1. iffen says:

   January 13, 2015 at 4:13 pm GMT •ï¿½100 Words

   Can you explain why the political leaders of the US would think that Russia would voluntarily turn over their naval base on the Black Sea to NATO?

   I know stupidity is one explanation and that it cannot be ruled out, however, it seems to me that there must be a better explanation.

   I haven’t had a chance to read your archives; you may have covered this already.
2. Steve says:

   January 13, 2015 at 4:31 pm GMT •ï¿½100 Words

   Interesting, but I would suggest one (substantial) post a day to be excessive, there is just too much else to read nowadays to have the time to absorb so much from a single blogger unless one is a real fan. Also a bit much to properly research, consider and compose. Two or three a week is enough, even for a virtuoso.

   I hope btw that you will treat crude propaganda of any sort the same way, eg the repugnant denial or minimisation of Communist atrocities that is so fashionable again, a good deal of which comes sadly from Russia once more, one reason I find it impossible to see much good in Putin regardless of some other things (and which does not bode well for the future of that nation’s intellectual development).
3. Mariusz says:

   January 13, 2015 at 9:16 pm GMT •ï¿½300 Words

   I eagerly look forward to your postings Mr Karlin. Da Russophile was a staple for me when rebutting those well propagated myths about a terminally ill Russia. I’d be quite interested to see what the consequences of Crimea’s reunification (as well as the influx of Ukrainian refugees) would have on Russia’s future demographic trajectory. I’ve always thought that Russia lost much of her identity during the communist and Yeltsin era, and it does seem like the elite are attempting to build a cohesive Russian/Eurasian “identity”. It would be intriguing to see if there is any indication that such efforts are gaining fruition.

   On the point of Russia’s relationship with communism, it really is a complex issue. From what I’ve observed, much of the favourable views of it are from the older generation, and that can be boiled down to relative economic comfort and stability. I’ve noticed a similar underlying sentiment in Bulgaria and even in the Czech Republic. I see very few Russians condoning communist crimes, rather opposing Russia having to bear responsibility for them. Who will apologise for the millions of Soviet citizens killed by (mostly Stalinist) communism? If grovelling and begging is a litmus of “intellectual development”, then the previous poster only has to look to Yeltsin’s rule to see such development at its zenith.

   Finally, as much as I’ve seen western outlets scream and shout over Crimea, I don’t think they seriously consider that it will ever return to Ukraine. Crimea was the only jewel in this pile of rubble. The rest of Ukraine, especially now that Poroshenko has destroyed the east’s industry, is proverbial cow manure. Even western energy companies are deciding to suspend operations or leave Ukraine as they do not see anything profitable in the country. Well, at least this economic headache is no longer Russia’s problem, since the west have decided to take patronage of it. I’d take sanctions any day! 😉

   •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

   @Mariusz

   Quite a lot of Russians not only condone but deny Soviet crimes, according to the case in question. Stalin is hugely popular, according to polls also, and Putin's regime whilst not denying the worst crimes has tended to encourage a climate where they are downplayed considerably, and tolerated Communist denial of some of them. This is all whilst demanding and expecting that the crimes of Nazism and its allies be trumpeted and upheld to the last degree of even Soviet propaganda (Katyn excepted, thanks only to Gorbachev's admissions perhaps), in law also. That is not only very one-sided, but dangerous, as it leads to a victim-martyr mentality and self-righteousness that plays into actual political and geopolitical outcomes. Sure Russia suffered, but so did a lot of others, also at Russian hands, and unless that's accepted and understood properly, then Russia will remain both misguided and viewed as a danger by neighbours especially, with some justification. No need to grovel or beg, just face the facts honestly and move on more wisely. As to responsibility, Russia was the core and mainstay of the bloc, and the inheritor of the bulk of the legacy (and documents, some of which are still not released). Germany today is only a fraction of Nazi Germany, without Austria, the Sudetenland and the eastern provinces lost to Russia and Poland, but still accepts and is expected to accept responsibility at least to a fair degree. Either Germany should be released from such a burden, or others like Russia, and Japan, Italy etc (yes even Britain and the US) accept it also, for their own histories. So far I don't see it happening, and it's a long time now to wait. Until Russia does it, it is just as hypocritical as the nations it is at odds with, and more than Germany.
4. iffen says:

   January 14, 2015 at 12:41 am GMT

   “be boiled down to relative economic comfort and stability”

   This can be considered a good thing.

   I, too, am looking forward to his posts. I have read a few archives already and it appears that he is an independent thinker. That is a good thing as well.
5. Peter Grafström says:

   January 14, 2015 at 1:56 am GMT •ï¿½400 Words

   Steve and Mariuz want to focus on communist atrocities and Steve is worried that there isnt enough nagging about that.
   To put things in proportion it would be in order to compare with how many people the anglosaxons have kept in poverty/have been driving into poverty. I suggest at least a billion. The construction of IMF has this effect so even without centuries of constant british evil you would get that high figure.
   And how many have been driven into an early death. The late Victorian period and some decades after that led to around 40 million excessive deaths from starvation in India. Unlike the terrible british liar historians who want us to believe that starvation was simply due to the weather, it happened because the food storages were sold to the highest bidder far away.
   The reason I call them terrible is because they use history as a weapon wining about the communists not being punished like the nazis and they spread false accounts of what happened during the 30’s always omitting the evil committed by Us/Uk to cause as much trouble as possible for the Sovjet union. Eg the Us/Uk refusing to accept payment in oil gold or timber but only in grain with the deliberate intention of causing starvation.
   If an honest account of britains role in history would be made they would be at least an order of magnitude worse than the communists. And since britain singlehandedly caused WWI(Macgregor & Docherty Hidden History 2013 will convince you if in doubt) and since Britain for centuries have been the main cause of terrorism and religious and secterian conflicts and still are – signs of involvement in the recent false flag in Paris – it is ridiculous to insist on beginning with communist crimes. All the more since the foreign bankers funded the bolsheviks.
   That said it would be interesting to know whats true about foreign instigated disturbances during the Sovjet period, something always attributed to paranoia of the tyrrannical leaders. But what happened, what was Trotsky’s role outside USSR? There are books about in russian but it would be interesting to get some samples for nonrussians. Is it true that Trotsky created upheavals from abroad and that the inner turmoil had something to do with that?
   One would like to get the full picture.

   •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

   @Peter Grafström

   I said nothing about focussing on Communist atrocities per se, just not denying or minimizing them, something I see quite a lot of going on. I am fully aware of things like the famines under the British and have frequently enough pointed it out, often to Brits who deny or minimize their own historical crimes. I am also very well read on WW1 and am aware of the thesis you mention, which whilst correct in fair measure is far from the full picture. Russia and France also played a major role, along with Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany, the last rather less than generally assumed however. None of that changes the fact of Communist atrocities which were on a massive scale also, extending also to Asia, and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists. Even after the documents with the signatures of Stalin et al have been handed by Gorbachev to the Poles, which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov's crowd, from what I have read not so long ago. That is outrageous and dangerous, and other examples abound. Until Russia accepts the truth of such matters, not just officially but generally, it is no surprise at all that many of Russia's neighbours still see Russia as a threat.

   Replies: @Peter Grafström
6. Hokie says:

   January 14, 2015 at 8:41 am GMT •ï¿½100 Words

   “I started exploring the ways in which human biological differences might have influenced history (e.g. the classic puzzle of why the Industrial Revolution began in NW Europe)”

   You’ve put a lot more thought into this than I have, but what if WE, EE, ME, and EA all converged on science and industry together, but only WE escaped Mongols. And then China got hit again with the Manchus, the Russians with the Crimeans and Nogais, etc. And if the climate changes causes nomadic invasions, that might be another thing that somehow relates to it.
   Also, I remember seeing something about modern Iraqis-Syrians being different from Iraqis-Syrians from pre-Mongol times, the Bedouin from Yemen replaced them or at least heavily influenced their bloodlines after the Mongols killed a lot of them. I remember it being some 19th century Briton.

   Interesting stuff.
7. Pseudonymic Handle says:

   January 14, 2015 at 1:58 pm GMT •ï¿½100 Words

   I’m looking forward to your blogs as all the topics you mention are of interest to me.
   Is Putin a modern Nicholas I?
   Both felt threatened by internal dissent and Western influence and adhered to the ideology of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. Both invested a lot of money in the armed forces and both ended up antagonizing the Western powers for their actions in the Black Sea region. Could we face a Second Crimean War? (hopefully a cold war this time)
   Do you have good psychometric data for Russia? What do you think about the theories of HBDchick about cousin marriage and the Hajnal line?
   Welcome.
8. Peter Grafström says:

   January 14, 2015 at 3:15 pm GMT •ï¿½500 Words

   Speaking of the industrial revolution.
   I’m not saying the aspects considered by Anatholy aren’t very important, but so is fractional reserve banking and networks of conspiring financiers/freemasons-other secret societies. If you study the importance of iq – that would be the place to start. The industrial revolution happened pretty much in phase with the establishment of the privately owned BoE in 1694 and freemasonry from 1717 was definitely anglosaxon in character. There was a kabbalist flavour about it but I am not sure what conclusions to draw from that aspect – there was undoubtedly a wish to oppose the Church and science was not yet developed enough to outrule some types of magic such as turning mercury into gold. And kabbalism may seem attractive from that angle.
   Otherwise you are probably aware of some sources claiming it to be proof of the jewish hand behind freemasonry.
   So iq vs conspiratorial behaviour.
   Iq vs having networks of devious spies provoking competitors to fight wars in and among them while the master race nearly unscathed lends them money and benefits no matter which side wins.
   Iq vs cleverly concealed diplomacy.
   Anatholy’s outlook is very western. Enlightenment is considered as evident sign of progressivity – something to welcome by any friend of science.
   Webster Tarpley in Against Oligarchy gives a very interesting angle where enlightenment is placed against the renaissance with Leonardo da Vinchi and Tarpley informs that Venice invented enlightenment as a way to battle the scientific renaissance.
   Voltaire is very positively described in western literature but he was funded by Venetian intel in collaboration with the british to help crush the french monarchy.
   Iq vs countermesures against being corrupted. The venetian oligarchy had an extremely elaborate voting system to select leaders. Several successive layers making it harder to know in advance who to bribe. This indicates to me that the venetian oligarchy was accustomed to bribing other regimes and had a more robust system themselves.
   Since the venetian oligarchy was transmuted to Holland and England during the 15-17 hundreds Englands peculiar character must be sought partly against that background. The industrial revolution cannot automatically be seen as independent of the rise of BoE and Londons powerful banking cartel. And the causal order is that banking was cause and not the other way round.
   Finally BoE still doesnt publish who owned the BoE after 1694- they just publish her initial owners from that year as a curiosity. Officially the BoE was nationalized after WWII but that was apparently just a bluff and it still is privately owned with undisclosed owners, except that it’s known the royals have a share.
   Most intelligent scientific inventive characters still dont have a clue about the real nature of banking.
9. Steve says:

