple alliance” of her own with two of her female relatives, her sister Victoria Melita (known as “Ducky” to her friends) and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (“Miechen” to her friends), wife of Grand Duke Vladimir, the third son of Alexander II, in order to improve relations between Romania and Russia.
    Russia, since the reign of Catherine the Great, supported the creation of a Kingdom of Dacia, which would include Transylvania.

  192. @Fluctuarius
    Ca. 1980, the so-called "Russian Party within the CPSU" succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of "legal" Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.

    Right now in Russia there is an official holiday “national unity day”, which celebrates the expulsion of Polish invaders from Russia in 1612.
    Mark as official holidays the victory over the Tatars silly, because Tatars now are the second largest ethnic group in Russia.

    From the point of view of “national policy” instead of idiotic holidays, it would be better to spend some money on films / monuments/paintings dedicated to the victories that disappeared from mass memory (for example, the epoch-making victory over the Lithuanian army at Vedrosh in 1500). Although it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films
     
    After Andy Vajna (the producer of Terminator 2: Judgment Day) returned to Hungary (to flee the American tax authorities I think), he was appointed by Orbán to oversee the Hungarian film industry (which barely survives by receiving moneys from the government). He did two things. First, he greatly increased the number of American films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income. And second, he managed to spend the available government funds on quality movies. Unfortunately this also meant that there was no ideological censorship or guidance, but still we had two Oscars in quick succession, both by Hungarian directors. (Yes, one of them was a holocaust movie, but still. We had many holocaust movies before, not one of them receiving an Oscar.)

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system, where either not the most talented directors get to make movies, or they have to make compromises due to stupid producers, or something similar.
    , @Seraphim
    The 7th of November was celebrating the victory of the Polish-Jewish cabal over Russia in 1917. Today it celebrates the liberation of Russia from the the Polish-Jewish cabal of 1612.
  193. @anonlb
    I'm not historian but learned some basic facts from various sources. And my post was about my hipotetical scenario in which Entete aliance failed on beginnig of WW1 and Germany achieved victory over France, not actual history.

    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it’s better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany…), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the “second sick man of Europe” after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    • Replies: @AP
    Thank you once again for providing a voice of reason.
    , @Epigon

    Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France.
     
    According to this logic, USSR was looking for a war with USA during Cold War and dictating the escalation and level of spending.

    Why look at military expenditures as % of national income?

    An economically weaker country has to match it’s rivals spending in absolute terms.
    Moreover, intensive German military spending and modernization took decades before Russian ones, indeed - Russia was in the middle of a thorough military reform when WW1 started. In order to start catching up with German army, Russians would have to outspend them on a per unit basis.

    , @melanf

    Central Powers,...had no territorial designs on any countries
     
    This is an incorrect statement to put it mildly. WWI laid bare Germany's plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon. The Entente countries also waged war for the purpose of conquest - in this there was no difference between them (and Germany).

    But the question of who started the war, everything is different. Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
    Should we discuss this further? Of course, people who take this topic to heart can come up with 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war. But this will only illustrate the peculiarities of human consciousness.
    , @anonlb
    My strong impresson is that Germany was too strong for France and Russia before WW1. With all respect to host of this blog Imperial Russia was not by far match for Germany and suffered humiliating defeat by Japanesse in 1905. France was shadow of its glorious past from middle ages and time of Napoleon. Both simple lost race for progress with Germany. German progress becomes limited by Entente states encirclement policies(coup in Serbia 1903 was one more brick in that wall) and war with France becomes reasonable option for Germany. War plans was completed long before WW1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan .
    , @Seraphim
    Typically 'Eurocentric' (Germanocentric, actually) autistic 'voice of reason'.
    The Dual Monarchy was indeed the 'second sick man of Europe'. It was not the Entente politicians who wanted to dismember it, it was the 'Çentral Powers' who wanted to prevent it by any means: building a German dominated 'Mitteleuropa' capable to resist the centrifugal tendencies of the 'Slavs' in the first place, blamed on the bugbear of 'Panslavist' ambitions of the perennially 'aggressive' backward Russia, suffocating Russia through the control of the Straits and capturing the oil wells of Russia (and those of Persia, controlled by the British) and the cornfields of Southern Russia, hence the unholy alliance with the 'first sick man of Europe', the moribund Ottoman Empire.
    National-Socialist Germany actually revived these plans.
  194. @melanf

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.
     
    Right now in Russia there is an official holiday "national unity day", which celebrates the expulsion of Polish invaders from Russia in 1612.
    Mark as official holidays the victory over the Tatars silly, because Tatars now are the second largest ethnic group in Russia.

    From the point of view of "national policy" instead of idiotic holidays, it would be better to spend some money on films / monuments/paintings dedicated to the victories that disappeared from mass memory (for example, the epoch-making victory over the Lithuanian army at Vedrosh in 1500). Although it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    After Andy Vajna (the producer of Terminator 2: Judgment Day) returned to Hungary (to flee the American tax authorities I think), he was appointed by Orbán to oversee the Hungarian film industry (which barely survives by receiving moneys from the government). He did two things. First, he greatly increased the number of American films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income. And second, he managed to spend the available government funds on quality movies. Unfortunately this also meant that there was no ideological censorship or guidance, but still we had two Oscars in quick succession, both by Hungarian directors. (Yes, one of them was a holocaust movie, but still. We had many holocaust movies before, not one of them receiving an Oscar.)

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system, where either not the most talented directors get to make movies, or they have to make compromises due to stupid producers, or something similar.

    • Replies: @melanf

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system
     
    Everything is exactly as it is - in Russian cinema the problem with the whole system. But it's also a problem that people in power don't know history (and don't want to be consulted by normal historians), and have a monstrous taste in sculpture/painting. Another problem with historical memory - if some battles (Poltava, Borodino, battle of Kulikovo) deservedly remembered, other important battles (and entire wars) are completely forgotten. At the same time, some insignificant events (for example, the defeat of the Swedes at the mouth of the Neva in 1240) have undeservedly loud fame

    Try to imagine if in England about Azincourt and the defeat of the "Invincible Armada" would be known only to a narrow circle of specialist historians? And in Russia it is a reality.

    By the way question to citizens countries with a long military history (Hungary, Sweden, Czech Republic..)- how in your countries with historical memory?
    , @Dmitry

    films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income... spend the available government funds on quality
     
    Probably because partly it is such a small country, most every policy of the government of Hungary seem to be much more competent.

    There is also Hungary with the lowest corporation tax in Europe, which is attracting all kinds of investment now to Hungary.


    https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdf
  195. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Serbia wouldn’t have been annexed for sure, since there was a consensus in Hungary that it would have been very bad for Hungary, so all Hungarian prime ministers would’ve opposed that, just as prime minster Tisza did in 1914 in our timeline. Even the annexation of Bosnia was a hard sell in Hungary (“Who needs 2 million more Slavs..?” – that was the typical reaction in Hungary), but the annexation of the whole of Serbia was totally out of the question.
     
    Hungarian opposition is cool and all, but it has never changed the course of history in the past 200 years and most probably never will in the future (sorry to disappoint, although it would be cool if it did). Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed and Tisza's opposition to war with Serbia in 1914 was also quickly dismissed. It only logically follows that the opposition of Tisza and Hungarians to annexing Serbia after a theoretical victory by Austria-Hungary would also have been further ignored.

    Just as an interesting side-note, there is an uncanny similarity between Tisza and Orban imo. Orban has not been able to stop any US-EU-NATO agendas, he has only been able to delay, temper or restrain them a bit. For example, collective EU-NATO resolution on Ukraine, EU infinity migration, etc.


    First get your facts right. The war started on July 28, exactly one month after the assassination on June 28. The ultimatum was issued on July 23.

     

    My bad. Still doesn't change the fact that the Austria-Hungary did not immediately act upon the assassination as it was only interested in using it as a pretext to eliminate Serbia, which it could only do in a more prolonged time period of careful planning.

    Also, if such a serious provocation went unanswered, it would only have encouraged the Russians (who were actually also involved, having financed the Black Hand themselves) and Serbs to further provocations.
     
    Does your definition of "further provocations" including Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia's economy from 1906-1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary's unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Also Austria-Hungary's support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    Do none of those things count as provocations on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia?

    Austria-Hungary whining about the assassination as an unacceptable provocation and a legitimate reason to start a world war is just pure hypocrisy.


    Utter nonsense, Serbia was an Austrian client state for some time under the Obrenovic dynasty. The German Kaiser was even considered pro-Serbian during the Balkan wars, the Austrians pretty much worried that he’d just leave them alone in a war.
     
    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign, just to get things clear, in case you have a different conception of what it means to be sovereign.

    Your comment only further proves the fact that Austria-Hungary simply could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia free from its control. 1 million+ dead Serbs (Macva War Crimes, Austria-Hungary's concentration camps for Serbs, Habsburg Army mass murdering of Serb civilians, etc.) is ultimate proof that Austria-Hungary could not accept the existence of a sovereign Serbia (or for that matter the existence of the Serbian people, period), if any was ever needed.

    By the way, Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.


    As to “Germanics in general,” that’s even more of a nonsense, since this would include Britain or the Scandinavians.

     

    Sure, the opinion of Scandinavians in general is basically irrelevant. Still, Britain was also strongly anti-Serbian and involved in many anti-Serb schemes including 1878 and 1912-1913 by deliberately sabotaging Serb territorial gains (not to mention Britain having no diplomatic relations with Serbia from 1903-1905 and refusing to help the Serb Army retreat in 1915).

    Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed

    The issue is, Hungary didn’t oppose the occupation in 1878 (which was decided by the concert of the great powers of Europe, it was not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy), actually it was brokered by the common Austrian-Hungarian foreign minister Count Andrássy, who had been the first prime minister of Hungary after the Compromise with the Habsburgs in 1867. He belonged to the first generation of Hungarian leaders, who were not very nationalistic (the nationalities law in 1868, the first of its kind in Europe, was so good that some Hungarian MPs trolled the Romanian parliament in the 1990s by proposing a Romanian translation of it to be made law in Romania), and so he didn’t care that much. However, after the 1870s the Hungarian leadership started to become increasingly apprehensive of the fact that Hungarians were in fact just a plurality in Hungary, and so opposition to foreign adventures got more prominent.

    There was already opposition to the annexation of Bosnia in 1908, but because it was basically just the legalization of an already de facto state of affairs, it was possible to push through Hungary. Annexations in Serbia would’ve been a different issue, especially because there was considerable opposition to it in Vienna as well. Many in the Austrian leadership were also strongly opposed to annexing further unruly South Slavs, and for the same reason the Hungarians opposed it: it made the empire even less stable.

    Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?

    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn’t so bad.

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?

    Serbia ended the trade agreements with Austria-Hungary and entered a customs union with Bulgaria. They also started buying French ammunitions, from the enemies of Austria-Hungary’s only ally Germany. This resulted in a trade war.

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?

    It was not unilateral. The Ottomans (according to international law, the rightful owners of the place) got paid a hefty sum, so they didn’t complain. Austria-Hungary also secretly notified Russia and made a secret agreement with them, which they then broke when it turned out that the Russian nationalist press was furious. Anyway, Austria-Hungary first tried to placate all the great powers, I’m not sure what’s unilateral in that.

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?

    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn’t want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.

    I’m not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don’t know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn’t accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power… no.)

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign

    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.

    They decided to prepare for war against the Triple Entente, for example increase the production of U-Boats. And then they did… nothing. They didn’t even increase the production of U-Boats. Why not? Well, it cost a lot of money, and apparently they weren’t seriously planning for a world war, rather just a contingency.

    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

     

    Local Muslim militias cannot properly qualify as Ottoman troops. You are referring to the Wikipedia article on everyone who resisted the Austro-Hungarian occupation. Most Serbs decided not to resist. It's improper to use this to suggest that they weren't militarily successful or that they didn't actually exist on that land in a significant degree.

    Evidently you must be unaware of the 1875-1878 Herzegovina Uprising:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzegovina_uprising_(1875%E2%80%931877)#Uprising_in_Bosnia

    Note the 200,000 fugitives.

    That incident, just like all the other instances of Habsburg anti-Serb sabotage from 1848-1918 just show that regardless of how much Serbs subordinated themselves to the Habsburgs, they would never take the interests of Serbs seriously and always work to sabotage them. As for "Habsburg perfidy", they were involved in the "Concert of Europe" and they were eagerly associated with Britain's (note Britain was led by Benjamin Disraeli at this time, so you can guess his real ethno-religious affiliation if you are interested, btw) anti-Serb and anti-Russian agenda.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn’t so bad.

     

    First, proof?

    Anyway, even if you are correct, which you most probably aren't, you may as well have said that Austria-Hungary's GDP was larger than Serbia's, so Habsburg rule would not have been so bad. Not everything in the world revolves around GDP, or factories and industry, for that matter.

    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn’t want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

     

    First off, Kosovo, most of Albania, and much of Vardar Macedonia are all rightful ancient Serbian land. Serbs were the majority population on all of those lands until the Ottoman Empire came along when the "Albanians" (read: Shqiptars or Shqipere) made a majority conversion to Islam and then used their privileged status in the Ottoman Empire to dispossess Serbs of their ancient land (note 1455 Ottoman defter lists there being more Vlachs than "Albanians" on Kosovo). Hence the Great Serb migrations of the 17th and 18th centuries. Also hence why "Albanians" became a majority in Kosovo only from the 18th century. The city of Skadar (called modern day "Shkodra" in North Albania) also used to be Serb majority until the 17th century, btw.

    The fact that a bunch of fake scum breeds aggressively, and then barbarically massacres (not to mention many other unpleasant details) + forcibly expels the Serb population from their ancient land across many centuries (and still continues to do so to this very day), and then becomes the majority on that land doesn't mean that the land belongs to them. Also, as hard as it may be for you to believe, in the early 20th century, Serbs still existed as a large minority on the territory of Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia and modern day "Albania".