   January 14, 2015 at 3:58 pm GMT •ï¿½300 Words

   @Peter Grafström

   Steve and Mariuz want to focus on communist atrocities and Steve is worried that there isnt enough nagging about that.
   To put things in proportion it would be in order to compare with how many people the anglosaxons have kept in poverty/have been driving into poverty. I suggest at least a billion. The construction of IMF has this effect so even without centuries of constant british evil you would get that high figure.
   And how many have been driven into an early death. The late Victorian period and some decades after that led to around 40 million excessive deaths from starvation in India. Unlike the terrible british liar historians who want us to believe that starvation was simply due to the weather, it happened because the food storages were sold to the highest bidder far away.
   The reason I call them terrible is because they use history as a weapon wining about the communists not being punished like the nazis and they spread false accounts of what happened during the 30's always omitting the evil committed by Us/Uk to cause as much trouble as possible for the Sovjet union. Eg the Us/Uk refusing to accept payment in oil gold or timber but only in grain with the deliberate intention of causing starvation.
   If an honest account of britains role in history would be made they would be at least an order of magnitude worse than the communists. And since britain singlehandedly caused WWI(Macgregor & Docherty Hidden History 2013 will convince you if in doubt) and since Britain for centuries have been the main cause of terrorism and religious and secterian conflicts and still are - signs of involvement in the recent false flag in Paris - it is ridiculous to insist on beginning with communist crimes. All the more since the foreign bankers funded the bolsheviks.
   That said it would be interesting to know whats true about foreign instigated disturbances during the Sovjet period, something always attributed to paranoia of the tyrrannical leaders. But what happened, what was Trotsky's role outside USSR? There are books about in russian but it would be interesting to get some samples for nonrussians. Is it true that Trotsky created upheavals from abroad and that the inner turmoil had something to do with that?
   One would like to get the full picture.

   Replies: @Steve

   I said nothing about focussing on Communist atrocities per se, just not denying or minimizing them, something I see quite a lot of going on. I am fully aware of things like the famines under the British and have frequently enough pointed it out, often to Brits who deny or minimize their own historical crimes. I am also very well read on WW1 and am aware of the thesis you mention, which whilst correct in fair measure is far from the full picture. Russia and France also played a major role, along with Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany, the last rather less than generally assumed however. None of that changes the fact of Communist atrocities which were on a massive scale also, extending also to Asia, and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists. Even after the documents with the signatures of Stalin et al have been handed by Gorbachev to the Poles, which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov’s crowd, from what I have read not so long ago. That is outrageous and dangerous, and other examples abound. Until Russia accepts the truth of such matters, not just officially but generally, it is no surprise at all that many of Russia’s neighbours still see Russia as a threat.

   •ï¿½Replies: @Peter Grafström

   @Steve

   Steve
   What you say about France and Russia shows that you havent read Docherty & Macgregor and are not at all familiar with 'the thesis'
   The point is the british owned/controlled both France and Russias key figures as well as the Serbian terrorists.
   Everything was in the sly brittons hands but none of it was known outside a closed circle of conspirators.
   You say the Germans were less guilty. Well yes but that's not a fair way to put it:they were completely innocent and were the last to mobilize. Germany was industrious , competitive and had everything to gain from peaceful trade. They built a navy to protect their merchant ships from the anticipated british naval blockade. Btw check out D&Ms blog with more info about how britains secret elite actually allowed war material to slip through the blockade to prolong the war for profit, knowing that to destroy the german competitor they needed a long war. The crucial mines in the west were likewise left unharmed for the same reason.
   And when you say communist atrocities are minimized you are just helping the anglosaxons to prevent cooperation between russians and germans pretending to be fair towards the germans, while its just the classical (british) divide and conquer strategy. The anglosaxons still hate the germans for the same old reason: they are industrious. But also more cooperating. Their businesses often have more constructive long term strategies, while the anglosaxons have relied more on owning, lending and insurance and such, resulting in a need to use violence and aggressive divide and conquer to prevail.
   The Sovjet union was never free from dependence of London and Wall street. The Sovjet foreign mimister Litvinenko never wrote his memoirs because he held too many secrets with respect to the influence of the London city banking cartel.
   After having used the bolshies to destroy the russian oil production resulting in restored higher prices on the world oil market, the anglosaxons eventually took over large chunks of the oil rights. Rockefeller the capitalist enemy was established in USSR.
   If you really want to be fair, the place to start is the Us/Uk oligarchy, look at the real puppeteers. The parasites creating money out of thin air, buying everybody, including many people inside the USSR. But this Us/Uk oligarchy conveniently hide everything so you go for the easy targets just like real power intends.
   You hope russias neighbours see them as a threat. Problem is both the previously invaded Chechs and the Hungarians seem to increasingly see the Us as a far more malevolent entity despite the corrupting influence of NGO's, Cia/Ned.

   Replies: @Steve
10. Steve says:

    January 14, 2015 at 4:15 pm GMT •ï¿½300 Words

    @Mariusz

    I eagerly look forward to your postings Mr Karlin. Da Russophile was a staple for me when rebutting those well propagated myths about a terminally ill Russia. I'd be quite interested to see what the consequences of Crimea's reunification (as well as the influx of Ukrainian refugees) would have on Russia's future demographic trajectory. I've always thought that Russia lost much of her identity during the communist and Yeltsin era, and it does seem like the elite are attempting to build a cohesive Russian/Eurasian "identity". It would be intriguing to see if there is any indication that such efforts are gaining fruition.
    
    
    On the point of Russia's relationship with communism, it really is a complex issue. From what I've observed, much of the favourable views of it are from the older generation, and that can be boiled down to relative economic comfort and stability. I've noticed a similar underlying sentiment in Bulgaria and even in the Czech Republic. I see very few Russians condoning communist crimes, rather opposing Russia having to bear responsibility for them. Who will apologise for the millions of Soviet citizens killed by (mostly Stalinist) communism? If grovelling and begging is a litmus of "intellectual development", then the previous poster only has to look to Yeltsin's rule to see such development at its zenith.
    
    
    Finally, as much as I've seen western outlets scream and shout over Crimea, I don't think they seriously consider that it will ever return to Ukraine. Crimea was the only jewel in this pile of rubble. The rest of Ukraine, especially now that Poroshenko has destroyed the east's industry, is proverbial cow manure. Even western energy companies are deciding to suspend operations or leave Ukraine as they do not see anything profitable in the country. Well, at least this economic headache is no longer Russia's problem, since the west have decided to take patronage of it. I'd take sanctions any day! ;)

    Replies: @Steve

    Quite a lot of Russians not only condone but deny Soviet crimes, according to the case in question. Stalin is hugely popular, according to polls also, and Putin’s regime whilst not denying the worst crimes has tended to encourage a climate where they are downplayed considerably, and tolerated Communist denial of some of them. This is all whilst demanding and expecting that the crimes of Nazism and its allies be trumpeted and upheld to the last degree of even Soviet propaganda (Katyn excepted, thanks only to Gorbachev’s admissions perhaps), in law also. That is not only very one-sided, but dangerous, as it leads to a victim-martyr mentality and self-righteousness that plays into actual political and geopolitical outcomes. Sure Russia suffered, but so did a lot of others, also at Russian hands, and unless that’s accepted and understood properly, then Russia will remain both misguided and viewed as a danger by neighbours especially, with some justification. No need to grovel or beg, just face the facts honestly and move on more wisely. As to responsibility, Russia was the core and mainstay of the bloc, and the inheritor of the bulk of the legacy (and documents, some of which are still not released). Germany today is only a fraction of Nazi Germany, without Austria, the Sudetenland and the eastern provinces lost to Russia and Poland, but still accepts and is expected to accept responsibility at least to a fair degree. Either Germany should be released from such a burden, or others like Russia, and Japan, Italy etc (yes even Britain and the US) accept it also, for their own histories. So far I don’t see it happening, and it’s a long time now to wait. Until Russia does it, it is just as hypocritical as the nations it is at odds with, and more than Germany.
11. AG says:

    January 14, 2015 at 11:13 pm GMT •ï¿½200 Words

    Good to see you back at blogging. I have always enjoyed your type of blogging which respects truth or fact with very little ideology influence.

    Honestly, I believe ideology just modern version of religion. Like religion, ideology is intended for average folk who can not figure out truth on their own. Like religion, it for manipulation of mass; opium for the mass, ect.

    The moderation policy is very much on the target. There is no absolute `freedom of speech’. Arguing with idiots is waste of time and space. Some of these folk even do not understand basic high school math or physics. You can imagine their mental ability (or g or IQ) clearly is not appropriate for intelligent work or truth finding debate. At end, this indicates that Greek democracy or universal suffrage might be inferior to Roman Republican system with elite senators rule. Let mob to make decision is pretty scary.
12. Anatoly Karlin says:

    January 14, 2015 at 11:54 pm GMT •ï¿½900 Words

    Thank you for all the wellwishes.

    I will reply to everyone’s points here, instead of individually, as that will take too many separate comments.

    @Cracker1,

    Can you explain why the political leaders of the US would think that Russia would voluntarily turn over their naval base on the Black Sea to NATO?

    In fairness, I think pretty much nobody was expecting a military reaction from Russia in response to the coup in Kiev. After all Russia had not mounted anything more than feeble verbal protests in response to previous NATO expansionism (Georgia could not be considered as a precedent because Saakashvili’s forces had directly attacked Russian UN-backed peacekeepers).

    @Steve,

    I hope btw that you will treat crude propaganda of any sort the same way, eg the repugnant denial or minimisation of Communist atrocities that is so fashionable again, a good deal of which comes sadly from Russia once more, one reason I find it impossible to see much good in Putin regardless of some other things (and which does not bode well for the future of that nation’s intellectual development).

    Nobody apart from the ~20% of stalwart Communists is minimizing let alone denying the reality of Stalinist repressions. Solzhenitsyn is on Russian school syllabi for godsakes. That is discrete from vilifying all aspects of the Communist period or engaging in outright propaganda about it, such as labeling the Holodomor as a genocide against Ukrainians (an equivalent number died during the 1932-33 famine in the Russian Volga, Kuban, and North Kazakhstan), or ranting in capslocks about 80 million victims of Communism (inflated by an order of magnitude). That is also the province of ideological wingnuts; the Soviet dissident Sergey Dovlatov put it best: “After communists, most of all I hate anti-communists.”

    I go into more detail on this particular topic here.

    … and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists … which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov’s crowd, from what I have read not so long ago.

    Again, the KPRF ≠ Putin.

    Until Russia does it, it is just as hypocritical as the nations it is at odds with, and more than Germany.

    Germany is the exception, not the rule, on such matters.

    Japanese leaders continue visiting the Yasukuni shrine. Saying what happened to the Armenians in WW1 was a genocide can get you imprisoned in Turkey. Orban’s Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy. Alessandra Mussolini is a successful far right Italian politicians. Many elderly Spaniards are nostalgic for the Franco days.

    Why should Russia’s attitude to its own history have to hew to the German model, instead of to the Japanese, Turkish, or even Anglo ones?

    @Mariusz,

    I’ve always thought that Russia lost much of her identity during the communist and Yeltsin era, and it does seem like the elite are attempting to build a cohesive Russian/Eurasian “identity�. It would be intriguing to see if there is any indication that such efforts are gaining fruition.

    I think the “must-read” article on this is Paul Robinson’s Putin’s Philosophy and Putin’s philosopher. One of the key reasons that many Western policymakers, journalists, and even many intellectuals have difficulty grasping what Putin is about is that he doesn’t fall within their traditional framework of reference which, which is a binary between “progressive” pro-Western liberalism and “retrogressive” Soviet authoritarianism.

    @Hokie,

    You’ve put a lot more thought into this than I have, but what if WE, EE, ME, and EA all converged on science and industry together, but only WE escaped Mongols. And then China got hit again with the Manchus, the Russians with the Crimeans and Nogais, etc. And if the climate changes causes nomadic invasions, that might be another thing that somehow relates to it.

    This was certainly a major factor. China in particular was constantly threatened by nomads, which led to repeated imperial collapses (e.g. the southern Song, which at one point came tantalizingly close to industrialization) and the diversion of fiscal resources from potentially more productive pursuits (e.g. the scrapping of the Ming navy). Only in the gunpowder era did the advantage swing decisively to the sedentary peoples.

    That said, Western Europe also had a number of specific advantages relative to China, in particular consistently richer diets (post-Black Death at any rate), systemic outbreeding within the Hajnal line, and an alphabetic system (which made mass literacy much easier to attain and sustain). The latter in particular I am coming to suspect played a really important role. You can’t meaningfully contribute to advanced science and industry if you are illiterate. While China’s literacy achievements were impressive for a preindustrial society, it was in the main “narrow”; an urban fishmonger’s son might know the characters for different fishes, and as such be “fish-literate,” but would be unable to read, say, a political or technical pamphlet of the sort that became increasingly prevalent in the advanced areas of 17th century Europe.

    Also, I remember seeing something about modern Iraqis-Syrians being different from Iraqis-Syrians from pre-Mongol times, the Bedouin from Yemen replaced them or at least heavily influenced their bloodlines after the Mongols killed a lot of them. I remember it being some 19th century Briton.

    Regarding the remarkable intellectual collapse of the Muslim world, from being leaders under the Caliphate, I suspect that inbreeding depression associated with Islamization played the key role.

    Andrey Korotayev – Parallel cousin (FBD) marriage, Islamization and Arabization

    @Pseudonomyc handle,

    I don’t think Putin is easily comparable to any one Tsar. That said, re-Crimea: plus ça change…

    Do you have good psychometric data for Russia? What do you think about the theories of HBDchick about cousin marriage and the Hajnal line?

    Psychometric data for Russia: here.

    Re-hbdchick: Greatly respect her work and think she is mostly right.

    •ï¿½Replies: @reiner Tor

    @Anatoly Karlin

    
    Orban’s Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy
    �

    There are a few small statues and busts of Horthy in the country, in Budapest one was erected by a Calvinist parish led by a nationalist preacher, in the garden of their church building (amidst a strong campaign against it in the press and not least of all within the Reformed Church). And there are a few in some small townships or villages led by nationalist mayors. I'm personally only aware of one such statue, in a village called Csókakő. But it has nothing to do with Orbán or the government. Hungarian school curriculum still doesn't paint Horthy too favorably, he is held at least partly responsible for both the White Terror of 1919-20 and the deportation of Jews in 1944.

    Moreover, I think it's preposterous to compare Admiral Horthy (or Franco) to Stalin or Hitler. Horthy never intended to commit mass murder, unlike Stalin or Hitler. In 1919-20, he allowed the White Terror to happen (although he didn't like the excesses, just like the majority of Hungarians at the time, he thought that after the months of Red Terror some kind of semi-legal retribution was necessary), but for example 1942-44 he resisted German requests to send Hungarian Jewry to its death. He bluntly told Hitler Jews were already restricted in Hungary, but he cannot just cub them to death. But in 1944 Hitler occupied Hungary and convinced the ailing 76-year-old Horthy not to resign, and instead appoint a pro-German government (though Horthy resisted the German proposal for the prime minister, and the Germans had to settle for a compromise in the person of a retired general), which then promptly deported most Jews from Hungary. By the end of June the Germans pulled out more than half of their troops (because a small incident called the Invasion of Normandy forced them to), and Horthy halted the deportations by deploying his loyal tank division. He tried to organize a separate peace (and a coup against the pro-German elements in his own government), but failed miserably in October 1944 (he made so many amateurish mistakes that probably a five-year-old child would make less), so Hungary stuck on the side of the Germans (unlike our rival Romania, where by the way a few statues of Antonescu were also erected here and there).

    Horthy could be said to be directly responsible for the country's entrance to the war on Germany's side (I hardly doubt anybody else could have avoided that without the Germans quickly occupying the country, and then proceeding to kill all and not just 70% of the Jews therein), for the deportation of the Jews (he could have resisted more efficiently, but he thought by allowing that to happen he could regain Hitler's trust and so he could organize a coup against the Germans when the front arrives at the borders - in retrospect we know his separate peace attempt failed miserably, but he couldn't know that in spring 1944 already), and before all these for the White Terror in 1919-20, which was a wave of semi-legal or outright illegal killings by martial courts set up by a militia led by Horthy, and whose targets were sometimes not only communists but also some other leftists and sometimes just ordinary citizens being caught in the net. Of course the militia (the Nemzeti Hadsereg or National Army) was not fully under Horthy's control, and he was probably more dependent on his subordinate commanders than they were on him, so he let them do as they pleased until he managed to have himself elected regent. These are bad things, but mostly only because he was on power during very difficult times. He came to power right after the country lost the bloodiest war in modern history and experienced a revolution leading to a bloody communist dictatorship, and then as he got very old, the Second World War just happened. I don't think there are many morally perfect geniuses who could have led the country to a significantly better outcome. So of course Horthy, even if imperfect, was neither a Hitler nor a Stalin.

    Otherwise I personally think the German self-loathing is a sickness which needs to be eradicated, and not exported to other countries like Russia.

    Sorry for the repetitions, I don't have time to edit.

    Replies: @Steve

    , @Steve

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Communists are the worst certainly, but there is SOME denial and minimization from others, nationalists for example. I agree there is some unjustifiable exaggeration, like claims of 80 million (though not far off if you include China and the others too), but now I see the attempt to reduce it to 10 million or less, which is also false. The famine was also in the areas you mention, though the Kuban also had many Ukrainians, and it was in those areas that additional measures of repression were taken to aggravate things, like blocking emigration and returning starving people to their villages by force, so along with the executions etc and Stalin's desire to smash Ukrainian nationalism an argument can be made (though not 100% proven to everyone's satisfaction) that it was genocide, albeit of a more indirect route than say the Holocaust. And the the fact that many Kazakhs and some Russians died does not mean the Ukrainians were not targeted specially to some degree, by Stalin and his cronies, many not Russian of course.
    
    I agree also that Germany is the exception, and Russia far from alone in its approach, but Russia expects and demands even that Germany act so, and why should Russia excuse itself by the shortcomings of the others? If Russia really stood up for the truth however painful and exceptional then it would earn a lot more respect from many, even if some swine would try and exploit it for propaganda ends, and two key nations doing it would be a big advance, and able to put a lot more pressure on the rest, by example and advocacy. As long as Russia holds back, the lies and denials worldwide just multiply, the Turks Italians Japanese etc etc get away with it, and we get nowhere really except for Germany to be everybody's punching bag, even while getting some occasional praise for being honest. When Russia comes really clean (and that needs more than some Solzhenitsyn study and the like - he did become a nationalist and supporter of Putin after all), things will change, until then, we have the same old rotten game on and on. And Russia will never really win Germans (and some others) over by playing such a game anyway, Russia is still holding a lot of the German archives too, and basically saying "you Fritzes can take the heat for history while we will play the innocent mostly along with the rest of the liars". Not good, and not effective in the long run, I observe that the more Stalin and co are rehabilitated, the more isolated from the West at least Russia becomes, and reliant on questionable allies who whilst economically useful, are culturally rather alien, with incompatible agendas in some ways (of course as is the US too in its way, but not so much the Europeans).

    Replies: @Mariusz
13. reiner Tor says:

    January 15, 2015 at 12:03 pm GMT •ï¿½700 Words

    @Anatoly Karlin

    Thank you for all the wellwishes.

    I will reply to everyone's points here, instead of individually, as that will take too many separate comments.

    @Cracker1,

    
    Can you explain why the political leaders of the US would think that Russia would voluntarily turn over their naval base on the Black Sea to NATO?
    �

    In fairness, I think pretty much nobody was expecting a military reaction from Russia in response to the coup in Kiev. After all Russia had not mounted anything more than feeble verbal protests in response to previous NATO expansionism (Georgia could not be considered as a precedent because Saakashvili's forces had directly attacked Russian UN-backed peacekeepers).

    @Steve,

    
    I hope btw that you will treat crude propaganda of any sort the same way, eg the repugnant denial or minimisation of Communist atrocities that is so fashionable again, a good deal of which comes sadly from Russia once more, one reason I find it impossible to see much good in Putin regardless of some other things (and which does not bode well for the future of that nation’s intellectual development).
    �

    Nobody apart from the ~20% of stalwart Communists is minimizing let alone denying the reality of Stalinist repressions. Solzhenitsyn is on Russian school syllabi for godsakes. That is discrete from vilifying all aspects of the Communist period or engaging in outright propaganda about it, such as labeling the Holodomor as a genocide against Ukrainians (an equivalent number died during the 1932-33 famine in the Russian Volga, Kuban, and North Kazakhstan), or ranting in capslocks about 80 million victims of Communism (inflated by an order of magnitude). That is also the province of ideological wingnuts; the Soviet dissident Sergey Dovlatov put it best: "After communists, most of all I hate anti-communists."

    I go into more detail on this particular topic here.

    
    ... and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists ... which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov’s crowd, from what I have read not so long ago.
    �

    Again, the KPRF ≠ Putin.

    
    Until Russia does it, it is just as hypocritical as the nations it is at odds with, and more than Germany.
    �

    Germany is the exception, not the rule, on such matters.

    Japanese leaders continue visiting the Yasukuni shrine. Saying what happened to the Armenians in WW1 was a genocide can get you imprisoned in Turkey. Orban's Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy. Alessandra Mussolini is a successful far right Italian politicians. Many elderly Spaniards are nostalgic for the Franco days.