    Here's an example of what I mean: A short history of "Albanian" attacks on Serbs in the 19th century and early 20th century:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sajkaca.com%2Fistorija%2Fkratka-istorija-albanskih-napada-na-srbe1365%2F1365%2F

    Oh and don't you dare lecture me about the 1990's or present day Kosovo, for that matter (spare me the NATO lies and hoaxes, please). The family of one of my parents had to flee from Kosovo in the mid 1960's (an uncle of mine was born in Pristina in 1950's) once Aleksander Rankovic fell from power (he was the last nominal defender of Kosovo Serbs in Tito's anti-Serb Yugoslavia), btw. One of my ancestors was a Yugoslav Judge on Kosovo that punished Shqiptar barbarians for their endless crimes against Serbs, and some Shqiptar scum tribe declared a Besa (A blood oath) together with other Shqiptar tribes that they would massacre him (they fired some warning shots at his front door one night) and his whole extended family on Kosovo. There were at least hundreds of that scum while there were only a few dozen of my family and ancestors. Sometime around 1965, they gathered together their tractors, cars, guns and other farm equipment and left north across the hills, valleys and mountains north beyond Kosovo.

    I simply refuse to seriously entertain some clueless Habscuck worshiper peddling bullshit about how the Prizren and the surrounding countryside of South Kosovo that they had to abandon legitimately belongs to Shqiptar barbarians.

    I’m not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don’t know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn’t accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power… no.)

     

    Stop lying with the part in bold. Those false atrocity and massacre accusations are insulting and defamatory hoaxes. Those accusations were peddled by an international commission sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment that had half its "experts" (journalists) come from Germany and Austria-Hungary, meaning that it was totally 100% objective, reliable and unbiased ...

    Leon Trotsky was also another serious and committed accuser, and pusher of false Serb atrocity stories during the Balkan Wars while writing from Sofia, btw. Not to mention The British Daily Telegraph and even the very same present-day New York Times pushing false narratives about Serbs back in 1912, same as now. You can also safely ignore the falsehoods and distortions peddled by the lying dog "Serb Socialist" Dmitrije Tucovic who sold out his own countrymen and along with his "Socialists/Communist" sabotaged the Serb war effort during the Balkan Wars.

    It is noteworthy that the Norwegian Officer Henrik August Angel, who followed the Serbian Army during the Balkan Wars, stated that the false accusations peddled by the English language and German + Austro-Hungarian were a "demonization of Serbs" and a "shameful injustice".

    The Serbian government properly and unequivocally denied these false and insulting accusations that were made in order to justify the creation of "Albania" (necessary to deny Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea and Mediterranean), a "country" that had never even existed before in world history contrary to false propaganda that pretends "Albania" is a real country.

    Those defamatory accusations you mention are literally more fake than 1995 Srebrenica and 1999 Racak (these two events at least actually happened, but their context and facts are completely distorted, while the Serb massacres against "Albanians" outright never even happened), btw.

    As for the "Macedonians" that were apparently killed by Serbs, first, there was no such thing as Monkeydonians back then, just like they don't really exist now and are only confused and brainwashed dimwits. Second, the ones that were killed where all Bulgarian VMRO terrorist rebels that previously massacred and persecuted Serb civilians (e.g. VMRO leader Dame Gruev's Society Against Serbs) during the "Macedonian struggle" from 1903-1912. So it was just legitimate counter-insurgency operations against Bulgarian VMRO that allied with Shqiptar barbarians. They deliberately got together in a well planned conspiracy to take Vardar Macedonia away from Serbia when the Bulgarian Army attacked its Serbian allies in the night as it hoped to get away with slaughtering them in pitch black darkness. That's how the 2nd Balkan War started, btw.

    As for the events of 1901 (this was before 1903 May coup in Serbia while Obrenovic dynasty was around and followed a pro Austria-Hungary course, btw):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    That is only one example of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs that Austria-Hungary supported (Habsburg agents also did anti-Serb espionage activities against Serb churches on Kosovo, btw). At the 1899 Hague Convention, Austria-Hungary blocked the issue of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs from even being considered there.

    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

     

    Doesn't change the fact that Austria-Hungary couldn't accept the existence of a Serbia that was not a Habsburg client state.
  196. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    An interesting perspective and thought process that most people would truthfully not be brave enough to admit that they actually seriously think along those lines (or smart enough to not admit it), whether consciously or unconsciously.

    Regarding identity – the case study of “Albania” and “Albanian” identity as an entirely foreign manufactured (Austrian) is something I would recommend studying.

     

    I couldn't agree more. If you have any detailed and comprehensive sources on the matter I would greatly appreciate you stating them.

    From what I last remember reading about the matter some time ago was that some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current "Albanian flag". Of course, the language, "government", and everything else to do with "Albania" is fake.

    some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”

    Ethnic groups can exist without a flag. Hungarians didn’t have a national flag until the early 19th century (the national colors were occasionally in use already in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example during coronation ceremonies or for some official documents), and it only got its final form and became official first in 1848 (and then again in 1867).

    Albanians were Muslims (or Catholics in smaller numbers), not Orthodox like the Serbs, and spoke Albanian, not Serb, had different customs, different (though not extremely different) genetic origins, different national consciousness (they were aware that they weren’t Serbs), that’s enough to mark them as a different ethnic group. Regardless of whether they had a flag or not.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    I'm not claiming that Shqiptars don't exist as an ethnic-religious group. What I'm claiming is that their nationality, nation, language and identity are completely fake and that they were artificially ethno-engineered by the Habsburgs and Austria-Hungary to be used against Serbs:

    Here's the proof that the "Albanian nation" didn't exist until the end of the 19th century. This is a brief article about a Bulgarian woman historian Teodora Toleva (yes, if a Bulgar woman can figure out that "Albanians" are a fake nation, then surely anyone can) that wrote a whole book about the artificial ethno-engineering of the "Albanian" nation by the Habsburgs (The book is based upon access to Habsburg archives in Vienna, btw):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatriot.rs%2Falbanska-nacija-nije-postojala-do-kraja-19-veka%2Famp%2F%3Flang%3Dlat

    Also a further explanation upon the previous link:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbalkanskageopolitika.com%2F2019%2F07%2F13%2Fzasto-i-kako-je-stvorena-albanija%2F

    Another interesting thing to note about this woman is that she died under "mysterious" and "strange" circumstances for daring to publicly write about the truth of the falseness of the "Albanian" nation.

    Lajos Thallóczy is the Hungarian historian and public servant of the Habsburg empire that played a big role in artificially ethno-engineering and creating the fake countries of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina out of ancient Serbian land:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Thall%C3%B3czy#Bosnia
    , @Epigon
    Albanians were originally 100% Orthodox.
    This can be seen through Uniatic Albanian Church in Italy which remains to this day. The tribal/ethnic/linguistic division between Ghegs and Tosks remains to this day - it was much more pronounced in the past. Prizren League(s) Shqiptars have practically nothing in common with Arvanites of Epirus, Greece and southern Orthodox Albanians.

    Also, the name Albanian is a very (19/20th century) exonym for people who were called Arnauts by neighbours or Shqiptars themselves.
    At the turn of the 19/20th century, 2% of them were literate.

    The region in the Balkans called Albania historically was Albania Veneta - roughly corresponding to Venetian held Zeta - Skadar naturally included, as one of Serb Medieval capitals.

    A brief look at Slavic toponyms scattered throughout modern-day Albania dispells any illusion; the same for a detailed look at Skenderbegs grandfather, father, the letters written by them, and his parents’ and siblings’ names and biography.


    There is a very interesting book I will be acquiring by a Bulgarian historian (deceased) Teodora Toleva called: “The influence of Austro-Hungarian Empire on the creation of Albanian nation 1896-1908”.
    She studied in Vienna under an Austrian mentor and was allowed access to archive documents.

  197. @reiner Tor

    it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films
     
    After Andy Vajna (the producer of Terminator 2: Judgment Day) returned to Hungary (to flee the American tax authorities I think), he was appointed by Orbán to oversee the Hungarian film industry (which barely survives by receiving moneys from the government). He did two things. First, he greatly increased the number of American films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income. And second, he managed to spend the available government funds on quality movies. Unfortunately this also meant that there was no ideological censorship or guidance, but still we had two Oscars in quick succession, both by Hungarian directors. (Yes, one of them was a holocaust movie, but still. We had many holocaust movies before, not one of them receiving an Oscar.)

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system, where either not the most talented directors get to make movies, or they have to make compromises due to stupid producers, or something similar.

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system

    Everything is exactly as it is – in Russian cinema the problem with the whole system. But it’s also a problem that people in power don’t know history (and don’t want to be consulted by normal historians), and have a monstrous taste in sculpture/painting. Another problem with historical memory – if some battles (Poltava, Borodino, battle of Kulikovo) deservedly remembered, other important battles (and entire wars) are completely forgotten. At the same time, some insignificant events (for example, the defeat of the Swedes at the mouth of the Neva in 1240) have undeservedly loud fame

    Try to imagine if in England about Azincourt and the defeat of the “Invincible Armada” would be known only to a narrow circle of specialist historians? And in Russia it is a reality.

    By the way question to citizens countries with a long military history (Hungary, Sweden, Czech Republic..)- how in your countries with historical memory?

  198. @AP

    This is a gross oversimplification.

    First, the Nazis, even with their only prospective coalition partners (the DNVP), never came close to an actual majority in the Reichstag.
     

    It was nevertheless a solid victory in a multiparty election. They got 33% of the popular vote, their partners got another 8%.

    The next rival got only 20%.

    Turnout was 80.5%.

    Compare to the last German election: Merkel got 33% of the vote.

    Compare to the last Canadian election: Liberal Party won with 33%.


    Second, Germany had a very strong president, so the Reichstag elections made it possible for the people to cast protest votes in the secure knowledge that the chancellor was not elected by the Reichstag.
     
    A good point. Still, Nazis won a popular election.

    Third, in Russia, most peasants didn’t know much about the difference between the Bolsheviks and the SRs. They only wanted immediate peace (at any price) and land reform, which both of these promised, but the Bolsheviks delivered. This made it impossible for the SRs to gather much of an army, when they attempted to start a civil war.
     
    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    One explanation is that most people voting for the SRs quickly came around to support the Bolsheviks when push came to shove, because the Bolsheviks delivered them the goodies
     
    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Anyway, it’s untenable that the Russians Dindu Nuffin.
     
    As I wrote, Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn't zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    More Russians actively supported the Bolsheviks during the civil war than the Whites.
     
    Correct, but majority of the population tried not to fight. Turnout in the German election was 80%. "Turnout" in the Civil War in the beginning (later Bolsheviks were able to force people to fight for them through conscription) was miniscule. Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Russian masses can be blamed for being passive and not stopping the Bolsheviks. But they didn't choose them, either.


    There is also a bigger point that in 1917 or 1933 it was very difficult to foresee what these parties would do once in power. Very few people voting for the Nazis expected the Second World War or the Holocaust
     
    Correct. Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    a solid victory in a multiparty election

    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.

    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn’t desert much and didn’t resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they’d take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.

    Well, Bolsheviks also massacred industrial workers, Jews, Latvians, or damn near anybody who resisted them. Established industrial workers with roots in the cities actually preferred the Mensheviks or other moderates, Bolshevik support was strongest among the soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant stock. That’s how the Bolsheviks controlled the Petrograd Soviet: the population of the city actually didn’t support the Bolsheviks much, but the Soldiers’ Soviets had a much higher representation, and because they had weapons, nobody dared say anything against them.

    Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.

    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many? What we know is that the SRs were pretty ineffectual in starting an uprising against the Bolsheviks, and were pushed aside by more radical anti-Bolsheviks (commonly known as the Whites), because they didn’t add anything to the equation: they couldn’t muster much support.

    Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning

    You cannot compare the effort required to cast a vote in an election compared to participate in a civil war with weapons.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Didn’t the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while? 1970s and 1980s communist textbooks in Hungary actually ascribe to them the start of the civil war and they were blamed for why the Whites nearly recaptured Russia.

    Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.

    Territorial changes are not evil in and of themselves. Poles wanted territorial changes before 1914, Ukrainians 1920-1991, etc. They lost a world war and wanted to reverse their fortune. Interestingly, the vast majority of Germans considered the job finished by the summer of 1938, and didn’t really want to fight a war for the Sudetenland. After 1938, the gap between Hitler’s adventurism and the people’s wish to just enjoy the peace grew enormously.

    The biggest issue was ending the humiliation: French occupation in the Ruhr was already solved by 1933, but the demilitarized zone, getting back the Saar, building a strong army like other European states, and to allow the Anschluss of German Austria. These could be achieved without a war. Perhaps the Polish corridor was considered important, but it was unclear if diplomacy or diplomacy combined with some military threats could be sufficient to achieve this. Nobody expected Hitler to risk world war for the corridor, nor did people that much care for the issue by 1939 anyway.

    Regarding Jew persecution, Gestapo and SD reports kept complaining that even committed Nazis considered the Jewish Question to have been solved as early as fall 1933.

    Of course, Russians voting for the Bolsheviks or even the SRs could expect some persecution of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, couldn’t they? After all, both parties wanted to take land away from them (though with the SRs it was unclear if they wanted to compensate them to an extent, it was pretty clear from the beginning that not much compensation would be forthcoming even under a purely SR government). Not to forget that beating up or killing officers etc. started already in the summer of 1917.

    • Replies: @AP

    a solid victory in a multiparty election
    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.
     
    Taken together it was the largest group.

    Nazis + their allies were 41%.

    Social Democrats were 20%

    Communists were 17%.

    Catholic Party was 12%.

    So the two democrtic parties (Social Democrats plus Catholic Centre Party) were 32% total.

    Nationalists (dominated by Nazis) clearly enjoyed large plurality of support in Germany.

    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn’t desert much and didn’t resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they’d take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.
     
    Conscripts by definiton are not volunteers, so some measure of force was involved, however light.

    I agree that the peasants would have preferred the Reds over the Whites (at least at the beginning - remember later on there were anti-Red peasant uprisings such as Tambov where Reds used poison gas on peasants) but that's not the same thing as supporting the Reds, voluntering for them, voting for them, etc.

    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many?
     
    Sources state it was a minority of them, but how small a minority I do not know.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Didn’t the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while?
     
    Of course. My point was that Russia was a sea of apathy and very small forces made a huge difference, at least in the critical early stages. Bolshevik victory does not reflect Russian people's preference, it reflects the fact that the tiny % of people willing to fight for the Red side were more disciplined, more ruthless, and better led than the tiny percentage of people on the other side. Russians neither voted for the Reds, nor brought them to power through some sort of mass uprising.

    In contrast, Hitler's election win does mean that his party enjoyed widespread support among the German population.
  199. @Anatoly Karlin

    Russians still don’t seem to understand it, instead – if your comments are an indication of their attitudes – they are still in the business of insulting or – at least implicitly – threatening them.
     
    You seem to be going off on another tangent. Where did I say anything about conquering? (apart from during the exigencies of wartime, but propaganda all over the world portrays that as "liberation" by default).