    Why should Russia's attitude to its own history have to hew to the German model, instead of to the Japanese, Turkish, or even Anglo ones?

    @Mariusz,

    
    I’ve always thought that Russia lost much of her identity during the communist and Yeltsin era, and it does seem like the elite are attempting to build a cohesive Russian/Eurasian “identity�. It would be intriguing to see if there is any indication that such efforts are gaining fruition.
    �

    I think the "must-read" article on this is Paul Robinson's Putin's Philosophy and Putin's philosopher. One of the key reasons that many Western policymakers, journalists, and even many intellectuals have difficulty grasping what Putin is about is that he doesn't fall within their traditional framework of reference which, which is a binary between "progressive" pro-Western liberalism and "retrogressive" Soviet authoritarianism.

    @Hokie,

    
    You’ve put a lot more thought into this than I have, but what if WE, EE, ME, and EA all converged on science and industry together, but only WE escaped Mongols. And then China got hit again with the Manchus, the Russians with the Crimeans and Nogais, etc. And if the climate changes causes nomadic invasions, that might be another thing that somehow relates to it.
    �

    This was certainly a major factor. China in particular was constantly threatened by nomads, which led to repeated imperial collapses (e.g. the southern Song, which at one point came tantalizingly close to industrialization) and the diversion of fiscal resources from potentially more productive pursuits (e.g. the scrapping of the Ming navy). Only in the gunpowder era did the advantage swing decisively to the sedentary peoples.

    That said, Western Europe also had a number of specific advantages relative to China, in particular consistently richer diets (post-Black Death at any rate), systemic outbreeding within the Hajnal line, and an alphabetic system (which made mass literacy much easier to attain and sustain). The latter in particular I am coming to suspect played a really important role. You can't meaningfully contribute to advanced science and industry if you are illiterate. While China's literacy achievements were impressive for a preindustrial society, it was in the main "narrow"; an urban fishmonger's son might know the characters for different fishes, and as such be "fish-literate," but would be unable to read, say, a political or technical pamphlet of the sort that became increasingly prevalent in the advanced areas of 17th century Europe.

    
    Also, I remember seeing something about modern Iraqis-Syrians being different from Iraqis-Syrians from pre-Mongol times, the Bedouin from Yemen replaced them or at least heavily influenced their bloodlines after the Mongols killed a lot of them. I remember it being some 19th century Briton.
    �

    Regarding the remarkable intellectual collapse of the Muslim world, from being leaders under the Caliphate, I suspect that inbreeding depression associated with Islamization played the key role.

    Andrey Korotayev - Parallel cousin (FBD) marriage, Islamization and Arabization

    @Pseudonomyc handle,

    I don't think Putin is easily comparable to any one Tsar. That said, re-Crimea: plus ça change...

    
    Do you have good psychometric data for Russia? What do you think about the theories of HBDchick about cousin marriage and the Hajnal line?
    �

    Psychometric data for Russia: here.

    Re-hbdchick: Greatly respect her work and think she is mostly right.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Steve

    Orban’s Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy

    There are a few small statues and busts of Horthy in the country, in Budapest one was erected by a Calvinist parish led by a nationalist preacher, in the garden of their church building (amidst a strong campaign against it in the press and not least of all within the Reformed Church). And there are a few in some small townships or villages led by nationalist mayors. I’m personally only aware of one such statue, in a village called CsókakÅ‘. But it has nothing to do with Orbán or the government. Hungarian school curriculum still doesn’t paint Horthy too favorably, he is held at least partly responsible for both the White Terror of 1919-20 and the deportation of Jews in 1944.

    Moreover, I think it’s preposterous to compare Admiral Horthy (or Franco) to Stalin or Hitler. Horthy never intended to commit mass murder, unlike Stalin or Hitler. In 1919-20, he allowed the White Terror to happen (although he didn’t like the excesses, just like the majority of Hungarians at the time, he thought that after the months of Red Terror some kind of semi-legal retribution was necessary), but for example 1942-44 he resisted German requests to send Hungarian Jewry to its death. He bluntly told Hitler Jews were already restricted in Hungary, but he cannot just cub them to death. But in 1944 Hitler occupied Hungary and convinced the ailing 76-year-old Horthy not to resign, and instead appoint a pro-German government (though Horthy resisted the German proposal for the prime minister, and the Germans had to settle for a compromise in the person of a retired general), which then promptly deported most Jews from Hungary. By the end of June the Germans pulled out more than half of their troops (because a small incident called the Invasion of Normandy forced them to), and Horthy halted the deportations by deploying his loyal tank division. He tried to organize a separate peace (and a coup against the pro-German elements in his own government), but failed miserably in October 1944 (he made so many amateurish mistakes that probably a five-year-old child would make less), so Hungary stuck on the side of the Germans (unlike our rival Romania, where by the way a few statues of Antonescu were also erected here and there).

    Horthy could be said to be directly responsible for the country’s entrance to the war on Germany’s side (I hardly doubt anybody else could have avoided that without the Germans quickly occupying the country, and then proceeding to kill all and not just 70% of the Jews therein), for the deportation of the Jews (he could have resisted more efficiently, but he thought by allowing that to happen he could regain Hitler’s trust and so he could organize a coup against the Germans when the front arrives at the borders – in retrospect we know his separate peace attempt failed miserably, but he couldn’t know that in spring 1944 already), and before all these for the White Terror in 1919-20, which was a wave of semi-legal or outright illegal killings by martial courts set up by a militia led by Horthy, and whose targets were sometimes not only communists but also some other leftists and sometimes just ordinary citizens being caught in the net. Of course the militia (the Nemzeti Hadsereg or National Army) was not fully under Horthy’s control, and he was probably more dependent on his subordinate commanders than they were on him, so he let them do as they pleased until he managed to have himself elected regent. These are bad things, but mostly only because he was on power during very difficult times. He came to power right after the country lost the bloodiest war in modern history and experienced a revolution leading to a bloody communist dictatorship, and then as he got very old, the Second World War just happened. I don’t think there are many morally perfect geniuses who could have led the country to a significantly better outcome. So of course Horthy, even if imperfect, was neither a Hitler nor a Stalin.

    Otherwise I personally think the German self-loathing is a sickness which needs to be eradicated, and not exported to other countries like Russia.

    Sorry for the repetitions, I don’t have time to edit.

    •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

    @reiner Tor

    Horthy did not intend, as you say, to wipe out the Jews, but he was complicit to some degree in the export of the provincial Jews to the camps, ostensibly (and partly in fact) for war labor. He only really stood up (a bit late) for the Budapest Jews who were regarded as more integrated. He was otherwise a fairly conventional reactionary nationalist who collaborated with Hitler politically for Hungarian ends. But of course Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.
    
    As for Franco, he did preside over the mass extermination by shooting mostly of an estimated several hundred thousand 'Reds' (and anarchists), both during and after the civil war. There is even a recent book on it called Franco's Holocaust I think. Presumably he might have done something similar in Africa if he got the chance (or 'saw the need'). But otherwise he kept his head down.
    
    Mussolini was the closest to Hitler on the 'fascist' side, issuing extremely ruthless orders in Africa especially, but also Italy and the Balkans, and approving at times of Hitler's measures to the Jews. He also embarked on several aggressions of his own. It was mainly Italian military incompetence that limited his opportunities to rival Hitler in scale.

    Replies: @Steve, @reiner Tor
14. Peter Grafström says:

    January 16, 2015 at 2:07 pm GMT •ï¿½400 Words

    @Steve

    @Peter Grafström

    I said nothing about focussing on Communist atrocities per se, just not denying or minimizing them, something I see quite a lot of going on. I am fully aware of things like the famines under the British and have frequently enough pointed it out, often to Brits who deny or minimize their own historical crimes. I am also very well read on WW1 and am aware of the thesis you mention, which whilst correct in fair measure is far from the full picture. Russia and France also played a major role, along with Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany, the last rather less than generally assumed however. None of that changes the fact of Communist atrocities which were on a massive scale also, extending also to Asia, and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists. Even after the documents with the signatures of Stalin et al have been handed by Gorbachev to the Poles, which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov's crowd, from what I have read not so long ago. That is outrageous and dangerous, and other examples abound. Until Russia accepts the truth of such matters, not just officially but generally, it is no surprise at all that many of Russia's neighbours still see Russia as a threat.

    Replies: @Peter Grafström

    Steve
    What you say about France and Russia shows that you havent read Docherty & Macgregor and are not at all familiar with ‘the thesis’
    The point is the british owned/controlled both France and Russias key figures as well as the Serbian terrorists.
    Everything was in the sly brittons hands but none of it was known outside a closed circle of conspirators.
    You say the Germans were less guilty. Well yes but that’s not a fair way to put it:they were completely innocent and were the last to mobilize. Germany was industrious , competitive and had everything to gain from peaceful trade. They built a navy to protect their merchant ships from the anticipated british naval blockade. Btw check out D&Ms blog with more info about how britains secret elite actually allowed war material to slip through the blockade to prolong the war for profit, knowing that to destroy the german competitor they needed a long war. The crucial mines in the west were likewise left unharmed for the same reason.
    And when you say communist atrocities are minimized you are just helping the anglosaxons to prevent cooperation between russians and germans pretending to be fair towards the germans, while its just the classical (british) divide and conquer strategy. The anglosaxons still hate the germans for the same old reason: they are industrious. But also more cooperating. Their businesses often have more constructive long term strategies, while the anglosaxons have relied more on owning, lending and insurance and such, resulting in a need to use violence and aggressive divide and conquer to prevail.
    The Sovjet union was never free from dependence of London and Wall street. The Sovjet foreign mimister Litvinenko never wrote his memoirs because he held too many secrets with respect to the influence of the London city banking cartel.
    After having used the bolshies to destroy the russian oil production resulting in restored higher prices on the world oil market, the anglosaxons eventually took over large chunks of the oil rights. Rockefeller the capitalist enemy was established in USSR.
    If you really want to be fair, the place to start is the Us/Uk oligarchy, look at the real puppeteers. The parasites creating money out of thin air, buying everybody, including many people inside the USSR. But this Us/Uk oligarchy conveniently hide everything so you go for the easy targets just like real power intends.
    You hope russias neighbours see them as a threat. Problem is both the previously invaded Chechs and the Hungarians seem to increasingly see the Us as a far more malevolent entity despite the corrupting influence of NGO’s, Cia/Ned.

    •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

    @Peter Grafström

    Well excuse me but I have certainly read a fair bit of it, on their blog for example, along with much else. The Brits were certainly scheming in the background, an old game of theirs, but they did not control the Serbs Russians and French, rather trying to use them against Germany, as the others hoped to use Britain against Germany (and Austria-Hungary). The fact is they all saw something to gain in 1914 by ganging up on the Germanic powers, and did not expect the fight they got for it. It's a tragedy that the Russians fell for it, even though the prizes on offer seemed enticing (eg Constantinople and the Straits, a highly tempting prospect back then). But that it what too much nationalism and self-justifying narrowness of vision can do, and Russians are not immune. I know the "anglosaxons" undermine Germany when it suits them, but so have the Russians. None have ever offered Germany a real alliance of equals, or ever come clean on their own roles against Germany in the past. Russia can't expect Germany to ally with it they way things have gone, and especially as long as the Russians do not come fully clean on certain matters. Russia's current approach just does not appeal to Germans other than some leftists and a right-wing nationalist fringe, but certainly not the centrist or conservative mainstream. Russia will have to change its approach to win over many Germans, who it's true could have a common interest, and share some roots, but not as things stand, and of course can never expect Germany to sever ties with the West to join some Eurasian bloc outright, modern Germany is rooted mainly in the west now, that's what happens when the eastern territories are taken and purged of Germans. But with a change of approach to accomodate German interests and needs, spiritually and not just materially, Germans would be a lot more willing to listen to and engage with Russia, which they have always had a fascination for, even if some idiots chose to regard the Russians as just a people to be colonised, a major failing, but one long-gone now (and based largely on the British et al colonization of other peoples like the Indians as to inspiration). But the old Sovietic line won't do it, and will turn off others too, even if some like Orban will try to play both ends. But even he knows that the key is Germany, in Europe.
15. Steve says:

    January 17, 2015 at 4:07 pm GMT •ï¿½500 Words

    @Anatoly Karlin

    Thank you for all the wellwishes.

    I will reply to everyone's points here, instead of individually, as that will take too many separate comments.

    @Cracker1,

    
    Can you explain why the political leaders of the US would think that Russia would voluntarily turn over their naval base on the Black Sea to NATO?
    �

    In fairness, I think pretty much nobody was expecting a military reaction from Russia in response to the coup in Kiev. After all Russia had not mounted anything more than feeble verbal protests in response to previous NATO expansionism (Georgia could not be considered as a precedent because Saakashvili's forces had directly attacked Russian UN-backed peacekeepers).

    @Steve,

    
    I hope btw that you will treat crude propaganda of any sort the same way, eg the repugnant denial or minimisation of Communist atrocities that is so fashionable again, a good deal of which comes sadly from Russia once more, one reason I find it impossible to see much good in Putin regardless of some other things (and which does not bode well for the future of that nation’s intellectual development).
    �

    Nobody apart from the ~20% of stalwart Communists is minimizing let alone denying the reality of Stalinist repressions. Solzhenitsyn is on Russian school syllabi for godsakes. That is discrete from vilifying all aspects of the Communist period or engaging in outright propaganda about it, such as labeling the Holodomor as a genocide against Ukrainians (an equivalent number died during the 1932-33 famine in the Russian Volga, Kuban, and North Kazakhstan), or ranting in capslocks about 80 million victims of Communism (inflated by an order of magnitude). That is also the province of ideological wingnuts; the Soviet dissident Sergey Dovlatov put it best: "After communists, most of all I hate anti-communists."

    I go into more detail on this particular topic here.

    
    ... and there is a pronounced tendency on the left and in Russia under Putin to minimize them, or even deny them outright in some cases, eg the Russian Communists still push the line that the Katyn et al massacres were done by the Germans, or at least not by the Communists ... which are claimed to be fake by Zyuganov’s crowd, from what I have read not so long ago.
    �

    Again, the KPRF ≠ Putin.

    
    Until Russia does it, it is just as hypocritical as the nations it is at odds with, and more than Germany.
    �

    Germany is the exception, not the rule, on such matters.

    Japanese leaders continue visiting the Yasukuni shrine. Saying what happened to the Armenians in WW1 was a genocide can get you imprisoned in Turkey. Orban's Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy. Alessandra Mussolini is a successful far right Italian politicians. Many elderly Spaniards are nostalgic for the Franco days.

    Why should Russia's attitude to its own history have to hew to the German model, instead of to the Japanese, Turkish, or even Anglo ones?

    @Mariusz,

    
    I’ve always thought that Russia lost much of her identity during the communist and Yeltsin era, and it does seem like the elite are attempting to build a cohesive Russian/Eurasian “identity�. It would be intriguing to see if there is any indication that such efforts are gaining fruition.
    �

    I think the "must-read" article on this is Paul Robinson's Putin's Philosophy and Putin's philosopher. One of the key reasons that many Western policymakers, journalists, and even many intellectuals have difficulty grasping what Putin is about is that he doesn't fall within their traditional framework of reference which, which is a binary between "progressive" pro-Western liberalism and "retrogressive" Soviet authoritarianism.

    @Hokie,

    
    You’ve put a lot more thought into this than I have, but what if WE, EE, ME, and EA all converged on science and industry together, but only WE escaped Mongols. And then China got hit again with the Manchus, the Russians with the Crimeans and Nogais, etc. And if the climate changes causes nomadic invasions, that might be another thing that somehow relates to it.
    �

    This was certainly a major factor. China in particular was constantly threatened by nomads, which led to repeated imperial collapses (e.g. the southern Song, which at one point came tantalizingly close to industrialization) and the diversion of fiscal resources from potentially more productive pursuits (e.g. the scrapping of the Ming navy). Only in the gunpowder era did the advantage swing decisively to the sedentary peoples.

    That said, Western Europe also had a number of specific advantages relative to China, in particular consistently richer diets (post-Black Death at any rate), systemic outbreeding within the Hajnal line, and an alphabetic system (which made mass literacy much easier to attain and sustain). The latter in particular I am coming to suspect played a really important role. You can't meaningfully contribute to advanced science and industry if you are illiterate. While China's literacy achievements were impressive for a preindustrial society, it was in the main "narrow"; an urban fishmonger's son might know the characters for different fishes, and as such be "fish-literate," but would be unable to read, say, a political or technical pamphlet of the sort that became increasingly prevalent in the advanced areas of 17th century Europe.

    
    Also, I remember seeing something about modern Iraqis-Syrians being different from Iraqis-Syrians from pre-Mongol times, the Bedouin from Yemen replaced them or at least heavily influenced their bloodlines after the Mongols killed a lot of them. I remember it being some 19th century Briton.
    �

    Regarding the remarkable intellectual collapse of the Muslim world, from being leaders under the Caliphate, I suspect that inbreeding depression associated with Islamization played the key role.

    Andrey Korotayev - Parallel cousin (FBD) marriage, Islamization and Arabization

    @Pseudonomyc handle,

    I don't think Putin is easily comparable to any one Tsar. That said, re-Crimea: plus ça change...

    
    Do you have good psychometric data for Russia? What do you think about the theories of HBDchick about cousin marriage and the Hajnal line?
    �

    Psychometric data for Russia: here.

    Re-hbdchick: Greatly respect her work and think she is mostly right.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Steve

    The Communists are the worst certainly, but there is SOME denial and minimization from others, nationalists for example. I agree there is some unjustifiable exaggeration, like claims of 80 million (though not far off if you include China and the others too), but now I see the attempt to reduce it to 10 million or less, which is also false. The famine was also in the areas you mention, though the Kuban also had many Ukrainians, and it was in those areas that additional measures of repression were taken to aggravate things, like blocking emigration and returning starving people to their villages by force, so along with the executions etc and Stalin’s desire to smash Ukrainian nationalism an argument can be made (though not 100% proven to everyone’s satisfaction) that it was genocide, albeit of a more indirect route than say the Holocaust. And the the fact that many Kazakhs and some Russians died does not mean the Ukrainians were not targeted specially to some degree, by Stalin and his cronies, many not Russian of course.

    I agree also that Germany is the exception, and Russia far from alone in its approach, but Russia expects and demands even that Germany act so, and why should Russia excuse itself by the shortcomings of the others? If Russia really stood up for the truth however painful and exceptional then it would earn a lot more respect from many, even if some swine would try and exploit it for propaganda ends, and two key nations doing it would be a big advance, and able to put a lot more pressure on the rest, by example and advocacy. As long as Russia holds back, the lies and denials worldwide just multiply, the Turks Italians Japanese etc etc get away with it, and we get nowhere really except for Germany to be everybody’s punching bag, even while getting some occasional praise for being honest. When Russia comes really clean (and that needs more than some Solzhenitsyn study and the like – he did become a nationalist and supporter of Putin after all), things will change, until then, we have the same old rotten game on and on. And Russia will never really win Germans (and some others) over by playing such a game anyway, Russia is still holding a lot of the German archives too, and basically saying “you Fritzes can take the heat for history while we will play the innocent mostly along with the rest of the liars”. Not good, and not effective in the long run, I observe that the more Stalin and co are rehabilitated, the more isolated from the West at least Russia becomes, and reliant on questionable allies who whilst economically useful, are culturally rather alien, with incompatible agendas in some ways (of course as is the US too in its way, but not so much the Europeans).

    •ï¿½Replies: @Mariusz

    @Steve

    Why should Russians apologise for the communists who enslaved and killed millions of their people? When I see the American and British* governments apologise for their numerous modern-day invasions and their colonial legacy, I'll see your point with a little validity. Perhaps you view Russia as a wartime loser, thus responsibility to beg for forgiveness should be placed on her? I assure you again, those days are long over.
    
    
    You point out that the Russians assumed the USSR's role/responsibility (but conveniently forget she took on Soviet monetary debt and otherwise), while Britain has surely sugar-coated her not-so-altruistic role as an empire. Perhaps it is time for all nations to open their archives - not just the evil, red commies who are hiding underneath my bed :)
    
    
    Let's, for example, look at the British empire, as I am well aware of how she still champions her history as one where she brought "civilisation" to those who were conquered and enslaved. One well noted example was how the Brits "gifted" India with their railways. Of course, they don't mention the part about the very same railways used almost solely to transfer Indian goods to the seaports which led straight to Old Blighty! The Indian people saw no wealth for themselves, instead living in tattered rags. In fact, ever since Britain had stepped foot on the subcontinent, it had seen innumerable horrors - either being taxed to starvation (see Bengal Famine 1770) or starved to death to feed British troops around the world (see Bengal famine 1943, widely associated with Churchill's personal racial policies against the Indian people). So, to Steve, who expects the Russians to open their vaults and "accept" history, why shouldn't the British do the same? Tens of millions dead, and not a footnote in British history. One would equate that to Stalinism, no?
    
    
    Now that was just the tip of a rather enormous colonial iceberg. I am still waiting for Britain to apologise to India and the African continent. When will we have the endless articles about the genocide of the First Nation people or the Aborigines? Does the British government talk about the plight of the Chagos Islanders who'd been entirely deported (as recently as 1973) from their own island so the Brits could build a big fat military base there? Are we also to expect Britain to return the stolen Koh-i-noor which bejewels the royal crown as a reparation for the above crimes? Not anytime soon, I presume.
    