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    Regarding the Romanov kings supposedly installed there, Romania had a Hohenzollern king, and what good did it do the Germans?
     
    The Germanophile Romanian king lobbied against joining the Entente, in opposition to his deeply Francophile elites.

    The latter turned out stronger than the former, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case everywhere.

    Incidentally, the Germans regarded this as a betrayal on Romania's part, which partly explains why Romanian soldiers had the highest death rates of any warring state in enemy POW camps.

    Where did I say anything about conquering?

    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest. (Incidentally, after Romania acquiring Transylvania, its only remaining irredentist goal would be Bessarabia…)

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).

    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.

    These countries often had issues with each other. Hungarians and Romanians, Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, etc. Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence. Probably the negative effect of communism and accompanying impoverishment was needed even for American soft power to accomplish that. (See South Korea and Japan, both in the American camp, nearing war with each other.)

    Not to mention that Russian troops would have stood deep in Russian territory at the end of the war. Why do you think that France and Britain would’ve just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe? After all, France couldn’t achieve its maximalist goals in 1918, for example Germany wasn’t dismantled, France didn’t get to annex the Saarland (only temporarily) and other similar areas, etc. etc. If France couldn’t achieve much (other than Alsace and getting a few League of Nations mandates), why would Russia achieve so much more? Similarly, Italy couldn’t achieve much (granted, it was the weakest of the great powers). Russia was probably the weakest member of the Triple Entente (though stronger than Italy), so not very likely that its maximalist goals would’ve been honored.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest.
     
    Correction - quoted an Austro-Hungarian who envisioned that (probably correctly).

    In the short-term, of course, as a defeated part, the Hungarians would have no say. With time, they might well drift away. Since the Russian Empire was a "normal" country, it would have probably allowed its satellites more freedom of maneuver than did the USSR wrt Hungary in 1956. For that matter, even the USSR allowed Ceausescu's Romania huge leeway.

    More generally, I envision post-Entente victory Europe as divided between two major blocs, the liberal Anglo-French bloc and a conservative Russian bloc, vying with each other for influence, but with less enmity and no closed borders as in the capitalist/Communist standoff. In other words, more or less what you have today, but with broadly comparable power levels, as opposed to Russia being an economic minnow.

    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.
     
    Poland had Great Power pretensions of its own, and besides, it was directly incorporated into the Russian Empire.

    I think it is extremely unlikely that any CEE or Balkan countries would have been directly integrated into the Russian Empire.

    Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence.
     
    Sure, but why would that be a significant factor in the big picture?

    Why do you think that France and Britain would’ve just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe?
     
    What would they have done to prevent it?

    Obviously, they would not have fought the Russian Empire. Perhaps, at most, there would have been an attempt at comprehensive Western sanctions against it. But that assumes a French reconciliation with Germany at a very early stage (extremely implausible) to be effective. They weren't going to forego their reparations gibs.
  200. @Denis

    It’s not like that declaration of war just came out of the blue, it was a reaction to Russia’s mobilization (which had been prepared under stealth – something Russia denied at the time – even before Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia). As bad as the decisions taken by the leadership of Germany and Austria-Hungary were, it was Russia’s mobilization which ensured a general European war.
     
    Why do you think the Russian empire was mobilizing for crying out loud? They were anticipating a war, and they were right to do so, given that AH and the Germans proved to be entirely unreasonable.

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    You're right, it was better for them to stay in Turkish hands, so that the Turks could exterminate the indigenous population. Anything to stick it in Russia's eye!

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare like pretty much everyone in those countries would have regarded it (imo even the “Russophile” Czechs would have come to resent it eventually, just as they did regarding Soviet domination).
     
    Do they regard their current status wrt the US as a nightmare?

    Not sure that’s something to have positive feelings about. The conduct of Russian troops in East Prussia wasn’t really that much better than what the Germans did in Belgium in 1914
     
    Atrocities against civilians are unfortunate, but the Germans could have avoided these ones simply by not declaring war.

    Russia threatened Bulgaria with military action in case they conquered Constantinople during the First Balkan War. (The Bulgarians attacked nevertheless, but the Turks successfully defeated them a few tens of kilometers from Constantinople.) So it’s not like they wanted Constantinople liberated at any price, they were just as keen to prevent it from falling into anybody else’s hands.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Bulgaria couldn’t even conquer Adrianople, so Serbia sent a sizable siege army to aid them.
    This is a rather dubious claim.
  201. @Mikhail
    Ukraine shouldn't be confused with Poland. (Although there is an at east 15% Russophile element among Poles). Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia are more diverse and somewhat similar to how Scots have differing views among themselves on English dominated Britain.

    Thanks.

    Are you sure The Ukraine is not more like Ireland than Scotland?

    • Replies: @AP
    He doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian, and has never visited either country. He is not much of an expert.

    Historically, Ukraine has been somewhere between Ireland and Scotland vis a vis Russia. Not totally an exploited colony, but not a junior partner either. There were elements of both.
    , @Mikhail
    Scotland.
  202. @Seraphim
    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Martianov, in all his rantings, only boasts about himself and his Soviet education which marked him so deeply. Narcissistic personality.

    So he is not representative of Slavs?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    No, I don't think so. He is representative of a hyper inflated ego. I do not contend that education in Russia is miles above that in the West.
  203. @melanf

    Ca. 1980, the so-called “Russian Party within the CPSU” succeeded in making the 6th Centenary of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) a major celebration and a flurry of “legal” Russian patriotism. Alas, it was never made a national holiday, even though it has held a huge place in the national psyche for hundreds of years.
     
    Right now in Russia there is an official holiday "national unity day", which celebrates the expulsion of Polish invaders from Russia in 1612.
    Mark as official holidays the victory over the Tatars silly, because Tatars now are the second largest ethnic group in Russia.

    From the point of view of "national policy" instead of idiotic holidays, it would be better to spend some money on films / monuments/paintings dedicated to the victories that disappeared from mass memory (for example, the epoch-making victory over the Lithuanian army at Vedrosh in 1500). Although it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films

    The 7th of November was celebrating the victory of the Polish-Jewish cabal over Russia in 1917. Today it celebrates the liberation of Russia from the the Polish-Jewish cabal of 1612.

  204. @reiner Tor

    Hungarian opposition to annexing Bosnia in 1878 was still dismissed
     
    The issue is, Hungary didn't oppose the occupation in 1878 (which was decided by the concert of the great powers of Europe, it was not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy), actually it was brokered by the common Austrian-Hungarian foreign minister Count Andrássy, who had been the first prime minister of Hungary after the Compromise with the Habsburgs in 1867. He belonged to the first generation of Hungarian leaders, who were not very nationalistic (the nationalities law in 1868, the first of its kind in Europe, was so good that some Hungarian MPs trolled the Romanian parliament in the 1990s by proposing a Romanian translation of it to be made law in Romania), and so he didn't care that much. However, after the 1870s the Hungarian leadership started to become increasingly apprehensive of the fact that Hungarians were in fact just a plurality in Hungary, and so opposition to foreign adventures got more prominent.

    There was already opposition to the annexation of Bosnia in 1908, but because it was basically just the legalization of an already de facto state of affairs, it was possible to push through Hungary. Annexations in Serbia would've been a different issue, especially because there was considerable opposition to it in Vienna as well. Many in the Austrian leadership were also strongly opposed to annexing further unruly South Slavs, and for the same reason the Hungarians opposed it: it made the empire even less stable.

    Austria-Hungary taking Bosnia and Raska/Sandzak away from Serbia in 1878 even though Serbs fought for and won military control over it with hard earned blood?
     
    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn't so bad.

    What about Austria-Hungary trying to crash Serbia’s economy from 1906-1908?
     
    Serbia ended the trade agreements with Austria-Hungary and entered a customs union with Bulgaria. They also started buying French ammunitions, from the enemies of Austria-Hungary's only ally Germany. This resulted in a trade war.

    What about Austria-Hungary’s unilateral annexation of Bosnia in 1908?
     
    It was not unilateral. The Ottomans (according to international law, the rightful owners of the place) got paid a hefty sum, so they didn't complain. Austria-Hungary also secretly notified Russia and made a secret agreement with them, which they then broke when it turned out that the Russian nationalist press was furious. Anyway, Austria-Hungary first tried to placate all the great powers, I'm not sure what's unilateral in that.

    What about Austria-Hungary doing the same thing in 1912-1913 and creating Albania out of similarly hard-won Serb territorial gains?
     
    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn't want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    Also Austria-Hungary’s support of Muslim-Albanian massacre against Serb civilians in 1901, persecution of Serbs on false pretexts and etc.
     
    I'm not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don't know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn't accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power... no.)

    Being a client state of someone is not be sovereign
     
    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II with his elite at the German Imperial War Council on 8th December 1912 had basically decided upon war with Serbia, Russia, France and Britain in advance with it almost being a rehearsal for the July Crisis.
     
    They decided to prepare for war against the Triple Entente, for example increase the production of U-Boats. And then they did... nothing. They didn't even increase the production of U-Boats. Why not? Well, it cost a lot of money, and apparently they weren't seriously planning for a world war, rather just a contingency.

    Actually, Bosnia was still occupied by Ottoman troops, according to Wikipedia some 40,000 of them, combined with local Muslim militias of 93,000 people. So well over 100,000 Ottoman troops. Also, it was decided by the Concert of Europe, not some unilateral Habsburg perfidy.

    Local Muslim militias cannot properly qualify as Ottoman troops. You are referring to the Wikipedia article on everyone who resisted the Austro-Hungarian occupation. Most Serbs decided not to resist. It’s improper to use this to suggest that they weren’t militarily successful or that they didn’t actually exist on that land in a significant degree.

    Evidently you must be unaware of the 1875-1878 Herzegovina Uprising:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzegovina_uprising_(1875%E2%80%931877)#Uprising_in_Bosnia

    Note the 200,000 fugitives.

    That incident, just like all the other instances of Habsburg anti-Serb sabotage from 1848-1918 just show that regardless of how much Serbs subordinated themselves to the Habsburgs, they would never take the interests of Serbs seriously and always work to sabotage them. As for “Habsburg perfidy”, they were involved in the “Concert of Europe” and they were eagerly associated with Britain’s (note Britain was led by Benjamin Disraeli at this time, so you can guess his real ethno-religious affiliation if you are interested, btw) anti-Serb and anti-Russian agenda.

    By the way, Bosnia was more industrialized by 1914 than Serbia proper, so maybe Habsburg rule wasn’t so bad.

    First, proof?

    Anyway, even if you are correct, which you most probably aren’t, you may as well have said that Austria-Hungary’s GDP was larger than Serbia’s, so Habsburg rule would not have been so bad. Not everything in the world revolves around GDP, or factories and industry, for that matter.

    Now, you are complaining that the Habsburg empire conquered (with blood) an area where Serbs were a plurality (Bosnia), but now you see no problems Serbs trying to conquer a land of another ethnic group. Albanians didn’t want to live under Serb rule, something which you might have learned in the 1990s at the latest.

    First off, Kosovo, most of Albania, and much of Vardar Macedonia are all rightful ancient Serbian land. Serbs were the majority population on all of those lands until the Ottoman Empire came along when the “Albanians” (read: Shqiptars or Shqipere) made a majority conversion to Islam and then used their privileged status in the Ottoman Empire to dispossess Serbs of their ancient land (note 1455 Ottoman defter lists there being more Vlachs than “Albanians” on Kosovo). Hence the Great Serb migrations of the 17th and 18th centuries. Also hence why “Albanians” became a majority in Kosovo only from the 18th century. The city of Skadar (called modern day “Shkodra” in North Albania) also used to be Serb majority until the 17th century, btw.

    The fact that a bunch of fake scum breeds aggressively, and then barbarically massacres (not to mention many other unpleasant details) + forcibly expels the Serb population from their ancient land across many centuries (and still continues to do so to this very day), and then becomes the majority on that land doesn’t mean that the land belongs to them. Also, as hard as it may be for you to believe, in the early 20th century, Serbs still existed as a large minority on the territory of Kosovo, Vardar Macedonia and modern day “Albania”.

    Here’s an example of what I mean: A short history of “Albanian” attacks on Serbs in the 19th century and early 20th century:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sajkaca.com%2Fistorija%2Fkratka-istorija-albanskih-napada-na-srbe1365%2F1365%2F

    Oh and don’t you dare lecture me about the 1990’s or present day Kosovo, for that matter (spare me the NATO lies and hoaxes, please). The family of one of my parents had to flee from Kosovo in the mid 1960’s (an uncle of mine was born in Pristina in 1950’s) once Aleksander Rankovic fell from power (he was the last nominal defender of Kosovo Serbs in Tito’s anti-Serb Yugoslavia), btw. One of my ancestors was a Yugoslav Judge on Kosovo that punished Shqiptar barbarians for their endless crimes against Serbs, and some Shqiptar scum tribe declared a Besa (A blood oath) together with other Shqiptar tribes that they would massacre him (they fired some warning shots at his front door one night) and his whole extended family on Kosovo. There were at least hundreds of that scum while there were only a few dozen of my family and ancestors. Sometime around 1965, they gathered together their tractors, cars, guns and other farm equipment and left north across the hills, valleys and mountains north beyond Kosovo.

    I simply refuse to seriously entertain some clueless Habscuck worshiper peddling bullshit about how the Prizren and the surrounding countryside of South Kosovo that they had to abandon legitimately belongs to Shqiptar barbarians.

    I’m not totally familiar with the events in 1901 and I don’t know what Habsburgs had to do with them, but for example in 1912-13 during the Balkan wars Serbs committed countless massacres against Albanians and other Muslims and even killed some Macedonians who didn’t accept that they were supposed to be Serbs. (A great exercise of soft power… no.)

    Stop lying with the part in bold. Those false atrocity and massacre accusations are insulting and defamatory hoaxes. Those accusations were peddled by an international commission sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment that had half its “experts” (journalists) come from Germany and Austria-Hungary, meaning that it was totally 100% objective, reliable and unbiased …

    Leon Trotsky was also another serious and committed accuser, and pusher of false Serb atrocity stories during the Balkan Wars while writing from Sofia, btw. Not to mention The British Daily Telegraph and even the very same present-day New York Times pushing false narratives about Serbs back in 1912, same as now. You can also safely ignore the falsehoods and distortions peddled by the lying dog “Serb Socialist” Dmitrije Tucovic who sold out his own countrymen and along with his “Socialists/Communist” sabotaged the Serb war effort during the Balkan Wars.