    
    *The Anglo Saxon media is the most rabid when it comes to Russian (and more recently Chinese) "historical faults", hence my use of the UK as a comparison.
    
    
    (Btw, thank you to Mr Karlin for the links your provided earlier. I eagerly look forward to reading them)

    Replies: @Steve
16. Steve says:

    January 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm GMT •ï¿½400 Words

    @Peter Grafström

    @Steve

    Steve
    What you say about France and Russia shows that you havent read Docherty & Macgregor and are not at all familiar with 'the thesis'
    The point is the british owned/controlled both France and Russias key figures as well as the Serbian terrorists.
    Everything was in the sly brittons hands but none of it was known outside a closed circle of conspirators.
    You say the Germans were less guilty. Well yes but that's not a fair way to put it:they were completely innocent and were the last to mobilize. Germany was industrious , competitive and had everything to gain from peaceful trade. They built a navy to protect their merchant ships from the anticipated british naval blockade. Btw check out D&Ms blog with more info about how britains secret elite actually allowed war material to slip through the blockade to prolong the war for profit, knowing that to destroy the german competitor they needed a long war. The crucial mines in the west were likewise left unharmed for the same reason.
    And when you say communist atrocities are minimized you are just helping the anglosaxons to prevent cooperation between russians and germans pretending to be fair towards the germans, while its just the classical (british) divide and conquer strategy. The anglosaxons still hate the germans for the same old reason: they are industrious. But also more cooperating. Their businesses often have more constructive long term strategies, while the anglosaxons have relied more on owning, lending and insurance and such, resulting in a need to use violence and aggressive divide and conquer to prevail.
    The Sovjet union was never free from dependence of London and Wall street. The Sovjet foreign mimister Litvinenko never wrote his memoirs because he held too many secrets with respect to the influence of the London city banking cartel.
    After having used the bolshies to destroy the russian oil production resulting in restored higher prices on the world oil market, the anglosaxons eventually took over large chunks of the oil rights. Rockefeller the capitalist enemy was established in USSR.
    If you really want to be fair, the place to start is the Us/Uk oligarchy, look at the real puppeteers. The parasites creating money out of thin air, buying everybody, including many people inside the USSR. But this Us/Uk oligarchy conveniently hide everything so you go for the easy targets just like real power intends.
    You hope russias neighbours see them as a threat. Problem is both the previously invaded Chechs and the Hungarians seem to increasingly see the Us as a far more malevolent entity despite the corrupting influence of NGO's, Cia/Ned.

    Replies: @Steve

    Well excuse me but I have certainly read a fair bit of it, on their blog for example, along with much else. The Brits were certainly scheming in the background, an old game of theirs, but they did not control the Serbs Russians and French, rather trying to use them against Germany, as the others hoped to use Britain against Germany (and Austria-Hungary). The fact is they all saw something to gain in 1914 by ganging up on the Germanic powers, and did not expect the fight they got for it. It’s a tragedy that the Russians fell for it, even though the prizes on offer seemed enticing (eg Constantinople and the Straits, a highly tempting prospect back then). But that it what too much nationalism and self-justifying narrowness of vision can do, and Russians are not immune. I know the “anglosaxons” undermine Germany when it suits them, but so have the Russians. None have ever offered Germany a real alliance of equals, or ever come clean on their own roles against Germany in the past. Russia can’t expect Germany to ally with it they way things have gone, and especially as long as the Russians do not come fully clean on certain matters. Russia’s current approach just does not appeal to Germans other than some leftists and a right-wing nationalist fringe, but certainly not the centrist or conservative mainstream. Russia will have to change its approach to win over many Germans, who it’s true could have a common interest, and share some roots, but not as things stand, and of course can never expect Germany to sever ties with the West to join some Eurasian bloc outright, modern Germany is rooted mainly in the west now, that’s what happens when the eastern territories are taken and purged of Germans. But with a change of approach to accomodate German interests and needs, spiritually and not just materially, Germans would be a lot more willing to listen to and engage with Russia, which they have always had a fascination for, even if some idiots chose to regard the Russians as just a people to be colonised, a major failing, but one long-gone now (and based largely on the British et al colonization of other peoples like the Indians as to inspiration). But the old Sovietic line won’t do it, and will turn off others too, even if some like Orban will try to play both ends. But even he knows that the key is Germany, in Europe.
17. jon claerbout says: •ï¿½Website

    January 18, 2015 at 11:47 pm GMT •ï¿½100 Words

    Peter Grafstrom says: the Us/Uk refusing to accept payment in oil gold or timber but only in grain with the deliberate intention of causing starvation.
    The 740 page book “Big Show in Bololand” recounts letters home from USA soldiers delivering food relief to Russia after WW I. By summer 1922, American kitchens were feeding eleven million Soviet citizens a day. Herbert Hoover, soon to be America’s “depression president” organized this. (But this is the 1920’s, not the 1930’s.)
18. jon claerbout says: •ï¿½Website

    January 19, 2015 at 3:15 am GMT

    This is a link to many photos including much video in Russia 1921-22, PBS documentary. USA soldiers famine relief (includes the selling of seeds story for Peter Grafstrom). If my link fails you, do a youtube search for “great famine in russia”
19. Mariusz says:

    January 19, 2015 at 3:43 pm GMT •ï¿½500 Words

    @Steve

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Communists are the worst certainly, but there is SOME denial and minimization from others, nationalists for example. I agree there is some unjustifiable exaggeration, like claims of 80 million (though not far off if you include China and the others too), but now I see the attempt to reduce it to 10 million or less, which is also false. The famine was also in the areas you mention, though the Kuban also had many Ukrainians, and it was in those areas that additional measures of repression were taken to aggravate things, like blocking emigration and returning starving people to their villages by force, so along with the executions etc and Stalin's desire to smash Ukrainian nationalism an argument can be made (though not 100% proven to everyone's satisfaction) that it was genocide, albeit of a more indirect route than say the Holocaust. And the the fact that many Kazakhs and some Russians died does not mean the Ukrainians were not targeted specially to some degree, by Stalin and his cronies, many not Russian of course.
    
    I agree also that Germany is the exception, and Russia far from alone in its approach, but Russia expects and demands even that Germany act so, and why should Russia excuse itself by the shortcomings of the others? If Russia really stood up for the truth however painful and exceptional then it would earn a lot more respect from many, even if some swine would try and exploit it for propaganda ends, and two key nations doing it would be a big advance, and able to put a lot more pressure on the rest, by example and advocacy. As long as Russia holds back, the lies and denials worldwide just multiply, the Turks Italians Japanese etc etc get away with it, and we get nowhere really except for Germany to be everybody's punching bag, even while getting some occasional praise for being honest. When Russia comes really clean (and that needs more than some Solzhenitsyn study and the like - he did become a nationalist and supporter of Putin after all), things will change, until then, we have the same old rotten game on and on. And Russia will never really win Germans (and some others) over by playing such a game anyway, Russia is still holding a lot of the German archives too, and basically saying "you Fritzes can take the heat for history while we will play the innocent mostly along with the rest of the liars". Not good, and not effective in the long run, I observe that the more Stalin and co are rehabilitated, the more isolated from the West at least Russia becomes, and reliant on questionable allies who whilst economically useful, are culturally rather alien, with incompatible agendas in some ways (of course as is the US too in its way, but not so much the Europeans).

    Replies: @Mariusz

    Why should Russians apologise for the communists who enslaved and killed millions of their people? When I see the American and British* governments apologise for their numerous modern-day invasions and their colonial legacy, I’ll see your point with a little validity. Perhaps you view Russia as a wartime loser, thus responsibility to beg for forgiveness should be placed on her? I assure you again, those days are long over.

    You point out that the Russians assumed the USSR’s role/responsibility (but conveniently forget she took on Soviet monetary debt and otherwise), while Britain has surely sugar-coated her not-so-altruistic role as an empire. Perhaps it is time for all nations to open their archives – not just the evil, red commies who are hiding underneath my bed 🙂

    Let’s, for example, look at the British empire, as I am well aware of how she still champions her history as one where she brought “civilisation” to those who were conquered and enslaved. One well noted example was how the Brits “gifted” India with their railways. Of course, they don’t mention the part about the very same railways used almost solely to transfer Indian goods to the seaports which led straight to Old Blighty! The Indian people saw no wealth for themselves, instead living in tattered rags. In fact, ever since Britain had stepped foot on the subcontinent, it had seen innumerable horrors – either being taxed to starvation (see Bengal Famine 1770) or starved to death to feed British troops around the world (see Bengal famine 1943, widely associated with Churchill’s personal racial policies against the Indian people). So, to Steve, who expects the Russians to open their vaults and “accept” history, why shouldn’t the British do the same? Tens of millions dead, and not a footnote in British history. One would equate that to Stalinism, no?

    Now that was just the tip of a rather enormous colonial iceberg. I am still waiting for Britain to apologise to India and the African continent. When will we have the endless articles about the genocide of the First Nation people or the Aborigines? Does the British government talk about the plight of the Chagos Islanders who’d been entirely deported (as recently as 1973) from their own island so the Brits could build a big fat military base there? Are we also to expect Britain to return the stolen Koh-i-noor which bejewels the royal crown as a reparation for the above crimes? Not anytime soon, I presume.

    *The Anglo Saxon media is the most rabid when it comes to Russian (and more recently Chinese) “historical faults”, hence my use of the UK as a comparison.

    (Btw, thank you to Mr Karlin for the links your provided earlier. I eagerly look forward to reading them)

    •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

    @Mariusz

    You are missing my point, which is indeed that ALL nations should admit the full extent of their past, and I argue to that effect often, I have criticized the brits on this a lot for example. I will even add to your point about their empire - the railways were not gifted, but charged at high interest via bonds to the "Government of India", ie the British ruled Indian taxpayers, as were a number of foreign wars in places like China and even Africa, when units of the British run "Indian Army" were employed. Two good sources on this and the famines are Mukherjee's Churchill's Secret War, and Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts. To be fair, recently a lot of concealed archives were admitted to, and are being gradually released, though too slowly, and only after weeding etc. But it's better than nothing.

    As to Russia, sure she can just play the old game like the others, my point is that if so then nothing will change, but if Russia joins Germany in pushing for the full truth, then it's a game-changer. I am sure that Putin et al know this already, he is a smart guy for sure, but hold back for political reasons, thinking there's more to lose than gain, and hoping to keep up the regular game with 'our partners'. Well how is that working out, not so well. But get it - as long as Russia holds back on history, it can't shift the others either, because it's mutual silence on embarrassing facts. Only be coming fully clean can one then say to the others with real effect, "now it's your turn". If Russia won't even follow Germany who has led, then too bad, for everyone. But until it happens, it's just the same old rotten game, day in day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, and in the meantime maybe the whole world will be blown up, because no one (other than the Germans) were willing to admit the truth and draw the inevitable conclusions.