    It is noteworthy that the Norwegian Officer Henrik August Angel, who followed the Serbian Army during the Balkan Wars, stated that the false accusations peddled by the English language and German + Austro-Hungarian were a “demonization of Serbs” and a “shameful injustice”.

    The Serbian government properly and unequivocally denied these false and insulting accusations that were made in order to justify the creation of “Albania” (necessary to deny Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea and Mediterranean), a “country” that had never even existed before in world history contrary to false propaganda that pretends “Albania” is a real country.

    Those defamatory accusations you mention are literally more fake than 1995 Srebrenica and 1999 Racak (these two events at least actually happened, but their context and facts are completely distorted, while the Serb massacres against “Albanians” outright never even happened), btw.

    As for the “Macedonians” that were apparently killed by Serbs, first, there was no such thing as Monkeydonians back then, just like they don’t really exist now and are only confused and brainwashed dimwits. Second, the ones that were killed where all Bulgarian VMRO terrorist rebels that previously massacred and persecuted Serb civilians (e.g. VMRO leader Dame Gruev’s Society Against Serbs) during the “Macedonian struggle” from 1903-1912. So it was just legitimate counter-insurgency operations against Bulgarian VMRO that allied with Shqiptar barbarians. They deliberately got together in a well planned conspiracy to take Vardar Macedonia away from Serbia when the Bulgarian Army attacked its Serbian allies in the night as it hoped to get away with slaughtering them in pitch black darkness. That’s how the 2nd Balkan War started, btw.

    As for the events of 1901 (this was before 1903 May coup in Serbia while Obrenovic dynasty was around and followed a pro Austria-Hungary course, btw):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_massacres_of_Serbs#Massacres

    That is only one example of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs that Austria-Hungary supported (Habsburg agents also did anti-Serb espionage activities against Serb churches on Kosovo, btw). At the 1899 Hague Convention, Austria-Hungary blocked the issue of Shqiptar barbarism against Serbs from even being considered there.

    Then Serbia was never sovereign, because after being a Habsburg client, they became a Russian client state after 1903.

    Doesn’t change the fact that Austria-Hungary couldn’t accept the existence of a Serbia that was not a Habsburg client state.

  205. @iffen
    So he is not representative of Slavs?

    No, I don’t think so. He is representative of a hyper inflated ego. I do not contend that education in Russia is miles above that in the West.

  206. @reiner Tor

    some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”
     
    Ethnic groups can exist without a flag. Hungarians didn't have a national flag until the early 19th century (the national colors were occasionally in use already in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example during coronation ceremonies or for some official documents), and it only got its final form and became official first in 1848 (and then again in 1867).

    Albanians were Muslims (or Catholics in smaller numbers), not Orthodox like the Serbs, and spoke Albanian, not Serb, had different customs, different (though not extremely different) genetic origins, different national consciousness (they were aware that they weren't Serbs), that's enough to mark them as a different ethnic group. Regardless of whether they had a flag or not.

    I’m not claiming that Shqiptars don’t exist as an ethnic-religious group. What I’m claiming is that their nationality, nation, language and identity are completely fake and that they were artificially ethno-engineered by the Habsburgs and Austria-Hungary to be used against Serbs:

    Here’s the proof that the “Albanian nation” didn’t exist until the end of the 19th century. This is a brief article about a Bulgarian woman historian Teodora Toleva (yes, if a Bulgar woman can figure out that “Albanians” are a fake nation, then surely anyone can) that wrote a whole book about the artificial ethno-engineering of the “Albanian” nation by the Habsburgs (The book is based upon access to Habsburg archives in Vienna, btw):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatriot.rs%2Falbanska-nacija-nije-postojala-do-kraja-19-veka%2Famp%2F%3Flang%3Dlat

    Also a further explanation upon the previous link:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbalkanskageopolitika.com%2F2019%2F07%2F13%2Fzasto-i-kako-je-stvorena-albanija%2F

    Another interesting thing to note about this woman is that she died under “mysterious” and “strange” circumstances for daring to publicly write about the truth of the falseness of the “Albanian” nation.

    Lajos Thallóczy is the Hungarian historian and public servant of the Habsburg empire that played a big role in artificially ethno-engineering and creating the fake countries of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina out of ancient Serbian land:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Thall%C3%B3czy#Bosnia

    • Troll: Yevardian
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thank you for confirming my soft belief that the US made the right decisions during the break-up of Yugoslavia.
  207. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    I'm not claiming that Shqiptars don't exist as an ethnic-religious group. What I'm claiming is that their nationality, nation, language and identity are completely fake and that they were artificially ethno-engineered by the Habsburgs and Austria-Hungary to be used against Serbs:

    Here's the proof that the "Albanian nation" didn't exist until the end of the 19th century. This is a brief article about a Bulgarian woman historian Teodora Toleva (yes, if a Bulgar woman can figure out that "Albanians" are a fake nation, then surely anyone can) that wrote a whole book about the artificial ethno-engineering of the "Albanian" nation by the Habsburgs (The book is based upon access to Habsburg archives in Vienna, btw):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatriot.rs%2Falbanska-nacija-nije-postojala-do-kraja-19-veka%2Famp%2F%3Flang%3Dlat

    Also a further explanation upon the previous link:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbalkanskageopolitika.com%2F2019%2F07%2F13%2Fzasto-i-kako-je-stvorena-albanija%2F

    Another interesting thing to note about this woman is that she died under "mysterious" and "strange" circumstances for daring to publicly write about the truth of the falseness of the "Albanian" nation.

    Lajos Thallóczy is the Hungarian historian and public servant of the Habsburg empire that played a big role in artificially ethno-engineering and creating the fake countries of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina out of ancient Serbian land:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Thall%C3%B3czy#Bosnia

    Thank you for confirming my soft belief that the US made the right decisions during the break-up of Yugoslavia.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Enjoy your demographic replacement, Amero scum.
  208. @iffen
    Thank you for confirming my soft belief that the US made the right decisions during the break-up of Yugoslavia.

    Enjoy your demographic replacement, Amero scum.

  209. @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    Thank you once again for providing a voice of reason.

  210. @iffen
    Thanks.

    Are you sure The Ukraine is not more like Ireland than Scotland?

    He doesn’t speak Russian or Ukrainian, and has never visited either country. He is not much of an expert.

    Historically, Ukraine has been somewhere between Ireland and Scotland vis a vis Russia. Not totally an exploited colony, but not a junior partner either. There were elements of both.

  211. @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France.

    According to this logic, USSR was looking for a war with USA during Cold War and dictating the escalation and level of spending.

    Why look at military expenditures as % of national income?

    An economically weaker country has to match it’s rivals spending in absolute terms.
    Moreover, intensive German military spending and modernization took decades before Russian ones, indeed – Russia was in the middle of a thorough military reform when WW1 started. In order to start catching up with German army, Russians would have to outspend them on a per unit basis.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Germany and Austria-Hungary combined were much weaker than the Russian, French and British Empires combined. My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It's pretty nonsensical, based on the fact that they didn't even spend as much relative to their national income as the already stronger Triple Entente powers.

    So what is your point?
  212. @reiner Tor
    Russia threatened Bulgaria with military action in case they conquered Constantinople during the First Balkan War. (The Bulgarians attacked nevertheless, but the Turks successfully defeated them a few tens of kilometers from Constantinople.) So it's not like they wanted Constantinople liberated at any price, they were just as keen to prevent it from falling into anybody else's hands.

    Bulgaria couldn’t even conquer Adrianople, so Serbia sent a sizable siege army to aid them.
    This is a rather dubious claim.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @anonlb
    I read somwere that bulgarian and serbian generals in the end of the first Balkan war developed idea to capture Constantinople, emboldened by previous victories, but faced big no-no from every side when this become known. It was way to big prize for those balkan upstarts.
    Btw, some kind of union between Serbia and Bulgaria was(and still is) the only chance for them to stop being puppets of foreign powers. Russia easily prevented this from start by favoring Bulgarian pretensions to old Serbia teritorires and AH by favoring similar Serbian pretensions.
    Russian errors in 19c, most notable supression of Декабристы and necessary reforms in 1825, supression of revolution in Hungary 1848 and later emergence of powerful slavic balkan state created conditions for its 20c disasters.
  213. @reiner Tor

    some Hungarian historian for the Habsburgs literally designed the current “Albanian flag”
     
    Ethnic groups can exist without a flag. Hungarians didn't have a national flag until the early 19th century (the national colors were occasionally in use already in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example during coronation ceremonies or for some official documents), and it only got its final form and became official first in 1848 (and then again in 1867).

    Albanians were Muslims (or Catholics in smaller numbers), not Orthodox like the Serbs, and spoke Albanian, not Serb, had different customs, different (though not extremely different) genetic origins, different national consciousness (they were aware that they weren't Serbs), that's enough to mark them as a different ethnic group. Regardless of whether they had a flag or not.

    Albanians were originally 100% Orthodox.
    This can be seen through Uniatic Albanian Church in Italy which remains to this day. The tribal/ethnic/linguistic division between Ghegs and Tosks remains to this day – it was much more pronounced in the past. Prizren League(s) Shqiptars have practically nothing in common with Arvanites of Epirus, Greece and southern Orthodox Albanians.

    Also, the name Albanian is a very (19/20th century) exonym for people who were called Arnauts by neighbours or Shqiptars themselves.
    At the turn of the 19/20th century, 2% of them were literate.

    The region in the Balkans called Albania historically was Albania Veneta – roughly corresponding to Venetian held Zeta – Skadar naturally included, as one of Serb Medieval capitals.

    A brief look at Slavic toponyms scattered throughout modern-day Albania dispells any illusion; the same for a detailed look at Skenderbegs grandfather, father, the letters written by them, and his parents’ and siblings’ names and biography.

    There is a very interesting book I will be acquiring by a Bulgarian historian (deceased) Teodora Toleva called: “The influence of Austro-Hungarian Empire on the creation of Albanian nation 1896-1908”.
    She studied in Vienna under an Austrian mentor and was allowed access to archive documents.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  214. @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    Central Powers,…had no territorial designs on any countries

    This is an incorrect statement to put it mildly. WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon. The Entente countries also waged war for the purpose of conquest – in this there was no difference between them (and Germany).

    But the question of who started the war, everything is different. Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
    Should we discuss this further? Of course, people who take this topic to heart can come up with 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war. But this will only illustrate the peculiarities of human consciousness.

    • Replies: @AP
    We've been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours:

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia,
     
    Austria gave shelter to Lenin and other criminals but Lenin wasn't operating as an agent of the Austrian government. This is very different from Serbia's role.

    WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon.
     
    Which lands did Germany want in 1914? France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back.
  215. @Philip Owen
    In the initial engagement with a small German force with limited artillery the Russians did use artillery to advantage. However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced. The Germans used the rail network to concentrate their forces so their one well equipped, well trained Arney fought the two separate Russian armies.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.

    However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced.

    Generally agree, even when less capable A-H is thrown into the mix, the ratio of losses (KIAs) between Russia and Germany-A-H is more than two fold NOT in favor of Russia. Once Germany is singled out in KIAs against Russian KIAs minus equal number of KIAs by A-H for a very rough compensation, we still get an appaling 1 to 7 ratio of KIAs in favor of Germans. Kholmogorv using a single operational episode for passing judgement on the whole war is a first sign of an illiterate ignoramus. Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically, as I stated–it is tantamount to failing to pass “academics” on beer drinking or missing a toiled completely when pissing. That is the level of “complexity” he couldn’t even handle. Yet, here we are, discussing this cretin’s scribbles.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.

    Some, certainly were, but as for actual numbers and definition of what “large numbers” actually are–it takes combat and transpiration logs to arrive to a good number. I simply do not have materials at hand to know the number. There is no denial that some Central Powers troops were transferred. In the end Germans needed to stabilize front during Brusilov Offensive which did have a serious influence on Verdun.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius

    Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically
     
    Actually, he was doing more than okay academically, his reasons for leaving included, among other things, developments in his personal life and certain, ahem, changes in economic and political conditions after October 1993.

    Yet you keep clinging to deliberate untruths and pushing slanderous false narratives, as Communists are wont to do.
  216. @reiner Tor

    Where did I say anything about conquering?
     
    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest. (Incidentally, after Romania acquiring Transylvania, its only remaining irredentist goal would be Bessarabia...)

    There was significant Russophile sentiment in most of the Slavic world before WW1 (with the notable exception, of course, of Poland).
     
    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    This sentiment would be massively bolstered by the prestige attached to winning a war. Nor would it be subsequently degraded by political totalitarianism or economic stagnation relative to the West.
     
    These countries often had issues with each other. Hungarians and Romanians, Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, etc. Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence. Probably the negative effect of communism and accompanying impoverishment was needed even for American soft power to accomplish that. (See South Korea and Japan, both in the American camp, nearing war with each other.)

    Not to mention that Russian troops would have stood deep in Russian territory at the end of the war. Why do you think that France and Britain would've just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe? After all, France couldn't achieve its maximalist goals in 1918, for example Germany wasn't dismantled, France didn't get to annex the Saarland (only temporarily) and other similar areas, etc. etc. If France couldn't achieve much (other than Alsace and getting a few League of Nations mandates), why would Russia achieve so much more? Similarly, Italy couldn't achieve much (granted, it was the weakest of the great powers). Russia was probably the weakest member of the Triple Entente (though stronger than Italy), so not very likely that its maximalist goals would've been honored.

    Well, after the end of the world war, how would you (or Kholmogorov) expect to install pro-Russian regimes in Budapest? Even in the event of a Russian victory. I ask this because Kholmogorov specifically envisioned pro-Russian governments both in Budapest and Bucharest.

    Correction – quoted an Austro-Hungarian who envisioned that (probably correctly).

    In the short-term, of course, as a defeated part, the Hungarians would have no say. With time, they might well drift away. Since the Russian Empire was a “normal” country, it would have probably allowed its satellites more freedom of maneuver than did the USSR wrt Hungary in 1956. For that matter, even the USSR allowed Ceausescu’s Romania huge leeway.

    More generally, I envision post-Entente victory Europe as divided between two major blocs, the liberal Anglo-French bloc and a conservative Russian bloc, vying with each other for influence, but with less enmity and no closed borders as in the capitalist/Communist standoff. In other words, more or less what you have today, but with broadly comparable power levels, as opposed to Russia being an economic minnow.

    I.e. the only (non-Eastern) Slavic country to actually fall under Russian rule.

    Poland had Great Power pretensions of its own, and besides, it was directly incorporated into the Russian Empire.

    I think it is extremely unlikely that any CEE or Balkan countries would have been directly integrated into the Russian Empire.

    Herding cats might be easier than putting each of them into the same bloc, without violence.

    Sure, but why would that be a significant factor in the big picture?

    Why do you think that France and Britain would’ve just allowed Russia to create a pro-Russian bloc in Eastern Europe?

    What would they have done to prevent it?

    Obviously, they would not have fought the Russian Empire. Perhaps, at most, there would have been an attempt at comprehensive Western sanctions against it. But that assumes a French reconciliation with Germany at a very early stage (extremely implausible) to be effective. They weren’t going to forego their reparations gibs.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Russia couldn't afford to station a million troops in Eastern Europe, so I don't think it was possible to keep the whole area as an exclusive zone of Russian influence. To give you an example, let's consider three Balkan states, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Serbia was for a long time a client state of Austria, but then nationalist aspirations brought it in Russia's orbit. Bulgaria had long been a Russian client state, but it was too independent minded (I think the episode when they tried to take Constantinople played some role here, even though the Bulgarians failed miserably), so Russia eventually chose to support Serbia. It had the additional benefit of wooing Romania into Russia's orbit (Sazonov explicitly told the Romanians that Russia wouldn't care if they attacked Bulgaria), but at the price of losing Bulgaria. So now Bulgaria became a German/Habsburg ally, while Serbia and Romania were Russian allies. (Coincidentally, this is the constellation which scared Austrian planners shitless. Russia had organized the First Balkan War and initiated the alliance of two of its client states, Serbia and Bulgaria, and then these small countries managed to destroy Ottoman rule in the Balkan. Austrian planners envisaged a situation where the Romanians and Serbs attacked it, while Russia kept much of the Austrian army in the north by mobilization - something which had happened during the Balkan Wars. So they wanted to get out of this situation where both of their neighbors were Russian clients.)

    Another example is Hungary. Romanian troops entered Budapest in August 1919, but after they left, the very small National Army of Admiral Horthy took the country for itself. (Horthy entered Budapest exactly one hundred years ago, on November 16, 1919.) After that, the Hungarian elite was united in the goal of trying to somehow create a political situation (or grab the opportunity if it arrived) where they could overturn the Treaty of Trianon. Hungary was pretty independent, and willing to accept the friendship of anyone who was willing to promise a change of borders. So, Mussolini, and later Hitler. I don't think the situation would've been different among the loser countries. Each country which was a loser would've looked for the enemies of Russia.

    I'm pretty sure that such dynamics would've prevented Russia from keeping the whole area permanently under its thumb. Maybe many of those countries, but certainly not the whole area.
  217. @reiner Tor

    it will be necessary to hire American Directors to create normal historical films
     
    After Andy Vajna (the producer of Terminator 2: Judgment Day) returned to Hungary (to flee the American tax authorities I think), he was appointed by Orbán to oversee the Hungarian film industry (which barely survives by receiving moneys from the government). He did two things. First, he greatly increased the number of American films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income. And second, he managed to spend the available government funds on quality movies. Unfortunately this also meant that there was no ideological censorship or guidance, but still we had two Oscars in quick succession, both by Hungarian directors. (Yes, one of them was a holocaust movie, but still. We had many holocaust movies before, not one of them receiving an Oscar.)

    So maybe the problem is not with the directors, but the whole system, where either not the most talented directors get to make movies, or they have to make compromises due to stupid producers, or something similar.

    films being shot in Hungary, which created a source of income… spend the available government funds on quality

    Probably because partly it is such a small country, most every policy of the government of Hungary seem to be much more competent.

    There is also Hungary with the lowest corporation tax in Europe, which is attracting all kinds of investment now to Hungary.

    https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdf

  218. @iffen
    Thanks.

    Are you sure The Ukraine is not more like Ireland than Scotland?

    Scotland.

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

    Likewise some of the biggest banks and financial institutions in the UK are Scottish and based in Scotland. One could easily make a credible case that the English are dominated by the Scots in reality. Was Ukraine's position within Russia (or the USSR more accurately) really comparable to that?
  219. This discussion thread needs Gerard 2 by the way…. lol I am refreshing the page constantly, expecting to read his comments here.

  220. Thoughts on consensus:

    The Bolsheviks snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The exact nature of what that victory would have meant for Russia is still up for debate.

    The Bolsheviks took Russia out of the war because they knew that a civil war was coming and they wanted to make sure that they were in position to be the winner of that war. Whatever was “good for Russia” was way down the list. Like AH’s attitude toward Germany in WWII, they believed a Russia destroyed was better than a Russia without the Bolsheviks in charge.

    AK wants the liberty to disavow the Bolsheviks as “Russia,” but he refuses the same to GR’s disavowal of the Nazis.

  221. @Anatoly Karlin

    Kholmogorov himself later in this article goes on about Russia’s righteous claims to the straits and Constantinople (and who knows what else)…if this wasn’t imperialism, what exactly was it?
     
    What you tend to miss in your "takedowns" of Holmes is that his sparring targets are sovoks. He is telling them they could have had more for less. Which is perfectly valid.

    Kholmogorov seems to regard this as a positive vision…not as the nightmare
     
    The East Europeans came to hate the Soviet Union because it put them behind a barbed wire fence. And not immediately, even, but after it became clear that Communism was making them worse off relative to the West.

    Kolchak lost a civil war and was executed. He couldn’t even control his own country. Nothing more to be said about this.
     
    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them, while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    Mortality of German pows in Russian captivity was the highest in WW1, up to between 20-30%.
     
    I don't know about those figures, but the highest POW mortality in WW1 was Romanian POWs in German captivity.

    By demanding that Russia go on the offensive in 1917…which shouldn’t have been a problem, if Russia was indeed winning so much.
     
    There was a world of difference between summer 1917 and January 1917 - collapsed production due to strikes, soldiers councils voting on whether or not to join in offensives, open Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. You know this, of course.

    Unless Russian nationalists rid themselves of this imperialist nonsense, one can only hope that their influence in Russia will remain distinctly limited.
     
    Hopefully the Merkel regime will likewise continue to keep the lid on German nationalists.

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.

    Quite true. The support given was haphazard and ultimately rather paltry. I don’t believe however (for the most part) that the Allies really truly wanted the Whites to win in Russia.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them..

    The Allies had to at least make a show (and I have to emphasize the term ‘show’ here) of ‘fighting Communism’. With the possible exception of the Japanese (who had certain ulterior motives) they didn’t seem to take the whole thing too seriously.

    ..while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.

    The British Empire showed far more resolve and dedication in fighting tiny Ireland (in the concurrent Irish War of Independence) sending about three times the troops (ie 20,000 in Ireland vs their 7500 in Russia) than they did in fighting the ‘Bolshevik menace’ in Russia. Still, that wasn’t nearly enough to win in Ireland.

    Not surprisingly, the Brits lost in Ireland just as they lost in Russia.

    The United States sent somewhat more troops than the Brits in the Allied intervention, about thirteen thousand or so. The bulk of them (8000) got sent to Vladivostok under strict orders to stay out of the fighting, get the Czechs out if possible, and run the local Trans-Siberian Railway.

    They appeared to do just as they’d been told regarding the fighting. Looking at some of the available pictures, such as the one below in Vladivostok, it seemed they did a lot of parading.

    And marching (ie ‘hiking’) too, in the Vladivostok region, as perhaps a ‘demonstration’ of the US presence in the area, or simple exercise.

    Fitting in with their assignment to run the local railway, below is a pic of a US hospital car of the Siberian expeditionary force.

    While no doubt they certainly did treat some real and serious injuries experienced in unavoidable fighting by US troops placed in the area, and, or treated their illnesses and sickness, considerering their standing orders to stay clear of the fighting, one wonders if the most common ‘battlefield injury’ treated for at the hospital car was for blisters on the men’s feet.

    In the Arkhangelsk region, with about 5000 US troops, there was a bit more fighting on the US part, but still considering the entire picture, relatively limited.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The second post card (the 'hiking') shows Japanese troops, not American.
  222. @iffen
    massive Slavophilic movement

    I may not know what I'm talking about, but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries (Poland and Ukraine) to Russia the most bitter opponents?

    Wasn't Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise?

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise

    It wasn’t

    I may not know what I’m talking about

    Correct

    • Replies: @AP

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy
     
    Closer to 50%.

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.
  223. @Epigon
    Bulgaria couldn’t even conquer Adrianople, so Serbia sent a sizable siege army to aid them.
    This is a rather dubious claim.

    I read somwere that bulgarian and serbian generals in the end of the first Balkan war developed idea to capture Constantinople, emboldened by previous victories, but faced big no-no from every side when this become known. It was way to big prize for those balkan upstarts.
    Btw, some kind of union between Serbia and Bulgaria was(and still is) the only chance for them to stop being puppets of foreign powers. Russia easily prevented this from start by favoring Bulgarian pretensions to old Serbia teritorires and AH by favoring similar Serbian pretensions.
    Russian errors in 19c, most notable supression of Декабристы and necessary reforms in 1825, supression of revolution in Hungary 1848 and later emergence of powerful slavic balkan state created conditions for its 20c disasters.

  224. @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    My strong impresson is that Germany was too strong for France and Russia before WW1. With all respect to host of this blog Imperial Russia was not by far match for Germany and suffered humiliating defeat by Japanesse in 1905. France was shadow of its glorious past from middle ages and time of Napoleon. Both simple lost race for progress with Germany. German progress becomes limited by Entente states encirclement policies(coup in Serbia 1903 was one more brick in that wall) and war with France becomes reasonable option for Germany. War plans was completed long before WW1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan .

  225. @Korenchkin

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries
     
    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Wasn’t Yugoslavia (LOL) supposed to be some sort of pan-Slavic paradise
     
    It wasn't

    I may not know what I’m talking about
     
    Correct

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy

    Closer to 50%.

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.
     
    Most Ukrainians of that period didn't vote. The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900's and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help. Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.
     
    You mean into Russians, no?

    Also, if I recall correctly, Crimea and Odessa were both pro-Russian in 1917 whereas the rest of Novorossiya was about 50/50, correct? If so, I wonder if increased Russian settlement into Novorossiya--especially into its coastal areas--could have helped increase Russophile sentiments there. Interestingly enough, Novorossiya's coastline was much less Ukrainian than the rest of Ukraine was even in 1926:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Ukrainians1926ua.PNG

    As a side note, I think that it might have been more prudent for Tsarist Russia to restrict settlement in Novorossiya to Great Russians back in the 1700s and beyond. That way, its demographics would have been Great Russian-majority from the very beginning.
  226. @melanf

    Central Powers,...had no territorial designs on any countries
     
    This is an incorrect statement to put it mildly. WWI laid bare Germany's plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon. The Entente countries also waged war for the purpose of conquest - in this there was no difference between them (and Germany).

    But the question of who started the war, everything is different. Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
    Should we discuss this further? Of course, people who take this topic to heart can come up with 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war. But this will only illustrate the peculiarities of human consciousness.

    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours:

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia,

    Austria gave shelter to Lenin and other criminals but Lenin wasn’t operating as an agent of the Austrian government. This is very different from Serbia’s role.

    WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon.

    Which lands did Germany want in 1914? France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    You missed Pilsudski and his terrorist cell.
    , @melanf


    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
     
    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours
     
    To save time I will quote your favorite Wikipedia:

    "In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams), a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials."
  227. @reiner Tor

    a solid victory in a multiparty election
     
    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Neither side gathered much of an army; most people refused to fight. Bolsheviks used Latvian muscle and forced conscription and hostage-taking. They were simply much more ruthless.
     
    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn't desert much and didn't resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they'd take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren't exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Bolsheviks were also massacring peasants. Core Bolshevik support was among workers.
     
    Well, Bolsheviks also massacred industrial workers, Jews, Latvians, or damn near anybody who resisted them. Established industrial workers with roots in the cities actually preferred the Mensheviks or other moderates, Bolshevik support was strongest among the soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant stock. That's how the Bolsheviks controlled the Petrograd Soviet: the population of the city actually didn't support the Bolsheviks much, but the Soldiers' Soviets had a much higher representation, and because they had weapons, nobody dared say anything against them.

    Bolsheviks did have enough support to win, it wasn’t zero. They got 25% of the vote (versus 40% for SRs). But it was not a majority or plurality support, as Nazis enjoyed in Germany.
     
    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many? What we know is that the SRs were pretty ineffectual in starting an uprising against the Bolsheviks, and were pushed aside by more radical anti-Bolsheviks (commonly known as the Whites), because they didn't add anything to the equation: they couldn't muster much support.

    Turnout in the German election was 80%. “Turnout” in the Civil War in the beginning
     
    You cannot compare the effort required to cast a vote in an election compared to participate in a civil war with weapons.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.
     
    Didn't the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while? 1970s and 1980s communist textbooks in Hungary actually ascribe to them the start of the civil war and they were blamed for why the Whites nearly recaptured Russia.

    Germans voting for Nazis did not expect a World War or Holocaust. But they expected territory changes and Jew persecution.
     
    Territorial changes are not evil in and of themselves. Poles wanted territorial changes before 1914, Ukrainians 1920-1991, etc. They lost a world war and wanted to reverse their fortune. Interestingly, the vast majority of Germans considered the job finished by the summer of 1938, and didn't really want to fight a war for the Sudetenland. After 1938, the gap between Hitler's adventurism and the people's wish to just enjoy the peace grew enormously.

    The biggest issue was ending the humiliation: French occupation in the Ruhr was already solved by 1933, but the demilitarized zone, getting back the Saar, building a strong army like other European states, and to allow the Anschluss of German Austria. These could be achieved without a war. Perhaps the Polish corridor was considered important, but it was unclear if diplomacy or diplomacy combined with some military threats could be sufficient to achieve this. Nobody expected Hitler to risk world war for the corridor, nor did people that much care for the issue by 1939 anyway.

    Regarding Jew persecution, Gestapo and SD reports kept complaining that even committed Nazis considered the Jewish Question to have been solved as early as fall 1933.

    Of course, Russians voting for the Bolsheviks or even the SRs could expect some persecution of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, couldn't they? After all, both parties wanted to take land away from them (though with the SRs it was unclear if they wanted to compensate them to an extent, it was pretty clear from the beginning that not much compensation would be forthcoming even under a purely SR government). Not to forget that beating up or killing officers etc. started already in the summer of 1917.

    a solid victory in a multiparty election
    It just means that the nationalist vote was not very fragmented.