    It's a major issue for the world, in the end.

    And no begging required, just a cool, serious and honest approach to the truth of history, instead of the current wall of propaganda and half-lies at least (by almost all except Germany) that is so twisted that even the leaders do not grasp reality very much, but operate in a semi-fantasy world, but with real nukes in the silos and subs.
20. Steve says:

    January 19, 2015 at 4:20 pm GMT •ï¿½400 Words

    @Mariusz

    @Steve

    Why should Russians apologise for the communists who enslaved and killed millions of their people? When I see the American and British* governments apologise for their numerous modern-day invasions and their colonial legacy, I'll see your point with a little validity. Perhaps you view Russia as a wartime loser, thus responsibility to beg for forgiveness should be placed on her? I assure you again, those days are long over.
    
    
    You point out that the Russians assumed the USSR's role/responsibility (but conveniently forget she took on Soviet monetary debt and otherwise), while Britain has surely sugar-coated her not-so-altruistic role as an empire. Perhaps it is time for all nations to open their archives - not just the evil, red commies who are hiding underneath my bed :)
    
    
    Let's, for example, look at the British empire, as I am well aware of how she still champions her history as one where she brought "civilisation" to those who were conquered and enslaved. One well noted example was how the Brits "gifted" India with their railways. Of course, they don't mention the part about the very same railways used almost solely to transfer Indian goods to the seaports which led straight to Old Blighty! The Indian people saw no wealth for themselves, instead living in tattered rags. In fact, ever since Britain had stepped foot on the subcontinent, it had seen innumerable horrors - either being taxed to starvation (see Bengal Famine 1770) or starved to death to feed British troops around the world (see Bengal famine 1943, widely associated with Churchill's personal racial policies against the Indian people). So, to Steve, who expects the Russians to open their vaults and "accept" history, why shouldn't the British do the same? Tens of millions dead, and not a footnote in British history. One would equate that to Stalinism, no?
    
    
    Now that was just the tip of a rather enormous colonial iceberg. I am still waiting for Britain to apologise to India and the African continent. When will we have the endless articles about the genocide of the First Nation people or the Aborigines? Does the British government talk about the plight of the Chagos Islanders who'd been entirely deported (as recently as 1973) from their own island so the Brits could build a big fat military base there? Are we also to expect Britain to return the stolen Koh-i-noor which bejewels the royal crown as a reparation for the above crimes? Not anytime soon, I presume.
    
    
    *The Anglo Saxon media is the most rabid when it comes to Russian (and more recently Chinese) "historical faults", hence my use of the UK as a comparison.
    
    
    (Btw, thank you to Mr Karlin for the links your provided earlier. I eagerly look forward to reading them)

    Replies: @Steve

    You are missing my point, which is indeed that ALL nations should admit the full extent of their past, and I argue to that effect often, I have criticized the brits on this a lot for example. I will even add to your point about their empire – the railways were not gifted, but charged at high interest via bonds to the “Government of India”, ie the British ruled Indian taxpayers, as were a number of foreign wars in places like China and even Africa, when units of the British run “Indian Army” were employed. Two good sources on this and the famines are Mukherjee’s Churchill’s Secret War, and Davis’ Late Victorian Holocausts. To be fair, recently a lot of concealed archives were admitted to, and are being gradually released, though too slowly, and only after weeding etc. But it’s better than nothing.

    As to Russia, sure she can just play the old game like the others, my point is that if so then nothing will change, but if Russia joins Germany in pushing for the full truth, then it’s a game-changer. I am sure that Putin et al know this already, he is a smart guy for sure, but hold back for political reasons, thinking there’s more to lose than gain, and hoping to keep up the regular game with ‘our partners’. Well how is that working out, not so well. But get it – as long as Russia holds back on history, it can’t shift the others either, because it’s mutual silence on embarrassing facts. Only be coming fully clean can one then say to the others with real effect, “now it’s your turn”. If Russia won’t even follow Germany who has led, then too bad, for everyone. But until it happens, it’s just the same old rotten game, day in day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, and in the meantime maybe the whole world will be blown up, because no one (other than the Germans) were willing to admit the truth and draw the inevitable conclusions.

    It’s a major issue for the world, in the end.

    And no begging required, just a cool, serious and honest approach to the truth of history, instead of the current wall of propaganda and half-lies at least (by almost all except Germany) that is so twisted that even the leaders do not grasp reality very much, but operate in a semi-fantasy world, but with real nukes in the silos and subs.
21. Steve says:

    January 19, 2015 at 4:25 pm GMT •ï¿½400 Words

    You are missing my point, which is indeed that ALL nations should admit the full extent of their past, and I argue to that effect often, I have criticized the brits on this a lot for example. I will even add to your point about their empire – the railways were not gifted, but charged at high interest via bonds to the “Government of India”, ie the British ruled Indian taxpayers, as were a number of foreign wars in places like China and even Africa, when units of the British run “Indian Army” were employed. Two good sources on this and the famines are Mukherjee’s Churchill’s Secret War, and Davis’ Late Victorian Holocausts. To be fair, recently a lot of concealed archives were admitted to, and are being gradually released, though too slowly, and only after weeding etc. But it’s better than nothing.

    As to Russia, sure she can just play the old game like the others, my point is that if so then nothing will change, but if Russia joins Germany in pushing for the full truth, then it’s a game-changer. I am sure that Putin et al know this already, he is a smart guy for sure, but hold back for political reasons, thinking there’s more to lose than gain, and hoping to keep up the regular game with ‘our partners’. Well how is that working out, not so well. But get it – as long as Russia holds back on history, it can’t shift the others either, because it’s mutual silence on embarrassing facts. Only be coming fully clean can one then say to the others with real effect, “now it’s your turn”. If Russia won’t even follow Germany who has led, then too bad, for everyone. But until it happens, it’s just the same old rotten game, day in day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, and in the meantime maybe the whole world will be blown up, because no one (other than the Germans) were willing to admit the truth and draw the inevitable conclusions.

    It’s a major issue for the world, in the end.

    And no begging required, just a cool, serious and honest approach to the truth of history, instead of the current wall of propaganda and half-lies at least (by almost all except Germany) that is so twisted that even the leaders do not grasp reality very much, but operate in a semi-fantasy world, but with real nukes in the silos and subs.
22. Steve says:

    January 19, 2015 at 4:41 pm GMT •ï¿½200 Words

    @reiner Tor

    @Anatoly Karlin

    
    Orban’s Hungary recently built a statue to Admiral Horthy
    �

    There are a few small statues and busts of Horthy in the country, in Budapest one was erected by a Calvinist parish led by a nationalist preacher, in the garden of their church building (amidst a strong campaign against it in the press and not least of all within the Reformed Church). And there are a few in some small townships or villages led by nationalist mayors. I'm personally only aware of one such statue, in a village called Csókakő. But it has nothing to do with Orbán or the government. Hungarian school curriculum still doesn't paint Horthy too favorably, he is held at least partly responsible for both the White Terror of 1919-20 and the deportation of Jews in 1944.

    Moreover, I think it's preposterous to compare Admiral Horthy (or Franco) to Stalin or Hitler. Horthy never intended to commit mass murder, unlike Stalin or Hitler. In 1919-20, he allowed the White Terror to happen (although he didn't like the excesses, just like the majority of Hungarians at the time, he thought that after the months of Red Terror some kind of semi-legal retribution was necessary), but for example 1942-44 he resisted German requests to send Hungarian Jewry to its death. He bluntly told Hitler Jews were already restricted in Hungary, but he cannot just cub them to death. But in 1944 Hitler occupied Hungary and convinced the ailing 76-year-old Horthy not to resign, and instead appoint a pro-German government (though Horthy resisted the German proposal for the prime minister, and the Germans had to settle for a compromise in the person of a retired general), which then promptly deported most Jews from Hungary. By the end of June the Germans pulled out more than half of their troops (because a small incident called the Invasion of Normandy forced them to), and Horthy halted the deportations by deploying his loyal tank division. He tried to organize a separate peace (and a coup against the pro-German elements in his own government), but failed miserably in October 1944 (he made so many amateurish mistakes that probably a five-year-old child would make less), so Hungary stuck on the side of the Germans (unlike our rival Romania, where by the way a few statues of Antonescu were also erected here and there).

    Horthy could be said to be directly responsible for the country's entrance to the war on Germany's side (I hardly doubt anybody else could have avoided that without the Germans quickly occupying the country, and then proceeding to kill all and not just 70% of the Jews therein), for the deportation of the Jews (he could have resisted more efficiently, but he thought by allowing that to happen he could regain Hitler's trust and so he could organize a coup against the Germans when the front arrives at the borders - in retrospect we know his separate peace attempt failed miserably, but he couldn't know that in spring 1944 already), and before all these for the White Terror in 1919-20, which was a wave of semi-legal or outright illegal killings by martial courts set up by a militia led by Horthy, and whose targets were sometimes not only communists but also some other leftists and sometimes just ordinary citizens being caught in the net. Of course the militia (the Nemzeti Hadsereg or National Army) was not fully under Horthy's control, and he was probably more dependent on his subordinate commanders than they were on him, so he let them do as they pleased until he managed to have himself elected regent. These are bad things, but mostly only because he was on power during very difficult times. He came to power right after the country lost the bloodiest war in modern history and experienced a revolution leading to a bloody communist dictatorship, and then as he got very old, the Second World War just happened. I don't think there are many morally perfect geniuses who could have led the country to a significantly better outcome. So of course Horthy, even if imperfect, was neither a Hitler nor a Stalin.

    Otherwise I personally think the German self-loathing is a sickness which needs to be eradicated, and not exported to other countries like Russia.

    Sorry for the repetitions, I don't have time to edit.

    Replies: @Steve

    Horthy did not intend, as you say, to wipe out the Jews, but he was complicit to some degree in the export of the provincial Jews to the camps, ostensibly (and partly in fact) for war labor. He only really stood up (a bit late) for the Budapest Jews who were regarded as more integrated. He was otherwise a fairly conventional reactionary nationalist who collaborated with Hitler politically for Hungarian ends. But of course Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.

    As for Franco, he did preside over the mass extermination by shooting mostly of an estimated several hundred thousand ‘Reds’ (and anarchists), both during and after the civil war. There is even a recent book on it called Franco’s Holocaust I think. Presumably he might have done something similar in Africa if he got the chance (or ‘saw the need’). But otherwise he kept his head down.

    Mussolini was the closest to Hitler on the ‘fascist’ side, issuing extremely ruthless orders in Africa especially, but also Italy and the Balkans, and approving at times of Hitler’s measures to the Jews. He also embarked on several aggressions of his own. It was mainly Italian military incompetence that limited his opportunities to rival Hitler in scale.

    •ï¿½Replies: @Steve

    @Steve

    That's not counting the Japanese, who lacked a single responsible leader overall, but did commit some massive slaughters, in China especially, including by biological warfare, and outright massacre as at Nanjing.