    Taken together it was the largest group.

    Nazis + their allies were 41%.

    Social Democrats were 20%

    Communists were 17%.

    Catholic Party was 12%.

    So the two democrtic parties (Social Democrats plus Catholic Centre Party) were 32% total.

    Nationalists (dominated by Nazis) clearly enjoyed large plurality of support in Germany.

    Orlando Figes describes how neither side could much control the villages, and how desertions were very frequent in all the armies fighting in the civil war. However, the Bolsheviks could always conscript enough soldiers from areas immediately behind their lines: the peasants didn’t desert much and didn’t resist conscription, because they feared the white advances (that they’d take their lands). Once the front moved away, the soldiers deserted and returned to their villages. A relatively large portion of the Red Army consisted of soldiers from immediately the regions where they fought. Yes, they weren’t exactly enthusiastic volunteers, but clearly their preferences could be seen.

    Conscripts by definiton are not volunteers, so some measure of force was involved, however light.

    I agree that the peasants would have preferred the Reds over the Whites (at least at the beginning – remember later on there were anti-Red peasant uprisings such as Tambov where Reds used poison gas on peasants) but that’s not the same thing as supporting the Reds, voluntering for them, voting for them, etc.

    But the SR vote contains vote for the Left SRs. When the Left SRs joined the Bolsheviks, some of their voters surely supported them in that. Do we know how many?

    Sources state it was a minority of them, but how small a minority I do not know.

    Small trained forces like the Latvian rifles or the Czech POWs held the balance of power in this vast populated country.

    Didn’t the Czechoslovak Legion actually fight against the Bolsheviks for a while?

    Of course. My point was that Russia was a sea of apathy and very small forces made a huge difference, at least in the critical early stages. Bolshevik victory does not reflect Russian people’s preference, it reflects the fact that the tiny % of people willing to fight for the Red side were more disciplined, more ruthless, and better led than the tiny percentage of people on the other side. Russians neither voted for the Reds, nor brought them to power through some sort of mass uprising.

    In contrast, Hitler’s election win does mean that his party enjoyed widespread support among the German population.

  228. @S

    More serious Allied support in terms of money and munitions could have given the Whites a chance.
     
    Quite true. The support given was haphazard and ultimately rather paltry. I don't believe however (for the most part) that the Allies really truly wanted the Whites to win in Russia.

    The Allied interventions were just big enough for the Bolsheviks to make hay out of them..
     
    The Allies had to at least make a show (and I have to emphasize the term 'show' here) of 'fighting Communism'. With the possible exception of the Japanese (who had certain ulterior motives) they didn't seem to take the whole thing too seriously.

    ..while being far too small to actually impact on the Civil War in any material way.
     
    The British Empire showed far more resolve and dedication in fighting tiny Ireland (in the concurrent Irish War of Independence) sending about three times the troops (ie 20,000 in Ireland vs their 7500 in Russia) than they did in fighting the 'Bolshevik menace' in Russia. Still, that wasn't nearly enough to win in Ireland.

    Not surprisingly, the Brits lost in Ireland just as they lost in Russia.

    The United States sent somewhat more troops than the Brits in the Allied intervention, about thirteen thousand or so. The bulk of them (8000) got sent to Vladivostok under strict orders to stay out of the fighting, get the Czechs out if possible, and run the local Trans-Siberian Railway.

    They appeared to do just as they'd been told regarding the fighting. Looking at some of the available pictures, such as the one below in Vladivostok, it seemed they did a lot of parading.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG/800px-American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG

    And marching (ie 'hiking') too, in the Vladivostok region, as perhaps a 'demonstration' of the US presence in the area, or simple exercise.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/American_soldiers_from_the_31st_Infantry_marching_near_Vladivostok_Russia_April_27_1919.jpg/800px-American_soldiers_from_the_31st_Infantry_marching_near_Vladivostok_Russia_April_27_1919.jpg

    Fitting in with their assignment to run the local railway, below is a pic of a US hospital car of the Siberian expeditionary force.

    While no doubt they certainly did treat some real and serious injuries experienced in unavoidable fighting by US troops placed in the area, and, or treated their illnesses and sickness, considerering their standing orders to stay clear of the fighting, one wonders if the most common 'battlefield injury' treated for at the hospital car was for blisters on the men's feet.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/American_Expeditionary_Forces_Hospital_Car_No._1%2C_Train_No.1_at_Khabarovsk%2C_Russia%2C_1918-1919_%2818155799199%29.jpg/800px-American_Expeditionary_Forces_Hospital_Car_No._1%2C_Train_No.1_at_Khabarovsk%2C_Russia%2C_1918-1919_%2818155799199%29.jpg

    In the Arkhangelsk region, with about 5000 US troops, there was a bit more fighting on the US part, but still considering the entire picture, relatively limited.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    The second post card (the ‘hiking’) shows Japanese troops, not American.

  229. @Fluctuarius
    The Soviet education system, the best education system in the world*.


    *According to the Soviet education system.

    You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, I’d like to see the average Western teenager today make it through any standard textbook from that era. Meanwhile the education system in Russia went into free-fall during the 90’s and still hasn’t recovered. The same story in Romania, Central Asia and Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Fluctuarius
    Because obtuse and nigh-incomprehensible language, walls of text, and pervasive ideological bias is what makes education great, amirite?
  230. @German_reader

    So I hope you’ll understand if Russian nationalists, barring a few Neo-Nazis with the phenotype of the subhuman in that famous Nazi poster, aren’t much interested in hearing you out, no offense.
     
    That's their right, but if you're taking the trouble to have Kholmogorov's screeds translated into English and present them to an international audience, you'll have to live with harsh criticism. I don't think Germans will be the only or even the most vocal critics.
    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov's views? I simply can't think of a reason.

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

    Like Léon Bloy,
    Quant à moi, j’attends les cosaques et le Saint-Esprit ! Tout le reste n’est qu’ordure.

    I simply can’t think of a reason.

    Let me explain, GERMAN reader: the Cossacks have gotten us rid of the Napoleonic regime (itself a legacy of the Anglo black ops who overthrew the legitimate Bourbon monarchy) , and more importantly even, the predominantly RUSSIAN Red Army has played the decisive role of freeing my ancestors from yours, circa 70 years ago — and forever delivering us from the threat of GERMAN nationalism. I must say that images of the fall of Berlin in May 1945 never cease to rejoice me. See, your ancestors have left a trail
    of blood in my family. So I will take the Russian military pennant over the one from
    the German Huns — anytime.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    And you should be forever grateful to the Cossacks because they gave us the 'bistro'! Moi, j'suis amoureux de Paname... j'aime encore les pissotières (quand on les trouve).
    I am like Leon Bloy. The Cossacks might be the ones from the Ural stanitsas Parizh, Fershampenuaz, Arci, Brienne, descendants from the Cossacks who fought Napoleon in 1814.
    BTW, you probably know that ' Ami, entends-tu le vol noir des corbeaux sur nos plaines...' was composed initially as a song for the Russian partisans by 'chanteuse et guitariste française d'origine russe' Anna Iourievna Smirnova-Marly. 'Chantez, compagnons, dans la nuit la Liberté nous écoute...'
    , @NobodyKnowsImADog
    If the German nationalists had had their way, Parisians would all be speaking French by now!
  231. @reiner Tor
    Your scenario presupposes that Germany actively wanted to start a war. Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France. The combined Russian and French forces seriously outnumbered the Germans, even including Austria-Hungary, and the ratio was progressively getting worse. As opposed to Germany in 1938, when it spent some 20% of its national income on the military (probably the highest portion in peacetime for any non-communist country), Germany in 1912 spent less than 4% of its national income on war. Austria-Hungary only spent 2.6%, because Hungary (foolishly, as we now know) blocked all military spending (until in 1913 the prime minister Tisza pushed a defense spending bill through parliament by bending parliamentary rules and procedures), so the Central Powers, despite being outnumbered (even excluding Britain), spent way less on their respective militaries than the countries of the Triple Entente. They had no territorial designs on any countries, whereas Russia wanted to conquer the Straits and possibly Galicia and France wanted Alsace.

    German thinking in 1914 was that it would be crazy for Russia to start a war right at the moment (because Russia was still relatively weak and time was on their side), especially in support of the doubly regicidal Serbian regime (the grandfather of Nicholas II was also assassinated, so there was no reason for him to look kindly at the organizers of such a terrorist act), however, if Russia nevertheless used the opportunity to widen such a minor Balkan conflict into a broad European war, then this means that Russia is hyper-aggressive and wants war at any pretext. The German leadership thought that if Russia is so hyper-aggressive and wants war anyway, then it's better to start a war earlier rather than later (because Russia kept getting stronger each year, in 1913-14 Russian naval expenditures for example overtook Germany...), hence their willingness to accept the risk of a Russian declaration of war.

    German leaders understood that they were encircled by the much stronger Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary understood that much, too, and they also understood that an increasing number of Triple Entente politicians started to regard the Habsburg Monarchy as the "second sick man of Europe" after Turkey, and were basically looking to dismember it. German leadership feared losing their only ally, and they increasingly feared being simply attacked by the ever tighter enemy block (Britain just concluded a naval treaty with Russia before the war, despite the enormous increase in Russian naval outlays). Germans feared being destroyed, and until 1914 had no plans to conquer the world. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Triple Entente powers to accuse the Germans of wanting to conquer territories, when the three of them literally conquered half the surface of the Earth by that time and were eyeing further conquests wherever it was still possible.

    Typically ‘Eurocentric’ (Germanocentric, actually) autistic ‘voice of reason’.
    The Dual Monarchy was indeed the ‘second sick man of Europe’. It was not the Entente politicians who wanted to dismember it, it was the ‘Çentral Powers’ who wanted to prevent it by any means: building a German dominated ‘Mitteleuropa’ capable to resist the centrifugal tendencies of the ‘Slavs’ in the first place, blamed on the bugbear of ‘Panslavist’ ambitions of the perennially ‘aggressive’ backward Russia, suffocating Russia through the control of the Straits and capturing the oil wells of Russia (and those of Persia, controlled by the British) and the cornfields of Southern Russia, hence the unholy alliance with the ‘first sick man of Europe’, the moribund Ottoman Empire.
    National-Socialist Germany actually revived these plans.

  232. @AP

    but are not two of the geographically closest Slavic countries

    Ukranian hatred for Russia can 99% be attributed to Soviet idiocy
     
    Closer to 50%.

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.

    Most Ukrainians of that period didn’t vote. The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help. Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.

    • Replies: @AP

    The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.
     
    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help.
     
    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.
     
    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.
  233. @Mikhail

    Already in 1917, prior to Bolshevism, most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainophile political parties.

    Anti-Russian attitudes began when the Russian government banned the Ukrainan language and tried to forcibly assimilate the Little Russians into Ukrainians.
     
    Most Ukrainians of that period didn't vote. The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900's and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help. Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.

    The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.

    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help.

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.
     
    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    Petliura was by far the primary "Ukrainian nationalist warlord" as you put it. The "many" others were more warlord than nationalist - otherwise we'd be hearing more about them as Ukrainian nationalists. The Red Ukrainians weren't against some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness. The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what's now known as Ukraine. Just how many of these people called themselves Russian, Ukrainian or something else is another story. The Whites were positively received in Kiev by the locals there as well as the Galician Ukrainian Army.

    As for this bit from you on the Galician Ukrainian Army:

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.
     
    Makes for an agreeable Pilsudskiite-Petliurite revisionism. They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory. Petliura felt a need to do this because he lacked popular support on the land that he professed to represent.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.
     
    That banning certainly was rather shameful and regrettable. If Russian is so attractive, why the need to ban other languages? It's similar to (but much less brutal than) Islam, where many Muslims don't have enough confidence in the appeal of their religion that they support the death penalty for apostasy. If Islam was genuinely the one true faith and there was a strong, convincing case in favor of this, why the need to force people to remain Muslims?
  234. @AP

    The Russian government restriction on the Ukrainian language stopped by the early 1900’s and (when implemented in the late 1870s) was limited.
     
    Yes, but by then there were negative feelings. It was that banning that led to the backlash and a more anti-Russian Ukrainian orientation. It turned previously friendly Little Russians into unfriendly Ukrainians.

    During the Russian Civil War, consider the combined number of Ukrainians siding with the Whites or Reds as opposed to Petliura, who had to run to Pilsudski for help.
     
    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Thee Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Whites, rather than support the Petliura-Pilsudski axis.
     
    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist – otherwise we’d be hearing more about them as Ukrainian nationalists. The Red Ukrainians weren’t against some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness. The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine. Just how many of these people called themselves Russian, Ukrainian or something else is another story. The Whites were positively received in Kiev by the locals there as well as the Galician Ukrainian Army.

    As for this bit from you on the Galician Ukrainian Army:

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.

    Makes for an agreeable Pilsudskiite-Petliurite revisionism. They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory. Petliura felt a need to do this because he lacked popular support on the land that he professed to represent.

    • Replies: @AP

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.
     
    There were tens of millions of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Some individuals may have fought for the Whites. But no significant numbers did.

    No White ethnic Ukrainian military units.

    No significant well-known White ethnic Ukrainian (they would have called themselves Little Russians) commanders from Ukraine.

    So no significant White support among ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist
     
    Main yes, by far, no. Others had perhaps half or so of his number of troops at times. For example Danylo Zeleny:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CZ%5CE%5CZelenyDanylo.htm

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CZ%5CE%5CZeleny%20Danylo%20with%20aids.jpg

    Had 30,000 troops, rebelled against Petliura, fought both Reds and Whites, died fighting against the Whites.

    Nestor Makhno was, of course, an anarchist rather than a nationalist. But he fought both the Whites and Reds while being generally neutral with the nationalists (his wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher though). He preferred Reds to Whites, however, and helped defeat Denikin.

    Overall there were a lot of armed Ukrainians under various warlords, but very very little White support among them. This tells you that there was about zero support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine.
     
    Yes, among ethnic Russians in places like Kiev. Bulgakov was the most famous one.

    List any White ethnic Ukrainian units from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Didn't think so.


    They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory.
     
    They were also suffering from a typhus epidemic and were desperate for medicine. Did they actually fight for Denikin?
    , @Dreadilk
    That is his MO. He makes statements that are in line with his narrative. Basically fantasizing. You can predict any spin he makes just by knowing his stance.
    , @Philip Owen
    I have read that the White army found thousands of volunteers amongst the coal miners in the Donbass, especially around Gorlivka. Coal miners were mostly ethnic Russians who did not want an independent Ukraine. The townspeople, more Ukrainian supported Kiev or the Kharkiv Reds.
  235. @French bystander responding to German reader

    I mean honestly, what do you expect? Why should anybody outside of Russia feel any sympathy for Kholmogorov’s views?
     
    Like Léon Bloy,
    Quant à moi, j’attends les cosaques et le Saint-Esprit ! Tout le reste n’est qu’ordure.

    I simply can’t think of a reason.
     
    Let me explain, GERMAN reader: the Cossacks have gotten us rid of the Napoleonic regime (itself a legacy of the Anglo black ops who overthrew the legitimate Bourbon monarchy) , and more importantly even, the predominantly RUSSIAN Red Army has played the decisive role of freeing my ancestors from yours, circa 70 years ago — and forever delivering us from the threat of GERMAN nationalism. I must say that images of the fall of Berlin in May 1945 never cease to rejoice me. See, your ancestors have left a trail
    of blood in my family. So I will take the Russian military pennant over the one from
    the German Huns — anytime.

    And you should be forever grateful to the Cossacks because they gave us the ‘bistro’! Moi, j’suis amoureux de Paname… j’aime encore les pissotières (quand on les trouve).
    I am like Leon Bloy. The Cossacks might be the ones from the Ural stanitsas Parizh, Fershampenuaz, Arci, Brienne, descendants from the Cossacks who fought Napoleon in 1814.
    BTW, you probably know that ‘ Ami, entends-tu le vol noir des corbeaux sur nos plaines…’ was composed initially as a song for the Russian partisans by ‘chanteuse et guitariste française d’origine russe’ Anna Iourievna Smirnova-Marly. ‘Chantez, compagnons, dans la nuit la Liberté nous écoute…’

  236. @AP
    We've been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours:

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia,
     
    Austria gave shelter to Lenin and other criminals but Lenin wasn't operating as an agent of the Austrian government. This is very different from Serbia's role.

    WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon.
     
    Which lands did Germany want in 1914? France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back.

    You missed Pilsudski and his terrorist cell.

    • Replies: @AP
    Which tsar or tsarevich did he murder? Which of Pilsudski’s terrorist activities were directly organized by high level Austrian government officials?
  237. @Mikhail

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.
     
    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    Petliura was by far the primary "Ukrainian nationalist warlord" as you put it. The "many" others were more warlord than nationalist - otherwise we'd be hearing more about them as Ukrainian nationalists. The Red Ukrainians weren't against some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness. The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what's now known as Ukraine. Just how many of these people called themselves Russian, Ukrainian or something else is another story. The Whites were positively received in Kiev by the locals there as well as the Galician Ukrainian Army.

    As for this bit from you on the Galician Ukrainian Army:

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.
     
    Makes for an agreeable Pilsudskiite-Petliurite revisionism. They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory. Petliura felt a need to do this because he lacked popular support on the land that he professed to represent.

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    There were tens of millions of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Some individuals may have fought for the Whites. But no significant numbers did.

    No White ethnic Ukrainian military units.

    No significant well-known White ethnic Ukrainian (they would have called themselves Little Russians) commanders from Ukraine.

    So no significant White support among ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist

    Main yes, by far, no. Others had perhaps half or so of his number of troops at times. For example Danylo Zeleny:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CZ%5CE%5CZelenyDanylo.htm

    Had 30,000 troops, rebelled against Petliura, fought both Reds and Whites, died fighting against the Whites.

    Nestor Makhno was, of course, an anarchist rather than a nationalist. But he fought both the Whites and Reds while being generally neutral with the nationalists (his wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher though). He preferred Reds to Whites, however, and helped defeat Denikin.

    Overall there were a lot of armed Ukrainians under various warlords, but very very little White support among them. This tells you that there was about zero support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine.

    Yes, among ethnic Russians in places like Kiev. Bulgakov was the most famous one.

    List any White ethnic Ukrainian units from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Didn’t think so.

    They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory.

    They were also suffering from a typhus epidemic and were desperate for medicine. Did they actually fight for Denikin?

    • Agree: Mr. Hack, Mr. XYZ
    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny's 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko.

    Your presented source gives a somewhat timid claim on the number of Z's forces.

    It's well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck. The Whites weren't as overbearing as the Poles were towards Petliura.

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine - last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky's government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There're grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn't like what's evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren't so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.
    , @Dreadilk
    That just means Ukraine is Russia and you are making fake and gay fantasies.
  238. @Epigon
    You missed Pilsudski and his terrorist cell.

    Which tsar or tsarevich did he murder? Which of Pilsudski’s terrorist activities were directly organized by high level Austrian government officials?

  239. @AP
    We've been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours:

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia,
     
    Austria gave shelter to Lenin and other criminals but Lenin wasn't operating as an agent of the Austrian government. This is very different from Serbia's role.

    WWI laid bare Germany’s plans with the utmost clarity. Germany waged war to carry out grandiose seizures, with the aim of becoming a world hegemon.
     
    Which lands did Germany want in 1914? France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back.

    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.

    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours

    To save time I will quote your favorite Wikipedia:

    In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams), a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials.”

    • Replies: @AP
    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance.

    Not analogous.
  240. One of the most biased and unbalanced articles i have ever read on this site.

  241. @AP

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.
     
    There were tens of millions of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Some individuals may have fought for the Whites. But no significant numbers did.

    No White ethnic Ukrainian military units.

    No significant well-known White ethnic Ukrainian (they would have called themselves Little Russians) commanders from Ukraine.

    So no significant White support among ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist
     
    Main yes, by far, no. Others had perhaps half or so of his number of troops at times. For example Danylo Zeleny:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CZ%5CE%5CZelenyDanylo.htm

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CZ%5CE%5CZeleny%20Danylo%20with%20aids.jpg

    Had 30,000 troops, rebelled against Petliura, fought both Reds and Whites, died fighting against the Whites.

    Nestor Makhno was, of course, an anarchist rather than a nationalist. But he fought both the Whites and Reds while being generally neutral with the nationalists (his wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher though). He preferred Reds to Whites, however, and helped defeat Denikin.

    Overall there were a lot of armed Ukrainians under various warlords, but very very little White support among them. This tells you that there was about zero support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine.
     
    Yes, among ethnic Russians in places like Kiev. Bulgakov was the most famous one.

    List any White ethnic Ukrainian units from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Didn't think so.


    They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory.
     
    They were also suffering from a typhus epidemic and were desperate for medicine. Did they actually fight for Denikin?

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko.

    Your presented source gives a somewhat timid claim on the number of Z’s forces.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck. The Whites weren’t as overbearing as the Poles were towards Petliura.

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky’s government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There’re grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn’t like what’s evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren’t so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.

    • Replies: @AP

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko
     
    So all you know of Ukrainian history comes from one book by Subtelny? Good job.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck
     
    We are discussing the attitudes of Ukrainians from Ukraine under Moscow and you change the subject to Galicians.

    What does your Subtelny say about it?

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ktyM07I9HXwC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=subtelny+galician+army+denikin&source=bl&ots=y7VcC5WKQ9&sig=ACfU3U0QQZLye7ZdPsxEjWM4CtQjP1vXuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr9vGW2enlAhWLct8KHTJRBFQQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=subtelny%20galician%20army%20denikin&f=false

    Galicians had no quarrel with the Whites so didn't fight them at first.

    Then massive typhoid epidemic rendered most of the UGA dead or incapacitated. Later on they placed themselves under Denikin to rest and recuperate under the condition that they would not fight other Ukrainians.

    Not the story you propose :-)


    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?
     
    Ask your Subtelny. But yes they did, they were supplied by the Entente.

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian.
     
    LOL. I asked for names of military units of ethnic Ukrainians from the Russian Empire who fought for the Whites. Or prominent pro-White commanders from Ukraine who were ethnic Ukrainians. There were over 20 million people living in Russian-ruled Ukraine at the time. Surely, if there were any loyalty to Russia among Ukrainians, there would be some units or famous commanders fighting for the Whites from this large populated territory.

    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.

    There were over 20 million people in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Plenty of Ukrainian nationalists units and leaders, the famous anti-White anarchist Makhno, and a few pro-Reds (who were anti-Russian). But no White units. No prominent White commanders from Ukraine, with all its people. That tells you all you need to know about the extent of pro-Russian sympathy in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

  242. @Epigon

    Germany actually spent less on its military relative to its national income than Russia or France.
     
    According to this logic, USSR was looking for a war with USA during Cold War and dictating the escalation and level of spending.

    Why look at military expenditures as % of national income?

    An economically weaker country has to match it’s rivals spending in absolute terms.
    Moreover, intensive German military spending and modernization took decades before Russian ones, indeed - Russia was in the middle of a thorough military reform when WW1 started. In order to start catching up with German army, Russians would have to outspend them on a per unit basis.

    Germany and Austria-Hungary combined were much weaker than the Russian, French and British Empires combined. My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It’s pretty nonsensical, based on the fact that they didn’t even spend as much relative to their national income as the already stronger Triple Entente powers.

    So what is your point?

    • Replies: @melanf

    My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It’s pretty nonsensical
     
    This argument is devoid of any meaning. Japan's attack on the US is pretty nonsensical too?
    There are hundreds of such examples, up to Georgia's actions in 2008. Germany Military were confident in victory over forces Russia and France, on this they began war. About the entry into the war of Britain (and after - the United States), they could not know. However these heroes of militarism even in 1918 expressed confidence in victory
  243. @Andrei Martyanov

    However, by Tannenberg itself they were outclassed in all respects by a German army that had been running away until the commanders were replaced.
     
    Generally agree, even when less capable A-H is thrown into the mix, the ratio of losses (KIAs) between Russia and Germany-A-H is more than two fold NOT in favor of Russia. Once Germany is singled out in KIAs against Russian KIAs minus equal number of KIAs by A-H for a very rough compensation, we still get an appaling 1 to 7 ratio of KIAs in favor of Germans. Kholmogorv using a single operational episode for passing judgement on the whole war is a first sign of an illiterate ignoramus. Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically, as I stated--it is tantamount to failing to pass "academics" on beer drinking or missing a toiled completely when pissing. That is the level of "complexity" he couldn't even handle. Yet, here we are, discussing this cretin's scribbles.

    No large numbers of troops were diverted from Belgium/France.
     
    Some, certainly were, but as for actual numbers and definition of what "large numbers" actually are--it takes combat and transpiration logs to arrive to a good number. I simply do not have materials at hand to know the number. There is no denial that some Central Powers troops were transferred. In the end Germans needed to stabilize front during Brusilov Offensive which did have a serious influence on Verdun.

    Again, the dude dropped early second year from MSU Historic Faculty because he failed academically

    Actually, he was doing more than okay academically, his reasons for leaving included, among other things, developments in his personal life and certain, ahem, changes in economic and political conditions after October 1993.

    Yet you keep clinging to deliberate untruths and pushing slanderous false narratives, as Communists are wont to do.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I don’t think that Andrei is a communist, though.
  244. @reiner Tor
    Germany and Austria-Hungary combined were much weaker than the Russian, French and British Empires combined. My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It's pretty nonsensical, based on the fact that they didn't even spend as much relative to their national income as the already stronger Triple Entente powers.

    So what is your point?

    My interlocutor asserted that Germany was intent on starting a war of aggression against these three. It’s pretty nonsensical

    This argument is devoid of any meaning. Japan’s attack on the US is pretty nonsensical too?
    There are hundreds of such examples, up to Georgia’s actions in 2008. Germany Military were confident in victory over forces Russia and France, on this they began war. About the entry into the war of Britain (and after – the United States), they could not know. However these heroes of militarism even in 1918 expressed confidence in victory

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don't have much time to comment, but I hope to answer all the other commenters over the weekend or next week.

    Japan’s attack on the US is pretty nonsensical too?
    There are hundreds of such examples, up to Georgia’s actions in 2008.
     
    You misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that they weren't intent on starting a war because the Central Powers were much weaker than the Triple Entente. My point was that an aggressive state, especially an aggressive state intent on attacking stronger opponents, will usually spend as much as possible (certainly more than non-aggressive states) on its military. I'm not going to look up the size of the Japanese military budget relative to its national income, but would you like to bet that they spent a lot on the military? I'm pretty sure it was something like 10% of their national income.

    Georgia in 2008 is a case in point. Here's the Georgian military budget relative to its GDP over the years:

    http://militarybudget.org/georgia/

    You can see that they spent an astonishing 9.2% of their GDP on the military in 2007, and 8.5% in 20o8, the year they started the war.

    Looking at the numbers (in 1912, France and Russia something like 4.3-4.5% of their national incomes, Germany 3.8%, Austria-Hungary 2.6%) it's pretty obvious that Germany was not planning to start a war, Austria-Hungary even less so. Austria-Hungary actually couldn't attack Serbia immediately after June 28, because most soldiers were on harvest leave until July 25, so its army was incapable of offensive operations even against a non-mobilized Serbian army.

    Now, I'm pretty sure that France and Russia didn't want war either. However, they had clear annexationist objectives well before the war (Alsace and Constantinople), both of which would've been greatly helped by a war. They were also clearly stronger, at least when their alliance with Britain (on which both of them were banking) is taken into account. So, their stance was more aggressive than that of the Central Powers. But even they didn't actively want war (although some of their leaders behaved as if they did), just were willing to take higher risks. And of course even the German and Austrian-Hungarian leadership accepted the risk of a continental war.

    Oh, and Germany was not any more militaristic than, say, today's Russia. Or the Russian Empire of 1914, for that matter. Calling pre-1914 Germany "militaristic" is highly misleading. Its military was under strict civilian control (contrary to what many textbooks still say), and it wasn't significantly larger than that of other countries, like France or Russia, or the navy and army combined in Britain.
  245. @Mikhail
    Montenegro, as well as the Czechs and Slovaks, in addition to Serbia. The Bulgarian situation had to do with its government, as opposed to how the Bulgarian population en masse viewed and still views Russia.

    Bulgarians wanted to annex Northern Macedonia (macedonian language is basically a dialect of bulgarian) which was occupied by Serbia during the balkan wars. Serbia was Russia’s favorite, which led to Bulgaria joining WW1 on the side of the Central Powers.
    Russian divisions were sent to southern Romania on the idea that bulgarian soldiers will be unenthusiastic to fight their slavic brothers but on the contrary the bulgarians fought well and with the help of some german forces they routed both the russians and the romanians, the Central Powers eventually conquering southern Romania.

    • Replies: @anonlb
    Russia supported Bulgaria pretensions for Macedoina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano, but other great powers prevented this.
    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.
    In the first Balcan war AH denied Serbia and Montenego territorial gains in Albania, and Serbia in turn deined Bulgaria eastern part of Macedonia because serbian army liberated this territory from Ottomans. All this was cause of the second Balcan war. France was Serbia main ally and supplier, not Russia, which as always favored Bulgaria.
    , @Mikhail
    I know an ethnic Macedonian who characterized the Macedonian language as a fairly equal mix between Serbian and Bulgarian. On the other hand, there seems to be a general overview that Macedonian is closest to Bulgarian.

    Why did Bulgaria not fight the USSR in WW II? The general answer is that Bulgarians en masse wouldn't want to fight Russians. I've run into many Bulgarians over the years of different age groups. All of them are pro-Russian. the only one I know who isn't is the establishment Sorosian Ivan Kravstev.
  246. @melanf


    Austria, which at the state level consciously financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Russia, began the war against Serbia, on the basis that Serbia financed, armed and trained terrorists acting against Austria.
     
    We’ve been through this before and reiner tor (I think) debunked this claim of yours
     
    To save time I will quote your favorite Wikipedia:

    "In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams), a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials."

    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance.

    Not analogous.

    • Replies: @melanf

    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance
     
    Yeah
    "In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities..."

    Moreover there is no evidence of the involvement of the Serbian king/government in the murder of Ferdinand. But as I wrote above:

    Of course, people who take this topic to heart invent 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war
     
  247. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    Bulgarians wanted to annex Northern Macedonia (macedonian language is basically a dialect of bulgarian) which was occupied by Serbia during the balkan wars. Serbia was Russia's favorite, which led to Bulgaria joining WW1 on the side of the Central Powers.
    Russian divisions were sent to southern Romania on the idea that bulgarian soldiers will be unenthusiastic to fight their slavic brothers but on the contrary the bulgarians fought well and with the help of some german forces they routed both the russians and the romanians, the Central Powers eventually conquering southern Romania.

    Russia supported Bulgaria pretensions for Macedoina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano, but other great powers prevented this.
    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.
    In the first Balcan war AH denied Serbia and Montenego territorial gains in Albania, and Serbia in turn deined Bulgaria eastern part of Macedonia because serbian army liberated this territory from Ottomans. All this was cause of the second Balcan war. France was Serbia main ally and supplier, not Russia, which as always favored Bulgaria.

    • Replies: @AP

    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.
     
    And much of Serbia including Belgrade had been part of Bulgaria.
  248. @Mikhail
    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny's 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko.

    Your presented source gives a somewhat timid claim on the number of Z's forces.

    It's well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck. The Whites weren't as overbearing as the Poles were towards Petliura.

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine - last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky's government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There're grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn't like what's evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren't so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko

    So all you know of Ukrainian history comes from one book by Subtelny? Good job.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck

    We are discussing the attitudes of Ukrainians from Ukraine under Moscow and you change the subject to Galicians.

    What does your Subtelny say about it?

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ktyM07I9HXwC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=subtelny+galician+army+denikin&source=bl&ots=y7VcC5WKQ9&sig=ACfU3U0QQZLye7ZdPsxEjWM4CtQjP1vXuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr9vGW2enlAhWLct8KHTJRBFQQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=subtelny%20galician%20army%20denikin&f=false

    Galicians had no quarrel with the Whites so didn’t fight them at first.

    Then massive typhoid epidemic rendered most of the UGA dead or incapacitated. Later on they placed themselves under Denikin to rest and recuperate under the condition that they would not fight other Ukrainians.

    Not the story you propose 🙂

    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?

    Ask your Subtelny. But yes they did, they were supplied by the Entente.

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian.

    LOL. I asked for names of military units of ethnic Ukrainians from the Russian Empire who fought for the Whites. Or prominent pro-White commanders from Ukraine who were ethnic Ukrainians. There were over 20 million people living in Russian-ruled Ukraine at the time. Surely, if there were any loyalty to Russia among Ukrainians, there would be some units or famous commanders fighting for the Whites from this large populated territory.

    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.

    There were over 20 million people in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Plenty of Ukrainian nationalists units and leaders, the famous anti-White anarchist Makhno, and a few pro-Reds (who were anti-Russian). But no White units. No prominent White commanders from Ukraine, with all its people. That tells you all you need to know about the extent of pro-Russian sympathy in Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Subtelny is a non-Russophile person of west Ukrainian background, who is considered among the best of diaspora Ukriian historians. He appears more well versed than that comparatively trivial link you gave on Zeleny which (once again) is timid on its stated claim on the size of his forces.

    The Galician Ukrainians met up with Denikin's forces in Kiev and didn't fight them - instead being rather friendly. Thereafter, they came under their command. Moreover, there was talk of how the two would be united in the event of a Bolshevik defeat. Make no mistake about it, the Galician Ukrainians very much opposed Petliura after his alliance with Pilsudski - not that they were so supportive of him beforehand.

    True, they didn't have to fight other Ukrainians under the agreement you note. But some did. Makes sense given that Ukrainians fought each other on other sides as well. The North American aired svido leaning TV show Kontakt had a segment acknowledging these aspects.

    Contrary to what you suggest, not all Ukrainian Reds were anti-Russian, with some of them not being so svido in mindset.

    You once again duck this fact based overview:


    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian. He noted to me that a family relation of his was in Skoropadsky’s government. Thereafter he went to the Whites. I know other such folks who tell me (thru family recollection) that Ukrainian was spoken in the ranks of the White army.

    There’re grave sites of Whites indicating numerous Ukrainian surnames. At the time, the situation wasn’t like what’s evident today. Specifically, folks born on the territory now known as Ukraine served in the White ranks with an identity to be a part of Russia. At the time, they weren’t so high strung on stressing Ukrainian as an identity.
     

    I'll add that to this very day, there numerous individuals like the west Ukrainian born Matviyenko and the east Ukrainian born Medinsky identifying with Russia. Matviyenko and Medinsky willingly serving in high level positions of Russian (not Ukrainian) government.

    Heck, in the fictional movie Creed II, Drago is depicted as a Ukrainian identifying with Russia. Sylvester Stallone, the writer of that movie has Odessa roots.

    I've previously noted the Kiev born Igor Sikorsky, who upon further review probably actually has more of a Polish and Ukrainian background than Great Russian. Yet, he was rock solid pro-Russian.


    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.
     
    No I came up with more than that. In a prior instance, I gave added specifics. No need for me to look back, because you show yourself to have an autistic like trait of simply rehashing the same old, same old, which conflict with reality.

    BTW, many people in Ukraine have what are generally understood to be as Russian surnames. I not too long ago posted a DNA map of Europe indicating that Ukrainians are closer to Russians than Poles - contrasting with your slant. Hence, it's a fine line (often subjective) in determining who is ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian. Granted, that such a DNA map has question marks seeing that many in the places under review haven't participated in such a process.

  249. @anonlb
    Russia supported Bulgaria pretensions for Macedoina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano, but other great powers prevented this.
    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.
    In the first Balcan war AH denied Serbia and Montenego territorial gains in Albania, and Serbia in turn deined Bulgaria eastern part of Macedonia because serbian army liberated this territory from Ottomans. All this was cause of the second Balcan war. France was Serbia main ally and supplier, not Russia, which as always favored Bulgaria.

    Macedonia as well as Albania was part of midevial Serbia before Ottoman conquest.

    And much of Serbia including Belgrade had been part of Bulgaria.

    • Replies: @anonlb
    And most of Bulgaria was part of Serbia. I already stated that union between Serbia and Bulgaria was solution for this mess. But this state will be too poweful to be mere puppet of Russia or AH, and they prevented this from the start.
  250. @Mikhail

    No significant numbers of ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought with or for the Whites. Some fought for the Reds, but this was not a huge number, and it occurred when the Reds were anti-Russian so this just further demonstrates anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine prior to the USSR. Petliura was just one of many Ukrainian nationalist warlords.
     
    Your use of significant is quite suspect.

    Petliura was by far the primary "Ukrainian nationalist warlord" as you put it. The "many" others were more warlord than nationalist - otherwise we'd be hearing more about them as Ukrainian nationalists. The Red Ukrainians weren't against some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness. The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what's now known as Ukraine. Just how many of these people called themselves Russian, Ukrainian or something else is another story. The Whites were positively received in Kiev by the locals there as well as the Galician Ukrainian Army.

    As for this bit from you on the Galician Ukrainian Army:

    Briefly, in order to recover while they were sick (allies provided Whites with medicine). Galicians were not from the Russian Empire. They were actually less hostile to the Whites than were Ukrainians from the Russian Empire.
     
    Makes for an agreeable Pilsudskiite-Petliurite revisionism. They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory. Petliura felt a need to do this because he lacked popular support on the land that he professed to represent.

    That is his MO. He makes statements that are in line with his narrative. Basically fantasizing. You can predict any spin he makes just by knowing his stance.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    A somewhat interesting blend of some non-svido observations like what he has said about Russia's last czar and the BS about Allied intervention supporting the Whites, while nevertheless clinging to numerous svido stances.
    , @AP
    Says the guy who is wrong in almost everything he "thinks."
  251. @AP

    Your use of significant is quite suspect.
     
    There were tens of millions of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Some individuals may have fought for the Whites. But no significant numbers did.

    No White ethnic Ukrainian military units.

    No significant well-known White ethnic Ukrainian (they would have called themselves Little Russians) commanders from Ukraine.

    So no significant White support among ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    Petliura was by far the primary “Ukrainian nationalist warlord” as you put it. The “many” others were more warlord than nationalist
     
    Main yes, by far, no. Others had perhaps half or so of his number of troops at times. For example Danylo Zeleny:

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CZ%5CE%5CZelenyDanylo.htm

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CZ%5CE%5CZeleny%20Danylo%20with%20aids.jpg

    Had 30,000 troops, rebelled against Petliura, fought both Reds and Whites, died fighting against the Whites.

    Nestor Makhno was, of course, an anarchist rather than a nationalist. But he fought both the Whites and Reds while being generally neutral with the nationalists (his wife was a Ukrainian-language schoolteacher though). He preferred Reds to Whites, however, and helped defeat Denikin.

    Overall there were a lot of armed Ukrainians under various warlords, but very very little White support among them. This tells you that there was about zero support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine.


    The Whites in fact found support and recruits in what’s now known as Ukraine.
     
    Yes, among ethnic Russians in places like Kiev. Bulgakov was the most famous one.

    List any White ethnic Ukrainian units from Russian-ruled Ukraine.

    Didn't think so.


    They went to the Whites after getting word that Petliura agreed that all of Galicia should go to Poland, in exchange for Pilsudski backing Petliura as head of a Polish puppet Ukrainian state, consisting of only former Russian Empire territory.
     
    They were also suffering from a typhus epidemic and were desperate for medicine. Did they actually fight for Denikin?

    That just means Ukraine is Russia and you are making fake and gay fantasies.

  252. @AP
    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance.

    Not analogous.

    So organized by Pilsudski, not directly my Austrian officials, and no specific operations aimed at murdering the head of state, rather general resistance

    Yeah
    In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities…

    Moreover there is no evidence of the involvement of the Serbian king/government in the murder of Ferdinand. But as I wrote above:

    Of course, people who take this topic to heart invent 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war

    • Replies: @AP

    Yeah
    “In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities…”
     
    Thanks for confirming what I wrote.

    High Serbian government official directly organized, armed, trained assassins who murdered the future head of state and his wife in an operation organized by this Serbian government official for the specific purpose of killing the future head of state..

    Austrians helped out a Polish organization that did its own thing, basically killing Russian government figures in Poland, without the direct guidance of Austrian officials.

    Significant difference.

    Of course, people who take this topic to heart invent 1001 reasons why terrorism organized by Austria is quite normal, but terrorism against Austria is a monstrous crime and a worthy reason to start a world war
     
    If you don't see anything fundamentally different between these two scenarios I can't help you.
  253. @AP

    Zeleny is mentioned only once in Subtelny’s 300 plus page book on Ukrainian history. Subtelny notes Zeleny going over to the Bolshes, as did Hrushevsky and Vynnychenko
     
    So all you know of Ukrainian history comes from one book by Subtelny? Good job.

    It’s well established that the overwhelming majority of the Galician Ukrainian Army came under the command of the Whites and that this happened for the reason which you duck
     
    We are discussing the attitudes of Ukrainians from Ukraine under Moscow and you change the subject to Galicians.

    What does your Subtelny say about it?

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ktyM07I9HXwC&pg=PT345&lpg=PT345&dq=subtelny+galician+army+denikin&source=bl&ots=y7VcC5WKQ9&sig=ACfU3U0QQZLye7ZdPsxEjWM4CtQjP1vXuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr9vGW2enlAhWLct8KHTJRBFQQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=subtelny%20galician%20army%20denikin&f=false

    Galicians had no quarrel with the Whites so didn't fight them at first.

    Then massive typhoid epidemic rendered most of the UGA dead or incapacitated. Later on they placed themselves under Denikin to rest and recuperate under the condition that they would not fight other Ukrainians.

    Not the story you propose :-)


    As for your counter claim on this matter, did the Whites somehow posses more medics than the Petliura-Pilsudski tandem?
     
    Ask your Subtelny. But yes they did, they were supplied by the Entente.

    I personally know someone who was a prime member of the Congress of Russian Americans, whose family was from the territory now known as Ukraine – last name typically associated as being Ukrainian.
     
    LOL. I asked for names of military units of ethnic Ukrainians from the Russian Empire who fought for the Whites. Or prominent pro-White commanders from Ukraine who were ethnic Ukrainians. There were over 20 million people living in Russian-ruled Ukraine at the time. Surely, if there were any loyalty to Russia among Ukrainians, there would be some units or famous commanders fighting for the Whites from this large populated territory.

    But all you could come up with was some guy who had a Ukrainian last name. Guess what? Many people from Russia have Ukrainian surnames.

    There were over 20 million people in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Plenty of Ukrainian nationalists units and leaders, the famous anti-White anarchist Makhno, and a few pro-Reds (who were anti-Russian). But no White units. No