    , @reiner Tor

    @Steve

    
    Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.
    �

    Yes, but they aren't respected by anybody in Hungary, except perhaps a few skinheads here and there. The story is still a bit more nuanced than that, though.

    Actually the Arrow Cross was not that hardline anti-Semitic, although their program called for the resettlement of Jews (all Jews) in Palestine. Their leader thought that Jews are parasites among the nations, but that they could be redeemed by being given their own country. A point of view that even some Zionists could subscribe to.

    There were no opinion polls done at the time, but it seems almost sure that the Arrow Cross lost most of its support by 1944 (they were a popular opposition party in 1939, especially popular among the formerly social democratic industrial working classes), even many of their important supporters and leaders deserted them. In 1944 when the German troops occupied Hungary, the new government included all of the (more mainstream) far right parties, but not the Arrow Cross Party, because the Germans didn't deem them reliable (or even smart enough) to run the country.

    So when Horthy tried to change sides in October 1944, the Germans finally accepted the Arrow Cross as their last resort, but the party had a shortage of activists. So they accepted many other people - people from the other far right parties (who despised them and thought they were dumb proles, and the hardly sympathetic feelings were reciprocated by the arrow cross activists), but also a lot of people from the criminal underclass. A lot of criminals could get out of prison if they joined the freshly organized Arrow Cross militia, and a large number of them did, and immediately started committing atrocities. The leaders at first didn't care at all (they were happy they were addressed "Your Excellency" or something), later on they started to realize that the war was just about to be lost and that they were doing bad things for which they will be punished within a few months. So they tried to stop the excesses, but with limited success - it was the Red Army that put an end to the Arrow Cross militias' reign of terror. One Hungarian writer wrote ironically at the end of 1944 that all of the Hungarian upper classes were awaiting the Red Army to restore law, order and private property. This was of course a bit of an exaggeration, but even to many people on the far right the Arrow Cross (which was essentially a working class party) was not much of an improvement over the communists.

    But now they get most of the bad publicity, when in fact they were in some sense the most moderate (least anti-Semitic) party of the far right. They were mostly socially radical, railing against the aristocracy, nobility, the bourgeoisie, and also against the Jews. They were ideologically probably closest to the left wing of the NSDAP and the SA, like the Strasser brothers, not too obsessed about Jews, more obsessed about social injustice.
23. Steve says:

    January 19, 2015 at 4:49 pm GMT

    @Steve

    @reiner Tor

    Horthy did not intend, as you say, to wipe out the Jews, but he was complicit to some degree in the export of the provincial Jews to the camps, ostensibly (and partly in fact) for war labor. He only really stood up (a bit late) for the Budapest Jews who were regarded as more integrated. He was otherwise a fairly conventional reactionary nationalist who collaborated with Hitler politically for Hungarian ends. But of course Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.
    
    As for Franco, he did preside over the mass extermination by shooting mostly of an estimated several hundred thousand 'Reds' (and anarchists), both during and after the civil war. There is even a recent book on it called Franco's Holocaust I think. Presumably he might have done something similar in Africa if he got the chance (or 'saw the need'). But otherwise he kept his head down.
    
    Mussolini was the closest to Hitler on the 'fascist' side, issuing extremely ruthless orders in Africa especially, but also Italy and the Balkans, and approving at times of Hitler's measures to the Jews. He also embarked on several aggressions of his own. It was mainly Italian military incompetence that limited his opportunities to rival Hitler in scale.

    Replies: @Steve, @reiner Tor

    That’s not counting the Japanese, who lacked a single responsible leader overall, but did commit some massive slaughters, in China especially, including by biological warfare, and outright massacre as at Nanjing.
24. reiner Tor says:

    January 24, 2015 at 4:36 pm GMT •ï¿½500 Words

    @Steve

    @reiner Tor

    Horthy did not intend, as you say, to wipe out the Jews, but he was complicit to some degree in the export of the provincial Jews to the camps, ostensibly (and partly in fact) for war labor. He only really stood up (a bit late) for the Budapest Jews who were regarded as more integrated. He was otherwise a fairly conventional reactionary nationalist who collaborated with Hitler politically for Hungarian ends. But of course Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.
    
    As for Franco, he did preside over the mass extermination by shooting mostly of an estimated several hundred thousand 'Reds' (and anarchists), both during and after the civil war. There is even a recent book on it called Franco's Holocaust I think. Presumably he might have done something similar in Africa if he got the chance (or 'saw the need'). But otherwise he kept his head down.
    
    Mussolini was the closest to Hitler on the 'fascist' side, issuing extremely ruthless orders in Africa especially, but also Italy and the Balkans, and approving at times of Hitler's measures to the Jews. He also embarked on several aggressions of his own. It was mainly Italian military incompetence that limited his opportunities to rival Hitler in scale.

    Replies: @Steve, @reiner Tor

    Hungary too had its own hardline anti-semitic fascists in the Arrow Cross, who killed quite a few Jews on their own when they got the chance.

    Yes, but they aren’t respected by anybody in Hungary, except perhaps a few skinheads here and there. The story is still a bit more nuanced than that, though.

    Actually the Arrow Cross was not that hardline anti-Semitic, although their program called for the resettlement of Jews (all Jews) in Palestine. Their leader thought that Jews are parasites among the nations, but that they could be redeemed by being given their own country. A point of view that even some Zionists could subscribe to.

    There were no opinion polls done at the time, but it seems almost sure that the Arrow Cross lost most of its support by 1944 (they were a popular opposition party in 1939, especially popular among the formerly social democratic industrial working classes), even many of their important supporters and leaders deserted them. In 1944 when the German troops occupied Hungary, the new government included all of the (more mainstream) far right parties, but not the Arrow Cross Party, because the Germans didn’t deem them reliable (or even smart enough) to run the country.

    So when Horthy tried to change sides in October 1944, the Germans finally accepted the Arrow Cross as their last resort, but the party had a shortage of activists. So they accepted many other people – people from the other far right parties (who despised them and thought they were dumb proles, and the hardly sympathetic feelings were reciprocated by the arrow cross activists), but also a lot of people from the criminal underclass. A lot of criminals could get out of prison if they joined the freshly organized Arrow Cross militia, and a large number of them did, and immediately started committing atrocities. The leaders at first didn’t care at all (they were happy they were addressed “Your Excellency” or something), later on they started to realize that the war was just about to be lost and that they were doing bad things for which they will be punished within a few months. So they tried to stop the excesses, but with limited success – it was the Red Army that put an end to the Arrow Cross militias’ reign of terror. One Hungarian writer wrote ironically at the end of 1944 that all of the Hungarian upper classes were awaiting the Red Army to restore law, order and private property. This was of course a bit of an exaggeration, but even to many people on the far right the Arrow Cross (which was essentially a working class party) was not much of an improvement over the communists.

    But now they get most of the bad publicity, when in fact they were in some sense the most moderate (least anti-Semitic) party of the far right. They were mostly socially radical, railing against the aristocracy, nobility, the bourgeoisie, and also against the Jews. They were ideologically probably closest to the left wing of the NSDAP and the SA, like the Strasser brothers, not too obsessed about Jews, more obsessed about social injustice.
25. reiner Tor says:

    January 24, 2015 at 4:58 pm GMT •ï¿½500 Words

    The problem of Horthy was that he was more moderate, and kept sacking his far right prime ministers and appointing moderate ones, only to realize a few months later that those moderate prime ministers were moving to the right with the speed of light. He didn’t sack the ailing Gömbös in 1936, because Gömbös was about to die anyway, but the next prime minister’s, Darányi’s job was to move back the country to a moderate, conservative direction, and to distance the country from Hitler and warm up relations to the West. Darányi couldn’t do that, because the country’s most important goal was the revision of the 1920 Trianon peace treaty, and he could only get it from Hitler, so he started right wing policies (like restrictions of Jews) to appease Hitler. Horthy sacked Darányi in 1938, and appointed the central banker Imrédy, whose first visit was to the country’s now most important partner, Germany. (The only country besides the USSR which was prepared to offer anything to Hungary, and the USSR was deemed off limits to the Hungarian political class after the horrors of the 1919 communist dictatorship in Hungary.) Imrédy during his visit in Germany converted to National Socialism (even though he had a Jewish great-grandmother himself). Horthy managed to dig up Imrédy’s Jewish ancestor to pressure him to resignation in 1939, and his successor count Teleki was more successful, even though he was a bloodthirsty anti-Semite himself. Teleki wanted to get rid of the Jews, but he hated the Germans even more (including Hungary’s own Ethnic German minority), and was also an Anglophile (because of how the British aristocracy kept itself above the working classes at home and above the riff-raff in the Empire) and so he kept his distance from Hitler, but by spring 1941 his policies failed in the face of increasing German pressure, so he committed suicide. His successor, Bárdossy was more of a civil servant than a politician, so he just plunged the country into Feldzug Barbarossa without giving it too much thought. (It must be noted that according to newer research this was Horthy’s decision. Not that there was much of a decision, the Germans ruled Europe, and they were pressuring Hungary anyway.)

    This is how the ruling party became increasingly dominated by its far right factions, and after 1939 it was basically impossible to reverse. Besides there were some independent far right parties, of which the Arrow Cross was the most popular, but others (like Imrédy’s party formed after his resignation) were also there, and they were included in the government in the spring and summer of 1944. They were still included after October 1944, when the Arrow Cross became the dominant political party. By late November 1944 they started the evacuation of Budapest, which caused chaos, and by Christmas 1944 Budapest was encircled by Soviet troops. There was still a government with some limited ability to influence things until they fled to Austria in late March 1945.

    Sorry for straying off topic.
26. Steve says:

    February 5, 2015 at 3:51 pm GMT •ï¿½100 Words

    The Arrow Cross proved antisemitic enough in power, collaborating heartily in anti-Jewish actions and doing some on its own. I didn’t know Teleki was strongly anti-semitic, it’s usually not mentioned when his suicide is. I don’t think Hungarian participation in Barbarossa was due to pressure, Mussolini was the one pressuring Hitler to allow Italian troops to participate, and in 1941 most thought Germany would win and win quickly, and wanted to be in on the spoils if they were in a position to be.
27. Anonymous •ï¿½Disclaimer says: •ï¿½Website

    June 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm GMT

    Wonderful, what a weblog it is! This webpage provides helpful data to us, keep it up.
28. Anonymous •ï¿½Disclaimer says: •ï¿½Website

    June 9, 2015 at 8:00 am GMT

    Appreciation to mmy fatyer wwho statsd to mee concerning this
    webpage, thus website is in fact amazing.
29. Anonymous •ï¿½Disclaimer says: •ï¿½Website

    July 4, 2015 at 7:39 am GMT

    And that is that for my top three Lord of the Rings filming locations in New Zealand.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS