The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
What if Franz Ferdinand Had Lived?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From Security Studies:

Why 1914 but Not Before? A Comparative Study of the July Crisis and Its Precursors

Jack S. Levy & William Mulligan
Published online: 03 Jun 2021

Abstract
Why did the July 1914 crisis—but not crises in 1905, 1908–9, 1911, and 1912–13—escalate to great-power war despite occurring under similar international and domestic conditions? Explanations based on underlying and slowly changing structural, social, or cultural variables cannot answer this question. Examining three Balkan crises of 1912–13 and the July Crisis, we refine realist explanations based on power, alliances, and reputational interests by incorporating the impact of changing power distributions and alliances in the Balkans on the great-power security system. A more complete answer to the why-1914-but-not-before question, however, requires the incorporation of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, which went beyond a pretext for war. It eliminated the most powerful and effective proponent for peace in Vienna and fundamentally changed the nature of the decision-making process in Austria-Hungary. Counterfactually, we argue that a hypothetical crisis with Franz Ferdinand present would probably have ended differently.

The three most famous assassinations of major political leaders before JFK — Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand — were the result of fairly high level conspiracies. Caesar was stabbed by many leading Roman senators, John Wilkes Booth’s recruited involved numerous young men of fashion and involvement may have gone quite high in the Confederate government, and Serbian military intelligence dispatched the assassins to Sarajevo to murder the Archduke.

The egregiousness of this action by Serb insiders meant that Austro-Hungary couldn’t let it slide, but Russia couldn’t afford to let Austro-Hungary crush Serbia, and Germany felt like if Russia was going to attack Austro-Hungary, they might as well get their eventual confrontation with Russia over and done with now before Russia had fully industrialized, which meant taking Paris first via Belgium, which meant, to Germany’s surprise, Britain’s entry, which ultimately meant the United States’ entry.

Unfortunately, the man who had had the best chance of stopping this slide to catastrophe, Franz Ferdinand, was dead. He was a conservative dynastic centralist who felt that Austro-Hungary’s accommodation of Hungarian aspirations in 1867 was a mistake. His anti-Hungarianism made him sympathetic to the Slavs, and he intended when he came to the throne to conciliate the Slavs. It’s often said that he would have converted the Austro-Hungarian Empire into the Austro-Hungarian-Slavic empire, but perhaps he would have instead made Vienna predominant and given all the nationalities equal local autonomy in a supranational federalism. He’d spoken out against Austro-Hungary going to war against Serbia because he feared that would lead giant Russia to fight his empire.

Somewhat like Kaiser Wilhelm, Franz Ferdinand had a difficult personality, so it’s not inevitable that if he’d succeeded his uncle Franz Joseph as emperor in 1916 that he could have pulled off his plan for the survival of his empire (in particular, demoting Hungary to equal status with the Slavs sounds like a real challenge). But it also seems like he was the guy who had the most plausible plan for maintaining the balance of power in Europe by keeping his empire together. And that’s one reason that the Serb conspirators chose him as their victim.

 
Hide 606 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What if Franz Ferdinand had lived?

    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?

    • Thanks: Hans
    • Replies: @Hans
    @Anon

    Chaim Weizmann's letter to Churchill - http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/WSC_100941.html

    Benjamin Freedman, American patriot, former jew, explains the inside dealing to offer up unlimited Doughboys - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

    And everyone should have gotten Alison Weir's outstanding short book, Against Our Better Judgment - https://againstourbetterjudgment.com/

    , @Hrw-500
    @Anon

    While we're at it, as I mentionned in a
    a older comment then I repost here about what if Jean-François Sipido had killed Edward VII who wasn’t king yet and the Entente Cordiale is aborted. I saw once a long while ago on AlternateHistory.com. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-shot-heard-around-the-world-new-website.10880/
    The link to the story is now broken but fortunately it was saved on the Wayback Machine.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113030/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm

    , @Richard B
    @Anon


    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?
     
    See the first four paragraphs of Chapter 5 of The Controversy of Zion.
  2. • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Achilleus

    The familiar part starts at 0:54

  3. At the time of the German decöaration of war both French and Russian armies were rushing towards the German border.

    They made significant inroads at first but were then thrown out.

    The declaration of war has ever since been used to great effect by perfidious Albion’s prpaganda.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Thanks: Neoconned
    • Troll: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @but an humble craftsman

    Most history I’ve read suggests there’s plenty of blame to go around and Germany isn’t singled out for WWI. Niall Ferguson suggests, as Steve alludes, that England not making its stance clear (it wasn’t sure itself) bares a large portion of blame.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Hapalong Cassidy

    , @SaneClownPosse
    @but an humble craftsman

    King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were close cousins.

    WW1 was a managed affair among the Ruling Families.

    The Families won, everyone else lost.

    Same thing happens every war/financial crisis/pandemic.

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Hugo Silva

    , @Haxo Angmark
    @but an humble craftsman

    actually, la Belle France played the victim by pulling its troops about 5 km. AWAY from the French-German border. No question, though, that France was the ultimate culprit: via its 40-year-long post Franco-Prussian War policies of la revanche and l'encerclement. Which a few honest French contemporaries admit. Cf. Abel Ferry (secretaire d'etat aux Affaires Etrangeres AND frontline soldier, 1914-18), in Carnets Secrets 1914-1918, suivis de lettres et notes de guerre (orig, Paris, 1957; republ. 2005), pp. 50-51:

    "the little French spider spun a web....and the fat German fly buzzed straight into it".

  4. So some Slavs killed the Slav-friendly heir to the Hapsburg throne so that some other Slavic peoples and territories would be transferred from Hapsburg to Slavic control.

    Am I missing something here?

    • Replies: @Gaspar DeLaFunk
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Indeed. Why go to so much trouble for...Slavs? It seems Serbia is bad news. Except for the basketball guy.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    , @Desiderius
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    1,000 odd years of World History. Give or take 50,000.

    No time like the present to get started. A real page turner.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    , @J.Ross
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Communists assassinated the Tsar who ended serfdom. The worst, the better.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

  5. The world of 1946 would not have been significantly different. Eventually, WW1 and WW2 will be combined into what is known as the ‘Second Thirty Years War’.

    The events between 1914 and 1945 might have been somewhat different, but the post-1946 world would not have been.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
    @Thomm

    hmm If Germany had gone to war with Russia in 1905 as Ru lay in turmoil after its defeat by Japan, then Germany would have grabbed the Ukraine, possibly the Crimea. Then France would have had to accept the permanent loss of Alsace Lorraine. Even Churchill would have had to accept German dominance, but might have noticed that the Germans --sated with Ukrainian raw materials --were not seeking to dissolve the Brit Empire, so how much did German dominance matter? Furthermore, Irish Home Rule would have been the law of the land by 1914, and the Southern Irish would likely have remained part of the UK for many decades.

    The Serbs would have had to accept Pax Germainca, and deal with the Viennese government in some other fashion.
    America might have been able to mind its own business....

    , @Skyler the Weird
    @Thomm

    I'd say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @James N. Kennett

    , @jb
    @Thomm

    I think you are wrong. History is chaotic, and I think our present situation is the result of an extremely unfortunate throw of the dice. One of the "events between 1914 and 1945" was Hitler's rise to power. Without Hitler there almost certainly would have been no Holocaust, and without the Holocaust the world today would be quite different. I think almost any alternative history would have worked out better than the one we've got -- at least from the point of view of anyone who cares about Western civilization and peoples!

  6. OT:
    Rumor spreadin’ ’round in that Texas town
    About that shack outside La Grange…

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Trelane

    Watching someone like that, with "drummer's intelligence" makes we wonder how many of them in the past would have been Organists.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Jim Christian
    @Trelane

    Another lousy-drummin chick attempting to copy (but never duplicating) the works of the original artist. She really should start by holding the left stick correctly, instead of her ham-fisted method shown in her lousy excuse for a 'cover', which produces lousy rolls and fills. How these broads are celebrated for this escapes me.

  7. Interesting counterfactual.

    But, OT, minor league baseball team has a Karen Night.

    https://www.milb.com/news/the-show-before-the-show-episode-312-bowling-green-s-karen-night

  8. If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?

    The bitter taste in many German’s mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism’s rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang’s arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie’s started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis—-after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @R.G. Camara

    Commie street gangs were losing battles long before the Nazis. The Freikorps easily put down the Spartacists in 1919.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Dieter Kief
    @R.G. Camara

    Golo Mann, gay son of novelist Thomas Mann, and ell respect (a bit conservative) historian called the Versailles treaty the mother of the following catastrophes (rise of Nazism/ WW II).

    , @PhysicistDave
    @R.G. Camara

    R.G. Camara asked:


    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?
     
    Close to zero, I assume. But then if Germany had not entered the war, it would not have been a World War.

    Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary. I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    The German historian Ernst Nolte argues that the conflicts from 1914 to 1945 constituted the "European Civil War." Unfortunately, his Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus does not seem to ever have been translated into English.

    Perhaps our friend Dieter has read it?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @nebulafox, @R.G. Camara

    , @Jon Halpenny
    @R.G. Camara

    Nazism was partly a reaction against Bolshevism. The early Nazis, including Hitler, were heavily influenced by refugees fleeing Russia from the Bolsheviks. It was these refugees who imparted the ferocious anti- semitism to the Nazis. Until WWI Germans were not considered to be a particularly anti-semitic nationality. Alfred Rosenberg, the "philosopher" of the Nazi party, was such a refugee.

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

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Peter D. Bredon
    @R.G. Camara

    "If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?"

    I'd say the connection is so tight that asking is like asking "If African slaves had never set foot in the USA, what would the state of the Black Panther Party be?"

    OTOH I recall hearing that the real trauma was Wilhelm's unnecessary surrender, and then his cowardly abdication, which need not have happened. I await correction.

  9. Gavrillo’s Precip’s FN 1910

    • Thanks: Kronos
    • Replies: @Tex
    @Joe Stalin

    John Browning is truly the most influential gun designer ever to have lived.

    , @Bill B.
    @Joe Stalin

    This is entertaining on the hours that lead up to the assassination. (Listen for around half an hour because he drifts off afterwards. His book is overrated.)


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hv4HfLQGlw

  10. That there were crisis in 1905, 1909, 1911 and 1913 means that a large scale European war was probably inevitable. What was not inevitable was its outcome – for instance that it would result in the Russian revolution and the Soviet Union or in the dissolution of the German Empire (without them, a Second War World would have been impossible), or that the United States would be pulled into the war (remember that it took three years for the US to enter the war)

  11. “Serbian military intelligence dispatched the assassins to Sarajevo to murder the Archduke.”

    It wasn’t that straightforward. More like the youngsters got the idea to assassinate somebody that day: there had already been other attempts to assassinate Austrian officials in 1914. Serb military intelligence was certainly happy to let them get the weapons in Serbia and assist them with logistics, but I’m not sure if it was their idea.

    That said, the ideology of Greater Serbia was predicated on eventual conflict with Austria, so it might be a moot point anyway. Pre-WWI Serbia honestly reminded me a lot of pre-WWII Imperial Japan, complete with the “doves” sharing the long-term ideology of the hawks, even if they were more flexible on tactics and were scared to death of the hawks assassinating them. Pašić didn’t control Apis, and they both knew it.

    >The egregiousness of this action by Serb insiders meant that Austro-Hungary couldn’t let it slide, but Russia couldn’t afford to let Austro-Hungary crush Serbia, and Germany felt like if Russia was going to attack Austro-Hungary, they might as well get their eventual confrontation with Russia over and done with now before Russia had fully industrialized, which meant taking Paris first via Belgium, which meant, to Germany’s surprise, Britain’s entry, which ultimately meant the United States’ entry.

    The Central Powers didn’t want a continent-wide war in 1914. Among other factors, France’s military bill from 1913, which introduced far wider sweeping conscription measures than anything seen in Germany or Russia, was reaching its peak effect. Long-term, the rate of military spending and conscription it was going to be unsustainable, but in 1914, it meant that Germany’s chances of winning were slim.

    What Germany wanted was for Austria to crush Serbia preemptively without even a declaration of war, before anybody else could intervene. The Austrians couldn’t hack it, and mind-bogglingly declared war a month after the assassination with many of their soldiers *still coming home from leave for the harvest*. Again, multiple reasons (nothing about July-August 1914 in Europe is simple), but one was that the Magyars were leery of anything that could dilute their influence, and wars of aggression with new Slavic subjects being the result might.

    On the Entente side, Russia’s mobilization-which came days before Austria’s declaration of war-relied off railways in Congress Poland that would, by definition, antagonize Germany. Unfortunately, Sazanov thought that Austrian policy was masterminded from Berlin, when the truth was a lot more complicated.

    >Somewhat like Kaiser Wilhelm, Franz Ferdinand had a difficult personality, so it’s not inevitable that if he’d succeeded his grandfather Franz Joseph as emperor in 1916 that he could have pulled off his plan for the survival of his empire (in particular, demoting Hungary to equal status with the Slavs sounds like a real challenge).

    IMO, Franz Ferdinand was a widely disliked curmudgeon in Vienna, but putting him in the same category as Wilhelm or Nicholas is unfair.

    I don’t think there was any innate reason Austria-Hungary had to collapse. The Dual Monarchy had many problems, and it was widely perceived as a declining, sclerotic power because it was. But there was nothing that was perceived as an existential threat to contemporaries before the total social breakdown that was the war. Economic growth and modernization were going ahead (like Tsarist Russia, where there was much greater political instability than anything Austria experienced before the war and the nature of the monarchy was more difficult to reconcile to the modern industrial state): Serbs in Austria-Hungary had higher standards of everything than Serbia did, to take one example.

    >And that’s one reason that the Serb conspirators chose him as their victim.

    There was a widespread perception in Russia that Franz Ferdinand was a war hawk. The opposite was the truth, but like all the powers involved, it wasn’t a cynical conspiracy: they genuinely believed they were the aggrieved party acting in self-defense.

    You’d wonder how things would have turned out differently in July 1914 had the various European capitals had the equivalent of the US-Soviet hotline, or if any of them had been willing to just be semi-honest with each other. Calling WWI an unnecessary tragedy is the understatement of the century.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @nebulafox

    Russia's incessant expansion had been concentrated on the Far East where the aristocratic elite had interests, but Russia got checked by Japan in 1905, and turned back to the Near East. So they backed Serbia.


    https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=the_histories
    Russia and the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand


    St. Petersburg’s military attaches in Belgrade. Both Colonel Victor Artamonov and his deputy Alexander Verkhovsky were committed Pan-Slavists and through their official capacities had links to the leaders of the Black Hand. The Russian military’s officer corps, in contrast to their counterparts in the Foreign Service had always been more sympathetic to the “direct action” tactics preached by the radical Pan-Serbs then the moderate policy of Pasic. In the army’s daily newspaper Novoye Vremya, editorials echoing Pan-Slavic themes and anti- Austrian sentiments were common. Hartvig took note of the military’s feeling towards the radical Pan-Serb elements after a conference with the Naval Minster Vladimir Lebedev. According to Hartivg, Lebedev characterized the Black Hand “ as most popular, unselfish, idealistic and patriotic and whose aims was solely unification and liberation o f the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian peoples.”1

     


    https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674072336

    The Russian Origins of the First World War
    Sean McMeekin
    It was Russian statesmen who unleashed the war through conscious policy decisions based on imperial ambitions in the Near East. Unlike their civilian counterparts in Berlin, who would have preferred to localize the Austro-Serbian conflict, Russian leaders desired a more general war so long as British participation was assured. The war of 1914 was launched at a propitious moment for harnessing the might of Britain and France to neutralize the German threat to Russia’s goal: partitioning the Ottoman Empire to ensure control of the Straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean
     


    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/they-really-did-start-it/
    Can a small country start a big war? We have the example of the First World War, which was caused by Serbia—or rather by advocates of a Greater Serbia who saw the Austro-Hungarian Empire standing in their way. The empire had to be destroyed, and its destruction could come about only through a major global conflict[...]

    Serbia paid dearly for the First World War, but the payback was considerable. When the spoils were divided up in 1918, Serbia more than doubled in land area, becoming comparable in size to the large states of Western Europe. The dream of Greater Serbia had come true.
     

    Japan yesterday, China tomorrow.
  12. The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    I think poor decisions from individuals in every government involved led to the tragedy that was WWI. There's no single smoking gun or cartoon villain in the background. And the funny thing is: you had people all over the place who were trying to cover their domestic asses. From Bethmann's fear of and attempts to manipulate his temperamental monarch to the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers being under pressure from the hawks in both countries (and fatally overcompensating as a result) to the French President being under scrutiny for taking Russian money during his electoral campaign to the potential civil war about to break out in Ireland, I don't think anybody was expecting what was coming that summer. There was no sinister plan.

    Nikola Pašić-Serbia's PM-did not effectively control the security services of his country, which regularly ran operations abroad without any input from the civilians back in Belgrade. It was headed by a guy who helped not just murder the royal couple in a palace coup a decade earlier, but butcher them and throw the body parts down to the street below. (Again: Serbian politics was a lot like pre-WWII Japanese politics, with a lot of fear of being assassinated by army or intel radicals if you weren't perceived as nationalist enough.) It's really a matter of debate whether he could have done anything to prevent the assassination.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @bomag, @Fox

    , @for-the-record
    @AnotherDad

    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Here's their apology:

    https://static.dw.com/image/17743913_303.jpg


    Gavrilo Princip, assassin who sparked WWI, gets statue in Belgrade

    Serbia has unveiled a monument to the man who sparked the chain of events leading to World War I. Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 has a divisive legacy in the Balkans.

    https://www.dw.com/en/gavrilo-princip-assassin-who-sparked-wwi-gets-statue-in-belgrade/a-18546305
     

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Inquiring Mind

    , @Vojkan
    @AnotherDad

    If Austria-Hungary hadn't annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had never been Austrian or Hungarian before, but had been Serbian before the Ottoman occupation, and whose population was still in majority Serbian in 1908, and if Franz-Ferdinand hadn't timed his visit to happen on the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, he wouldn't have been assassinated.

    We owe you Westerners no bloody apology and the more I think of it, the more I believe that you deserve to watch your wives and daughters being banged by blacks and Arabs because you truly are shit. Actually, blacks and Arabs are waaay more human than you are.

  13. • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Dissident

    The Chamber of Commerce Is The Enemy.

    , @AndrewR
    @Dissident

    GOP = Gay old pedos

    , @Corn
    @Dissident

    Republicans are just Democrats on a ten year time delay.

    , @Neoconned
    @Dissident

    Globolgbtqabcdefghijk.....sure has money and reach.....

  14. Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

    Wouldn’t that be interesting?

    The Twilight Zone had a few episodes like that. Here’s one in which a man travels back in time to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This clip is less than 30 seconds.

    Here’s another episode in which we gain a little insight into why the old WASP elite is no longer in power. This clip is less than 3 minutes.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPoymt3Jx4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SvKPACbx_U

    , @Anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123


    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

     

    https://i.imgur.com/aCXL21G.jpg

    Replies: @Skyler the Weird, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Peter D. Bredon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    At 3:50

    "His grandfather sold it all in 1929... some people have no confidence in this country."

    https://youtu.be/moH1Dctkozw

  15. He was as good a man as any in his position and even chose a morganatic marriage, depriving his children of the right to rule to be with a woman he loved.

    The United States of Greater Austria (I like the name “Danubian Federation” more) was the best idea they had given the situation of their empire. It’s a damn shame the most sensible people of the era were dead or being ignored.

  16. @AnotherDad
    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @for-the-record, @Vojkan

    I think poor decisions from individuals in every government involved led to the tragedy that was WWI. There’s no single smoking gun or cartoon villain in the background. And the funny thing is: you had people all over the place who were trying to cover their domestic asses. From Bethmann’s fear of and attempts to manipulate his temperamental monarch to the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers being under pressure from the hawks in both countries (and fatally overcompensating as a result) to the French President being under scrutiny for taking Russian money during his electoral campaign to the potential civil war about to break out in Ireland, I don’t think anybody was expecting what was coming that summer. There was no sinister plan.

    Nikola Pašić-Serbia’s PM-did not effectively control the security services of his country, which regularly ran operations abroad without any input from the civilians back in Belgrade. It was headed by a guy who helped not just murder the royal couple in a palace coup a decade earlier, but butcher them and throw the body parts down to the street below. (Again: Serbian politics was a lot like pre-WWII Japanese politics, with a lot of fear of being assassinated by army or intel radicals if you weren’t perceived as nationalist enough.) It’s really a matter of debate whether he could have done anything to prevent the assassination.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Admiral Jacky Fisher predicted Germany would go to war in the summer of 1914 as this was when the Kiel Canal would be completed. Germany had long term plans in the East and they needed to strike before Russia became too strong.

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @nebulafox, @res

    , @bomag
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for your input here.

    Reminds us that much happens "as a result of human action, not of human design."

    , @Fox
    @nebulafox

    He could have the assassin conspiracy taken out. Arrest or dismiss officers involved with it, dismiss government officials associated with it.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  17. Comedian Spike Milligan had a joke newspaper headline:

    Archduke Ferdinand Found Alive – WW1 A Mistake!

    • LOL: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @TG
    @Lurker

    You beat me to it! :)

  18. What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?

    You mean he was spotted in Bolivia sipping espresso? This is now the Weekly World News.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Bragadocious

    "Has lived" means he was alive at some point, but isn't necessarily still alive.

  19. @Dissident

    The Chamber of Commerce Is The Enemy.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  20. Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    Mediocre leadership across the board. Political and military. (Including generals who hadn’t even absorbed the lessons from the American Civil war a half century before.) But not just in Europe–in the US as well which should have worked tireless to bring it to an end.

    The simple critique is the dynamic great powers getting dragged into war by tired backward eastern empires.

    But i think the core culprit is simply imperialism. There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world’s turf locked up?

    The post-War American system of free trade between independent nations is just far, far superior to empire.

    The only way you can accommodate the ebb and flow of history at least potentially peacefully, is through nationalism–free and independent nations charting their own course.

    Imperialism leads to war. Imperialism is at the root of our tortured 20th century history, which watered the seeds of insanity now destroying the West.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.
     
    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Wade Hampton, @Almost Missouri

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    Harming another is also subtle self-harm. Oppressing others is a subtle self-oppression. Imperialism is sacrificing a part of your soul for worldly power, too. It changes your body politic. It creates new incentives. Is it any wonder, that upon losing their empire, Britain's imperial governing class immediately began importing the imperial peoples to the lands which remained under their domain?

    This doesn't make inwards colonisation right. Nor does it make it deserved. "Right" and "deserved" are empty concepts and products of motivated reasoning. But it does make imperialism something to be avoided.

    , @Hans
    @AnotherDad

    "I realized the extent of Sanhedrin madness when I represented as counsel, one of the defendants in the so-called sedition trial in Washington, D.C., during 1944. I realized that native Americans were being persecuted because they exposed the Protocols and in order to prevent the people from realizing that the nation was being dragged surreptitiously into war." - Henry H. Klein - https://ia802902.us.archive.org/11/items/klein-henry-h.-a-jew-exposes-the-jewish-world-conspiracy/Klein%20Henry%20H.%20-%20A%20jew%20exposes%20the%20jewish%20world%20conspiracy.pdf


    “Certain special features of the period under consideration have been for various reasons entirely neglected. An example of such neglect is the ignoring by historians of the role played by the Rothschild family….Strangely enough the influence of the Rothschild family is barely mentioned….In the course of my researches I foudn that references to the name of Rothschild in official documents and in books of memoirs were as common as they are rare in contemporary textbooks.” – Count Egon Caesar Corti, “The Rise of the House of Rothschild”, 1928

    , @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world’s turf locked up?

    They hadn't and couldn't. Thos. Sowell critiquing Marxist literature on imperialism noted that French trade with Belgium exceeded in volume French trade with its whole portfolio of Tropical African dependencies. See also the imports and exports of British India; the sum of them by value exceeded those of Italy, but only by about 10%. Note also that half of India's exports went to countries outside the sterling area. Trade with the rest of the world was inhibited, not banned.

  21. “What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?”

    I know this much, no big Serb would have one the NBA MVP award.

  22. If not for the assassination of the Archduke, perhaps there would’ve been no WW1. If no WWI, then no WWII. If no WWII, then no Cold War.

    We’d have a multipolar world in which the older social order prevailed. America would be one power among many, not the world’s dominant superpower.

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe. The power would be held not by American puppets, but by the landed aristocracy, military, and clergy.

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Jews would be influential, but they’d have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They’d have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    No Globohomo. Instead, lots of Putins jockeying for power&wealth.

    When you read accounts of what Europe was like in the early 1900s, you come across societies that had had a strong sense of national identity, with Christianity providing the moral justification for whatever the rulers wanted. You also see how dominated Europe was by “old” families, who took pride in their lineage and historical connection to their particular homeland. The rulers were certainly corrupt and Machiavellian, but they felt a kinship with the people who they ruled.

    In the post WWII era, under American domination, European leaders became far more comfortable with secularism and internationalism. Russia was headed this way, before Putin.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123


    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe.
     
    Jews wouldn’t like that.

    Replies: @Hans

    , @IHTG
    @JohnnyWalker123

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. "No globohomo" in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    Replies: @anon, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @JohnnyWalker123

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success. It is doubtful they would have been anything other than mid - level bureaucrats in a world where World War I hadn't happened. Certainly Putin fits the mold of the grasping cunning peasant rising above his station that conservatives like Dostoevsky mocked in pre-WWI Russia.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @JohnnyWalker123

    , @John Johnson
    @JohnnyWalker123

    WW1 would have happened. In fact the Germans probably would have won if they waited a few years and let Russia fall into civil war first.

    The Germans were itching to try out their new toys (especially artillery) and prove that they were masters of both war and peace. In both WW1 and WW2 they had all kinds of plans drawn up to defeat the militaries of their neighbors. What we call modern warfare is mostly derived from German tactics.

    WW1 was not some accident caused by a Bosnian military reject. The German military wanted a war and were thrilled when Germany finally had an excuse to invade their neighbors. The German people supported the war early on even though they were obviously the aggressor. There is a photo somewhere of a young Hitler cheering with the crowd when war was announced.

  23. @JohnnyWalker123
    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

    Wouldn't that be interesting?

    The Twilight Zone had a few episodes like that. Here's one in which a man travels back in time to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This clip is less than 30 seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir_SGlDtci4

    Here's another episode in which we gain a little insight into why the old WASP elite is no longer in power. This clip is less than 3 minutes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuR0xIkxiw

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous, @Peter D. Bredon

  24. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    The big picture would not be much different. Franz Ferdidand shooting was a trigger, not a cause.

    Europe was primed and ready for a shit show to happen early or later. Just about any pretext would do.

  25. If America had simply not entered the war, the peace would have been different. The Entente would have been forced to deal with Germany on more equal terms, which probably would have led to a better outcome, postwar.

    The notion that England was dragged reluctantly into the War is – like so much of the anglo-centric history we’ve imbibed in this country – probably just a self-serving load of crap. They were spoiling for a fight just as much as any continental power. They looked forward to blockading Germany, neutralizing it’s navy, depriving the German Empire of it’s overseas colonies, knocking Germany down a few rungs. All of which happened. England was carrying out the same policy they had since roughly forever – preventing any continental power from dominating the continent.

    America would have done better to just stay the Hell out of the whole thing.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Mr. Anon

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Mr. Anon

    Great Britain also wanted gains in the Middle East at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Italy entered the war after being given promises of territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Likewise Romania, but Romania was overwhelmed quite quickly.

    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was "peace without victory." It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @AnotherDad

    , @Bragadocious
    @Mr. Anon


    The notion that England was dragged reluctantly into the War is – like so much of the anglo-centric history we’ve imbibed in this country – probably just a self-serving load of crap
     
    I may have posted this before but this take is spot on and I have an eyewitness in my family. My great-grandfather was in London in 1916 on business and he was accosted on the street several times by women demanding to know why he wasn't at the front. When he told them he was American they tossed a feather at him, the insult at the time for alleged cowards. These were warmongering psychopaths in the UK and women led the way. The idea of helping these people is beyond laughable.
  26. Nikola Jokic > Gavrilo Princip

  27. Wouldn’t have mattered? Forget Barbara Tuchman’s ‘The Guns of August’ or A.J.P. Taylor’s ‘War by Timetable’? My father in the 1960s in his school staffroom saw the Chemistry teacher walk over to the History teachers and cockily say, “Here’s your reason for the start of World War One in 1914.”

    He’d just read a paper in a Chemistry journal that stated that Imperial Germany was dependent on phosphate for its artillery shell manufacturing. With the prospect of supplies from the German colony of Nauru in the Pacific being cut off by the British and Australians in the event of war, industrial chemists had warned the German General Staff that until a synthetic substitute could be made there was no possibility of a continental war. And that wouldn’t be ready until…1914.

    • Replies: @res
    @Studley

    Interesting. Thanks. I looked for the paper, but could not find it.

    The Haber-Bosch process seems similar, but for nitrates from Chile.
    https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/fritz-haber

    It would be interesting to know more about the interaction between the chemists and the German General Staff.

  28. What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?

    You might run into people now and then with the surname “Hitler” (there had to be others, right?). You know you’ve been really really really bad when your name is retired.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Achilleus


    You might run into people now and then with the surname “Hitler” (there had to be others, right?). You know you’ve been really really really bad when your name is retired.

     

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1C7hYi0yY
    , @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @Achilleus

    Further evidence that Franz Ferdinand (the band) is truly great is this live cover of a song from The Go-Betweens, "Was There Anything I Can Do?"

    Song starts at 0.43.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DruuZM_0PPs

    , @Anon
    @Achilleus

    Apparently, there was once a Hitler, Wisconsin and a Hitler Park in the next town over.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  29. Jaroslav Hasek’s comic novel of the Great War “The Good Soldier Schweik” tells the story of a simple-minded Praguer and his experiences in the army. In the opening chapter, the Archduke having just that day been assassinated, Schweik engages in conversation over beers about the news with a man who unfortunately turns out to be a secret policeman. While Schweik’s prognostications turn out to be inaccurate in the details, he’s right on the big issue. There will be war.

    [MORE]

    “…At Sarajevo.’ Bretschneider resumed. ‘It was the Serbs that did it.’

    ‘You’re wrong there’ replied Schweik. ‘It was the Turks, because of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” And Schweik expounded his views on Austrian foreign policy in the Balkans. In 1912 the Turks lost the war with Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. They wanted Austria to help them, and when this didn’t happen, they shot Ferdinand.

    “…What sort of insulting remarks do people make about His Imperial Majesty when they’re tight? Schweik repeated. ‘All kinds. Get drunk have the Austrian national anthem played and you’ll see what you start saying! You’ll think up such a lot about His Imperial Majesty, that if only half of it were true it would be enough to disgrace him all his life. But the old gentleman really doesn’t deserve it. Just think! His son Rudolph — lost in tender years, in full flower of his manhood. His wife Elizabeth — stabbed with a file. And then Jan Orth — also lost. His brother, the Emperor of Mexico — put up against a wall and shot in a fortress somewhere. And now again in his old age they’ve shot his uncle. A chap needs iron nerves for that….”

    Schweik took a deep draught of beer and continued:

    ‘Do you really think His Imperial Majesty is going to put up with this sort of thing? If so you don’t know him at all. There’ll have to be war with the Turks. “You killed my uncle so I’ll bash your jaw.” War is a certainty. Serbia and Russia will help us in it. There won’t half be a blood bath.”

    Schweik looked beautiful in this prophetic moment. His simple face smiling like a full moon, beamed with enthusiasm. Everything was so clear to him.

    ‘It may be,’ he said, continuing his account of Austria’s future ‘that if we have war with the Turks the Germans’ll attack us, because the Germans and the Turks stick together. You can’t find bigger bastards anywhere. But we can ally ourselves with France which has had a down on Germany since 1871. And then the balloon’ll go up. There’ll be war. I won’t say more….”

    [And then Schweik is arrested for high treason for these remarks.]

    “…And thus it was that the good soldier Schweik intervened in the great war in his own sweet, charming way. It will interest historians that he saw far into the future. If the situation subsequently developed otherwise than he had expounded it at The Chalice we must bear in mind that he had never had any preparatory training in diplomacy…”

    • Replies: @keypusher
    @Wade Hampton

    Schweik's analysis is better than that of many of the posts I'm reading.

    Steve S. no doubt is aware that the chance to refight WWI is catnip to many of his commentators, but the real jizzfest began when someone brought up the Civil War.

  30. It’s surprising to realize that Star Trek was closer in years to WWI than we right now are in years to Star Trek. Pick any cultural artifact from the 60s and that’s true.

    As a kid I loved those documentaries about WWI and WWII. But 1916 seemed like ancient history — those grainy jerky newsreels, the ridiculous looking little tanks, biplanes that seemed made of papier mache — while WWII seemed like a totally different world, the start of our modern world even though it was just 25 years later. Twenty-five years from right now takes us back only to Clinton and Monica, not so long a stretch, right?

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Known Fact

    Time is under arrest.

    Remember when each decade had it's own distinctive look, sound, feel? Gay 90s Roaring 20s Depression 30s, War 40s, HotRod DA 50s, freak 60s, disco 70s, uh, 80s something, uh, 90s, something, maybe shorts and backwards baseball hats, but what on earth distinguishes the oughts from the teens? Nought.

    Also, invention has died. There is still innovation, oh, yes. The new Taco Bell taco every 6 months, goddam useless pointless updates on everything, "[Name your engine, provider, OS, etc.] will no longer support . . ." computerized pencils, new cellphone holder designs, refinements in heart procedures, streaming, I could go on.

    Compare that to the first half of the 20th century: electrification, cars, planes, refrigerators, penicillin, radio, TV, radar, atomic power, I could go on.

    People think time proceeds apace. It don't. Entropy reign.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  31. @but an humble craftsman
    At the time of the German decöaration of war both French and Russian armies were rushing towards the German border.

    They made significant inroads at first but were then thrown out.

    The declaration of war has ever since been used to great effect by perfidious Albion's prpaganda.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @SaneClownPosse, @Haxo Angmark

    Most history I’ve read suggests there’s plenty of blame to go around and Germany isn’t singled out for WWI. Niall Ferguson suggests, as Steve alludes, that England not making its stance clear (it wasn’t sure itself) bares a large portion of blame.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Hhsiii

    They unexpectedly demurred when the Confederacy invited their participation in the American Civil War so the Germans can be forgiven for expecting them to do likewise regarding the European.

    One wonders how large a role Churchill had in the change.

    Replies: @Fox, @Houston 1992

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Hhsiii

    I’ve read Ferguson’s book “The Pity of War” in which he makes a good case for why Britain should never have fought WW1. I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2. As the world’s richest nation and leading industrial and financial power, they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by fighting in WW1.

    Replies: @prosa123, @Yngvar

  32. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

    Wouldn't that be interesting?

    The Twilight Zone had a few episodes like that. Here's one in which a man travels back in time to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This clip is less than 30 seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir_SGlDtci4

    Here's another episode in which we gain a little insight into why the old WASP elite is no longer in power. This clip is less than 3 minutes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuR0xIkxiw

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous, @Peter D. Bredon

    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Skyler the Weird
    @Anonymous

    That's a violation of IATT Bulletin 1147


    https://www.tor.com/2011/08/31/wikihistory/

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous

    If time travel is in our future, why haven't we seen it in the past?

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Triteleia Laxa

  33. In 1920, The Times of London conducted a contest to come up with the most dramatic newspaper headline conceivable. The winning entry was “Archduke Franz Ferdinand Alive, World War Fought by Mistake.” (doing this from memory; I think I have it right)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @SafeNow


    In 1920, The Times of London conducted a contest to come up with the most dramatic newspaper headline conceivable. The winning entry was “Archduke Franz Ferdinand Alive, World War Fought by Mistake.” (doing this from memory; I think I have it right)
     
    The rest of the Internet attributes this to Spike Milligan.

    The late Spike Milligan once said that when he died, he hoped to be laid to rest in a washing machine, for no other reason than to confuse the archaeologists of the future.

    https://www.scotsman.com/regions/aberdeen-and-north-east/stone-circle-isnt-ancient-it-justified-martyn-mclaughlin-1422421
     
  34. anonymous[674] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from "demographics". But so much of what's gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    Mediocre leadership across the board. Political and military. (Including generals who hadn't even absorbed the lessons from the American Civil war a half century before.) But not just in Europe--in the US as well which should have worked tireless to bring it to an end.

    The simple critique is the dynamic great powers getting dragged into war by tired backward eastern empires.

    But i think the core culprit is simply imperialism. There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world's turf locked up?

    The post-War American system of free trade between independent nations is just far, far superior to empire.

    The only way you can accommodate the ebb and flow of history at least potentially peacefully, is through nationalism--free and independent nations charting their own course.

    Imperialism leads to war. Imperialism is at the root of our tortured 20th century history, which watered the seeds of insanity now destroying the West.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Hans, @Art Deco

    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    • Agree: Wade Hampton
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @anonymous


    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    I don't think this has much to do with the arc to 1914. Though obviously ... change history get a different arc.

    Furthermore, i'm not even sure the CSA would still have existed even with no war. Slavery was an impractical, dying institution--unsuited to on-rushing industrial technology. Quite possible the CSA would have lumbered on for a few decades then states individually or as whole would have decided to ditch slavery and rejoin the union.

    I'm sympathetic to the arguments about the abusiveness of the "War of Northern Aggression". We'd have been better off without it. It set the stage for federal tyranny, that bedevils us today.

    However, Lincoln wasn't the only guy screwing up. The whole thing was stupid. The Confederate ruling class a bunch of clueless greedy dunces who didn't see which way the world was heading. And the South Carolina hotheads firing on Fort Sumter--almost textbook in how not to secede from more larger, more powerful political entity.

    As in 1914--not much quality leadership on display.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    , @Wade Hampton
    @anonymous

    Old Honest Abe and the Yankees were progressives. The South was a agricultural colony which was a tremendous source of tax revenue for the Yankees. There is no way the progressive Yankees were ever going to willingly let their exploited colonials go. Neither then nor now.

    Replies: @Gamecock

    , @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous


    Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. The Union had twice the (white) population of the Confederacy and many multiples more industrial power. The North was also growing and expanding much faster. By the time the continent was finally settled from sea to sea around the end of the century, the North would have been nearly as prosperous and powerful as the current timeline USA was. And as a bonus, it would not have been so vulnerable to the legacy of the Great Migration as the current timeline USA was and is. By the turn of the millennium, a Unionist-descended USA would be nearly all white, free of a dusky, hostile and parasitical underclass, and without the deadweight of affirmative action or the toxic infection of pandering identity politics. In short, a present day Unionist-descended USA would be far more prosperous, unified and powerful than the current timeline USA is.

    For its part, the planter-dominated Confederacy may have made some headway as a Caribbean-oriented slave empire, making commercial and political inroads along the Latin American coasts, but ultimately, as the cotton bubble burst and and technological progress rendered slave labor obsolete, the Confederacy would have found itself economically moribund, heir to a sclerotic multiethnic empire: a sort of Greater Cuba. And unlike the actual post-Reconstruction southern states, it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration, and so would have instituted practical and permanent means of coexistence.

    In short, getting hundreds of thousands of young Americans killed to "enforce" a mandatory union law that didn't exist was the most tremendous unforced error in US history.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Ralph L, @Alden

  35. anonymous[674] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    If not for the assassination of the Archduke, perhaps there would've been no WW1. If no WWI, then no WWII. If no WWII, then no Cold War.

    We'd have a multipolar world in which the older social order prevailed. America would be one power among many, not the world's dominant superpower.

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe. The power would be held not by American puppets, but by the landed aristocracy, military, and clergy.

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Jews would be influential, but they'd have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They'd have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    No Globohomo. Instead, lots of Putins jockeying for power&wealth.

    When you read accounts of what Europe was like in the early 1900s, you come across societies that had had a strong sense of national identity, with Christianity providing the moral justification for whatever the rulers wanted. You also see how dominated Europe was by "old" families, who took pride in their lineage and historical connection to their particular homeland. The rulers were certainly corrupt and Machiavellian, but they felt a kinship with the people who they ruled.

    In the post WWII era, under American domination, European leaders became far more comfortable with secularism and internationalism. Russia was headed this way, before Putin.

    Replies: @anonymous, @IHTG, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe.

    Jews wouldn’t like that.

    • Replies: @Hans
    @anonymous

    Yes, but


    Jews would be influential, but they’d have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They’d have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.
     
    would be intolerable. After all, as the great rabbi Ovadiah Yosef explained in 2010, "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world - only to serve the People of Israel,. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created."

    Replies: @FPD72

  36. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnn………….

    • Troll: AKAHorace
  37. @R.G. Camara
    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what's the likelihood of the Third Reich's rise?

    The bitter taste in many German's mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism's rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang's arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie's started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis----after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave, @Jon Halpenny, @Peter D. Bredon

    Commie street gangs were losing battles long before the Nazis. The Freikorps easily put down the Spartacists in 1919.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Hhsiii

    Commie street gangs were losing battles long before the Nazis. The Freikorps easily put down the Spartacists in 1919.

    Which is why the Communists wanted to take over the central government and use the military to eliminate the opposition.

    But the Nazis beat them to it.

    What many don't realize is that the German Communists were openly pro-Soviet. They didn't think Germany should exist as a state. That was before the major failures of Communism so there were plenty of revolutionaries willing to sacrifice themselves for Soviet rule. In their minds eliminating Germany would lead to utopia. They even expected the language to be destroyed.

    Germany was viewed as the greatest threat to Communism. The Soviets correctly believed that France would fall with Germany and then Britain and America would be isolated. So flipping Germany was goal number one.

    But the Germans pulled a trick play with national socialism which Hitler ruined by going on the warpath.

  38. By all rights Franz Ferdinand shouldn’t have been the heir to the Austrian Empire. Emperor Franz Joseph’s son, Crown Prince Rudolf, was supposed to be his successor, but he died in 1889 at age 30 in a suicide pact – though exactly what happened is still a mystery – with his 17-year-old girlfriend, in what’s known as the Mayerling Incident.
    As Franz Joseph had no other sons, and his daughters weren’t eligible, after Rudolf’s death his brother Karl Ludwig became his successor. When Karl Ludwig died of typhoid fever in 1896 his son Franz Ferdinand became heir to the throne.

    Speaking of Franz Joseph, Rudolf’s mysterious death at Mayerling and Franz Ferdinand’s assassination were not the only tragedies he experienced. In 1898 his wife Empress Elisabeth, beloved by the Austrian people who called her Sisi, and one of the pioneers of women’s fitness, was assassinated by an Italian anarchist while visiting Geneva. The assassin was sentenced to life in prison, but hung himself in his cell some years later.

    Franz Joseph lived two more years after Franz Ferdinand’s assassination. When he died in 1916, his grand-nephew Charles succeded him as Emperor, but within two years the war was over and the Austrian Empire was kaput. Fun fact: Charles’ young wife Zita lived until 1989.

    Franz Joseph trivia: he was born in Vienna’s Schoenbrunn Palace in 1830, lived there his entire life, and died there in 1916.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @prosa123

    Wife stabbed by an anarchist, only son dead by his own hand, one brother executed in a Mexican prison, another dead of typhus.

    Franz Josef did not have a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Diversity Heretic, @Hapalong Cassidy

    , @for-the-record
    @prosa123

    Fun fact: Charles’ young wife Zita lived until 1989.

    Other fun facts: Charles is on his way to possible sainthood, having been beatified. "Blessed Charles" Feast Day is 21 October, the date of his marriage to Zita.

    https://www.emperorcharles.org/
    https://catholicsaints.info/blessed-charles-of-austria/

    Charles was exiled to the island of Madeira, where he died in 1922 apparently from an "after shock" of the Spanish flu which had lingered on the island. He is still buried there.

  39. @prosa123
    By all rights Franz Ferdinand shouldn't have been the heir to the Austrian Empire. Emperor Franz Joseph's son, Crown Prince Rudolf, was supposed to be his successor, but he died in 1889 at age 30 in a suicide pact - though exactly what happened is still a mystery - with his 17-year-old girlfriend, in what's known as the Mayerling Incident.
    As Franz Joseph had no other sons, and his daughters weren't eligible, after Rudolf's death his brother Karl Ludwig became his successor. When Karl Ludwig died of typhoid fever in 1896 his son Franz Ferdinand became heir to the throne.

    Speaking of Franz Joseph, Rudolf's mysterious death at Mayerling and Franz Ferdinand's assassination were not the only tragedies he experienced. In 1898 his wife Empress Elisabeth, beloved by the Austrian people who called her Sisi, and one of the pioneers of women's fitness, was assassinated by an Italian anarchist while visiting Geneva. The assassin was sentenced to life in prison, but hung himself in his cell some years later.

    Franz Joseph lived two more years after Franz Ferdinand's assassination. When he died in 1916, his grand-nephew Charles succeded him as Emperor, but within two years the war was over and the Austrian Empire was kaput. Fun fact: Charles' young wife Zita lived until 1989.

    Franz Joseph trivia: he was born in Vienna's Schoenbrunn Palace in 1830, lived there his entire life, and died there in 1916.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @for-the-record

    Wife stabbed by an anarchist, only son dead by his own hand, one brother executed in a Mexican prison, another dead of typhus.

    Franz Josef did not have a happy personal life.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @nebulafox

    PS:

    In a strange but touching display of the kind of bourgeois fastidiousness in an imperial context he epitomized all his life, he arranged for the remaining members of the dynasty to be financially taken care of in his will. From his own personal finances: not the government's. This speaks volumes about his assessment of the Dual Monarchy's prospects of surviving the war.

    To be sure, some of the things that he did in power-most notably the Ausgleich-were integral to the empire's problems, and Europe would have had a much better chance of avoiding war if Franz Ferdinand had come to power seven years earlier or something. But it's really hard to avoid feeling sorry for the old man in the end. He was a latter day Heraclius: what classical Greco-Roman antiquity was to the latter, Old Mitteleuropa was to the former. Truly strove against and overcame failures that would have put an end to most empires-for over 60 years, with an attachment to the state, church, and army befitting an old NCO or Catholic monk than a monarch-only for not just the nation but the *world* that he strove to protect all his life to implode on his deathbed. Don't forget, Franz Josef came to power as a teenager in 1848, when his empire was on the verge of being gutted from the inside out.

    Can't imagine how that would feel: you suspect that they wanted to go before being forced to see the final end.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @nebulafox

    His marriage to the Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria (nicknamed Sissi) was similarly not happy. It started out as a kind of fairy-tale marriage, but Sissi disliked Vienna court life. (In fairness the Vienna court of the 19th century makes the House of Windsor look like a hippie commune.) Sissi started absenting herself from the court and ended up having various affairs. She appears to have been anorexic and, although movie-star beautiful, refused to age gracefully and avoided photographers. Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination. There were three movies made about Sissi, all starring the stunning Romi Schneider, but the actors never age.

    You're right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Achilleus, @HA

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @nebulafox

    And the only reason he was next in line to the throne was that his cousin had blown his brains out. Ferdinand’s uncle the Emperor, who never got over the death of his son, always had a very strained relationship with him.

  40. In 2121 they might be asking, What if George Floyd had lived?

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • LOL: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
    @Known Fact

    If George had lived, they would've found another case to propagandize in order to add a vital chapter to the narrative and put into motion their preexisting plans.

  41. What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?

    The things that make stuff happen would not have changed. European turmoil could have happened ten or twenty years later, but the industrial age was not going to be stopped by trench warfare. I think the biggest change would have been slower development of the atomic bomb.

  42. John Wilkes Booth didn’t do a particularly good job at recruiting. He entrusted George Atzerodt with assassinating vice president Andrew Johnson, which should have been a simple task as Johnson was staying unguarded at a local hotel. Assassinating Johnson would have caused a major crisis as at the time there was no provision for succession beyond vice president. Fortunately, Atzerodt was a hopeless drunk, and rather than assassinate Johnson he lost his nerve and got drunk instead.

    • Replies: @Scott in PA
    @prosa123

    Since 1792 there has been a presidential succession law that did provide for a "next in line" person to assume the office of president, in the event both president and VP were vacated. At the time of Lincoln/Johnson, the next person was the Senate President pro Tempore, or Connecticut Sen. Lafayette Foster.

  43. I blame the English overall for the disaster know as the Great War. England was not treaty bound to fight. Churchill, one of the 20th century’s chief villians, urged the King who hated the Kaiser, his first cousin, to war.

    England also refused any peace in 1916, when the only result would have been some minor territory concessions by Serbia, Russia, and France, plus some too expensive to maintain colonies.

    No Soviet Union, no Hitler, no Weimar Republic, etc.

    Second to this I blame the idiot in the White House……

    There was plenty of other blame to go around, but those were significant.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • LOL: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Gaius Gracchus

    Germany's insistence on unrestrained naval warfare in the Atlantic annoyed the American's enough to bring them into the war - stopping them playing a mediating role and ending a silly war.

    Also it is forgotten that a part of the French elite wanted war to punish Germany for their defeat in the late 19th Century. WW1 was WW2 as far as the French were concerned.

    Churchill was not that important at that time (and could have been ignored): Lloyd George was ultimately culpable.

    , @Not Raul
    @Gaius Gracchus


    I blame the English overall for the disaster know as the Great War. England was not treaty bound to fight.
     
    Actually, the UK was treaty bound to fight once Belgium was invaded.

    The German elite deserve most of the blame. They encouraged Austria to turn down any deal with Serbia; because Germany wanted war; and then they attacked neutral Belgium.

    The German elite also supported Lenin, and the Three Pashas.
    , @anonymouseperson
    @Gaius Gracchus

    Well said.

  44. @nebulafox
    @prosa123

    Wife stabbed by an anarchist, only son dead by his own hand, one brother executed in a Mexican prison, another dead of typhus.

    Franz Josef did not have a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Diversity Heretic, @Hapalong Cassidy

    PS:

    In a strange but touching display of the kind of bourgeois fastidiousness in an imperial context he epitomized all his life, he arranged for the remaining members of the dynasty to be financially taken care of in his will. From his own personal finances: not the government’s. This speaks volumes about his assessment of the Dual Monarchy’s prospects of surviving the war.

    To be sure, some of the things that he did in power-most notably the Ausgleich-were integral to the empire’s problems, and Europe would have had a much better chance of avoiding war if Franz Ferdinand had come to power seven years earlier or something. But it’s really hard to avoid feeling sorry for the old man in the end. He was a latter day Heraclius: what classical Greco-Roman antiquity was to the latter, Old Mitteleuropa was to the former. Truly strove against and overcame failures that would have put an end to most empires-for over 60 years, with an attachment to the state, church, and army befitting an old NCO or Catholic monk than a monarch-only for not just the nation but the *world* that he strove to protect all his life to implode on his deathbed. Don’t forget, Franz Josef came to power as a teenager in 1848, when his empire was on the verge of being gutted from the inside out.

    Can’t imagine how that would feel: you suspect that they wanted to go before being forced to see the final end.

    • Agree: Boomthorkell
  45. @Trelane
    OT:
    Rumor spreadin' 'round in that Texas town
    About that shack outside La Grange...

    https://youtu.be/X9zS-3OdODM?list=RDMGemtjVtfZM

    Replies: @theMann, @Jim Christian

    Watching someone like that, with “drummer’s intelligence” makes we wonder how many of them in the past would have been Organists.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @theMann

    I as a teenager dated an organist who was a lot like her (facial expression, body tension...the legs even). - I seem to gradually slip into the past altogether. Sigh. - Great video btw. (her bare feet!), great song too.

  46. @Hhsiii
    @but an humble craftsman

    Most history I’ve read suggests there’s plenty of blame to go around and Germany isn’t singled out for WWI. Niall Ferguson suggests, as Steve alludes, that England not making its stance clear (it wasn’t sure itself) bares a large portion of blame.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Hapalong Cassidy

    They unexpectedly demurred when the Confederacy invited their participation in the American Civil War so the Germans can be forgiven for expecting them to do likewise regarding the European.

    One wonders how large a role Churchill had in the change.

    • Replies: @Fox
    @Desiderius

    Churchill was at the time the First Lord of the Admiralty and decided on his own not to disperse the combined English fleet that had held sea exercises, but kept the battle-ready fleet at the port of Spithead (this was on July 24th, made public on July 27, 1914). This was like pouring oil in the fire of rapidly escalating war fever and tension. He informed Asquith (Prime Minister) who made no objection, the Cabinet was kept in the dark until it was made public.
    Yes, the nasty little hedonistic man who took pleasure in war, had his hand in setting the war dogs free in 1914 also.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    , @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

  47. Fleetwood Lindlay was the last person to gaze upon Abraham Lincoln’s face. He died in 1963 at the age of 75.

    Because of concerns that thieves would try to steal Lincoln’s coffin, in 1901 a group of prominent citizens of Springfield, Illinois known as the Lincoln Guard of Honor decided to rebury the coffin at the bottom of a concrete-filled pit in Oak Ridge Cemetery. Just before workmen lowered the coffin into the pit and poured many tons of concrete over it, the Guard of Honor members decided to open the lid for one last look. Twelve-year-old Fleetwood, whose father was a Guard of Honor member and had brought him to the ceremony, got the last peek before the workers shut the coffin lid forever.

    In the words of another Guard of Honor member, “The face of Lincoln was now alabaster white [probably from mold]. The features looked exceedingly white to me … Not a natural white but immaculate as a shirt bosom. Anyone who had seen a good picture of Lincoln could identify him. The headrest has disintegrated, allowing the head to fall back, and thrusting the chin forward, drawing first attention to the familiar whiskers. Though the eyebrows had vanished, there could be no mistaking the mole on the cheek and the thick black hair.”

    • Replies: @Tex
    @prosa123

    IIRC, someone DID try to steal Lincoln's coffin c. 1870. A group of Chicago-based counterfeiters wanted to spring a pal from jail. They came up with a scheme to dig up Lincoln's body and hold it for ransom, part of the deal being the release of their buddy in jail.

    The plot went awry and the Secret Service got wind of it. When the gang made their play, the SS were on hand to catch them red-handed as it were.

    Ghoul gangs and body snatchers were a thing in those days. Benjamin Harrison's father's remains were found hanging in a chimney in an Ohio university awaiting dissection by med students. Ghoul gangs in New York made some notable snatches of late moneyed persons and then demanded big ransoms. Herbert Asbury relates a few such incidents of Gilded Age body snatching.

  48. @Bragadocious

    What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?

     

    You mean he was spotted in Bolivia sipping espresso? This is now the Weekly World News.

    Replies: @International Jew

    “Has lived” means he was alive at some point, but isn’t necessarily still alive.

  49. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    So some Slavs killed the Slav-friendly heir to the Hapsburg throne so that some other Slavic peoples and territories would be transferred from Hapsburg to Slavic control.

    Am I missing something here?

    Replies: @Gaspar DeLaFunk, @Desiderius, @J.Ross

    Indeed. Why go to so much trouble for…Slavs? It seems Serbia is bad news. Except for the basketball guy.

    • LOL: Hangnail Hans
    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Gaspar DeLaFunk

    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Flip

  50. Anon[820] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s notable that the Austrian-Hungarian fell apart the minute the Imperial boot was off the neck of the various ethnic groups. Its demise was inevitable at some point, and it may have been a bloody one accompanied by wars. But there was no reason for Western Europe to get dragged into the mess, except for the pigheadedness of Kaiser Wilhelm.

    As for Franz Ferdinand, the book Hitler and the Hapsburgs hints lightly at the idea that Emperor Franz Joseph, not being fond of either his nephew’s marriage or his politics, may have set his nephew up for assassination. The risks of taking that exposed ride in the fatal car were well known, but the Emperor insisted that his nephew do it. One of the Hapsburg relatives always believed the Emperor was guilty of Ferdinand’s death. Franz Joseph comes across like a very cold snake.

    • Replies: @Magyar
    @Anon


    It’s notable that the Austrian-Hungarian fell apart the minute the Imperial boot was off the neck of the various ethnic groups. Its demise was inevitable at some point, and it may have been a bloody one accompanied by wars.
     
    This is exactly right. Once the Hungarians got a fair amount of wiggle room in 1867, every other ethnicity (Slovenes, Croats, Serbians, Romanians, Slovaks, Ukranians, Czechs, Italians etc etc) asked quite rightly: why not us too?

    The Hungarians, of course, made sure to deny their rightful emancipation to the aforementioned (HAJRA MAGYAROK!) --- in other words, it was the Austro-Hungarian DUAL Monarchy -- not the Austro-Hungarian-Serbian-Croatian-Slovene Monarchies......

    Of course, this inflamed tensions between Hungary and everyone else -- and this is exactly what Franz Ferdninand objected to

    A good book on what it was like in Vienna before WWI is Haumann's "Hitler's Vienna".
  51. Anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:

    The “I can haz Franz” headline was, is, and shall be a keeper. RIP Ned Beatty, they won’t make NEDS like that any more

  52. Fox says:
    @Desiderius
    @Hhsiii

    They unexpectedly demurred when the Confederacy invited their participation in the American Civil War so the Germans can be forgiven for expecting them to do likewise regarding the European.

    One wonders how large a role Churchill had in the change.

    Replies: @Fox, @Houston 1992

    Churchill was at the time the First Lord of the Admiralty and decided on his own not to disperse the combined English fleet that had held sea exercises, but kept the battle-ready fleet at the port of Spithead (this was on July 24th, made public on July 27, 1914). This was like pouring oil in the fire of rapidly escalating war fever and tension. He informed Asquith (Prime Minister) who made no objection, the Cabinet was kept in the dark until it was made public.
    Yes, the nasty little hedonistic man who took pleasure in war, had his hand in setting the war dogs free in 1914 also.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Fox

    And then Britain got stuck and needed an American bailout, which came at tremendous cost to the empire - twice!, with the same man at the helm both times. Would it be crazy to suggest that the half-American Winston Churchill had American sympathies?

  53. Let´s see …
    Little Britain had to put down Germany, for trade reasons; Russia had to put down Austria-Hungary for Panslawist reasons in the course of the Stolypin reaction after the 1905 revolution; la France wanted revanche for 1871; Italy, who had for 200 years not ended a war on the same side they started it unless they switched sides twice, wanted South Tyrol and the entire Adria (“mare nostrum”; good luck with that, as WWII showed); Turkey wanted to be left alone but sat on the oil. Combined with secret alliances, the 30years´war was inevitable more or less as happened and the occasion was as good as any other.
    It might have been postponed this time had Serbia been quashed in under one week;
    unfortunately a certain Col. Redl, homosexual ex-chief of Austrian military intel, had sold the elaborate plans for that exact case to the Russians.

    In the bigger picture methinks the foundational mistake of the Central Powers was putting down the 1848 revolution; an early integrated democratic Großdeutschland controlling some kind of Danube Federation would have avoided all but the clash with Britain.

    (Monday Morning Quarterback signing off 😀 )

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  54. I think much of this discussion overlooks France’s role in egging on both Russia and Serbia and encouraging the development of their military potential. France was the one great power that saw war as essential to its goals — and the one power that worked determinedly to bring that war about.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Colin Wright

    Annexing Alsace and Lorraine was initially opposed by Bismarck as he thought it would create would engender permanent French enmity toward Germany. Karl Marx also warned his fellow Germans: "If Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction with Russia. It is unnecessary to go into the unholy consequences."

    France had good reasons to seek revenge for the Franco Prussian War, nevertheless it was still the Germans and Austro-Hungarians who declared war and who rightly take the blame.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @JMcG

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Colin Wright

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Colin Wright

  55. Does anyone here know how to attach photos? I’d like to upload one of the proposed USGA.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Boomthorkell

    Upload the photo to a image site (e.g., imgur), then click on the link they give you until you get to something ending ".jpg", ".png" or whatever type of file the image is (in other words, get the link so that it is directly to the image file, not just to an html page that has the image in it), then post that "-.jpg", "-.png" or whatever link.

    Alternatively, if the image is already online somewhere, you can usually find the direct file-link within that page, and just post that, so you don't need to download and re-upload it, unless you don't expect the source site to have much half-life.

    Replies: @Dissident

  56. @Thomm
    The world of 1946 would not have been significantly different. Eventually, WW1 and WW2 will be combined into what is known as the 'Second Thirty Years War'.

    The events between 1914 and 1945 might have been somewhat different, but the post-1946 world would not have been.

    Replies: @Houston 1992, @Skyler the Weird, @jb

    hmm If Germany had gone to war with Russia in 1905 as Ru lay in turmoil after its defeat by Japan, then Germany would have grabbed the Ukraine, possibly the Crimea. Then France would have had to accept the permanent loss of Alsace Lorraine. Even Churchill would have had to accept German dominance, but might have noticed that the Germans –sated with Ukrainian raw materials –were not seeking to dissolve the Brit Empire, so how much did German dominance matter? Furthermore, Irish Home Rule would have been the law of the land by 1914, and the Southern Irish would likely have remained part of the UK for many decades.

    The Serbs would have had to accept Pax Germainca, and deal with the Viennese government in some other fashion.
    America might have been able to mind its own business….

  57. Allow me to recommend “Thunder at Twilight,” by Frederic Morton, which chronicles the events of 1914/1914 leading up to the assassination.

    In it Franz Ferdinand comes across as too headstrong, brash and rough around the edges for the ancient Kaiser, his uncle Franz Joseph II, but a visionary trying to keep the empire to which he is heir from crashing on the rocks of nationalism. And reading it one is filled with a sense of dread knowing Princip, the Serb patriot, is going to kill the one man who has held back the war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which so many on the Imperial general staff had been pushing for.

  58. @Desiderius
    @Hhsiii

    They unexpectedly demurred when the Confederacy invited their participation in the American Civil War so the Germans can be forgiven for expecting them to do likewise regarding the European.

    One wonders how large a role Churchill had in the change.

    Replies: @Fox, @Houston 1992

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Houston 1992

    One of history's biggest mysteries

    Possibly they were worried about the Yanks stirring up trouble in Ireland, or France.

    Speaking of Ireland: I wonder whether British entry into the first world war was motivated by a desire to kick the Irish can down the road. Large chunks of the British army's Irish regiments had mutinied in 1914 and were plotting armed resistance to home rule, but they all came back once war with Germany was on the table. You might argue that British politicians would have to be quite stupid and feckless to have done such a thing; I would argue that's why it's so plausible.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @TomSchmidt

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Houston 1992


    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?
     
    London was the world capital of abolitionism. It wouldn't have played well at home.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Houston 1992


    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?
     
    -- It would hardly have been easy or cheap. (At the beginning of the war, the UK--inc. Ireland--and US populations were similar (30m). British industry was more developed, but the US had a better resource base and would be fighting in it's own waters.) They could break the blockade ... at the cost of losing a lot of ship and men and having a war they did not want.

    -- The Brits, while happy to see the US balkanize, didn't want to be associated with a slave state. No one did.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @LondonBob

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Houston 1992


    UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply
     
    It's not so mysterious when you consider that whereas cotton was a luxury good—a luxury good of which Britain already had a backlog and which (as Steve has pointed out) was anyway in an economic bubble state—Britain, despite being a world-spanning empire, could not feed itself, and so relied on massive American grain imports. And those imports came primarily from the Northern States.

    Ignoring Southern pleas for intervention meant higher cotton prices (good for the mercantile classes), more demand for Egyptian and Indian cotton (good for the colonial classes) and less military spending (good for the taxpaying classes). Attacking the North meant mass starvation (plus the opposites of all of the foregoing). It was a "no-brainer", really.

    There were other ancillary reasons. Reg mentions abolitionist sentiment in the UK, but the Emancipation Proclamation didn't retcon abolition into a casus belli until halfway through the war. The UK government was more hardheaded than the frothy abolitionists of New England and Manchester, and didn't consider abolitionism very important. They did consider important that the South was essentially trying to blackmail them into intervening on the South's behalf, which they naturally didn't appreciate. Also, they were making a lot of money selling war matériel to the North in exchange for all that grain they had to import. They also considered important some abstruse legalisms concerning the definition of a "belligerent" and the consequent legitimacy of the blockade, which they felt would impinge on their own future ability to impose naval blockades. But all of this took a back seat to simply not biting the hand that fed them.

    King Cotton was a piker compared to King Corn. This is largely forgotten today.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Tex

    , @MarkinPNW
    @Houston 1992

    Russia is the missing ingredient; having just lost a major skirmish of the Great Game with Great Britain in the Crimean War, they were anxious to check Britain in any way they could. The American War Between the States offered an opportunity, as it appeared and probably was seen by Britain as an opportunity to shatter the US as an upcoming rival, so the Czar offered his Navy to the North to help support and enforce their blockade of the South. The Russian Baltic/Atlantic fleet would winter in New York, the Russian Pacific fleet in San Francisco, thus providing another disincentive for Britain to get directly involved and risking another war with Russia, along with the other disincentives mentioned (i.e. slavery, etc.).

    , @Regret
    @Houston 1992

    The US navy at the time was a force to be reckoned with. The royal navy was far larger, of course, but it also had many far flung commitments where the USN had none. The RN would have to make hard choices about where to pull forces from or get more ships built in a tearing hurry. Well within their power, but cheap is underselling it..

    Then there's the question of what the hell does the UK do once the USN is defeated. Mount an invasion? They weren't even confident they could stop an invasion of Canada. The only real option they had was to bombard the hell out of coastal cities and hope the US folds.

    The war would have been very unpopular as well. Slavery was viewed pretty dimly by the British public. That doesn't always matter. The public doesn't set forigen policy. But if it's going to be a major intervention that's going to require belt tightening all around it's a concern, and as was pointed out above, the British were dependant on US grain.

    Which brings us to the next point. Britain's next best option for grain imports: Russia. The US had very good relations with the Russia at this point. When the Brits and French asked the czar if he would promise neutrality should they intervene on behalf of the Confederacy, he said no. Then the day after the meeting he said it again in the headline of the Russian state newspaper. Later in the war a Russian fleet docked in New York. This was partially for Russian domestic reasons, but the admiral in charge was carrying orders that should Russia and the Union both find themselves at war with Britain he was to put himself under Lincoln's command.

    That really puts the idea in a dim light as far as the UK is concerened. It's no longer just an intervention to quash a rising power, but a very grave matter that is going to require digging deep. Two massive land was they are I'll suited to fight against powers that can't be blockaded into submission because they can feed themselves. It's the British public who would instead face years of hunger, with the big grain exporters on the other side of the war. A public that doesn't want to fight the war in the first place.

  59. @R.G. Camara
    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what's the likelihood of the Third Reich's rise?

    The bitter taste in many German's mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism's rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang's arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie's started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis----after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave, @Jon Halpenny, @Peter D. Bredon

    Golo Mann, gay son of novelist Thomas Mann, and ell respect (a bit conservative) historian called the Versailles treaty the mother of the following catastrophes (rise of Nazism/ WW II).

    • Agree: PhysicistDave, JackOH
  60. @theMann
    @Trelane

    Watching someone like that, with "drummer's intelligence" makes we wonder how many of them in the past would have been Organists.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I as a teenager dated an organist who was a lot like her (facial expression, body tension…the legs even). – I seem to gradually slip into the past altogether. Sigh. – Great video btw. (her bare feet!), great song too.

  61. SZ says:

    Why did the July 1914 crisis—but not crises in 1905, 1908–9, 1911, and 1912–13—escalate to great-power war despite occurring under similar international and domestic conditions?

    What a naive question! The Federal Reserve was established at the end of 1913 and only then there was a rationale for pushing great powers to war, knowing all parties had to borrow (the British from the US and the States from the Banks, etc.) and pay huge amounts of interest afterwards (including those of the reparations).

    The aim to weaken and/or to destabilise the three great White, Christian, European empires at its time, the British, the German, and the Russian, was of course a long-term desire, but the practicality and the profitability of a ‘great war’ was only established with the Federal Reserve in 1913, not before.

    Austria and Hungary had no significance, whatsoever, as it is the case with all the hyphenated countries like Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia and Montenegro (not even there any more!), maybe England and Wales after Brexit and Scotexit etc.

    • Replies: @Hamlet's Ghost
    @SZ

    You are correct. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank opened its doors for business in May 1914, just in time to let the next European crisis to be fanned furiously into a world war.

    The timing was mighty convenient for (((some people))).

  62. @but an humble craftsman
    At the time of the German decöaration of war both French and Russian armies were rushing towards the German border.

    They made significant inroads at first but were then thrown out.

    The declaration of war has ever since been used to great effect by perfidious Albion's prpaganda.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @SaneClownPosse, @Haxo Angmark

    King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were close cousins.

    WW1 was a managed affair among the Ruling Families.

    The Families won, everyone else lost.

    Same thing happens every war/financial crisis/pandemic.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @SaneClownPosse

    The third cousin, Nikolai II, might beg to differ.
    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Wrong families :P

    Replies: @Ralph L, @prosa123

    , @Hugo Silva
    @SaneClownPosse

    Politically Royal Families were the biggest losers from the whole mess.

  63. @prosa123
    John Wilkes Booth didn't do a particularly good job at recruiting. He entrusted George Atzerodt with assassinating vice president Andrew Johnson, which should have been a simple task as Johnson was staying unguarded at a local hotel. Assassinating Johnson would have caused a major crisis as at the time there was no provision for succession beyond vice president. Fortunately, Atzerodt was a hopeless drunk, and rather than assassinate Johnson he lost his nerve and got drunk instead.

    Replies: @Scott in PA

    Since 1792 there has been a presidential succession law that did provide for a “next in line” person to assume the office of president, in the event both president and VP were vacated. At the time of Lincoln/Johnson, the next person was the Senate President pro Tempore, or Connecticut Sen. Lafayette Foster.

  64. @Gaspar DeLaFunk
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Indeed. Why go to so much trouble for...Slavs? It seems Serbia is bad news. Except for the basketball guy.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval (and even on this board there are those who claim everything between Styria and the Black Sea is in reality Serbia), just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.

    - Franz Ferdinand was on a goodwill tour gathering creds for himself and the reforms he hoped to enact; chief among the former was that he was not afraid of his beloved subjects, not in the capital of a recently annexed province, not in a hotbed of Serb agitation, not on St. Vitus´Day
    (= anniversary of the battle of Kosovo Polje, the holiest of holies for orthodox Serbs, celebrated by imbibing, reminiscing about the almost twenty years they had a czar and fantasizing about political murder and martyrdom; never mind Milos Obilic is about as historical as Wilhelm Tell and Murad I died of constipation).
    For size, picture the US viceroy in Baghdad paying a visit to Kerbela, in an open Benz, on Eid al-Adhà. Whatever may be said against the archduke (an impressive list) he had testicles the size of a Holstein´s udder (and a syph to match).
    Maybe he could have saved the empire - maybe.

    Bonus trivia: Princip´s organization, the Black Hand ("crna ruka"), apart from a skull-and-bones and the motto "sloboda ili smrt" ("freedom or death") still carried the black, red and gold of the National Revolution 1848 (now usurped by the ZRG)

    Replies: @JMcG, @AKAHorace

    , @Flip
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account


    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?
     
    I think the thinking is that FF would have reached an accommodation with the Slavs to keep them in the country so the nationalists wanted him gone to encourage independence.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

  65. @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

    One of history’s biggest mysteries

    Possibly they were worried about the Yanks stirring up trouble in Ireland, or France.

    Speaking of Ireland: I wonder whether British entry into the first world war was motivated by a desire to kick the Irish can down the road. Large chunks of the British army’s Irish regiments had mutinied in 1914 and were plotting armed resistance to home rule, but they all came back once war with Germany was on the table. You might argue that British politicians would have to be quite stupid and feckless to have done such a thing; I would argue that’s why it’s so plausible.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    More likely Wilberforce etc. and closer to home would be my guess.

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account


    British politicians would have to be quite stupid and feckless
     
    Without Ireland, of course they wouldn't have a feckin' clue!
  66. @Fox
    @Desiderius

    Churchill was at the time the First Lord of the Admiralty and decided on his own not to disperse the combined English fleet that had held sea exercises, but kept the battle-ready fleet at the port of Spithead (this was on July 24th, made public on July 27, 1914). This was like pouring oil in the fire of rapidly escalating war fever and tension. He informed Asquith (Prime Minister) who made no objection, the Cabinet was kept in the dark until it was made public.
    Yes, the nasty little hedonistic man who took pleasure in war, had his hand in setting the war dogs free in 1914 also.

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    And then Britain got stuck and needed an American bailout, which came at tremendous cost to the empire – twice!, with the same man at the helm both times. Would it be crazy to suggest that the half-American Winston Churchill had American sympathies?

  67. How would this apply to the Israelis, who have assassinated or attempted to assassinate nearly every leader of the PLO and Hamas?

  68. Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was the result of sheer bad luck. A few hours earlier another member of the Serbian conspiracy had thrown a grenade at the royal car. It missed, but injured several dignataries in the following car. Franz Ferdinand insisted on going to the hospital to visit the injured people.

    Following the hospital visit Franz Ferdinand’s chauffeur got a bit lost and the car ended up stuck in traffic on a narrow side street. Gavrilo Princip, who had thought the plot had failed after the abortive grenade attack, was sitting at an outdoor cafe on this side street when lo and behold he saw Franz Ferdinand sitting in the open car right in front of him.

    Princip was about a month shy of turning 20, which was the minimum age for the death penalty. That turned out to be an unfortunate thing for him. He was imprisoned in what was basically a dungeon and soon caught tuberculosis. It infected his bones, requiring amputation of an arm, and he was an 88-pound skeleton when he died in 1918.

  69. I think the murder of the Romanovs in Russia is far more significant to world history than the ones you mentioned. In many ways we’re still paying the price of the lack of justice on that horrendous act.

    • Agree: Peter Akuleyev
    • Replies: @Getaclue
    @Tetra

    The question is who was behind it all? Bolsheviks still running Wall Street/Banksters (they funded Lenin and the "Revolution" and have been funding terror worldwide ever since) -- reason you hear almost nothing of the tens of millions murdered due to Lenin/Stalin? They're still in charge of the Mainslime Media and Banking...now pushing the NWO Great Reset using CVirus Medical Martial Law

  70. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    Part of my Coronalife has been spent watching way too much YouTube, and that includes Curb Your Enthusiasm clips — I had never seen the show when it was on in real time.

    Here’s a remarkably unfunny clip that is actually awkward, not awkward in the sense that Larry David is doing something embarrassing.

    Larry walks into a home where eight or ten black professionals are having an erudite conversation. Larry apologizes to one for “that thing the other day,” apology accepted, and then things move on … or don’t. The others want to know what the apology was for. They eventually force it out of Larry: He was at Santa Monica beach with a friend, met the friend’s dermatologist, who is black, and then jokes (03:05), “You let him work on you even with the whole affirmative action thing?” Crickets. Larry stammers out more apologies and in response to a question says, yeah, he supports affirmative action, and all white people should be trampled on for a couple of hundred years.

    I found the preceding clip, and the doctor responded to the initial joke with a variation of the “I had to work twice as hard …” black trope.

    I guess the intended message is that affirmative action doesn’t let lesser qualified blacks into the medical profession; rather, the blacks are just as qualified, but the standardized measures are somehow not picking that up, and AA magically fixes that.

    • Replies: @Getaclue
    @Anon

    What do you think the chances are Larry David ever sees a Black MD in real life?

  71. @R.G. Camara
    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what's the likelihood of the Third Reich's rise?

    The bitter taste in many German's mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism's rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang's arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie's started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis----after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave, @Jon Halpenny, @Peter D. Bredon

    R.G. Camara asked:

    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?

    Close to zero, I assume. But then if Germany had not entered the war, it would not have been a World War.

    Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary. I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    The German historian Ernst Nolte argues that the conflicts from 1914 to 1945 constituted the “European Civil War.” Unfortunately, his Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus does not seem to ever have been translated into English.

    Perhaps our friend Dieter has read it?

    • Troll: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @PhysicistDave

    As time passes it’s a natural take. Industrial v Bucolic etc...

    , @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Berchtold's decision to declare war a month after the assassination, not least to burnish his own domestic image, probably competes with the German invasion of Belgium as the biggest blunder of the crisis. There was never any real chance that the Serbs would 100% accept the ultimatum-the civilians in Belgrade understood the complicity that their intelligence establishment had in the assassination-but Pašić tried to come as close as he could to it because he had no way of knowing how things would turn out. Serbia was going to be doomed without Russian intervention.

    That said, Austria was in a deeply difficult position in the summer of 1914. The heir to their octogenerian monarch had just been murdered in broad daylight. By terrorists who had links to people high up in the Serbian government, especially in the intelligence services which largely operated outside the control of the civilians in Belgrade. The Serbian leadership was partially unable and partially unwilling to ensure that such people were punished, as Vienna well knew: outside control of the investigation, the point that Serbia rejected, was going to be essential. But they couldn't just not respond. Austria had staked its existence on being a Balkan power after it became clear they weren't going to be the German one in 1867.

    Austria also had to deal with an entrenched Magyar elite that was deeply hostile to both Franz Ferdinand and to anything that could dilute their influence, as foreign adventures almost certainly would. Although the Magyars would eventually concede, that crucial time lag was what made the European-wide war a possibility.

    >Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary.

    The thing that's often misunderstood in popular histories about the July Crisis was that Russian "partial mobilization" was a fiction. As I mentioned earlier, Sazanov-the Russian foreign minister-believed that Austrian policy was dictated from Berlin. This wasn't true, especially in the Balkans, but Sazanov genuinely believed it was. This was what led to conflict with Germany, and that's critical to understand because of the three Entente powers, only the French perceived the arrangement as being meant to contain Germany. Britain and Russia still viewed each other as the primary global rival in many ways after 1907, which was part of why the notion of an Anglo-German entente was gaining currency by 1914.

    Due to geography and military logistics (again, all the railroads in Poland), mobilizing against Austria meant mobilizing against Germany. And Russia, like Germany, had no plans for a "one front" great power war, because it was widely assumed to be an impossibility. Russian mobilization happened first: days before Austria's declaration of war. Sazanov's insistent lies about it were an integral part of the path to wider war, because it was his version of events-with French aid-that were taken at face value in London.

    >I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    Berlin expected Vienna to crush Serbia preemptively before anybody could intervene. That was the idea behind the "blank check" for a Serbia-only preemptive war. Austrian diplomats knew Wilhelm well, and exploited that fact: Franz Ferdinand was one of the few men Willy, something of a black sheep in European royal family dynamics, could call "friend". Berlin thought Russia was unlikely to intervene for a couple of reasons: rearmament program wasn't done, for one thing. There was also a deeply misguided belief in Berlin, considering 1903 in Serbia, that Russia wouldn't support regicides for ideological reasons. There were people in the Russian government who leaned in that direction-Durnovo-but they didn't control the government.

    Anyway, that was Grey's idea: a four party conference to resolve the situation. But the choice of the players would have ensured that Austria would have lost, as the Central Powers knew. Three of the four-France, Russia, Italy-would have been unsympathetic to any attempt to force Serbia to do anything, on the grounds of the national sovereignty. The first two had chosen Serbia as their stake point in the region for a reason, and Italy's main focus was on Italian speaking lands still controlled by the Habsburgs.

    (Whether Grey himself was being disingenuous or was simply uninformed is up for debate. It's important to remember that in England, the big focus of 1914 was the Irish question, not Europe. There was a very real threat of civil disorder over Ireland at the time. This was causing a mass political stalemate in London, and the political dynamics in the cabinet and Parliament that resulted were not a small part of the process that led the UK along the path to war, especially amongst the anti-Home Rule crowd.)

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Patrick McNally

    , @R.G. Camara
    @PhysicistDave

    Shut up, anti-Truth bigot.

  72. @AnotherDad
    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @for-the-record, @Vojkan

    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Here’s their apology:

    Gavrilo Princip, assassin who sparked WWI, gets statue in Belgrade

    Serbia has unveiled a monument to the man who sparked the chain of events leading to World War I. Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 has a divisive legacy in the Balkans.

    https://www.dw.com/en/gavrilo-princip-assassin-who-sparked-wwi-gets-statue-in-belgrade/a-18546305

    • LOL: Sam Malone
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @for-the-record

    I can assure you all of this: Gavrilo Princip's legacy among the non-Serbs of the region is that of a terrorist who kicked off many decades of war, chaos, and Serb dominance. Him being lionized by the Communists really did not sooth Croat and Muslim resentment toward the Serbs underneath the surface during the Tito years.

    (The Black Hand and Young Bosnia did have non-Serb members: IIRC, the guy who threw the bomb at Franz Ferdinand was a Muslim. It was a youthful movement inspired by anarchism, not an overtly Orthodox thing. But they were predominantly Serb. The Haspburg burgermeister of Sarajevo on that day was also a Muslim, and one of the guys who drafted the ultimatum back in Vienna was, tellingly, a Croat. Serbia basically viewed Croats and Bosniaks as Serbs who'd been brainwashed, and had been engaging in a widespread policy of mosque destruction and Catholic church conversion in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, which the non-Serbs obviously weren't too happy about.)

    Replies: @Hrw-500, @Svevlad, @J.Ross

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @for-the-record

    Quoting a right-wing source https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-gaffes/,
    "Biden was actually talking about Syria, where Russia has helped the ruthless regime of President Bashar al-Assad cling to power since the outbreak of civil war in 2011. "

    This is not the Left talking this way, it is the Right. Hillary Clinton was expressing such sentiments in the campaign where she lost to Donald Trump, and she appealed to the Never-Trump conservatives for her "toughness." For his troubles regarding Russia as helping a regime that wasn't any more ruthless than other factions, Mr. Trump presidency was dogged by pressure to impeach him for being a Russian stooge.

    Was WW-III averted by keeping a person out of the White House with "something to prove" about how tough she is and not to be "pushed around"? Was the tumultuous Trump presidency followed by his replacement by a guy who doesn't seem to know what he is doing the price we pay for peace?

  73. @Achilleus

    What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?
     
    You might run into people now and then with the surname “Hitler” (there had to be others, right?). You know you’ve been really really really bad when your name is retired.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia, @Anon

    You might run into people now and then with the surname “Hitler” (there had to be others, right?). You know you’ve been really really really bad when your name is retired.

  74. @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?

    London was the world capital of abolitionism. It wouldn’t have played well at home.

    • Agree: Desiderius, I, Libertine
  75. @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    I think poor decisions from individuals in every government involved led to the tragedy that was WWI. There's no single smoking gun or cartoon villain in the background. And the funny thing is: you had people all over the place who were trying to cover their domestic asses. From Bethmann's fear of and attempts to manipulate his temperamental monarch to the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers being under pressure from the hawks in both countries (and fatally overcompensating as a result) to the French President being under scrutiny for taking Russian money during his electoral campaign to the potential civil war about to break out in Ireland, I don't think anybody was expecting what was coming that summer. There was no sinister plan.

    Nikola Pašić-Serbia's PM-did not effectively control the security services of his country, which regularly ran operations abroad without any input from the civilians back in Belgrade. It was headed by a guy who helped not just murder the royal couple in a palace coup a decade earlier, but butcher them and throw the body parts down to the street below. (Again: Serbian politics was a lot like pre-WWII Japanese politics, with a lot of fear of being assassinated by army or intel radicals if you weren't perceived as nationalist enough.) It's really a matter of debate whether he could have done anything to prevent the assassination.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @bomag, @Fox

    Admiral Jacky Fisher predicted Germany would go to war in the summer of 1914 as this was when the Kiel Canal would be completed. Germany had long term plans in the East and they needed to strike before Russia became too strong.

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
    @LondonBob

    Admiral Fisher predicted war early and often. He also tried to make his predictions come true.

    , @nebulafox
    @LondonBob

    I'm not saying Germany would have never gone to war, ever, least of all on moral grounds. A preemptive hawk party existed in Berlin, just like in every other European capital. But Germany was not Serbia. Moltke, who was that kind of hawk, did not control the government. Wilhelm and Bethmann-the "two old women", according to Moltke-did. I'm saying that they didn't want a continent wide war against multiple enemies (as opposed to a preemptive war for Austria to punish Serbia) in the summer of 1914, because their relative military situation was at a nadir thanks to France's 1913 law. Austria, for its part, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a war with Russia, as opposed to Serbia.

    I don't think anybody went into that summer wanting a war like that. The takeaway I get from the summer of 1914 are individuals in every European capital pursuing their own agendas, many of them domestic, and there being a complete lack of transparency behind the actions of other governments.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    , @res
    @LondonBob

    Thanks. More on that prediction (first link says it was made in 1911, second link says 1908).
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/462613/Great-War-Centenary-Britannia-rules-the-waves-but-for-how-long

    This link discusses the military impact and is skeptical of the causal idea. Worth noting 1914 was completion of the widening of the canal to accommodate Dreadnoughts.
    http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/kiel-canal.html
    Initial opening was in 1895.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_Canal

    Replies: @nebulafox

  76. Cometh the hour… I’d argue those earlier three crises before 1914 did not lead to war because Sir Edward Grey was at the peak of his peace-making powers and influence at the Foreign Office. By then the old tricks had worn a bit thin and his heart/health wasn’t in the act anyway. Then ‘the lights went out all over Europe’, as he put it. TG Otte’s ‘Statesman of Europe’ is a sympathetic bio of Grey. He was a countryman, landowner and published author of books on fishing and birdwatching. I bought the latter ‘The Charm of Birds’ and it helped me understand how this patient, kindly chap could spread calm for so long.

  77. @Mr. Anon
    If America had simply not entered the war, the peace would have been different. The Entente would have been forced to deal with Germany on more equal terms, which probably would have led to a better outcome, postwar.

    The notion that England was dragged reluctantly into the War is - like so much of the anglo-centric history we've imbibed in this country - probably just a self-serving load of crap. They were spoiling for a fight just as much as any continental power. They looked forward to blockading Germany, neutralizing it's navy, depriving the German Empire of it's overseas colonies, knocking Germany down a few rungs. All of which happened. England was carrying out the same policy they had since roughly forever - preventing any continental power from dominating the continent.

    America would have done better to just stay the Hell out of the whole thing.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Diversity Heretic, @Bragadocious

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    • LOL: Bragadocious
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @LondonBob


    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.
     
    Hah! Why? To save an Empire that viewed us as cannon-fodder? F**k that. You want to fight Germany over Belgium, that's your business, John Bull.

    And Wilson was not just inept. He was corrupt and bought. He "kept us out of war" right up until the people who were pulling his chain told him he shouldn't.

    The view of the war that Americans are usually spoonfed is invariably anglo-centric. For a somewhat different take, consider this:

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/
    , @John Johnson
    @LondonBob

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    America should never have entered world war one.

    In any war where there isn't a direct threat the supporting politicians should send their sons and nephews in first. Show us how much you believe in the war by sending your own relatives into the trenches. If that had been the standard then we wouldn't have clown world today.

    Woodrow Wilson was a cowardly globalist that believed in lying to the masses. He was one of the first globalists that believed race existed but the masses should be lied to for the sake of egalitarian ideals.

    Every following president has taken the same position. Acknowledge race behind the scenes but don't dare tell the masses cause who knows what they might do.

    Oh and Wilson lied about Lusitania. In fact the US gov lied about smuggling arms for decades.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Anonymous
    @LondonBob

    Actually if Roosevelt had been president the U.S. would not have entered the war. The Germans would have feared him and would have been very cautious not to provoke him.

    They had no such fear of Wilson and it showed.

    International politics is kind of like a schoolyard or prison yard. The guy who goes around looking for trouble gets left alone, while the guy who wants to be left alone gets endlessly picked on.

    Replies: @Fox

  78. @prosa123
    By all rights Franz Ferdinand shouldn't have been the heir to the Austrian Empire. Emperor Franz Joseph's son, Crown Prince Rudolf, was supposed to be his successor, but he died in 1889 at age 30 in a suicide pact - though exactly what happened is still a mystery - with his 17-year-old girlfriend, in what's known as the Mayerling Incident.
    As Franz Joseph had no other sons, and his daughters weren't eligible, after Rudolf's death his brother Karl Ludwig became his successor. When Karl Ludwig died of typhoid fever in 1896 his son Franz Ferdinand became heir to the throne.

    Speaking of Franz Joseph, Rudolf's mysterious death at Mayerling and Franz Ferdinand's assassination were not the only tragedies he experienced. In 1898 his wife Empress Elisabeth, beloved by the Austrian people who called her Sisi, and one of the pioneers of women's fitness, was assassinated by an Italian anarchist while visiting Geneva. The assassin was sentenced to life in prison, but hung himself in his cell some years later.

    Franz Joseph lived two more years after Franz Ferdinand's assassination. When he died in 1916, his grand-nephew Charles succeded him as Emperor, but within two years the war was over and the Austrian Empire was kaput. Fun fact: Charles' young wife Zita lived until 1989.

    Franz Joseph trivia: he was born in Vienna's Schoenbrunn Palace in 1830, lived there his entire life, and died there in 1916.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @for-the-record

    Fun fact: Charles’ young wife Zita lived until 1989.

    Other fun facts: Charles is on his way to possible sainthood, having been beatified. “Blessed Charles” Feast Day is 21 October, the date of his marriage to Zita.

    https://www.emperorcharles.org/
    https://catholicsaints.info/blessed-charles-of-austria/

    Charles was exiled to the island of Madeira, where he died in 1922 apparently from an “after shock” of the Spanish flu which had lingered on the island. He is still buried there.

  79. @Colin Wright
    I think much of this discussion overlooks France's role in egging on both Russia and Serbia and encouraging the development of their military potential. France was the one great power that saw war as essential to its goals -- and the one power that worked determinedly to bring that war about.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dutch Boy

    Annexing Alsace and Lorraine was initially opposed by Bismarck as he thought it would create would engender permanent French enmity toward Germany. Karl Marx also warned his fellow Germans: “If Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction with Russia. It is unnecessary to go into the unholy consequences.”

    France had good reasons to seek revenge for the Franco Prussian War, nevertheless it was still the Germans and Austro-Hungarians who declared war and who rightly take the blame.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @LondonBob

    While politically unwise, occupying Alsace and Lorraine gave the Germans eminently defensible territory on the outbreak of World War I. French Plan XVII, which anticipated recapturing Alsace and Lorraine, failed miserably with colossal losses (the Battle of the Frontiers), even in excess of Verdun or the Nivelle Offensive. Bismarck was, however, probably right. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Germany had little to fear from France coming in from over the Rhine River; better not to permanently antagonize it and leave it seeking alliances with Russia and Great Britain.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @JMcG
    @LondonBob

    The British and French declared war on Germany in WWII, so presumably they are to blame in that instance?
    France declared war on Prussia in 1870 and got her backside kicked up and down the street.
    The Russian mobilization in 1914 was the spark that couldn’t be extinguished. It came just after French President Poincare and Prime Minister Viviani made a state visit to Russia. The French seem to have been the ones pulling the strings that started the Great War. The Russians and the Brits were the ones having their strings pulled.

  80. @Mr. Anon
    If America had simply not entered the war, the peace would have been different. The Entente would have been forced to deal with Germany on more equal terms, which probably would have led to a better outcome, postwar.

    The notion that England was dragged reluctantly into the War is - like so much of the anglo-centric history we've imbibed in this country - probably just a self-serving load of crap. They were spoiling for a fight just as much as any continental power. They looked forward to blockading Germany, neutralizing it's navy, depriving the German Empire of it's overseas colonies, knocking Germany down a few rungs. All of which happened. England was carrying out the same policy they had since roughly forever - preventing any continental power from dominating the continent.

    America would have done better to just stay the Hell out of the whole thing.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Diversity Heretic, @Bragadocious

    Great Britain also wanted gains in the Middle East at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Italy entered the war after being given promises of territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Likewise Romania, but Romania was overwhelmed quite quickly.

    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was “peace without victory.” It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that's due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, "Caput Mundi," reverts to being, as Napoleon said, "As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question."

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny, @Diversity Heretic, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    , @AnotherDad
    @Diversity Heretic


    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was “peace without victory.” It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.
     
    Agree.

    And while i'm not on board with liberal-internationalists venturing out seeking monsters to destroy, Wilson's 14-points--specifically the issues of national self-determination is spot on.

    This disaster--which the West has not recovered from--is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people ... who don't actually want them around.

    The same impulse and tyranny behind the minoritarian/woke plague America suffers from today.

    Replies: @Whitehall, @John Johnson

  81. @nebulafox
    @prosa123

    Wife stabbed by an anarchist, only son dead by his own hand, one brother executed in a Mexican prison, another dead of typhus.

    Franz Josef did not have a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Diversity Heretic, @Hapalong Cassidy

    His marriage to the Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria (nicknamed Sissi) was similarly not happy. It started out as a kind of fairy-tale marriage, but Sissi disliked Vienna court life. (In fairness the Vienna court of the 19th century makes the House of Windsor look like a hippie commune.) Sissi started absenting herself from the court and ended up having various affairs. She appears to have been anorexic and, although movie-star beautiful, refused to age gracefully and avoided photographers. Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination. There were three movies made about Sissi, all starring the stunning Romi Schneider, but the actors never age.

    You’re right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Diversity Heretic

    He wasn't the only one. Ivan IV, Queens Mary and Elizabeth, Peter the Great, and Frederick the Great all had deeply unpleasant childhoods, to say the least. Alexander III and Nicholas II had to watch as their respective father and grandfather died: mutilated beyond repair by a terrorist's bomb, gasping out his breath on the bed. This probably helped contribute to their reactionary policies in power.

    But Franz Josef really never did catch a break in his adult life, politically or personally. Consider how long he reigned: he took power as a teenager and lived to be in his 80s. And while it's true that he didn't get along with Franz Ferdinand and treated his wife deeply shoddily (one reason Ferdinand got along with Wilhelm II was that the latter always made a point of treating Sophie like royalty-the couple couldn't even sit together in Vienna, which is why they went to Sarajevo together), I doubt he actually wanted to see his heir murdered, the famous anecdote about God's judgement aside. Least of all did he want the cataclysm that destroyed everything he'd worked for 65 years. He, like the state he in many ways embodied, just kept lumbering on from one shock to the next until their hearts gave out in the end, knowing it was all for nothing.

    (One anecdote I particularly like was his response to people questioning him taking care of Galician Jewish refugees in the Hofgarten in 1914. "They are my people, too". It really was a very different, very arch-conservative kind of mentality he had, a pre-social Darwinian, pre-racial mentality that contrasts sharply with the developing ideologies of many Austrian higher-ups, let alone the attitudes in, say, Berlin or Petersburg. Completely at odds with the pan-German racial nationalism that was coming.)

    Again, it reminds of me of the 7th Century Roman emperor Heraclius, who won back the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire against all the odds, only to have them taken from him as an old man by a new invader that came out of nowhere. His biographer, Kaegi, says he probably died not just depressed, but struggling with PTSD, convinced that God was punishing him.

    > Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination.

    It's said that his 34 year long relationship with Frau Schratt was platonic. I'm not sure that was true, but I'm more open to that suggesting for the genuinely devout Franz Josef than most monarchs.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @utu

    , @Achilleus
    @Diversity Heretic

    I love those Sissi movies - a window into a beautiful but lost White European world. I realize those movies romanticize the Austrian empire, but I’ll take that over retconning blacks into BBC historical portrayals.

    I love historical movies and “costume” dramas, but I find I can only watch older ones now. If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar, @Voltarde, @Jim Christian

    , @HA
    @Diversity Heretic

    "You’re right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life."


    [The] traditional ceremony for the burial of Hapsburg emperors....

    The Grand Chamberlain knocks three times with a silver cane on the door of the Capuchin convent which contains the Imperial crypt. The Capuchin porter asks:

    – “Who is there?”

    The Grand Chamberlain proclaims the name and titles of the deceased Hapsburg emperor:

    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria, of Illyria, and King of Jerusalem, Archduke of Austria, Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine , Salzburg, STIR, Carinthia, of Carniola and Bukovina, Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia, Duke of Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator of Ticino, Friuli, Ragusa and Zara, Prince of Conde-Hapsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, in Goritz and Gradisca, Prince of Trent and Brixen, Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria, Earl of Hohenembs of Feldkirch of Brigance, in Sonnenberg, Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and Marche, Great Voivode of Serbia, etc. … ”

    Upon hearing this, the porter refuses to open the door and says:

    – “I do not know you.”

    The Grand Chamberlain knocks on the door again and in answer to the porter’s question “Who is there?” gives just the name of the deceased prince:


    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, His Majesty the Emperor and the King. ”

    The porter again refuses admission:

    – “I do not know you.”

    For a third time, the Grand Chamberlain knocks on the door and the porter asks anew, “Who is there?”

    This time, the Grand Chamberlain simply says:

    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, a poor mortal and a sinner.”

    To this, the Capuchin friar responds:

    – “Come in.”
     

    Replies: @Old Palo Altan

  82. The Great War was always going to happen. The Brits had been the world hegemon since the Seven Years War (aka French and Indian War started by George Washington!) But Germany was raising fast and by the 1900s surpassed the British in rare strategic power. One can fault the Brits for creating their own lack of focus by trying to exploit and maintain their far-flung Empire. It was fragile politically, vulnerable militarily, and draining financially.

    That un-stability meant a new hegemon was displace them unless they could refocus themselves. Germany thought it was to be Germany but when war came, they lost and fell into political and economic disorder with the Socialists running the Weimar Republic for 14 years after the war’s end.

    The real cause of WWII in my analysis was the US remaining comfortably isolationist. America was the rightful world hegemon and it took us finishing off Germany in WWI and doing the same to Germany and Japan in WWII. By 1945, it was clear that if the US didn’t take the lead, some unsavory aspirant would (Stalin.)

    So a trigger is not a cause; it just kicks off great events that were almost bound to happen anyway.

    The question now is, what forces are now planning other triggering assassinations or dastardly events (like global biowarfare)?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Whitehall

    >The Great War was always going to happen.

    I just don't agree with that. WWI comes across to me as the most deeply *unnecessary* historical tragedy in modern history.

    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, unwillingness to think differently, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Gamecock

  83. @LondonBob
    @Colin Wright

    Annexing Alsace and Lorraine was initially opposed by Bismarck as he thought it would create would engender permanent French enmity toward Germany. Karl Marx also warned his fellow Germans: "If Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction with Russia. It is unnecessary to go into the unholy consequences."

    France had good reasons to seek revenge for the Franco Prussian War, nevertheless it was still the Germans and Austro-Hungarians who declared war and who rightly take the blame.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @JMcG

    While politically unwise, occupying Alsace and Lorraine gave the Germans eminently defensible territory on the outbreak of World War I. French Plan XVII, which anticipated recapturing Alsace and Lorraine, failed miserably with colossal losses (the Battle of the Frontiers), even in excess of Verdun or the Nivelle Offensive. Bismarck was, however, probably right. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Germany had little to fear from France coming in from over the Rhine River; better not to permanently antagonize it and leave it seeking alliances with Russia and Great Britain.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar

  84. @JohnnyWalker123
    If not for the assassination of the Archduke, perhaps there would've been no WW1. If no WWI, then no WWII. If no WWII, then no Cold War.

    We'd have a multipolar world in which the older social order prevailed. America would be one power among many, not the world's dominant superpower.

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe. The power would be held not by American puppets, but by the landed aristocracy, military, and clergy.

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Jews would be influential, but they'd have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They'd have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    No Globohomo. Instead, lots of Putins jockeying for power&wealth.

    When you read accounts of what Europe was like in the early 1900s, you come across societies that had had a strong sense of national identity, with Christianity providing the moral justification for whatever the rulers wanted. You also see how dominated Europe was by "old" families, who took pride in their lineage and historical connection to their particular homeland. The rulers were certainly corrupt and Machiavellian, but they felt a kinship with the people who they ruled.

    In the post WWII era, under American domination, European leaders became far more comfortable with secularism and internationalism. Russia was headed this way, before Putin.

    Replies: @anonymous, @IHTG, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    • Replies: @anon
    @IHTG


    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics.
     
    Which group leads the opposition to internet porn, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to the managerial state, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to an unregulated big tech alliance with big gov, left-wingers or right-wingers?

    “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!
     
    As always, left-wingers fail to remember that social changes are also driven by moral revulsion.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @IHTG

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics.

    This is very true. But left-wingers don't really get it either. They ride social waves and then take credit for them as if they were the heroes. Feminism, greater acceptance of homosexuality, the destruction of the nuclear family, the irrelevance of traditional Christianity (as opposed to American style Megachurches, which are heretical by traditional standards) and even immigration are driven primarily by technological change. The irony that leftists oppose capitalism, which is actually the number one driving force for all the social changes they love so much, is particularly funny.

    , @John Johnson
    @IHTG

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    There is indeed a globohomo which is the global establishment. It uses technologies created by the private sector to deceive the masses into accepting a worldview that primarily benefits a small wealthy minority in each Western country. This minority views itself as above the masses and above the idea of a country itself. No I am not referring to Jews here. This problem existed before Jews were even in America.

    I do not identify as a right-winger but we have certainly given the left plenty of chances to prove their basic theory which is that progress is entirely environmental. They have completely failed and in response to these failures they have chosen to lock out the right instead of facing reality. What we call "Conservatism" in the West is really just appeasing left-wingers/liberals in the hope that there is an end to it. There really is no right-wing as modern conservatism merely drags its feet as the left continues to lock down society in an effort to keep the people and especially White people from learning the truth. The left will happily destroy society and turn the world into a giant favela if it means keeping White people in the dark. You can even find Marxist articles on how destroying White people is needed for the sake of racial equality.

    As for mass education there is no such thing. Most people are indoctrinated. Liberals that visit this website don't even deny it. In fact we have had liberals come here and tell us that lying about race is the right thing to do.

  85. The Shade of Orwell whispers in my ear that an organ called “Security Studies” is not concerned about the security of me and mine.

  86. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:

    As opposed to your “couldn’t let it slide,” etc., analysis, my understanding (based solely on G. J. Meyer’s 2007 majesterial 800-pager A World Undone: The Story of the Great War) was that all the countries in question had various mutual and most-favored-nation treaties that obligated them to offer military assistance to each other if attacked. It was a simple IF-THEN infinite loop gone mad.

    Of course, these obligations can be ignored. An example is in immigration law when the Obama administration added Iran to its visa restriction list, which could have dominoed into all kinds of worldwide restrictions on American travel because of some obscure treaty with Germany that required retaliation (and the fact that Iran claims anyone born in Iran as a citizen for life) by a lot of other countries. The Intercept had an apocalyptic article about this at the time. But all countries involved just ignored it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Von Neumann and Morgenstern (who is said to be the son of the Kaiser, which suggests Kaiser Bill was smarter than he appeared). didn't articulate game theory until three decades after 1914, but it seems like a pretty good example: if all the countries in Europe are brought into two alliances depending upon how desperate the members of each alliance are to Not Lose, the resulting balance of power will be awful even and thus a war is likely to not be over by Christmas, but instead to go on and on for disastrously long.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Paul Mendez, @Reg Cæsar, @Colin Wright, @Anonymous

    , @JMcG
    @Anon

    The Russians had no treaty or alliance with Serbia. Just a fellow-Slav feeling.

    , @Simon
    @Anon


    ...my understanding (based solely on G. J. Meyer’s 2007 majesterial 800-pager A World Undone: The Story of the Great War) was that all the countries in question had various mutual and most-favored-nation treaties that obligated them to offer military assistance to each other if attacked. It was a simple IF-THEN infinite loop gone mad.
     
    So glad to see you mention that superb book by Meyer, which brilliantly chronicles both the war and the events the led up to it. I'd also recommend Margaret MacMillan's The War That Ended Peace, which covers those diplomatic events in fascinating detail, and Max Hastings' Catastrophe 1914, which focuses on that year alone.

    All three books suggest (to me, anyway) that Austria was so itching for a fight -- so eager to rid the world of the aggressively nationalistic Serbia, a thorn in its side -- that it was just looking for an excuse to wipe the smaller country off the map. If Princip had shot Franz Ferdinand but only wounded him, or even had missed -- and especially, of course, if he'd failed to kill the Archduke but had killed his beloved wife Sophie (as indeed he did) -- it might still have been provocation enough for Austria to declare war on Serbia. And a surviving Franz Ferdinand would likely have agreed.

    P.S. I was appalled to see, somewhere above, the statue in Belgrade to Princip (who died, incidentally, unrepentant). How utterly loathsome of the Serbs.

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

  87. @Known Fact
    In 2121 they might be asking, What if George Floyd had lived?

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso

    If George had lived, they would’ve found another case to propagandize in order to add a vital chapter to the narrative and put into motion their preexisting plans.

  88. Then there’d be no raison d’être for these guys … certainly not musically.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @The Alarmist

    Because I'm old, I can never keep straight Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, and Arctic Monkeys. I kind of can tell The Killers apart from them, except for "Mr. Brightside:"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdGFtwCNBE

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Boomthorkell

  89. Speaking of assassination, I learned that Frankfurt School affiliated Columbia Professor Richard Hofstadter’s very influential essay and later book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, a Freudian therapeutic culture critique of conspiracy theories popular with Americans of previous generations, was first given in a lecture at Oxford on November 21, 1963, with the essay being published a year later on the one-year anniversary of another event in Dallas.

    Good timing.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Lockean Proviso

    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn't get as much press as they deserved.

    Replies: @Prosa123, @FPD72

  90. John Wilkes Booth’s recruited involved numerous young men of fashion and involvement may have gone quite high in the Confederate government…

    Yeah, but it was the Union profiteers who pulled the strings, because Abe was going to kill the goose that would lay the golden eggs, AKA reconstruction.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
    @The Alarmist

    That's right. Abe was a standard-issue political hack who made some poor decisions, leading to a national catastrophe, but he was not a monster. It was the Republican Party as a whole that was the monster.

  91. his grandfather Franz Joseph

    Uncle

  92. @Lockean Proviso
    Speaking of assassination, I learned that Frankfurt School affiliated Columbia Professor Richard Hofstadter's very influential essay and later book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, a Freudian therapeutic culture critique of conspiracy theories popular with Americans of previous generations, was first given in a lecture at Oxford on November 21, 1963, with the essay being published a year later on the one-year anniversary of another event in Dallas.

    Good timing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn’t get as much press as they deserved.

    • Replies: @Prosa123
    @Steve Sailer

    Although the significance would not become apparent for some time, 11/22/1963 also was the day Walt Disney rode in a helicopter over some Orlando ranch land and decided it would be the location of his planned theme park.

    , @FPD72
    @Steve Sailer


    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn’t get as much press as they deserved.
     
    There’s a good book, Between Heaven and He’ll, by Peter Kreeft. The thesis of the book is a meeting in purgatory of these two and JFK, pending their final disposition. Each of the three figures represents a philosophical/theological position. I’ve always thought it would make a good stage play but I’m afraid if done now it would be twenty or thirty years out of date, although there is still a lot of interest in Lewis.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  93. @The Alarmist
    Then there’d be no raison d’être for these guys ... certainly not musically.

    https://youtu.be/GhCXAiNz9Jo

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Because I’m old, I can never keep straight Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, and Arctic Monkeys. I kind of can tell The Killers apart from them, except for “Mr. Brightside:”

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Steve Sailer

    Then there were the Violent Femmes, The Psychadelic Furs, Butthole Surfers, etc. ad nauseum. One of the more interesting observations I’ve read about Boomers is that unlike prior generations, many of whom evolved from folk or popular music in their younger years to classical or at least more refined music in their later years, many Boomers have clung to the same crap they listened to in their salad days.

    Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    , @Boomthorkell
    @Steve Sailer

    Such a fun song.

  94. @Anon
    As opposed to your "couldn't let it slide," etc., analysis, my understanding (based solely on G. J. Meyer's 2007 majesterial 800-pager A World Undone: The Story of the Great War) was that all the countries in question had various mutual and most-favored-nation treaties that obligated them to offer military assistance to each other if attacked. It was a simple IF-THEN infinite loop gone mad.

    Of course, these obligations can be ignored. An example is in immigration law when the Obama administration added Iran to its visa restriction list, which could have dominoed into all kinds of worldwide restrictions on American travel because of some obscure treaty with Germany that required retaliation (and the fact that Iran claims anyone born in Iran as a citizen for life) by a lot of other countries. The Intercept had an apocalyptic article about this at the time. But all countries involved just ignored it.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @JMcG, @Simon

    Von Neumann and Morgenstern (who is said to be the son of the Kaiser, which suggests Kaiser Bill was smarter than he appeared). didn’t articulate game theory until three decades after 1914, but it seems like a pretty good example: if all the countries in Europe are brought into two alliances depending upon how desperate the members of each alliance are to Not Lose, the resulting balance of power will be awful even and thus a war is likely to not be over by Christmas, but instead to go on and on for disastrously long.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Oskar Morgenstern is said to be the grandson of a Kaiser, namely Frederick III, who ruled for three and a half months, so you probably don't have an opinion of him. This would make Kaiser Bill his uncle. He would be just as closely related to Wilhelm I (more closely if this "said to be" refers to illegitimacy).

    Replies: @Abe

    , @Paul Mendez
    @Steve Sailer


    …the resulting balance of power will be awful even and thus a war is likely to not be over by Christmas, but instead to go on and on for disastrously long
     
    .

    Actually, anyone who knew anything about ”modern” military history in 1914 would have known that WWI couldn’t last much longer than Christmas.

    I’m too sleepy to verify all the names/dates, but the First Sino-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Russo-Japanese War, First Balkan War, Second Balkan War and others I can’t recall “proved” that all-out, 20th Century, modern wars couldn’t last very long. Within a few months everyone would be killed/diseased/out of ammo/out of equipment/starving and naked. Industrial 20th century war was supposed to be like two eggs smashing into each other.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer


    how desperate the members of each alliance are to Not Lose
     
    Do the AP, MLA, and Chicago stylebooks now require capitalization of split infinitives? It's hard to keep up with all the changes.
    , @Colin Wright
    @Steve Sailer

    'Von Neumann and Morgenstern (who is said to be the son of the Kaiser, which suggests Kaiser Bill was smarter than he appeared). didn’t articulate game theory until three decades after 1914, but it seems like a pretty good example: if all the countries in Europe are brought into two alliances depending upon how desperate the members of each alliance are to Not Lose, the resulting balance of power will be awful even and thus a war is likely to not be over by Christmas, but instead to go on and on for disastrously long.'

    On the other hand, in 1913 it was argued that the financial interdependence of the modern world meant that a major European war couldn't last more than a few months -- everyone would go bankrupt.

    The logic is quite convincing. Q.E.D. The author was Norman Angell, if memory serves.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Wielgus

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    This was the "Mutually Assured Destruction" of its day. If both sides are evenly matched, then war between them will be long, hard and costly for all parties, and so nobody will dare start such a war.

    The theory is sound. But it was confounded by two things: First, that the governments of Austria and Russia were weak domestically and more afraid of rebellion/civil war than of any foreign war. Second, that the Germans thought they could swiftly win the war despite the forces against them, because of the Schlieffen plan. (Which might indeed have worked if the German commanders hadn't tinkered with it at the last moment.)

    Replies: @Desiderius

  95. @SaneClownPosse
    @but an humble craftsman

    King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were close cousins.

    WW1 was a managed affair among the Ruling Families.

    The Families won, everyone else lost.

    Same thing happens every war/financial crisis/pandemic.

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Hugo Silva

    The third cousin, Nikolai II, might beg to differ.
    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Wrong families 😛

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @nokangaroos

    Wilhelm was a first cousin of Alexandra and George but not Nicholas. George was first cousin of N and A and W.

    I believe the traditional view is that Britain entered the war to keep Germany (or any great power) out of Belgium, which is very close to the mouth of the Thames. They'd fought France and Spain several times for the same reason.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    , @prosa123
    @nokangaroos

    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Kaiser Wilhelm's exile was scarcely a hardship. He remained wealthy and lived on a large estate in the Netherlands until his death at age 82. The wood chopping was a hobby/fitness regimen, not something done out of necessity.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  96. @Diversity Heretic
    @LondonBob

    While politically unwise, occupying Alsace and Lorraine gave the Germans eminently defensible territory on the outbreak of World War I. French Plan XVII, which anticipated recapturing Alsace and Lorraine, failed miserably with colossal losses (the Battle of the Frontiers), even in excess of Verdun or the Nivelle Offensive. Bismarck was, however, probably right. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Germany had little to fear from France coming in from over the Rhine River; better not to permanently antagonize it and leave it seeking alliances with Russia and Great Britain.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Steve Sailer

    'Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.'

    On the other hand, Alsace and Lorraine had only been acquired by France in the Seventeenth Century, and the sections annexed, with the exception of the territory around Metz, were still German-speaking.

    It would have been bizarre for the nascent 'German Empire' not to demand at least the clearly German-speaking bits, and had she confined herself to that, would France have been any more inclined to accept the result than she was? Wasn't France at least as upset by the mere fact of having lost as she was by the specific territorial losses she suffered as a result? Would any peace have satisfied French amour propre?

    I tend to see the blame for the war not as residing in any one of the players in particular so much as in the system of powerful, bellicose, heavily armed, nationalistic states jostling against each other in a crowded space. It's really like one of those black block parties that as we like to point out, erupt in gunfire so often. With so many testosterone-fueled players packing heat in one place, violence was inevitable. Blaming Javontis rather than Kameeka really misses the primary cause.

    I mention France because -- rather strangely -- it is often omitted from considerations of blame. I'd say the reverse should be the case. While Serbia was just crazy, among the great powers, France was the one player that actually sought war. The national policies of Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Russia can all be seen as contributing to the final outcome, but essentially, they were 'satisfied powers.' War was not essential to the achievement of their goals -- at least within Europe. The case was different for France, and her behavior reflected that. That this may have been understandable is another matter.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    The nouveau seldom perceive themselves as big enough yet for magnanimity, at least toward their rivals.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Steve Sailer


    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.
     
    Probably.

    But it wasn't ridiculous.** My German ancestry is from Alsace. My immigrant ancestors would have spoken what's essentially a German dialect. And they considered themselves "German"--at least in the American ethnic background sense.

    ** Generally, while rivers make nice clear borders they are not natural ethno-national borders. The river valley tends to evolve toward being a common linguistic/cultural/ethnic unit. After oceans, it's actually mountains that really divide people's from one another. (Divide settled people's from one another, with badasses in between.)


    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to ... just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other's right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That's what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old "white bread" Americaness--our people, culture and history--can roll on with it.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer


    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.
     
    Luxembourg has a handy set-up: They can't be France because they speak German. But they can't be Germany, because the official language is French.

    Why didn't the Alsatians make the same case? Or did they, and were ignored? Because the Alsace is worth something and Luxembourg is a pit, albeit a wealthy pit?

    (Yes, Derb, I said "the Alsace".)

  97. @Thomm
    The world of 1946 would not have been significantly different. Eventually, WW1 and WW2 will be combined into what is known as the 'Second Thirty Years War'.

    The events between 1914 and 1945 might have been somewhat different, but the post-1946 world would not have been.

    Replies: @Houston 1992, @Skyler the Weird, @jb

    I’d say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Skyler the Weird

    But who was fighting whom? And who won? And what was it about?

    Not buying your premise yet.

    , @James N. Kennett
    @Skyler the Weird


    I’d say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.
     
    And then we had 12 years of peace. And then the "Forever War" of 2001-
  98. @Diversity Heretic
    @Mr. Anon

    Great Britain also wanted gains in the Middle East at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Italy entered the war after being given promises of territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Likewise Romania, but Romania was overwhelmed quite quickly.

    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was "peace without victory." It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @AnotherDad

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that’s due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, “Caput Mundi,” reverts to being, as Napoleon said, “As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question.”

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    @Steve Sailer

    Peter Frankopan, in his book, "The Silk Roads" indicates Sir Edward Grey put Constantinople up for grabs in 1907 when he let the Russian Ambassador know that Britain would consider "being more flexible" on the issue of the Bosphorus if Russia would establish permanent good relations with Britain.

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Steve Sailer

    Thank you for your reply. Napoleon Bonaparte is also quoted as having said: "If the earth were a nation, Constantinople would be it's capital." Imagine the consternation if any world leader suggested that a mass might one day be performed again in Hagia Sophia!

    Insofar as Alsace and Lorraine are concerned, their status was the major stumbling block to a possible peace settlement at the beginning of 1918: Let Germany keep its gains in the east, but evacuate northern France, Belgium and Luxembourg and return to the status quo ante bellum in the west. But that status quo meant Alsace and Lorraine remained German, which France could not accept, having entered the war as an ally of Russia with the objective of regaining those territories. And by 1918 France had a huge "butcher's bill," to be paid. Plebescite might have been the answer, but both sides were probably nervous how it would turn out.

    You're right; more German magnanimity in the aftermath of the 1870-71 victory would have been a far-sighted policy.

    Replies: @Corn

    , @Ralph L
    @Steve Sailer

    I read yesterday that many Turks (including Erdogan) are very upset to find from Ancestry.com, etc, that they're actually Greek.

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Steve Sailer

    Constantinople started losing its strategic significance the moment the Portuguese figured out they could sail to Asia by going around Africa. The Ottomans in general went into terminal decline once the European powers started colonizing the New World and no longer needed to pay the Turks to be middlemen for Asian goods. The Suez Canal was just the icing on the cake. At this point Istanbul is just another 2nd world metropolis slowly choking on its own growth.

    In a world without air travel you can argue Constantinople still makes it more difficult for Ukraine and Russian to ship grain and resources from their Black Sea ports, but assuming highways and trains will still exist, it is not close to the blocking point it was in the 1500s.

  99. I’m trying to imagine in 2021 a still extant Austria-Hungary, British Empire, French Third Republic, Imperial Germany, and Imperial Russia, with their possessions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas intact with some adjustments for devolution of political power. WWI and WWII–the 1914-1945 War–never happened.

    I and everyone else commenting here know what did happen was awful, and we’re living with the political sequelae of that terrible period to this day.

    Serious question: how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @JackOH


    Serious question: how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?
     
    The jews would have been dissatisfied with it because talented, prosperous, and cohesive European nations/races would have been attractive to young jewish men and women in terms of assimilation and intermarriage.
    , @Rob
    @JackOH


    how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?

     

    It is a very productive question. Warmongers do not come painted blue these days. All the 1914 warmongering, all the politicians who wanted to play hero. All the old generals who wanted to fight a war before they retired. All the newspaper men who thought a war would sell more papers. All the ignorant men who hated foreigners, because the newspapers told them to, even though they never met a German.

    If those people do not Remind you of the Democrats (in relation to Russia) and the Republicans (in relation to China), their ‘journalist’ enablers at NYT, the generals who have never heard a gunshot in real life fired in battle, the defense contractors having wet dreams about another Cold War…if today does not remind you of the run up to WWI, I do not know what to say.

    If the Democrats had managed to get rid of Trump, then they would never accept losing an election. Every defeat would be ‘de Russhuns done did it’. Maybe they could resist it for podunk representatives, but every Democrat would have an incentive to delegitimization the winner.

    The Russia Hoax? We almost had a nuclear war over tens of dollars in Facebook ads. We may still. I remember Democrat warmongers on twitter saying things like, “we can fight a conventional war with Russia without it going nuclear’ with straight faces. All because the tsars did not hand Russia over to Jews when they really wanted it, those anti Semitic monsters. And then the Russians wrestled control of the Communist party from the Jews. How did they do that without a Holocaust or even a war? That might give a clue about how to re-Americanize the country without crimes against humanity. Was it because Russians controlled the military?

    In the military, beyond old white generals salivating about defense contractor consulting payment for services rendered, there are wokies who see a war as a chance to show off the wonderfulness of Diversity, and lear out competent whites racistfully blocking their advancement, and touching their hair.

    The better we remember World War I and mourn the world we lost, and the world that might have been, the less likely we are to repeat it. Or rhyme with it, which is more likely. Seriously, any war has more potential to turn into WWI than WWII, if the hagiography about II is even accurate, which I somewhat doubt.
  100. @R.G. Camara
    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what's the likelihood of the Third Reich's rise?

    The bitter taste in many German's mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism's rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang's arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie's started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis----after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave, @Jon Halpenny, @Peter D. Bredon

    Nazism was partly a reaction against Bolshevism. The early Nazis, including Hitler, were heavily influenced by refugees fleeing Russia from the Bolsheviks. It was these refugees who imparted the ferocious anti- semitism to the Nazis. Until WWI Germans were not considered to be a particularly anti-semitic nationality. Alfred Rosenberg, the “philosopher” of the Nazi party, was such a refugee.

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

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jon Halpenny

    Yep.

    Hitler spent a decade ranting about the threat of Jewish-Bolshevism. He didn't spend much time on Jews; it was Jewish-Bolshevism. Of course, in Anglo history books, it is viewed as the rantings of a mad man. Fast-forward a decade, Churchill is viewed as a geopolitical genius for finally recognizing the threat of the Iron Curtain of...Jewish-Bolshevism. ::shrug::

    With hindsight, it is apparent WW2 was a complete geopolitical debacle -- probably the largest in the past 500 years. We fought the wrong side in Europe, empowering the rise of the Soviet Union, which nearly blew up the planet. Our efforts in the Pacific -- while leading to the surrender of Japan -- also gave the Chinese Communist Party a new lease on life. Arguably, the CCP is a bigger long-term threat than the Soviet Union ever was. Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.

    It is also apparent that FDR, Churchill, Cordell Hull, et al were clowns. They completely misread the geopolitical realities of the 1930's and we are still paying for it, as will future generations. No amount of Boomer WW2-Churchill porn changes that. It can be said that all of this is apparent only in hindsight. But that's not true. One leader correctly foresaw it: Hitler.

    Replies: @Alden, @R.G. Camara, @Dissident

  101. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that's due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, "Caput Mundi," reverts to being, as Napoleon said, "As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question."

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny, @Diversity Heretic, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Frankopan, in his book, “The Silk Roads” indicates Sir Edward Grey put Constantinople up for grabs in 1907 when he let the Russian Ambassador know that Britain would consider “being more flexible” on the issue of the Bosphorus if Russia would establish permanent good relations with Britain.

  102. Sleepwalkers, by Clark is a great book on the start of WW1.

    • Disagree: LondonBob
  103. @AnotherDad
    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from "demographics". But so much of what's gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    Mediocre leadership across the board. Political and military. (Including generals who hadn't even absorbed the lessons from the American Civil war a half century before.) But not just in Europe--in the US as well which should have worked tireless to bring it to an end.

    The simple critique is the dynamic great powers getting dragged into war by tired backward eastern empires.

    But i think the core culprit is simply imperialism. There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world's turf locked up?

    The post-War American system of free trade between independent nations is just far, far superior to empire.

    The only way you can accommodate the ebb and flow of history at least potentially peacefully, is through nationalism--free and independent nations charting their own course.

    Imperialism leads to war. Imperialism is at the root of our tortured 20th century history, which watered the seeds of insanity now destroying the West.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Hans, @Art Deco

    Harming another is also subtle self-harm. Oppressing others is a subtle self-oppression. Imperialism is sacrificing a part of your soul for worldly power, too. It changes your body politic. It creates new incentives. Is it any wonder, that upon losing their empire, Britain’s imperial governing class immediately began importing the imperial peoples to the lands which remained under their domain?

    This doesn’t make inwards colonisation right. Nor does it make it deserved. “Right” and “deserved” are empty concepts and products of motivated reasoning. But it does make imperialism something to be avoided.

  104. @Hhsiii
    @but an humble craftsman

    Most history I’ve read suggests there’s plenty of blame to go around and Germany isn’t singled out for WWI. Niall Ferguson suggests, as Steve alludes, that England not making its stance clear (it wasn’t sure itself) bares a large portion of blame.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Hapalong Cassidy

    I’ve read Ferguson’s book “The Pity of War” in which he makes a good case for why Britain should never have fought WW1. I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2. As the world’s richest nation and leading industrial and financial power, they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by fighting in WW1.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2.

    Something often forgotten today is that the First World War had more combat deaths than the Second, although the latter's total death toll was much higher because of all the civilian deaths.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy

    , @Yngvar
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    After the first ten-thousands was killed the war had to continue to justify the loss of the first ten-thousands killed. "Did they die for nothing?" And so it went.

    Strange logic.

  105. @nebulafox
    @prosa123

    Wife stabbed by an anarchist, only son dead by his own hand, one brother executed in a Mexican prison, another dead of typhus.

    Franz Josef did not have a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Diversity Heretic, @Hapalong Cassidy

    And the only reason he was next in line to the throne was that his cousin had blown his brains out. Ferdinand’s uncle the Emperor, who never got over the death of his son, always had a very strained relationship with him.

  106. @Anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123


    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

     

    https://i.imgur.com/aCXL21G.jpg

    Replies: @Skyler the Weird, @Reg Cæsar

    That’s a violation of IATT Bulletin 1147

    https://www.tor.com/2011/08/31/wikihistory/

  107. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that's due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, "Caput Mundi," reverts to being, as Napoleon said, "As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question."

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny, @Diversity Heretic, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    Thank you for your reply. Napoleon Bonaparte is also quoted as having said: “If the earth were a nation, Constantinople would be it’s capital.” Imagine the consternation if any world leader suggested that a mass might one day be performed again in Hagia Sophia!

    Insofar as Alsace and Lorraine are concerned, their status was the major stumbling block to a possible peace settlement at the beginning of 1918: Let Germany keep its gains in the east, but evacuate northern France, Belgium and Luxembourg and return to the status quo ante bellum in the west. But that status quo meant Alsace and Lorraine remained German, which France could not accept, having entered the war as an ally of Russia with the objective of regaining those territories. And by 1918 France had a huge “butcher’s bill,” to be paid. Plebescite might have been the answer, but both sides were probably nervous how it would turn out.

    You’re right; more German magnanimity in the aftermath of the 1870-71 victory would have been a far-sighted policy.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Diversity Heretic


    Plebescite might have been the answer, but both sides were probably nervous how it would turn out.
     
    Has any historian or stats person ever researched this? How Germanized was Alsace-Lorraine between 1871-1914?

    I’ve read that the German civil service (mostly Protestant I presume?) alienated the locals some, discriminating against Catholics, etc. and that sympathy for France was high when war broke out in 1914. I’ve also read that the region was granted limited autonomy eventually and as time passed French Foreign Legion officers lamented fewer recruits from Alsace as memory of the annexation passed. Did anyone ever estimate how a hypothetical plebiscite would have gone?
  108. @The Alarmist

    John Wilkes Booth’s recruited involved numerous young men of fashion and involvement may have gone quite high in the Confederate government...
     
    Yeah, but it was the Union profiteers who pulled the strings, because Abe was going to kill the goose that would lay the golden eggs, AKA reconstruction.

    Replies: @G. Poulin

    That’s right. Abe was a standard-issue political hack who made some poor decisions, leading to a national catastrophe, but he was not a monster. It was the Republican Party as a whole that was the monster.

  109. https://twitter.com/ARKloster/status/1404149682364899332?s=20

    Few things less hilarious. Were people in 1914 mistaking tragedy for comedy as well?

  110. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Gaspar DeLaFunk

    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Flip

    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval (and even on this board there are those who claim everything between Styria and the Black Sea is in reality Serbia), just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.

    – Franz Ferdinand was on a goodwill tour gathering creds for himself and the reforms he hoped to enact; chief among the former was that he was not afraid of his beloved subjects, not in the capital of a recently annexed province, not in a hotbed of Serb agitation, not on St. Vitus´Day
    (= anniversary of the battle of Kosovo Polje, the holiest of holies for orthodox Serbs, celebrated by imbibing, reminiscing about the almost twenty years they had a czar and fantasizing about political murder and martyrdom; never mind Milos Obilic is about as historical as Wilhelm Tell and Murad I died of constipation).
    For size, picture the US viceroy in Baghdad paying a visit to Kerbela, in an open Benz, on Eid al-Adhà. Whatever may be said against the archduke (an impressive list) he had testicles the size of a Holstein´s udder (and a syph to match).
    Maybe he could have saved the empire – maybe.

    Bonus trivia: Princip´s organization, the Black Hand (“crna ruka”), apart from a skull-and-bones and the motto “sloboda ili smrt” (“freedom or death”) still carried the black, red and gold of the National Revolution 1848 (now usurped by the ZRG)

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @nokangaroos

    Do you have a source on Heydrich? I’ve never heard that before and I’m interested.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    , @AKAHorace
    @nokangaroos

    I really liked your comment


    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval
     
    This is true, revolutionaries often target the most humane members of the old regime, but then you go on to say

    just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.
     
    Could you say a bit more or give a reference here ? Just because someone is shot by the opposition is not proof that they are a reformer. People who want upheaval also benefit from killing those who are well known to be cruel.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  111. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that's due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, "Caput Mundi," reverts to being, as Napoleon said, "As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question."

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny, @Diversity Heretic, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    I read yesterday that many Turks (including Erdogan) are very upset to find from Ancestry.com, etc, that they’re actually Greek.

  112. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Gaspar DeLaFunk

    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Flip

    No, I mean, why would Slavs take out their biggest champion in Vienna?

    I think the thinking is that FF would have reached an accommodation with the Slavs to keep them in the country so the nationalists wanted him gone to encourage independence.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Flip

    So the nationalists were reckless, bloodthirsty, risked everything and cost themselves enormously in order to achieve the same thing that they would've achieved peacefully otherwise. Many such cases!

  113. @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    I think poor decisions from individuals in every government involved led to the tragedy that was WWI. There's no single smoking gun or cartoon villain in the background. And the funny thing is: you had people all over the place who were trying to cover their domestic asses. From Bethmann's fear of and attempts to manipulate his temperamental monarch to the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers being under pressure from the hawks in both countries (and fatally overcompensating as a result) to the French President being under scrutiny for taking Russian money during his electoral campaign to the potential civil war about to break out in Ireland, I don't think anybody was expecting what was coming that summer. There was no sinister plan.

    Nikola Pašić-Serbia's PM-did not effectively control the security services of his country, which regularly ran operations abroad without any input from the civilians back in Belgrade. It was headed by a guy who helped not just murder the royal couple in a palace coup a decade earlier, but butcher them and throw the body parts down to the street below. (Again: Serbian politics was a lot like pre-WWII Japanese politics, with a lot of fear of being assassinated by army or intel radicals if you weren't perceived as nationalist enough.) It's really a matter of debate whether he could have done anything to prevent the assassination.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @bomag, @Fox

    Thanks for your input here.

    Reminds us that much happens “as a result of human action, not of human design.”

  114. anonymous[925] • Disclaimer says:
    @JackOH
    I'm trying to imagine in 2021 a still extant Austria-Hungary, British Empire, French Third Republic, Imperial Germany, and Imperial Russia, with their possessions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas intact with some adjustments for devolution of political power. WWI and WWII--the 1914-1945 War--never happened.

    I and everyone else commenting here know what did happen was awful, and we're living with the political sequelae of that terrible period to this day.

    Serious question: how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Rob

    Serious question: how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?

    The jews would have been dissatisfied with it because talented, prosperous, and cohesive European nations/races would have been attractive to young jewish men and women in terms of assimilation and intermarriage.

  115. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Houston 1992

    One of history's biggest mysteries

    Possibly they were worried about the Yanks stirring up trouble in Ireland, or France.

    Speaking of Ireland: I wonder whether British entry into the first world war was motivated by a desire to kick the Irish can down the road. Large chunks of the British army's Irish regiments had mutinied in 1914 and were plotting armed resistance to home rule, but they all came back once war with Germany was on the table. You might argue that British politicians would have to be quite stupid and feckless to have done such a thing; I would argue that's why it's so plausible.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @TomSchmidt

    More likely Wilberforce etc. and closer to home would be my guess.

  116. @nokangaroos
    @SaneClownPosse

    The third cousin, Nikolai II, might beg to differ.
    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Wrong families :P

    Replies: @Ralph L, @prosa123

    Wilhelm was a first cousin of Alexandra and George but not Nicholas. George was first cousin of N and A and W.

    I believe the traditional view is that Britain entered the war to keep Germany (or any great power) out of Belgium, which is very close to the mouth of the Thames. They’d fought France and Spain several times for the same reason.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @Ralph L

    In slightly more actual truth "Belgium" was created by Britain to ensure neither France nor Germany had control of the Schelde estuary
    (and to keep them warring forever), and the problems of that contraption are as evident as ever;
    its "neutrality" has always been a fiction.

    Replies: @Alden, @Lurker

  117. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    So some Slavs killed the Slav-friendly heir to the Hapsburg throne so that some other Slavic peoples and territories would be transferred from Hapsburg to Slavic control.

    Am I missing something here?

    Replies: @Gaspar DeLaFunk, @Desiderius, @J.Ross

    1,000 odd years of World History. Give or take 50,000.

    No time like the present to get started. A real page turner.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Desiderius

    What good's the reading going to do you if you don't notice when it doesn't make sense - or worse, swallow the nonsense whole?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  118. @Anon

    What if Franz Ferdinand had lived?
     
    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?

    Replies: @Hans, @Hrw-500, @Richard B

    Chaim Weizmann’s letter to Churchill – http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/WSC_100941.html

    Benjamin Freedman, American patriot, former jew, explains the inside dealing to offer up unlimited Doughboys –

    And everyone should have gotten Alison Weir’s outstanding short book, Against Our Better Judgment – https://againstourbetterjudgment.com/

  119. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    Steve, re this:

    Did you notice that there were only 13 black students in the school? Against 242 whites who took the test? A couple of self-selected immigrant blacks, three or four “ancestrally mostly white or Jewish but culturally black” blacks, etc., and you can skew the score of 13 kids pretty far.

    (My calculations put them at about a third of a standard deviation below the whites, although I don’t have La Griffe’s stats chops and I may not be doing it right. He did a lot of this kind of reverse engineering from “percent meeting grade level” back to mean and SD.)

  120. British secret societies and bankers wanted a war. So I’m thinking the war was cooked into the books so to speak. Likely nothing would have prevented WW1 except perhaps Napoleon actually being victorious at Waterloo, and a certain banking family losing their shirts.

  121. @anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123


    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe.
     
    Jews wouldn’t like that.

    Replies: @Hans

    Yes, but

    Jews would be influential, but they’d have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They’d have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    would be intolerable. After all, as the great rabbi Ovadiah Yosef explained in 2010, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”

    • Replies: @FPD72
    @Hans


    After all, as the great rabbi Ovadiah Yosef explained in 2010, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.

     

    And this comment was condemned by both the American Jewish Committee (Commentary magazine) and the ADL, although I suspect that the latter’s condemnation was more for the comment’s optics as anything else.
  122. @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Admiral Jacky Fisher predicted Germany would go to war in the summer of 1914 as this was when the Kiel Canal would be completed. Germany had long term plans in the East and they needed to strike before Russia became too strong.

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @nebulafox, @res

    Admiral Fisher predicted war early and often. He also tried to make his predictions come true.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos
  123. I am reading John Keegan’s The First World War and just finished Dead Wake about the sinking of the Lusitania. Keegan says that if Austria had smashed Serbia right away, which turned out to be not so easy, that nothing else would have happened. Instead, they dithered while trying to enlist Germany’s support.

  124. While Steve talks about Franz Ferdinand, perhaps inspired by his favourite pop band, the demented puppet Biden has purchased, with the U.S. taxpayer’s money, 500 million doses of the mRNA Pfizer vaccine, to be delivered in Africa and other SHITHOLE countries all over the world. 500 million doses!

    Why the Hell do they want to vaccinate EVERYBODY in the whole world??

    Is it just about money?

    Or is it about something else?

    I swear, I have never seen anything similar in my life.

    It is quite scary if you think about it.

    Why is Pfizer getting all this money from the U.S. government, I mean, taxpayer, to send to Africa?

    (In that case, perhaps it would be good if the vaccine was really to curb population growth…)

    And how much money are they printing nowadays anyway?

    These people are demonic, I wouldn’t trust them with anything, much less vaccines.

    But there is no discussion about that here. Everybody happy with the vaxx, posting pics on Fb and talking about Science!

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/10/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-historic-vaccine-donation-half-a-billion-pfizer-vaccines-to-the-worlds-lowest-income-nations/

    • Replies: @keypusher
    @Dumbo


    Why the Hell do they want to vaccinate EVERYBODY in the whole world??

     

    Because it's a pandemic. You chose your handle with care.
  125. @Steve Sailer
    @The Alarmist

    Because I'm old, I can never keep straight Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, and Arctic Monkeys. I kind of can tell The Killers apart from them, except for "Mr. Brightside:"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdGFtwCNBE

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Boomthorkell

    Then there were the Violent Femmes, The Psychadelic Furs, Butthole Surfers, etc. ad nauseum. One of the more interesting observations I’ve read about Boomers is that unlike prior generations, many of whom evolved from folk or popular music in their younger years to classical or at least more refined music in their later years, many Boomers have clung to the same crap they listened to in their salad days.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
    @The Alarmist

    If it was crap, it sure is crap that millions of younger folks have taken a liking to. Have you ever read the thousands of comments made by the younger set on the music of the 60's, 70's of the last century. They often say things like, " I wish I could have lived in that time". Even though I like some of the music of my generation, Justin Bieber doesn't come close to Elvis, the Beatles, etc.etc.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  126. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    The Hapsburgs were expansionist with AH annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, an area with little in common with the rest of the empire culturally or in any other way. This brought them into conflict with Serbia which promoted Slav nationalism, a danger to the artificial AH empire. Ferdinand may be described as kind to Slavs but they were to be under his thumb and not independent. Motoring triumphantly around in an area they had just decided to take for themselves displays Ferdinand’s arrogance and hubris.
    All the major players knew war was coming and had been preparing for years, upgrading their militaries and putting up large contracts for armaments. The unexpected event caught them off guard so they weren’t prepared as fully as they had planned. WW I was going to happen. It was just a question of when and the match was lit prematurely.

    • Replies: @Roger Sweeny
    @anonymous

    Austria-Hungary had occupied and run Bosnia-Herzegovina for decades. The 1908 annexation just made it official. On the other hand, it pissed off a lot of Serbians, who thought the area should be part of Serbia. The place was a crazy-quilt of mostly Serbians, Croatians, and Muslims. It didn't fit into any ethnically homogeneous country.

  127. @Boomthorkell
    Does anyone here know how to attach photos? I'd like to upload one of the proposed USGA.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Upload the photo to a image site (e.g., imgur), then click on the link they give you until you get to something ending “.jpg”, “.png” or whatever type of file the image is (in other words, get the link so that it is directly to the image file, not just to an html page that has the image in it), then post that “-.jpg”, “-.png” or whatever link.

    Alternatively, if the image is already online somewhere, you can usually find the direct file-link within that page, and just post that, so you don’t need to download and re-upload it, unless you don’t expect the source site to have much half-life.

    • Thanks: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Dissident
    @Almost Missouri


    get the link so that it is directly to the image file, not just to an html page that has the image in it
     
    With some sites, such as Flickr, and last I had tried, imgur, posting the URL to the HTML page will cause the image to display in the comment.
    Topical examples follow. Note how each image is automatically hyper-linked to its source URL, in this case the Flickr page where one can see all the provided info about.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/spmiller/8683593171/
    Caption: Gavrilo Princeps captured, 28 June 1914, Heeresgeschichtliches Museum

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/33836089@N03/44351298674/


    Tourist replica of the "GRAF & STIFT" touring car that Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were travelling on Sunday 28th June 1914 when they were assassinated by Gavrilo.Princep. This is also almost the exact spot where the assassination took pl[ace]
     
    A few more at
    https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=gavrilo%20princep

    (Couldn't find any that would work-in my signature motif of defiant celebration.)

  128. China— Basically same as it is today except CCP is called something else.

    Chiang still launches Northern Expedition, plays off between Russians and Japan to unify all Central Plains warlords.

    Still a Second Sino-Japanese War but limited to Manchuria north of the Great Wall.

    Mao takes over at the end, whether by Russian or Anglo backing or both, because he will find a way.

    Liberation of Xinjiang/Tibet/Manchuria still takes place, in addition to Outer Mongolia/Taiwan, so Qing Dynasty borders.

    Chinese Civil War, Cultural Revolution still takes place because intra-dynasty reshuffling just have to happen.

    Japan— A Sino-Japanese Alliance, mediated by Germans. Throws Russian and Western colonialists out of E/SE Asia and India.

    With American/British/French support, builds a smaller Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Circle, or rather Crescent Moon, from Ryūkyū to Northeast India, under Japanese influence (similar to British Commonwealth). As counterweight to China.

    Internally still a few chimp-outs like February 26 Incident. But the nail that sticks up gets pounded down. And their Commies are also kept in place.

    Korea— They unleashes their inner Goguryeo warriors, goes on a Swedish Empire style expansion. Only to have a few pieces split off due to (mostly) internal dissension and outsider meddling.

    View post on imgur.com

    But borders stabilize because C/J/K all have nukes. East Asia GDP same in relative terms to West as in real world.

    OBOR takes place sooner, there’s already a high speed rail by now between Shanghai and Paris.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos
  129. @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Admiral Jacky Fisher predicted Germany would go to war in the summer of 1914 as this was when the Kiel Canal would be completed. Germany had long term plans in the East and they needed to strike before Russia became too strong.

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @nebulafox, @res

    I’m not saying Germany would have never gone to war, ever, least of all on moral grounds. A preemptive hawk party existed in Berlin, just like in every other European capital. But Germany was not Serbia. Moltke, who was that kind of hawk, did not control the government. Wilhelm and Bethmann-the “two old women”, according to Moltke-did. I’m saying that they didn’t want a continent wide war against multiple enemies (as opposed to a preemptive war for Austria to punish Serbia) in the summer of 1914, because their relative military situation was at a nadir thanks to France’s 1913 law. Austria, for its part, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a war with Russia, as opposed to Serbia.

    I don’t think anybody went into that summer wanting a war like that. The takeaway I get from the summer of 1914 are individuals in every European capital pursuing their own agendas, many of them domestic, and there being a complete lack of transparency behind the actions of other governments.

    • Agree: prosa123, Fluesterwitz
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Sure Germany hoped to get away with a limited war against their main rival Russia and acquire their empire in the East, they badly miscalculated.

  130. @Whitehall
    The Great War was always going to happen. The Brits had been the world hegemon since the Seven Years War (aka French and Indian War started by George Washington!) But Germany was raising fast and by the 1900s surpassed the British in rare strategic power. One can fault the Brits for creating their own lack of focus by trying to exploit and maintain their far-flung Empire. It was fragile politically, vulnerable militarily, and draining financially.

    That un-stability meant a new hegemon was displace them unless they could refocus themselves. Germany thought it was to be Germany but when war came, they lost and fell into political and economic disorder with the Socialists running the Weimar Republic for 14 years after the war's end.

    The real cause of WWII in my analysis was the US remaining comfortably isolationist. America was the rightful world hegemon and it took us finishing off Germany in WWI and doing the same to Germany and Japan in WWII. By 1945, it was clear that if the US didn't take the lead, some unsavory aspirant would (Stalin.)

    So a trigger is not a cause; it just kicks off great events that were almost bound to happen anyway.

    The question now is, what forces are now planning other triggering assassinations or dastardly events (like global biowarfare)?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >The Great War was always going to happen.

    I just don’t agree with that. WWI comes across to me as the most deeply *unnecessary* historical tragedy in modern history.

    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, unwillingness to think differently, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @nebulafox

    The unnecessary was allowing rivalry to bleed into the existential. There was going to be war one way or another always is but not necessarily that war here or there.

    Cain v Abel

    , @Gamecock
    @nebulafox


    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.
     
    Maybe. But they didn't see. How could they?

    The big mashup of WWI came, as often happened, with technological advances obsoleting previous tactics. In this case, smokeless powder.

    The tech advance that made WWII different was mobile warfare. Tank divisions made static defenses useless. Naval mobility made it world wide.

    The best WWII story I have read is Kurt (Panzer)Meyer's "Grenadiers" account of his personal blitzkrieg across southern Ukraine. He penetrated as much as 50 miles a day, capturing Soviets unaware in their staging areas, way behind the front lines.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

  131. Speculation sure is fun!

    My additions: What if Sophie had lived? I’ve read that the Austrians were way more pissed at Sophie’s assassination than that dukey fella.

    What if LHO had shot and killed Jacqueline Bovier Kennedy?

  132. @PhysicistDave
    @R.G. Camara

    R.G. Camara asked:


    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?
     
    Close to zero, I assume. But then if Germany had not entered the war, it would not have been a World War.

    Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary. I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    The German historian Ernst Nolte argues that the conflicts from 1914 to 1945 constituted the "European Civil War." Unfortunately, his Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus does not seem to ever have been translated into English.

    Perhaps our friend Dieter has read it?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @nebulafox, @R.G. Camara

    As time passes it’s a natural take. Industrial v Bucolic etc…

  133. @nebulafox
    @Whitehall

    >The Great War was always going to happen.

    I just don't agree with that. WWI comes across to me as the most deeply *unnecessary* historical tragedy in modern history.

    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, unwillingness to think differently, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Gamecock

    The unnecessary was allowing rivalry to bleed into the existential. There was going to be war one way or another always is but not necessarily that war here or there.

    Cain v Abel

  134. @LondonBob
    @Colin Wright

    Annexing Alsace and Lorraine was initially opposed by Bismarck as he thought it would create would engender permanent French enmity toward Germany. Karl Marx also warned his fellow Germans: "If Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction with Russia. It is unnecessary to go into the unholy consequences."

    France had good reasons to seek revenge for the Franco Prussian War, nevertheless it was still the Germans and Austro-Hungarians who declared war and who rightly take the blame.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @JMcG

    The British and French declared war on Germany in WWII, so presumably they are to blame in that instance?
    France declared war on Prussia in 1870 and got her backside kicked up and down the street.
    The Russian mobilization in 1914 was the spark that couldn’t be extinguished. It came just after French President Poincare and Prime Minister Viviani made a state visit to Russia. The French seem to have been the ones pulling the strings that started the Great War. The Russians and the Brits were the ones having their strings pulled.

  135. @for-the-record
    @AnotherDad

    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Here's their apology:

    https://static.dw.com/image/17743913_303.jpg


    Gavrilo Princip, assassin who sparked WWI, gets statue in Belgrade

    Serbia has unveiled a monument to the man who sparked the chain of events leading to World War I. Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 has a divisive legacy in the Balkans.

    https://www.dw.com/en/gavrilo-princip-assassin-who-sparked-wwi-gets-statue-in-belgrade/a-18546305
     

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Inquiring Mind

    I can assure you all of this: Gavrilo Princip’s legacy among the non-Serbs of the region is that of a terrorist who kicked off many decades of war, chaos, and Serb dominance. Him being lionized by the Communists really did not sooth Croat and Muslim resentment toward the Serbs underneath the surface during the Tito years.

    (The Black Hand and Young Bosnia did have non-Serb members: IIRC, the guy who threw the bomb at Franz Ferdinand was a Muslim. It was a youthful movement inspired by anarchism, not an overtly Orthodox thing. But they were predominantly Serb. The Haspburg burgermeister of Sarajevo on that day was also a Muslim, and one of the guys who drafted the ultimatum back in Vienna was, tellingly, a Croat. Serbia basically viewed Croats and Bosniaks as Serbs who’d been brainwashed, and had been engaging in a widespread policy of mosque destruction and Catholic church conversion in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, which the non-Serbs obviously weren’t too happy about.)

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    @nebulafox

    Had Gavrilo Princip had lived long as Vaso Čubrilović and Cvjetko Popović who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaso_Čubrilović https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cvjetko_Popović I wonder if he would be lionized so much?

    , @Svevlad
    @nebulafox

    Bosniaks (Muslims) didn't really exist up until 1960s. The whole damn ethnicity was basically made up from scratch by the Austrians as some D&C type thing. A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian, @Daniel H

    , @J.Ross
    @nebulafox

    Oh sure, put the Muslim in charge of bombs.

  136. @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?

    — It would hardly have been easy or cheap. (At the beginning of the war, the UK–inc. Ireland–and US populations were similar (30m). British industry was more developed, but the US had a better resource base and would be fighting in it’s own waters.) They could break the blockade … at the cost of losing a lot of ship and men and having a war they did not want.

    — The Brits, while happy to see the US balkanize, didn’t want to be associated with a slave state. No one did.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad


    No one did.
     
    That's vastly overstated. There were energetic advocates for intervention including Palmerston IIRC to the point that the Confederacy were counting on it in their war aims (thinking back to the French role in the Revolution).

    All kinds of people were associated with slave states all over the world without a second thought. Abolitionism was the outlier of the time. Which is why BLM Inc. can get away with their brazen defamation.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @LondonBob
    @AnotherDad

    An Royal Navy blockade of the North would have been even more effective than the North’s blockade of the South. Smashing the Union navy, “The work of a few hours”, sniffed Palmerston. In 1861 the RN had 63 ships-of-the-line (60 guns and above) to the American 0. The total count of all commissioned warships was 598 to 42. Bye-bye Anaconda plan! Pretty soon it would be the British doing an “Anaconda plan” on Union ports. The North had no ocean going ironclads unlike the RN which had several. Britain would also have acted in conjunction with France, which was more pro-South than Britain. In any scenario with British involvement, you’re also talking French involvement on the same side. This makes an already huge impact bigger: add 35 ships-of-the-line and 231 smaller ships to the totals above.

    Also blockade runners in the South could run to Bermuda etc., whereas the North would have no nearby friendly ports. Blockade runners also relied on smokeless coal from Wales.

    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.

    http://67thtigers.blogspot.com/2010/06/royal-navy-force-designated-for-america.html

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  137. @AnotherDad
    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from "demographics". But so much of what's gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    Mediocre leadership across the board. Political and military. (Including generals who hadn't even absorbed the lessons from the American Civil war a half century before.) But not just in Europe--in the US as well which should have worked tireless to bring it to an end.

    The simple critique is the dynamic great powers getting dragged into war by tired backward eastern empires.

    But i think the core culprit is simply imperialism. There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world's turf locked up?

    The post-War American system of free trade between independent nations is just far, far superior to empire.

    The only way you can accommodate the ebb and flow of history at least potentially peacefully, is through nationalism--free and independent nations charting their own course.

    Imperialism leads to war. Imperialism is at the root of our tortured 20th century history, which watered the seeds of insanity now destroying the West.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Hans, @Art Deco

    “I realized the extent of Sanhedrin madness when I represented as counsel, one of the defendants in the so-called sedition trial in Washington, D.C., during 1944. I realized that native Americans were being persecuted because they exposed the Protocols and in order to prevent the people from realizing that the nation was being dragged surreptitiously into war.” – Henry H. Klein – https://ia802902.us.archive.org/11/items/klein-henry-h.-a-jew-exposes-the-jewish-world-conspiracy/Klein%20Henry%20H.%20-%20A%20jew%20exposes%20the%20jewish%20world%20conspiracy.pdf

    “Certain special features of the period under consideration have been for various reasons entirely neglected. An example of such neglect is the ignoring by historians of the role played by the Rothschild family….Strangely enough the influence of the Rothschild family is barely mentioned….In the course of my researches I foudn that references to the name of Rothschild in official documents and in books of memoirs were as common as they are rare in contemporary textbooks.” – Count Egon Caesar Corti, “The Rise of the House of Rothschild”, 1928

    • Thanks: Morton's toes
  138. @nebulafox
    @Whitehall

    >The Great War was always going to happen.

    I just don't agree with that. WWI comes across to me as the most deeply *unnecessary* historical tragedy in modern history.

    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, unwillingness to think differently, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Gamecock

    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.

    Maybe. But they didn’t see. How could they?

    The big mashup of WWI came, as often happened, with technological advances obsoleting previous tactics. In this case, smokeless powder.

    The tech advance that made WWII different was mobile warfare. Tank divisions made static defenses useless. Naval mobility made it world wide.

    The best WWII story I have read is Kurt (Panzer)Meyer’s “Grenadiers” account of his personal blitzkrieg across southern Ukraine. He penetrated as much as 50 miles a day, capturing Soviets unaware in their staging areas, way behind the front lines.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @Gamecock

    The French put great faith in the "poudre B" (after Gen. Boulanger, the shining saviour figure of the revanche - until he shot himself over the casket of his mistress. Gawd, how french) and for a full two years they had the best military rifle in the world; until it was greatly outclassed by the Judenflinte M.88 (which as you might have guessed was not intoxicating either).

    It was the machine gun that did away with the glitzy soldateska of the past and birthed the helmeted mud-colored war pigs of the XX century. Its tactical and sociological consequences far eclipsed the tank and the nuke.
    Most major armies regarded it as a toy (though dandy for colonial purposes),
    largely because the Montigny had stunk off badly against Prussian arty in 1870/71.
    In 20/20 hindsight there is no excuse whatsoever as there had already been a full-on dress rehearsal of all that was to come - the battle over the High Mountain at Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war 1904/05 (Gen. Nogi/Gen. Kondratyenko).

    But as the saying goes the generals are always fighting the last war ...
    the Russians were quoting Kutusow ("Stupid is the bullet, and brave the bayonet") and answered the "modernizers" that "the bullet may become somewhat smarter but never braver". It is better not to dwell on it too long lest one get depressed ;)

  139. @SaneClownPosse
    @but an humble craftsman

    King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were close cousins.

    WW1 was a managed affair among the Ruling Families.

    The Families won, everyone else lost.

    Same thing happens every war/financial crisis/pandemic.

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Hugo Silva

    Politically Royal Families were the biggest losers from the whole mess.

  140. @Skyler the Weird
    @Thomm

    I'd say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @James N. Kennett

    But who was fighting whom? And who won? And what was it about?

    Not buying your premise yet.

  141. @Steve Sailer
    @Lockean Proviso

    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn't get as much press as they deserved.

    Replies: @Prosa123, @FPD72

    Although the significance would not become apparent for some time, 11/22/1963 also was the day Walt Disney rode in a helicopter over some Orlando ranch land and decided it would be the location of his planned theme park.

    • Thanks: Desiderius
  142. @AnotherDad
    @Houston 1992


    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?
     
    -- It would hardly have been easy or cheap. (At the beginning of the war, the UK--inc. Ireland--and US populations were similar (30m). British industry was more developed, but the US had a better resource base and would be fighting in it's own waters.) They could break the blockade ... at the cost of losing a lot of ship and men and having a war they did not want.

    -- The Brits, while happy to see the US balkanize, didn't want to be associated with a slave state. No one did.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @LondonBob

    No one did.

    That’s vastly overstated. There were energetic advocates for intervention including Palmerston IIRC to the point that the Confederacy were counting on it in their war aims (thinking back to the French role in the Revolution).

    All kinds of people were associated with slave states all over the world without a second thought. Abolitionism was the outlier of the time. Which is why BLM Inc. can get away with their brazen defamation.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Desiderius



    Overstated ...

    All kinds of people were associated with slave states all over the world without a second thought. Abolitionism was the outlier of the time. Which is why BLM Inc. can get away with their brazen defamation.
     
    Agree--i overstated/simplified.

    Obviously the US itself was a slave society--among many others. Slavery being ubiquitous in human history since the neolithic. (And before if you count captured women kept in a reduced status.)

    But there's a difference between traditional societies and a Western nation creating itself with the express purpose of extending slavery. Helping the Confederacy would have been a reasonable policy for Britain--balkanizing the US--if they didn't need resources (esp. grain) and have a market in the North as well. But that the Confederacy was setup specifically to continue slavery lent it a stink many people didn't want to be associated with. In people's minds, that's different than just dealing with the world as it is--slavery and all.
  143. @Anon
    It's notable that the Austrian-Hungarian fell apart the minute the Imperial boot was off the neck of the various ethnic groups. Its demise was inevitable at some point, and it may have been a bloody one accompanied by wars. But there was no reason for Western Europe to get dragged into the mess, except for the pigheadedness of Kaiser Wilhelm.

    As for Franz Ferdinand, the book Hitler and the Hapsburgs hints lightly at the idea that Emperor Franz Joseph, not being fond of either his nephew's marriage or his politics, may have set his nephew up for assassination. The risks of taking that exposed ride in the fatal car were well known, but the Emperor insisted that his nephew do it. One of the Hapsburg relatives always believed the Emperor was guilty of Ferdinand's death. Franz Joseph comes across like a very cold snake.

    Replies: @Magyar

    It’s notable that the Austrian-Hungarian fell apart the minute the Imperial boot was off the neck of the various ethnic groups. Its demise was inevitable at some point, and it may have been a bloody one accompanied by wars.

    This is exactly right. Once the Hungarians got a fair amount of wiggle room in 1867, every other ethnicity (Slovenes, Croats, Serbians, Romanians, Slovaks, Ukranians, Czechs, Italians etc etc) asked quite rightly: why not us too?

    The Hungarians, of course, made sure to deny their rightful emancipation to the aforementioned (HAJRA MAGYAROK!) — in other words, it was the Austro-Hungarian DUAL Monarchy — not the Austro-Hungarian-Serbian-Croatian-Slovene Monarchies……

    Of course, this inflamed tensions between Hungary and everyone else — and this is exactly what Franz Ferdninand objected to

    A good book on what it was like in Vienna before WWI is Haumann’s “Hitler’s Vienna”.

  144. @Anon

    What if Franz Ferdinand had lived?
     
    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?

    Replies: @Hans, @Hrw-500, @Richard B

    While we’re at it, as I mentionned in a
    a older comment then I repost here about what if Jean-François Sipido had killed Edward VII who wasn’t king yet and the Entente Cordiale is aborted. I saw once a long while ago on AlternateHistory.com. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-shot-heard-around-the-world-new-website.10880/
    The link to the story is now broken but fortunately it was saved on the Wayback Machine.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113030/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm

  145. FWIW Horthy writes in his memoirs that he counseled Franz Josef to try to avoid war, predicting a domino effect that would spin a minor conflict completely out of control — however, at the same time, Horthy said he could also understand that Serbia had to be punished severely for such a transgression too.

    The irony, of course, being simply brutal — Franz Ferdinand being openly sympathetic to the South Slavic causes ended up being murdered by one…

  146. Anon[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    @R.G. Camara

    Nazism was partly a reaction against Bolshevism. The early Nazis, including Hitler, were heavily influenced by refugees fleeing Russia from the Bolsheviks. It was these refugees who imparted the ferocious anti- semitism to the Nazis. Until WWI Germans were not considered to be a particularly anti-semitic nationality. Alfred Rosenberg, the "philosopher" of the Nazi party, was such a refugee.

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

    Replies: @Anon

    Yep.

    Hitler spent a decade ranting about the threat of Jewish-Bolshevism. He didn’t spend much time on Jews; it was Jewish-Bolshevism. Of course, in Anglo history books, it is viewed as the rantings of a mad man. Fast-forward a decade, Churchill is viewed as a geopolitical genius for finally recognizing the threat of the Iron Curtain of…Jewish-Bolshevism. ::shrug::

    With hindsight, it is apparent WW2 was a complete geopolitical debacle — probably the largest in the past 500 years. We fought the wrong side in Europe, empowering the rise of the Soviet Union, which nearly blew up the planet. Our efforts in the Pacific — while leading to the surrender of Japan — also gave the Chinese Communist Party a new lease on life. Arguably, the CCP is a bigger long-term threat than the Soviet Union ever was. Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.

    It is also apparent that FDR, Churchill, Cordell Hull, et al were clowns. They completely misread the geopolitical realities of the 1930’s and we are still paying for it, as will future generations. No amount of Boomer WW2-Churchill porn changes that. It can be said that all of this is apparent only in hindsight. But that’s not true. One leader correctly foresaw it: Hitler.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Anon

    I agree . But it’s not boomer WW2 Churchill porn, but greatest generation porn.

    , @R.G. Camara
    @Anon

    Beating Japan was America's ticket to global dominance.

    When Japan put the English Navy and Far East holdings in tatters, they were poised to rule the waves as the most powerful blue water navy in the world. And history has shown since the Age of Sail -- heck, going back to the Ottomon Empire--he who controls the waves controls the world.

    While the European part of WW2 is debatable, had the U.S. not defeated Japan and taken over the oceans the language of business today would be Japanese, not English.

    What's even more impressive is how we beat the Japanese Navy basically ourselves, with the Australians and English playing minor roles. Contrast that with Europe, where it was largely Stalin who beat Hitler, with us coming in a far second, and the English and French contributed mightily as well.

    It would have been poetic had the Japanese defeated us to become the world's ocean masters after it was our Commodore Perry who's cannons announced to Japan that it was time to come into the modern world. But that did not happen; instead, we took ourselves from a major world power to world super power, tied with the Soviets.

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny

    , @Dissident
    @Anon


    Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.
     
    LOL! The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism were the disproportionately high number of Bolsheviks who were apostate Jews; ones who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR's history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

    Replies: @Anon, @John Johnson

  147. @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

    UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply

    It’s not so mysterious when you consider that whereas cotton was a luxury good—a luxury good of which Britain already had a backlog and which (as Steve has pointed out) was anyway in an economic bubble state—Britain, despite being a world-spanning empire, could not feed itself, and so relied on massive American grain imports. And those imports came primarily from the Northern States.

    Ignoring Southern pleas for intervention meant higher cotton prices (good for the mercantile classes), more demand for Egyptian and Indian cotton (good for the colonial classes) and less military spending (good for the taxpaying classes). Attacking the North meant mass starvation (plus the opposites of all of the foregoing). It was a “no-brainer”, really.

    There were other ancillary reasons. Reg mentions abolitionist sentiment in the UK, but the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t retcon abolition into a casus belli until halfway through the war. The UK government was more hardheaded than the frothy abolitionists of New England and Manchester, and didn’t consider abolitionism very important. They did consider important that the South was essentially trying to blackmail them into intervening on the South’s behalf, which they naturally didn’t appreciate. Also, they were making a lot of money selling war matériel to the North in exchange for all that grain they had to import. They also considered important some abstruse legalisms concerning the definition of a “belligerent” and the consequent legitimacy of the blockade, which they felt would impinge on their own future ability to impose naval blockades. But all of this took a back seat to simply not biting the hand that fed them.

    King Cotton was a piker compared to King Corn. This is largely forgotten today.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    Direct result of re-Peeling the Corn Laws

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Tex
    @Almost Missouri

    A very good summary. From the diplomatic perspective, Britain preferred to rush to the aid of the victors. In 1863 Gladstone, the arch-SJW of Britain, implied he was ready to recognize the Confederacy as an independent country. British recognition of the Confederacy would have been followed by French recognition and a major freak-out in Washington, DC. War could easily have occurred.

    But Antietam showed the Confederacy was not going to pull off a victory (had Longstreet intervened at the Bloody Angle, world history might have been different). British support cooled rapidly.

    Militarily, the Royal Navy would have cleaned up the USN. Britain's fleet was optimized for decisive battles (and they had ironclad battleships). The USN was dispersed for blockade and composed on numerous gunboats (ie, targets). On land the British Army would have had to face the numerous, and battle-hardened Union Army. British reinforcements to the Confederacy would have been welcome. The price would have been a Yankee invasion of Canada. Napoleon III would have loved to aid the Confederacy. Unfortunately, his army was still trying to wipe out the Mexican Juaristas and not succeeding. A shift to the Southern states might have cost Maximilian his throne that much sooner.

    Had the British or French intervened, the Confederacy would have prevailed. But it would have been very costly for their saviors with not a whole lot of benefits.

    Replies: @Jack D

  148. @nebulafox
    @for-the-record

    I can assure you all of this: Gavrilo Princip's legacy among the non-Serbs of the region is that of a terrorist who kicked off many decades of war, chaos, and Serb dominance. Him being lionized by the Communists really did not sooth Croat and Muslim resentment toward the Serbs underneath the surface during the Tito years.

    (The Black Hand and Young Bosnia did have non-Serb members: IIRC, the guy who threw the bomb at Franz Ferdinand was a Muslim. It was a youthful movement inspired by anarchism, not an overtly Orthodox thing. But they were predominantly Serb. The Haspburg burgermeister of Sarajevo on that day was also a Muslim, and one of the guys who drafted the ultimatum back in Vienna was, tellingly, a Croat. Serbia basically viewed Croats and Bosniaks as Serbs who'd been brainwashed, and had been engaging in a widespread policy of mosque destruction and Catholic church conversion in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, which the non-Serbs obviously weren't too happy about.)

    Replies: @Hrw-500, @Svevlad, @J.Ross

    Had Gavrilo Princip had lived long as Vaso Čubrilović and Cvjetko Popović who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaso_Čubrilović https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cvjetko_Popović I wonder if he would be lionized so much?

  149. @anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.
     
    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Wade Hampton, @Almost Missouri

    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    I don’t think this has much to do with the arc to 1914. Though obviously … change history get a different arc.

    Furthermore, i’m not even sure the CSA would still have existed even with no war. Slavery was an impractical, dying institution–unsuited to on-rushing industrial technology. Quite possible the CSA would have lumbered on for a few decades then states individually or as whole would have decided to ditch slavery and rejoin the union.

    I’m sympathetic to the arguments about the abusiveness of the “War of Northern Aggression”. We’d have been better off without it. It set the stage for federal tyranny, that bedevils us today.

    However, Lincoln wasn’t the only guy screwing up. The whole thing was stupid. The Confederate ruling class a bunch of clueless greedy dunces who didn’t see which way the world was heading. And the South Carolina hotheads firing on Fort Sumter–almost textbook in how not to secede from more larger, more powerful political entity.

    As in 1914–not much quality leadership on display.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    In a sense, Confederate propaganda was accurate: they were on the side of preserving tradition. For most of human history, the dominant model has been agrarian societies, usually accompanied by an unfree or semi-free rural labor class. The new, industrial model being followed by a handful of European nations and the northern part of the United States was a radical departure from tradition. We're a lot more different from people 300 years ago today in material terms than people 500 years ago were from people 1000 years ago.

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in. Had the Confederacy survived, they would have been at the mercy of imperialist powers, like everybody else who wasn't getting on board with the industrial program. And it would have been ideologically impossible to institute a Japanese-style overhaul after investing so much blood and treasure to preserve slavery and the agrarian way of life it was inherently tied into.

    (Where it wasn't accurate was the racialization of slavery. That was intrinsic to the New World: for the overwhelming majority of times and places in human history, slaves were slaves, serfs were serfs, and tenant farmers were tenant farmers, with skin color or creed being completely irrelevant to that status. It's funny to read Southern newspapers at the time talk about the Taiping Rebellion in China: they tried to make an analogy to their own situation with the Manchus being the equivalent to white plantation owners. Now it is true there was a communal element to the Taiping Revolt-the Hakka dominance in the Taiping leadership and the origins of the movement being rooted in Cantonese/Hakka communal violence in Guangdong and Guangxi-but if you take the analogy all the way to its conclusion, the perfectly Han Zeng Guofan would have been the equivalent of a Nat Turner figure saving the Confederacy.)

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    The Union might not have wanted them back any more than we wanted Brazil to join the Union.

  150. @LondonBob
    @Mr. Anon

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    Hah! Why? To save an Empire that viewed us as cannon-fodder? F**k that. You want to fight Germany over Belgium, that’s your business, John Bull.

    And Wilson was not just inept. He was corrupt and bought. He “kept us out of war” right up until the people who were pulling his chain told him he shouldn’t.

    The view of the war that Americans are usually spoonfed is invariably anglo-centric. For a somewhat different take, consider this:

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

  151. Franz was never the intended target, Potiorek was

  152. @nebulafox
    @for-the-record

    I can assure you all of this: Gavrilo Princip's legacy among the non-Serbs of the region is that of a terrorist who kicked off many decades of war, chaos, and Serb dominance. Him being lionized by the Communists really did not sooth Croat and Muslim resentment toward the Serbs underneath the surface during the Tito years.

    (The Black Hand and Young Bosnia did have non-Serb members: IIRC, the guy who threw the bomb at Franz Ferdinand was a Muslim. It was a youthful movement inspired by anarchism, not an overtly Orthodox thing. But they were predominantly Serb. The Haspburg burgermeister of Sarajevo on that day was also a Muslim, and one of the guys who drafted the ultimatum back in Vienna was, tellingly, a Croat. Serbia basically viewed Croats and Bosniaks as Serbs who'd been brainwashed, and had been engaging in a widespread policy of mosque destruction and Catholic church conversion in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, which the non-Serbs obviously weren't too happy about.)

    Replies: @Hrw-500, @Svevlad, @J.Ross

    Bosniaks (Muslims) didn’t really exist up until 1960s. The whole damn ethnicity was basically made up from scratch by the Austrians as some D&C type thing. A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Svevlad

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always "existed". They just didn't think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright, @Anon, @Rob, @rebel yell

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Svevlad

    Typical bullshit. Bosniaks or Bosnian Muslims considered themselves to be Bosnian Turks, essentially Turks placed in a Slavophone country & possessing a regional Bosnian loyalty. They differed between Oriental Turks & themselves.

    Most of their intelligentsia, from 1879 until WW2, declared themselves to be Croatian (for instance, out of 19 members of Yugoslav Muslim Organization's members of Yugoslav/SHS parliament in 1923, 18 stated they were Croats). Over 90% of Bosnian Muslim cultural figures from the 1880s to the 1940s had been explicitly Croatian.

    But this doesn't matter much, because well over 95% of Bosnian Muslim people did not feel affinity either with Croats or with Serbs. They were just slow in their national crystallization.

    As Camus had said: People become what they already are, whether they are conscious of it or not.

    , @Daniel H
    @Svevlad


    A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century
     
    The only Albanian national hero was Skanderbeg.

    Replies: @Svevlad

  153. @anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.
     
    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Wade Hampton, @Almost Missouri

    Old Honest Abe and the Yankees were progressives. The South was a agricultural colony which was a tremendous source of tax revenue for the Yankees. There is no way the progressive Yankees were ever going to willingly let their exploited colonials go. Neither then nor now.

    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @Wade Hampton

    Exactly. The War of Northern Aggression was about lighthouses.

    The fundamental flaw in the American founding was taxation. It wasn't a problem at first, because the federal government didn't do much, so it didn't need much money. The federal government show was being paid for by tariffs, generally paid by Southerners.

    Got hot around 1828 with the Tariffs of Abomination, but Andrew Jackson cooled that down.

    Got hot again in the late 1850s, as Lincoln and his fellow jerks wanted the federal government to do a lot more. As the whole damn show was financed by tariffs paid by Southerners, and Lincoln et al wanted the Morrill Tariff, a TRIPLING of the tariff, Southerners thought, "You ****ers won't even enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and you want us to pay MORE! HELL NO, WE AIN'T DOING IT!"

    The South paid for the United States. Congress, comprised of a majority Yankees and Westerners decided how to spend the money. They built twice as many lighthouses in the North, even though the South paid for all of them.

    The war was a mag 9 seismic shock on the federal government, as their source of revenue evaporated. Lincoln tried an income tax, but the Supremes declared that unconstitutional.

    Slavery and the War is teleological. The war did indeed end slavery, but that was a result, not a cause. The idea that the war was about slavery is nonsense, pushed to cover up the killing of 630,000 people, so Lincoln wouldn't be forever known in history for the dissolution of the nation. The War was for Lincoln's ego. And to some extent, not really measurable, the shock of no means of support. Lincoln even said the South could go, as long as they paid their taxes.

    I have said many times, if dumbass, hothead P.G.T. Beauregard had just sent some sandwiches out to Major Anderson, and thanked him for guarding our harbor, the whole damned mess could have been avoided.

    Fast-forward 80 years. Admiral Yamamoto, having spent a few years in the US, knew damn well that attacking Pearl Harbor would be exactly the same thing as Beauregard's attacking Fort Sumter.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  154. @Joe Stalin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc65lJQ4DrE

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Gabrillo_Princip%27s_pistol_%283444725633%29.jpg

    Gavrillo's Precip's FN 1910

    Replies: @Tex, @Bill B.

    John Browning is truly the most influential gun designer ever to have lived.

  155. Speaking of assassination, I learned that Frankfurt School affiliated Columbia Professor Richard Hofstadter’s very influential essay and later book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, a Freudian therapeutic culture critique of conspiracy theories popular with Americans of previous generations,…

    That book always struck me as projection: you guys are paranoids because you notice me conspiring against you.

  156. Furthermore, i’m not even sure the CSA would still have existed even with no war. Slavery was an impractical, dying institution–unsuited to on-rushing industrial technology. Quite possible the CSA would have lumbered on for a few decades then states individually or as whole would have decided to ditch slavery and rejoin the union.

    Slavery was a far bigger deal in Brazil than in the South, with almost half of all the African slaves brought to the New World ending up in Brazil, yet the government abolished it in 1888 without any warfare or much controversy at all.

  157. @Almost Missouri
    @Houston 1992


    UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply
     
    It's not so mysterious when you consider that whereas cotton was a luxury good—a luxury good of which Britain already had a backlog and which (as Steve has pointed out) was anyway in an economic bubble state—Britain, despite being a world-spanning empire, could not feed itself, and so relied on massive American grain imports. And those imports came primarily from the Northern States.

    Ignoring Southern pleas for intervention meant higher cotton prices (good for the mercantile classes), more demand for Egyptian and Indian cotton (good for the colonial classes) and less military spending (good for the taxpaying classes). Attacking the North meant mass starvation (plus the opposites of all of the foregoing). It was a "no-brainer", really.

    There were other ancillary reasons. Reg mentions abolitionist sentiment in the UK, but the Emancipation Proclamation didn't retcon abolition into a casus belli until halfway through the war. The UK government was more hardheaded than the frothy abolitionists of New England and Manchester, and didn't consider abolitionism very important. They did consider important that the South was essentially trying to blackmail them into intervening on the South's behalf, which they naturally didn't appreciate. Also, they were making a lot of money selling war matériel to the North in exchange for all that grain they had to import. They also considered important some abstruse legalisms concerning the definition of a "belligerent" and the consequent legitimacy of the blockade, which they felt would impinge on their own future ability to impose naval blockades. But all of this took a back seat to simply not biting the hand that fed them.

    King Cotton was a piker compared to King Corn. This is largely forgotten today.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Tex

    Direct result of re-Peeling the Corn Laws

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius

    Funny, and perhaps true. I don't know enough about British agronomy to have an opinion. But any situation where you end up outsourcing your basic sustenance is, at best, risky.

    Perhaps European population pressure was such that this was unavoidable though. As early as 1776, Thomas Paine wrote that , "The commerce, by which [America] hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe." So it was hardly a secret that European caloric demand was long met by non-European supplies.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  158. Redux:

  159. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Hhsiii

    I’ve read Ferguson’s book “The Pity of War” in which he makes a good case for why Britain should never have fought WW1. I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2. As the world’s richest nation and leading industrial and financial power, they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by fighting in WW1.

    Replies: @prosa123, @Yngvar

    I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2.

    Something often forgotten today is that the First World War had more combat deaths than the Second, although the latter’s total death toll was much higher because of all the civilian deaths.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    @prosa123

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.

    Replies: @Tex, @Paul Mendez

  160. @Dissident

    Republicans are just Democrats on a ten year time delay.

    • LOL: Jim Don Bob
  161. jb says:
    @Thomm
    The world of 1946 would not have been significantly different. Eventually, WW1 and WW2 will be combined into what is known as the 'Second Thirty Years War'.

    The events between 1914 and 1945 might have been somewhat different, but the post-1946 world would not have been.

    Replies: @Houston 1992, @Skyler the Weird, @jb

    I think you are wrong. History is chaotic, and I think our present situation is the result of an extremely unfortunate throw of the dice. One of the “events between 1914 and 1945” was Hitler’s rise to power. Without Hitler there almost certainly would have been no Holocaust, and without the Holocaust the world today would be quite different. I think almost any alternative history would have worked out better than the one we’ve got — at least from the point of view of anyone who cares about Western civilization and peoples!

  162. @anonymous
    @AnotherDad


    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from “demographics”. But so much of what’s gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.
     
    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Wade Hampton, @Almost Missouri

    Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?

    The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. The Union had twice the (white) population of the Confederacy and many multiples more industrial power. The North was also growing and expanding much faster. By the time the continent was finally settled from sea to sea around the end of the century, the North would have been nearly as prosperous and powerful as the current timeline USA was. And as a bonus, it would not have been so vulnerable to the legacy of the Great Migration as the current timeline USA was and is. By the turn of the millennium, a Unionist-descended USA would be nearly all white, free of a dusky, hostile and parasitical underclass, and without the deadweight of affirmative action or the toxic infection of pandering identity politics. In short, a present day Unionist-descended USA would be far more prosperous, unified and powerful than the current timeline USA is.

    For its part, the planter-dominated Confederacy may have made some headway as a Caribbean-oriented slave empire, making commercial and political inroads along the Latin American coasts, but ultimately, as the cotton bubble burst and and technological progress rendered slave labor obsolete, the Confederacy would have found itself economically moribund, heir to a sclerotic multiethnic empire: a sort of Greater Cuba. And unlike the actual post-Reconstruction southern states, it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration, and so would have instituted practical and permanent means of coexistence.

    In short, getting hundreds of thousands of young Americans killed to “enforce” a mandatory union law that didn’t exist was the most tremendous unforced error in US history.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Almost Missouri

    'The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. '

    My own suspicion is that left to their own devices, the states that seceded either never would have left or would have eventually applied for readmission. There was just too much binding the states together economically and psychologically. Virginia et al of course would simply have stayed, and South Carolina et al would have gotten tired of the act.

    In the upshot, the outcome would have been a weakened federal government and a more gradual process of emancipation for the black population of the South. I fail to see what would have been so catastrophic about either one.

    , @Ralph L
    @Almost Missouri

    it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration

    Stopped by the same people keeping all the Mexicans and Somalis out of the US now.

    , @Alden
    @Almost Missouri

    Agree completely. I’ve always felt that way. Let the south and it’s negros go. Build a Great Wall around the slave states. Let the confederates deal with their unruly pets.

    Railroad Probation was common in the early and mid 20 the century. Black churches and local police often gave black thugs railroad tickets north and some money to leave town and never come back.

    The Great Migration began in the 1920s as soon as the immigration restrictions were proposed. Northern Capitalists recruited black southerners to keep wages down and destroy America’s great cities.

  163. The demands presented in a note to Serbia, by Austria-Hungary, after the assassination was impossible to meet. The Empire was itching for a war in the Balkans.
    (I’ve pointed out before that those demand bear a chilling resemblance to the US demands on the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.)

    Then the high-trotting Germans got involved, and the lights went out.

  164. Well, if we’re spitballing here:

    No “Holocaust” as we “know” it, maybe some expulsions and repression and segregation in Europe, but considering how Jews behave that’s to be expected.

    No pre- and post-WWII influx of Jewish intellectuals into my formerly nice White country, and by extension, no civil rights movement and desegregation (let’s face it, blacks could never have gotten it together without Jewish direction and money), no 1965 immigration reform, no sexual revolution, no jewification of our universities. No feral violent retarded blacks rampaging my formerly nice White streets with impunity.

    The cream of European civilized young manhood, devastated by both wars, would have spread their seed down to the present, so maybe we wouldn’t be dealing with the present midwit spineless managerial European “leadership”.

    Regardless of who started it and why, WWI was serious downturn for Europe, Whites, and therefore, modern civilization. And I don’t see us bouncing back.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Achilleus


    No “Holocaust” as we “know” it, maybe some expulsions and repression and segregation in Europe, but considering how Jews behave that’s to be expected.

    No pre- and post-WWII influx of Jewish intellectuals into my formerly nice White country
     
    Jews would have tried to come in anyways. Because that is what they do.

    They were already entering the United States in large numbers, and also invading Palestine, prior to WWI. When was the ADL formed?
  165. @Lurker
    Comedian Spike Milligan had a joke newspaper headline:

    Archduke Ferdinand Found Alive - WW1 A Mistake!

    Replies: @TG

    You beat me to it! 🙂

  166. @nokangaroos
    @SaneClownPosse

    The third cousin, Nikolai II, might beg to differ.
    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Wrong families :P

    Replies: @Ralph L, @prosa123

    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Kaiser Wilhelm’s exile was scarcely a hardship. He remained wealthy and lived on a large estate in the Netherlands until his death at age 82. The wood chopping was a hobby/fitness regimen, not something done out of necessity.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @prosa123

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD7bKSPFg_c

    French. Sorry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW9uN6Y0UbY

  167. @PhysicistDave
    @R.G. Camara

    R.G. Camara asked:


    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?
     
    Close to zero, I assume. But then if Germany had not entered the war, it would not have been a World War.

    Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary. I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    The German historian Ernst Nolte argues that the conflicts from 1914 to 1945 constituted the "European Civil War." Unfortunately, his Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus does not seem to ever have been translated into English.

    Perhaps our friend Dieter has read it?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @nebulafox, @R.G. Camara

    Berchtold’s decision to declare war a month after the assassination, not least to burnish his own domestic image, probably competes with the German invasion of Belgium as the biggest blunder of the crisis. There was never any real chance that the Serbs would 100% accept the ultimatum-the civilians in Belgrade understood the complicity that their intelligence establishment had in the assassination-but Pašić tried to come as close as he could to it because he had no way of knowing how things would turn out. Serbia was going to be doomed without Russian intervention.

    That said, Austria was in a deeply difficult position in the summer of 1914. The heir to their octogenerian monarch had just been murdered in broad daylight. By terrorists who had links to people high up in the Serbian government, especially in the intelligence services which largely operated outside the control of the civilians in Belgrade. The Serbian leadership was partially unable and partially unwilling to ensure that such people were punished, as Vienna well knew: outside control of the investigation, the point that Serbia rejected, was going to be essential. But they couldn’t just not respond. Austria had staked its existence on being a Balkan power after it became clear they weren’t going to be the German one in 1867.

    Austria also had to deal with an entrenched Magyar elite that was deeply hostile to both Franz Ferdinand and to anything that could dilute their influence, as foreign adventures almost certainly would. Although the Magyars would eventually concede, that crucial time lag was what made the European-wide war a possibility.

    >Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary.

    The thing that’s often misunderstood in popular histories about the July Crisis was that Russian “partial mobilization” was a fiction. As I mentioned earlier, Sazanov-the Russian foreign minister-believed that Austrian policy was dictated from Berlin. This wasn’t true, especially in the Balkans, but Sazanov genuinely believed it was. This was what led to conflict with Germany, and that’s critical to understand because of the three Entente powers, only the French perceived the arrangement as being meant to contain Germany. Britain and Russia still viewed each other as the primary global rival in many ways after 1907, which was part of why the notion of an Anglo-German entente was gaining currency by 1914.

    Due to geography and military logistics (again, all the railroads in Poland), mobilizing against Austria meant mobilizing against Germany. And Russia, like Germany, had no plans for a “one front” great power war, because it was widely assumed to be an impossibility. Russian mobilization happened first: days before Austria’s declaration of war. Sazanov’s insistent lies about it were an integral part of the path to wider war, because it was his version of events-with French aid-that were taken at face value in London.

    >I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    Berlin expected Vienna to crush Serbia preemptively before anybody could intervene. That was the idea behind the “blank check” for a Serbia-only preemptive war. Austrian diplomats knew Wilhelm well, and exploited that fact: Franz Ferdinand was one of the few men Willy, something of a black sheep in European royal family dynamics, could call “friend”. Berlin thought Russia was unlikely to intervene for a couple of reasons: rearmament program wasn’t done, for one thing. There was also a deeply misguided belief in Berlin, considering 1903 in Serbia, that Russia wouldn’t support regicides for ideological reasons. There were people in the Russian government who leaned in that direction-Durnovo-but they didn’t control the government.

    Anyway, that was Grey’s idea: a four party conference to resolve the situation. But the choice of the players would have ensured that Austria would have lost, as the Central Powers knew. Three of the four-France, Russia, Italy-would have been unsympathetic to any attempt to force Serbia to do anything, on the grounds of the national sovereignty. The first two had chosen Serbia as their stake point in the region for a reason, and Italy’s main focus was on Italian speaking lands still controlled by the Habsburgs.

    (Whether Grey himself was being disingenuous or was simply uninformed is up for debate. It’s important to remember that in England, the big focus of 1914 was the Irish question, not Europe. There was a very real threat of civil disorder over Ireland at the time. This was causing a mass political stalemate in London, and the political dynamics in the cabinet and Parliament that resulted were not a small part of the process that led the UK along the path to war, especially amongst the anti-Home Rule crowd.)

    • Thanks: Gabe Ruth, Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    One point that has often intrigued me is France's visit to Russia literally on the eve of war.

    Just what was said? Was the point to make sure the Russians followed through, now that der Tag really was about to happen?

    The French foreign minister or whatever comes on an official visit as the July crisis is unfolding, leaves, and (if I recall aright) almost immediately Russia begins making some of the key moves that made war inevitable.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Patrick McNally
    @nebulafox

    Russian mobilization was ordered on August 31. Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28. All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria. It was obvious that the Austrian conservatives themselves were happy to see Ferdinand gone. All that they should have needed to top it off was a diplomatic humiliation of Serbia, which they got. But they weren't satisfied with that because they already desired a war on Serbia, and Wilhelm II wasn't willing to reign them in. The Kaiser's choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  168. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar

    ‘Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.’

    On the other hand, Alsace and Lorraine had only been acquired by France in the Seventeenth Century, and the sections annexed, with the exception of the territory around Metz, were still German-speaking.

    It would have been bizarre for the nascent ‘German Empire’ not to demand at least the clearly German-speaking bits, and had she confined herself to that, would France have been any more inclined to accept the result than she was? Wasn’t France at least as upset by the mere fact of having lost as she was by the specific territorial losses she suffered as a result? Would any peace have satisfied French amour propre?

    I tend to see the blame for the war not as residing in any one of the players in particular so much as in the system of powerful, bellicose, heavily armed, nationalistic states jostling against each other in a crowded space. It’s really like one of those black block parties that as we like to point out, erupt in gunfire so often. With so many testosterone-fueled players packing heat in one place, violence was inevitable. Blaming Javontis rather than Kameeka really misses the primary cause.

    I mention France because — rather strangely — it is often omitted from considerations of blame. I’d say the reverse should be the case. While Serbia was just crazy, among the great powers, France was the one player that actually sought war. The national policies of Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Russia can all be seen as contributing to the final outcome, but essentially, they were ‘satisfied powers.’ War was not essential to the achievement of their goals — at least within Europe. The case was different for France, and her behavior reflected that. That this may have been understandable is another matter.

    • Agree: JMcG, Fluesterwitz
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Colin Wright


    Wasn’t France at least as upset by the mere fact of having lost as she was by the specific territorial losses she suffered as a result? Would any peace have satisfied French amour propre?
     
    That's pretty much what the French said at Versailles to justify the harsh terms imposed on Germany: that Germany would seek revenge regardless of how she was treated and therefore a harsh peace was preferable to a lenient one.
  169. Tex says:
    @prosa123
    Fleetwood Lindlay was the last person to gaze upon Abraham Lincoln's face. He died in 1963 at the age of 75.

    Because of concerns that thieves would try to steal Lincoln's coffin, in 1901 a group of prominent citizens of Springfield, Illinois known as the Lincoln Guard of Honor decided to rebury the coffin at the bottom of a concrete-filled pit in Oak Ridge Cemetery. Just before workmen lowered the coffin into the pit and poured many tons of concrete over it, the Guard of Honor members decided to open the lid for one last look. Twelve-year-old Fleetwood, whose father was a Guard of Honor member and had brought him to the ceremony, got the last peek before the workers shut the coffin lid forever.

    In the words of another Guard of Honor member, "The face of Lincoln was now alabaster white [probably from mold]. The features looked exceedingly white to me ... Not a natural white but immaculate as a shirt bosom. Anyone who had seen a good picture of Lincoln could identify him. The headrest has disintegrated, allowing the head to fall back, and thrusting the chin forward, drawing first attention to the familiar whiskers. Though the eyebrows had vanished, there could be no mistaking the mole on the cheek and the thick black hair.”

    Replies: @Tex

    IIRC, someone DID try to steal Lincoln’s coffin c. 1870. A group of Chicago-based counterfeiters wanted to spring a pal from jail. They came up with a scheme to dig up Lincoln’s body and hold it for ransom, part of the deal being the release of their buddy in jail.

    The plot went awry and the Secret Service got wind of it. When the gang made their play, the SS were on hand to catch them red-handed as it were.

    Ghoul gangs and body snatchers were a thing in those days. Benjamin Harrison’s father’s remains were found hanging in a chimney in an Ohio university awaiting dissection by med students. Ghoul gangs in New York made some notable snatches of late moneyed persons and then demanded big ransoms. Herbert Asbury relates a few such incidents of Gilded Age body snatching.

  170. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Hhsiii

    I’ve read Ferguson’s book “The Pity of War” in which he makes a good case for why Britain should never have fought WW1. I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2. As the world’s richest nation and leading industrial and financial power, they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by fighting in WW1.

    Replies: @prosa123, @Yngvar

    After the first ten-thousands was killed the war had to continue to justify the loss of the first ten-thousands killed. “Did they die for nothing?” And so it went.

    Strange logic.

  171. @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    Direct result of re-Peeling the Corn Laws

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Funny, and perhaps true. I don’t know enough about British agronomy to have an opinion. But any situation where you end up outsourcing your basic sustenance is, at best, risky.

    Perhaps European population pressure was such that this was unavoidable though. As early as 1776, Thomas Paine wrote that , “The commerce, by which [America] hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.” So it was hardly a secret that European caloric demand was long met by non-European supplies.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    UK wasn't in Europe then, which was the original point of the Corn Laws themselves - to keep it that way.

    What's funny is looking back on the first class honours paper I wrote lauding Peel, comparing him to Gorbachev, and predicting that a young upstart named Clinton would follow in their footsteps. In 1989.

    Back then the Economist was Thatcherite (some would say still is but in an entirely different way) so a young man could get easily confused. Things didn't quite turn out the way I had envisioned. Or maybe they did too much.

  172. @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous


    Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. The Union had twice the (white) population of the Confederacy and many multiples more industrial power. The North was also growing and expanding much faster. By the time the continent was finally settled from sea to sea around the end of the century, the North would have been nearly as prosperous and powerful as the current timeline USA was. And as a bonus, it would not have been so vulnerable to the legacy of the Great Migration as the current timeline USA was and is. By the turn of the millennium, a Unionist-descended USA would be nearly all white, free of a dusky, hostile and parasitical underclass, and without the deadweight of affirmative action or the toxic infection of pandering identity politics. In short, a present day Unionist-descended USA would be far more prosperous, unified and powerful than the current timeline USA is.

    For its part, the planter-dominated Confederacy may have made some headway as a Caribbean-oriented slave empire, making commercial and political inroads along the Latin American coasts, but ultimately, as the cotton bubble burst and and technological progress rendered slave labor obsolete, the Confederacy would have found itself economically moribund, heir to a sclerotic multiethnic empire: a sort of Greater Cuba. And unlike the actual post-Reconstruction southern states, it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration, and so would have instituted practical and permanent means of coexistence.

    In short, getting hundreds of thousands of young Americans killed to "enforce" a mandatory union law that didn't exist was the most tremendous unforced error in US history.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Ralph L, @Alden

    ‘The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. ‘

    My own suspicion is that left to their own devices, the states that seceded either never would have left or would have eventually applied for readmission. There was just too much binding the states together economically and psychologically. Virginia et al of course would simply have stayed, and South Carolina et al would have gotten tired of the act.

    In the upshot, the outcome would have been a weakened federal government and a more gradual process of emancipation for the black population of the South. I fail to see what would have been so catastrophic about either one.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  173. @AnotherDad
    @anonymous


    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    I don't think this has much to do with the arc to 1914. Though obviously ... change history get a different arc.

    Furthermore, i'm not even sure the CSA would still have existed even with no war. Slavery was an impractical, dying institution--unsuited to on-rushing industrial technology. Quite possible the CSA would have lumbered on for a few decades then states individually or as whole would have decided to ditch slavery and rejoin the union.

    I'm sympathetic to the arguments about the abusiveness of the "War of Northern Aggression". We'd have been better off without it. It set the stage for federal tyranny, that bedevils us today.

    However, Lincoln wasn't the only guy screwing up. The whole thing was stupid. The Confederate ruling class a bunch of clueless greedy dunces who didn't see which way the world was heading. And the South Carolina hotheads firing on Fort Sumter--almost textbook in how not to secede from more larger, more powerful political entity.

    As in 1914--not much quality leadership on display.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    In a sense, Confederate propaganda was accurate: they were on the side of preserving tradition. For most of human history, the dominant model has been agrarian societies, usually accompanied by an unfree or semi-free rural labor class. The new, industrial model being followed by a handful of European nations and the northern part of the United States was a radical departure from tradition. We’re a lot more different from people 300 years ago today in material terms than people 500 years ago were from people 1000 years ago.

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in. Had the Confederacy survived, they would have been at the mercy of imperialist powers, like everybody else who wasn’t getting on board with the industrial program. And it would have been ideologically impossible to institute a Japanese-style overhaul after investing so much blood and treasure to preserve slavery and the agrarian way of life it was inherently tied into.

    (Where it wasn’t accurate was the racialization of slavery. That was intrinsic to the New World: for the overwhelming majority of times and places in human history, slaves were slaves, serfs were serfs, and tenant farmers were tenant farmers, with skin color or creed being completely irrelevant to that status. It’s funny to read Southern newspapers at the time talk about the Taiping Rebellion in China: they tried to make an analogy to their own situation with the Manchus being the equivalent to white plantation owners. Now it is true there was a communal element to the Taiping Revolt-the Hakka dominance in the Taiping leadership and the origins of the movement being rooted in Cantonese/Hakka communal violence in Guangdong and Guangxi-but if you take the analogy all the way to its conclusion, the perfectly Han Zeng Guofan would have been the equivalent of a Nat Turner figure saving the Confederacy.)

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in.

    Yea worked out great.

    Around 1 trillion spent trying to prove the races are the same and yet you can lose your job in academia for simply asking why the evolutionary theory taught in schools conveniently excludes humans. I can list a dozen millionaires and billionaires that have invested into various race denial based education theories and have since abandoned them. Gates alone spent over 250 billion and then he went back to funding his malaria cure.

    Sliding academic standards, 30 trillion in debt and around half a million homeless. What a utopia the US has become after sticking to to those dumb rassist southerners.

    The civil war was never needed. Technology would have ended slavery and the Bantu would have been repatriated.

    But I would have been fine with the civil war if Lincoln didn't shut down the Northern press and told the people everything that scientists at the time knew about race. That would have sapped his volunteers which would have led to a peace agreement.

    Egalitarians have to lie and manipulate the people by controlling information. That is exactly how Lincoln got his support. The egalitarian is a resentful liar that fears honest conversation.

    Replies: @Jack D

  174. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Berchtold's decision to declare war a month after the assassination, not least to burnish his own domestic image, probably competes with the German invasion of Belgium as the biggest blunder of the crisis. There was never any real chance that the Serbs would 100% accept the ultimatum-the civilians in Belgrade understood the complicity that their intelligence establishment had in the assassination-but Pašić tried to come as close as he could to it because he had no way of knowing how things would turn out. Serbia was going to be doomed without Russian intervention.

    That said, Austria was in a deeply difficult position in the summer of 1914. The heir to their octogenerian monarch had just been murdered in broad daylight. By terrorists who had links to people high up in the Serbian government, especially in the intelligence services which largely operated outside the control of the civilians in Belgrade. The Serbian leadership was partially unable and partially unwilling to ensure that such people were punished, as Vienna well knew: outside control of the investigation, the point that Serbia rejected, was going to be essential. But they couldn't just not respond. Austria had staked its existence on being a Balkan power after it became clear they weren't going to be the German one in 1867.

    Austria also had to deal with an entrenched Magyar elite that was deeply hostile to both Franz Ferdinand and to anything that could dilute their influence, as foreign adventures almost certainly would. Although the Magyars would eventually concede, that crucial time lag was what made the European-wide war a possibility.

    >Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary.

    The thing that's often misunderstood in popular histories about the July Crisis was that Russian "partial mobilization" was a fiction. As I mentioned earlier, Sazanov-the Russian foreign minister-believed that Austrian policy was dictated from Berlin. This wasn't true, especially in the Balkans, but Sazanov genuinely believed it was. This was what led to conflict with Germany, and that's critical to understand because of the three Entente powers, only the French perceived the arrangement as being meant to contain Germany. Britain and Russia still viewed each other as the primary global rival in many ways after 1907, which was part of why the notion of an Anglo-German entente was gaining currency by 1914.

    Due to geography and military logistics (again, all the railroads in Poland), mobilizing against Austria meant mobilizing against Germany. And Russia, like Germany, had no plans for a "one front" great power war, because it was widely assumed to be an impossibility. Russian mobilization happened first: days before Austria's declaration of war. Sazanov's insistent lies about it were an integral part of the path to wider war, because it was his version of events-with French aid-that were taken at face value in London.

    >I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    Berlin expected Vienna to crush Serbia preemptively before anybody could intervene. That was the idea behind the "blank check" for a Serbia-only preemptive war. Austrian diplomats knew Wilhelm well, and exploited that fact: Franz Ferdinand was one of the few men Willy, something of a black sheep in European royal family dynamics, could call "friend". Berlin thought Russia was unlikely to intervene for a couple of reasons: rearmament program wasn't done, for one thing. There was also a deeply misguided belief in Berlin, considering 1903 in Serbia, that Russia wouldn't support regicides for ideological reasons. There were people in the Russian government who leaned in that direction-Durnovo-but they didn't control the government.

    Anyway, that was Grey's idea: a four party conference to resolve the situation. But the choice of the players would have ensured that Austria would have lost, as the Central Powers knew. Three of the four-France, Russia, Italy-would have been unsympathetic to any attempt to force Serbia to do anything, on the grounds of the national sovereignty. The first two had chosen Serbia as their stake point in the region for a reason, and Italy's main focus was on Italian speaking lands still controlled by the Habsburgs.

    (Whether Grey himself was being disingenuous or was simply uninformed is up for debate. It's important to remember that in England, the big focus of 1914 was the Irish question, not Europe. There was a very real threat of civil disorder over Ireland at the time. This was causing a mass political stalemate in London, and the political dynamics in the cabinet and Parliament that resulted were not a small part of the process that led the UK along the path to war, especially amongst the anti-Home Rule crowd.)

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Patrick McNally

    One point that has often intrigued me is France’s visit to Russia literally on the eve of war.

    Just what was said? Was the point to make sure the Russians followed through, now that der Tag really was about to happen?

    The French foreign minister or whatever comes on an official visit as the July crisis is unfolding, leaves, and (if I recall aright) almost immediately Russia begins making some of the key moves that made war inevitable.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Colin Wright

    I think there are a few crucial things to remember here:

    1) The relative military position of the Central Powers in the summer of 1914 was bad, but also promised to get better in the future. France was making 90% of its male populace eligible for service of some kind or another: that was simply not sustainable in the long term. Another key factor was Poincare's tenuous political position back in Paris. Had war not broken out, it's possible that the scandal surrounding Russian funding of his Presidential campaign could have led to a left-wing, socialist government that would have favored detente with Germany.

    These facts were not unknown in Berlin, and crucially, the military bill in France took place the year *after* the infamous 1912 German government meeting often cited as proof that Germany wanted a continent wide conflict. It's a matter of historical debate whether Poincare knew about events during the preparatory period of war, because he was at sea, but by the time he was back in Paris, he would have known: and he was busy at work creating a narrative of events that would get the UK onto the Entente's side. This influenced events, although it should be pointed out that without the German invasion of Belgium and attack on Liege, it would have been for nothing given British preoccupation with the Irish question and the split in the British government.

    2) The words of the German ambassador to Sazanov during the preparatory war period ("Germany shall take action to stand by its ally") confirmed his opinion that Austrian policy *was* German policy. As I've mentioned, that wasn't the case: the Austrian declaration of war on the 29th took Berlin by as much surprise as everyone else. The lack of relative coordination between the Central Powers relative to the Entente is notable: the Austrians didn't even know about the Schlieffen Plan. Compare that to the detailed war plans the French and Russians had, to cooperate with each other.

    Had the German ambassador made this clear later in the day, or had Sazanov bothered to ask him, perhaps this split would have become apparent, and events could have turned out differently.

    But because Sazonov genuinely believed it was the case, and because the preparation period to war was kept a strict secret from the rest of the world during those crucial days in 1913, it meant that London and Paris were relying off Russian information about the course of events. It portrayed Russia as unable to ascede to aggressive German desires, despite the fact that it was Russia-not Serbia, Austria, France, or Germany-that took the first decisive steps to world war and the fact that Germany was asking for Russia to just stop mobilizing.

    (I'm not saying this to excuse either German or Austrian blunders or aggression. The Austrians decided to turn down the Serbian response, which was probably the best the Serbian PM could realistically do without getting assassinated. And Germans indeed wanted was a preemptive war... but the whole point of the blank cheque was for a quick war against Serbia alone, hence the quick part. However immoral that is-and really, imagine how Russia and France would have viewed the situation had the Serbian king been assassinated by guys with links all over the Habsburg government-that's not the same thing as wanting a preemptive war against Russia and France.)

    3) Had Austria not declared war on Serbia on the 29th, the Russian mobilization would have become more apparent. There was no way for it not to be as the weeks dragged on, because like the Central Powers, the Russian military had no plan for anything other than a general, two-front war. This was crucial when it came to the UK. Don't forget, many statesmen in Russia and England still looked at each other as the primary enemy. So, had Berchtold not declared war on Serbia, then London would have probably woken up to this fact. The arguments of the pro-Entente party would have been completely undermined.

    Replies: @Fox, @LondonBob

  175. @prosa123
    @nokangaroos

    Wilhelm II died in exile sawing firewood, and George V was euthanized.

    Kaiser Wilhelm's exile was scarcely a hardship. He remained wealthy and lived on a large estate in the Netherlands until his death at age 82. The wood chopping was a hobby/fitness regimen, not something done out of necessity.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    French. Sorry.

  176. @LondonBob
    @Mr. Anon

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    America should never have entered world war one.

    In any war where there isn’t a direct threat the supporting politicians should send their sons and nephews in first. Show us how much you believe in the war by sending your own relatives into the trenches. If that had been the standard then we wouldn’t have clown world today.

    Woodrow Wilson was a cowardly globalist that believed in lying to the masses. He was one of the first globalists that believed race existed but the masses should be lied to for the sake of egalitarian ideals.

    Every following president has taken the same position. Acknowledge race behind the scenes but don’t dare tell the masses cause who knows what they might do.

    Oh and Wilson lied about Lusitania. In fact the US gov lied about smuggling arms for decades.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @John Johnson

    'America should never have entered world war one.'

    Definitely. Absent America, I'm convinced the Allies would simply have found the prospect of overwhelming Germany unaided too daunting, and while they would have turned back Germany's Kaiserschlacht, of the Spring of 1918, would have agreed to a status quo ante peace in the West. The rising threat of Revolutionary Socialism to all parties would have made that all the more attractive. A strong Germany was going to be needed to fend off the Bolsheviks.

    In an ideal world, the suitably chastened Ancien Regime moves towards democratic reforms and social welfare while forming a truly just League of Nations and banding together to suppress Bolshevism.

    ...just a possibility, but America's entry into the war didn't exactly make it happen. A Germany that survives the war bloodied but unbeaten would have been the best thing for Europe and the world. To this day, we could be arguing about whether France and the Commonwealth could have eventually overwhelmed Germany and Austro-Hungary if the fight hadn't been called.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @68W58

  177. Tex says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @Houston 1992


    UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply
     
    It's not so mysterious when you consider that whereas cotton was a luxury good—a luxury good of which Britain already had a backlog and which (as Steve has pointed out) was anyway in an economic bubble state—Britain, despite being a world-spanning empire, could not feed itself, and so relied on massive American grain imports. And those imports came primarily from the Northern States.

    Ignoring Southern pleas for intervention meant higher cotton prices (good for the mercantile classes), more demand for Egyptian and Indian cotton (good for the colonial classes) and less military spending (good for the taxpaying classes). Attacking the North meant mass starvation (plus the opposites of all of the foregoing). It was a "no-brainer", really.

    There were other ancillary reasons. Reg mentions abolitionist sentiment in the UK, but the Emancipation Proclamation didn't retcon abolition into a casus belli until halfway through the war. The UK government was more hardheaded than the frothy abolitionists of New England and Manchester, and didn't consider abolitionism very important. They did consider important that the South was essentially trying to blackmail them into intervening on the South's behalf, which they naturally didn't appreciate. Also, they were making a lot of money selling war matériel to the North in exchange for all that grain they had to import. They also considered important some abstruse legalisms concerning the definition of a "belligerent" and the consequent legitimacy of the blockade, which they felt would impinge on their own future ability to impose naval blockades. But all of this took a back seat to simply not biting the hand that fed them.

    King Cotton was a piker compared to King Corn. This is largely forgotten today.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Tex

    A very good summary. From the diplomatic perspective, Britain preferred to rush to the aid of the victors. In 1863 Gladstone, the arch-SJW of Britain, implied he was ready to recognize the Confederacy as an independent country. British recognition of the Confederacy would have been followed by French recognition and a major freak-out in Washington, DC. War could easily have occurred.

    But Antietam showed the Confederacy was not going to pull off a victory (had Longstreet intervened at the Bloody Angle, world history might have been different). British support cooled rapidly.

    Militarily, the Royal Navy would have cleaned up the USN. Britain’s fleet was optimized for decisive battles (and they had ironclad battleships). The USN was dispersed for blockade and composed on numerous gunboats (ie, targets). On land the British Army would have had to face the numerous, and battle-hardened Union Army. British reinforcements to the Confederacy would have been welcome. The price would have been a Yankee invasion of Canada. Napoleon III would have loved to aid the Confederacy. Unfortunately, his army was still trying to wipe out the Mexican Juaristas and not succeeding. A shift to the Southern states might have cost Maximilian his throne that much sooner.

    Had the British or French intervened, the Confederacy would have prevailed. But it would have been very costly for their saviors with not a whole lot of benefits.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Tex

    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).

    Replies: @Tex, @Colin Wright

  178. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    So some Slavs killed the Slav-friendly heir to the Hapsburg throne so that some other Slavic peoples and territories would be transferred from Hapsburg to Slavic control.

    Am I missing something here?

    Replies: @Gaspar DeLaFunk, @Desiderius, @J.Ross

    Communists assassinated the Tsar who ended serfdom. The worst, the better.

    • Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @J.Ross

    Yes, and Irish Republicans stabbed in the back the very government that was granting them a peaceful path to a republic. Many such cases... but surely we can at least acknowledge the incongruity, and wonder what might explain it.

    Replies: @JMcG

  179. @AnotherDad
    @anonymous


    You need to trace back further, to Lincoln’s invasion and subjugation of the South, and all of its consequences. Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    I don't think this has much to do with the arc to 1914. Though obviously ... change history get a different arc.

    Furthermore, i'm not even sure the CSA would still have existed even with no war. Slavery was an impractical, dying institution--unsuited to on-rushing industrial technology. Quite possible the CSA would have lumbered on for a few decades then states individually or as whole would have decided to ditch slavery and rejoin the union.

    I'm sympathetic to the arguments about the abusiveness of the "War of Northern Aggression". We'd have been better off without it. It set the stage for federal tyranny, that bedevils us today.

    However, Lincoln wasn't the only guy screwing up. The whole thing was stupid. The Confederate ruling class a bunch of clueless greedy dunces who didn't see which way the world was heading. And the South Carolina hotheads firing on Fort Sumter--almost textbook in how not to secede from more larger, more powerful political entity.

    As in 1914--not much quality leadership on display.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    The Union might not have wanted them back any more than we wanted Brazil to join the Union.

    • Agree: Rob
  180. @Diversity Heretic
    @Steve Sailer

    Thank you for your reply. Napoleon Bonaparte is also quoted as having said: "If the earth were a nation, Constantinople would be it's capital." Imagine the consternation if any world leader suggested that a mass might one day be performed again in Hagia Sophia!

    Insofar as Alsace and Lorraine are concerned, their status was the major stumbling block to a possible peace settlement at the beginning of 1918: Let Germany keep its gains in the east, but evacuate northern France, Belgium and Luxembourg and return to the status quo ante bellum in the west. But that status quo meant Alsace and Lorraine remained German, which France could not accept, having entered the war as an ally of Russia with the objective of regaining those territories. And by 1918 France had a huge "butcher's bill," to be paid. Plebescite might have been the answer, but both sides were probably nervous how it would turn out.

    You're right; more German magnanimity in the aftermath of the 1870-71 victory would have been a far-sighted policy.

    Replies: @Corn

    Plebescite might have been the answer, but both sides were probably nervous how it would turn out.

    Has any historian or stats person ever researched this? How Germanized was Alsace-Lorraine between 1871-1914?

    I’ve read that the German civil service (mostly Protestant I presume?) alienated the locals some, discriminating against Catholics, etc. and that sympathy for France was high when war broke out in 1914. I’ve also read that the region was granted limited autonomy eventually and as time passed French Foreign Legion officers lamented fewer recruits from Alsace as memory of the annexation passed. Did anyone ever estimate how a hypothetical plebiscite would have gone?

  181. Anonymous[405] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Von Neumann and Morgenstern (who is said to be the son of the Kaiser, which suggests Kaiser Bill was smarter than he appeared). didn't articulate game theory until three decades after 1914, but it seems like a pretty good example: if all the countries in Europe are brought into two alliances depending upon how desperate the members of each alliance are to Not Lose, the resulting balance of power will be awful even and thus a war is likely to not be over by Christmas, but instead to go on and on for disastrously long.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Paul Mendez, @Reg Cæsar, @Colin Wright, @Anonymous

    Oskar Morgenstern is said to be the grandson of a Kaiser, namely Frederick III, who ruled for three and a half months, so you probably don’t have an opinion of him. This would make Kaiser Bill his uncle. He would be just as closely related to Wilhelm I (more closely if this “said to be” refers to illegitimacy).

    • Replies: @Abe
    @Anonymous


    Oskar Morgenstern is said to be the grandson of a Kaiser, namely Frederick III, who ruled for three and a half months, so you probably don’t have an opinion of him. This would make Kaiser Bill his uncle. He would be just as closely related to Wilhelm I (more closely if this “said to be” refers to illegitimacy).
     
    From a book on the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, one of the sickest dynastic/bastardy burns ever-

    “The delegation’s leader was Germany’s foreign minister, Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau... The family was an old and distinguished one: Rantzaus had served Denmark; Germany; even, in the seventeenth century, France. A Marshal Rantzau was rumored to have been the real father of Louis XIV. When a French officer asked Brockdorff-Rantzau about it, the count replied: “Oh yes, in my family the Bourbons have been considered bastard Rantzaus for the past three hundred years.”

    — Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret Macmillan
     
  182. @Studley
    Wouldn't have mattered? Forget Barbara Tuchman's 'The Guns of August' or A.J.P. Taylor's 'War by Timetable'? My father in the 1960s in his school staffroom saw the Chemistry teacher walk over to the History teachers and cockily say, "Here's your reason for the start of World War One in 1914."

    He'd just read a paper in a Chemistry journal that stated that Imperial Germany was dependent on phosphate for its artillery shell manufacturing. With the prospect of supplies from the German colony of Nauru in the Pacific being cut off by the British and Australians in the event of war, industrial chemists had warned the German General Staff that until a synthetic substitute could be made there was no possibility of a continental war. And that wouldn't be ready until...1914.

    Replies: @res

    Interesting. Thanks. I looked for the paper, but could not find it.

    The Haber-Bosch process seems similar, but for nitrates from Chile.
    https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/fritz-haber

    It would be interesting to know more about the interaction between the chemists and the German General Staff.

  183. @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous


    Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. The Union had twice the (white) population of the Confederacy and many multiples more industrial power. The North was also growing and expanding much faster. By the time the continent was finally settled from sea to sea around the end of the century, the North would have been nearly as prosperous and powerful as the current timeline USA was. And as a bonus, it would not have been so vulnerable to the legacy of the Great Migration as the current timeline USA was and is. By the turn of the millennium, a Unionist-descended USA would be nearly all white, free of a dusky, hostile and parasitical underclass, and without the deadweight of affirmative action or the toxic infection of pandering identity politics. In short, a present day Unionist-descended USA would be far more prosperous, unified and powerful than the current timeline USA is.

    For its part, the planter-dominated Confederacy may have made some headway as a Caribbean-oriented slave empire, making commercial and political inroads along the Latin American coasts, but ultimately, as the cotton bubble burst and and technological progress rendered slave labor obsolete, the Confederacy would have found itself economically moribund, heir to a sclerotic multiethnic empire: a sort of Greater Cuba. And unlike the actual post-Reconstruction southern states, it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration, and so would have instituted practical and permanent means of coexistence.

    In short, getting hundreds of thousands of young Americans killed to "enforce" a mandatory union law that didn't exist was the most tremendous unforced error in US history.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Ralph L, @Alden

    it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration

    Stopped by the same people keeping all the Mexicans and Somalis out of the US now.

  184. @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    In a sense, Confederate propaganda was accurate: they were on the side of preserving tradition. For most of human history, the dominant model has been agrarian societies, usually accompanied by an unfree or semi-free rural labor class. The new, industrial model being followed by a handful of European nations and the northern part of the United States was a radical departure from tradition. We're a lot more different from people 300 years ago today in material terms than people 500 years ago were from people 1000 years ago.

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in. Had the Confederacy survived, they would have been at the mercy of imperialist powers, like everybody else who wasn't getting on board with the industrial program. And it would have been ideologically impossible to institute a Japanese-style overhaul after investing so much blood and treasure to preserve slavery and the agrarian way of life it was inherently tied into.

    (Where it wasn't accurate was the racialization of slavery. That was intrinsic to the New World: for the overwhelming majority of times and places in human history, slaves were slaves, serfs were serfs, and tenant farmers were tenant farmers, with skin color or creed being completely irrelevant to that status. It's funny to read Southern newspapers at the time talk about the Taiping Rebellion in China: they tried to make an analogy to their own situation with the Manchus being the equivalent to white plantation owners. Now it is true there was a communal element to the Taiping Revolt-the Hakka dominance in the Taiping leadership and the origins of the movement being rooted in Cantonese/Hakka communal violence in Guangdong and Guangxi-but if you take the analogy all the way to its conclusion, the perfectly Han Zeng Guofan would have been the equivalent of a Nat Turner figure saving the Confederacy.)

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in.

    Yea worked out great.

    Around 1 trillion spent trying to prove the races are the same and yet you can lose your job in academia for simply asking why the evolutionary theory taught in schools conveniently excludes humans. I can list a dozen millionaires and billionaires that have invested into various race denial based education theories and have since abandoned them. Gates alone spent over 250 billion and then he went back to funding his malaria cure.

    Sliding academic standards, 30 trillion in debt and around half a million homeless. What a utopia the US has become after sticking to to those dumb rassist southerners.

    The civil war was never needed. Technology would have ended slavery and the Bantu would have been repatriated.

    But I would have been fine with the civil war if Lincoln didn’t shut down the Northern press and told the people everything that scientists at the time knew about race. That would have sapped his volunteers which would have led to a peace agreement.

    Egalitarians have to lie and manipulate the people by controlling information. That is exactly how Lincoln got his support. The egalitarian is a resentful liar that fears honest conversation.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks "back" to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Hamlet's Ghost, @John Johnson

  185. @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad


    No one did.
     
    That's vastly overstated. There were energetic advocates for intervention including Palmerston IIRC to the point that the Confederacy were counting on it in their war aims (thinking back to the French role in the Revolution).

    All kinds of people were associated with slave states all over the world without a second thought. Abolitionism was the outlier of the time. Which is why BLM Inc. can get away with their brazen defamation.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Overstated …

    All kinds of people were associated with slave states all over the world without a second thought. Abolitionism was the outlier of the time. Which is why BLM Inc. can get away with their brazen defamation.

    Agree–i overstated/simplified.

    Obviously the US itself was a slave society–among many others. Slavery being ubiquitous in human history since the neolithic. (And before if you count captured women kept in a reduced status.)

    But there’s a difference between traditional societies and a Western nation creating itself with the express purpose of extending slavery. Helping the Confederacy would have been a reasonable policy for Britain–balkanizing the US–if they didn’t need resources (esp. grain) and have a market in the North as well. But that the Confederacy was setup specifically to continue slavery lent it a stink many people didn’t want to be associated with. In people’s minds, that’s different than just dealing with the world as it is–slavery and all.

  186. @Colin Wright
    I think much of this discussion overlooks France's role in egging on both Russia and Serbia and encouraging the development of their military potential. France was the one great power that saw war as essential to its goals -- and the one power that worked determinedly to bring that war about.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dutch Boy

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Dutch Boy

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    Yes and they were correct. Germany would have become the leading European and global power. That also meant the possibility of Germany potentially conquering Britain in a future war which wouldn't be difficult if they had the full resources of continental Europe. So Britain made the strategic decision to go on the offensive while they still had allies. WW1 really had nothing to do with Franz Ferdinand. A war was going to happen regardless. Neither side really cared about sending scores of men to their deaths because royalty on both sides viewed it as a war for survival.

    Both Britain and Germany were acting out of self-interest. We should have let them duke it out in a fair fight and made peace with the winner. But our globalists also wanted a British Europe and they got it. Of course they probably didn't imagine globalist Britain to commit cultural suicide and become an American corporate outpost with a Muslim London. The Brits won the war but German brutishness and hard logic ultimately won the argument over British gentility and globalist ideals. German principles would have saved Europe from the madness it is currently in. The British aversion to face certain realities has doomed them. America will go the same path if it doesn't wake up.

    , @Colin Wright
    @Dutch Boy

    '...It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).'

    Quite likely, but...

    Germany deciding to build a High Seas Fleet didn't help. Nations usually go to war for a complex of motives, and which motive is the most important depends on which particular individual within that nation you ask (our invasion of Iraq illustrated this quite nicely).

    So a significant number of Britons were led into a position of hostility to Germany by her attempt to seriously challenge British naval supremacy. In exchange, Germany got...

    Nothing. For that reason, not only was Britain's hostility partly Germany's own fault, but the provocation has to go down as one of the most egregiously stupid plays in history.

  187. @Diversity Heretic
    @nebulafox

    His marriage to the Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria (nicknamed Sissi) was similarly not happy. It started out as a kind of fairy-tale marriage, but Sissi disliked Vienna court life. (In fairness the Vienna court of the 19th century makes the House of Windsor look like a hippie commune.) Sissi started absenting herself from the court and ended up having various affairs. She appears to have been anorexic and, although movie-star beautiful, refused to age gracefully and avoided photographers. Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination. There were three movies made about Sissi, all starring the stunning Romi Schneider, but the actors never age.

    You're right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Achilleus, @HA

    He wasn’t the only one. Ivan IV, Queens Mary and Elizabeth, Peter the Great, and Frederick the Great all had deeply unpleasant childhoods, to say the least. Alexander III and Nicholas II had to watch as their respective father and grandfather died: mutilated beyond repair by a terrorist’s bomb, gasping out his breath on the bed. This probably helped contribute to their reactionary policies in power.

    But Franz Josef really never did catch a break in his adult life, politically or personally. Consider how long he reigned: he took power as a teenager and lived to be in his 80s. And while it’s true that he didn’t get along with Franz Ferdinand and treated his wife deeply shoddily (one reason Ferdinand got along with Wilhelm II was that the latter always made a point of treating Sophie like royalty-the couple couldn’t even sit together in Vienna, which is why they went to Sarajevo together), I doubt he actually wanted to see his heir murdered, the famous anecdote about God’s judgement aside. Least of all did he want the cataclysm that destroyed everything he’d worked for 65 years. He, like the state he in many ways embodied, just kept lumbering on from one shock to the next until their hearts gave out in the end, knowing it was all for nothing.

    (One anecdote I particularly like was his response to people questioning him taking care of Galician Jewish refugees in the Hofgarten in 1914. “They are my people, too”. It really was a very different, very arch-conservative kind of mentality he had, a pre-social Darwinian, pre-racial mentality that contrasts sharply with the developing ideologies of many Austrian higher-ups, let alone the attitudes in, say, Berlin or Petersburg. Completely at odds with the pan-German racial nationalism that was coming.)

    Again, it reminds of me of the 7th Century Roman emperor Heraclius, who won back the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire against all the odds, only to have them taken from him as an old man by a new invader that came out of nowhere. His biographer, Kaegi, says he probably died not just depressed, but struggling with PTSD, convinced that God was punishing him.

    > Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination.

    It’s said that his 34 year long relationship with Frau Schratt was platonic. I’m not sure that was true, but I’m more open to that suggesting for the genuinely devout Franz Josef than most monarchs.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @nebulafox

    mutilated beyond repair by a terrorist’s bomb

    In 1905, Alexandra's sister Ella went out in a Moscow street to pick up the pieces of her beloved gay husband Serge, Nicholas's uncle, after a bomb exploded in his lap. In 1918, the Bolshies threw her down a mineshaft with other Romanovs, followed by some grenades. But the Russians were more accustomed to political murder than the Austrians.

    , @utu
    @nebulafox

    Joseph Roth's "Radetzky March" and "The Emperor's Tomb" paint a very warm and nostalgic portrait of Franz Joseph and his Empire.

  188. res says:
    @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Admiral Jacky Fisher predicted Germany would go to war in the summer of 1914 as this was when the Kiel Canal would be completed. Germany had long term plans in the East and they needed to strike before Russia became too strong.

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @nebulafox, @res

    Thanks. More on that prediction (first link says it was made in 1911, second link says 1908).
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/462613/Great-War-Centenary-Britannia-rules-the-waves-but-for-how-long

    This link discusses the military impact and is skeptical of the causal idea. Worth noting 1914 was completion of the widening of the canal to accommodate Dreadnoughts.
    http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/kiel-canal.html
    Initial opening was in 1895.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_Canal

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @res

    Germany had decisively lost the naval race by 1913. Both London and Berlin knew it. That's why there were moves in the direction of a warming of relations in early 1914.

    Now, I do think Bismarck had the right idea-and thus Wilhelm had the wrong one-in keeping Germany a predominantly land based power, thus preserving good relations with London. Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary. But it's a stretch to say that British fears about a German navy led to the path to war, because both parties had recognized British dominance on the seas by 1914. British fears about Germany were primarily economic, not military, and were not uniform across the British government. Bethmann's whole life work (ironically) revolved around a British-German entente, because he knew that Germany needed to break out of its relative isolation.

    It's also worth remembering that Britain (and Russia) did not perceive the Entente agreement as an anti-German arrangement, per se. Russia was mainly concerned with Austria as its main rival in the Balkans, Britain with its global empire, in which Russia loomed as a main rival. Only France viewed the Entente through this lens, because-no duh-Germany was the primary geopolitical threat for them in a way it wasn't for the others. There was a lot of panic in the French embassy in London around August 1st 1914 that the British weren't going to intervene.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anonymous

  189. @Diversity Heretic
    @nebulafox

    His marriage to the Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria (nicknamed Sissi) was similarly not happy. It started out as a kind of fairy-tale marriage, but Sissi disliked Vienna court life. (In fairness the Vienna court of the 19th century makes the House of Windsor look like a hippie commune.) Sissi started absenting herself from the court and ended up having various affairs. She appears to have been anorexic and, although movie-star beautiful, refused to age gracefully and avoided photographers. Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination. There were three movies made about Sissi, all starring the stunning Romi Schneider, but the actors never age.

    You're right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Achilleus, @HA

    I love those Sissi movies – a window into a beautiful but lost White European world. I realize those movies romanticize the Austrian empire, but I’ll take that over retconning blacks into BBC historical portrayals.

    I love historical movies and “costume” dramas, but I find I can only watch older ones now. If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    • Agree: Colin Wright, Fox
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Achilleus


    If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.
     
    Spot on. You're watching something and ... bam! ... you're right back into the hateful, pissy minoritarian war against Western Christian peoples, their history and culture.

    You just want to give those people a good hard slap. F' off a*holes.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Achilleus


    If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.
     
    I doubt I could sit through Gone With the Wind for the same reason.

    Replies: @Alden

    , @Voltarde
    @Achilleus

    I've recommended this book before on iSteve, sorry for the repetition.

    Patrick Leigh Fermor's memoir "A Time of Gifts" is the first book of a trilogy about his experiences as an 18 year-old in 1933 while walking through Europe from the Hook of Holland to Constantinople. It movingly contrasts his having to rough it in the European countryside and endure exposure to the elements, and the kindness with which he was received by people of all stations in life in small towns and large cities throughout Europe (most poignantly, as a Brit in Germany only 14 years after the Treaty of Versailles).

    It's simultaneously beautiful and painful to read, given what was lost in the carnage that followed.

    Replies: @Achilleus, @JMcG

    , @Jim Christian
    @Achilleus

    I'll see your disdain for misplaced black faces in a movie and raise you my disgust for deliberately placed whale-resembling 300 pound black news and weather readers masquerading as women, the uglier the better, apparently. At every turn they replace beauty with ugly. When these baboons appear on-screen I flip the channel. If they track our viewing habits they must be able to match up the drop in ratings to the appearance of said baboons. I can't be the only one in racist Boston.

  190. WW1 is the tragedy of European man. The only group, to mostly conduct warfare, through pitched battles, of infanteers against infanteers, taking ground, piece by piece.

    It isn’t normal that one side didn’t run and hide. It isn’t normal that soldiers sought out other soldiers, rather than civilians. It isn’t normal that they couldn’t just talk it out and come to a de facto peace, where both sides declared victory.

    What would Ghengis Khan have said about the strategies used?

    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    @Triteleia Laxa


    WW1 is the tragedy of European man
     
    .

    Sun Tzu’s classic Art of War is based on the premise that fighting is bad. War is expensive and gets a lot of your people hurt. Better to prevail by negotiation, intimidation, surprise, trickery, bribery, or other such ploys.

    Europeans, on the other hand, have always believed that the best way to prevail is to totally annihilate your enemy so that you never have to fight him again.

    Replies: @utu, @John Johnson, @Colin Wright

  191. anon[940] • Disclaimer says:
    @IHTG
    @JohnnyWalker123

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. "No globohomo" in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    Replies: @anon, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics.

    Which group leads the opposition to internet porn, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to the managerial state, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to an unregulated big tech alliance with big gov, left-wingers or right-wingers?

    “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    As always, left-wingers fail to remember that social changes are also driven by moral revulsion.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon

    Until not long ago neither.

    Winds of change are blowing.

  192. @nebulafox
    @Diversity Heretic

    He wasn't the only one. Ivan IV, Queens Mary and Elizabeth, Peter the Great, and Frederick the Great all had deeply unpleasant childhoods, to say the least. Alexander III and Nicholas II had to watch as their respective father and grandfather died: mutilated beyond repair by a terrorist's bomb, gasping out his breath on the bed. This probably helped contribute to their reactionary policies in power.

    But Franz Josef really never did catch a break in his adult life, politically or personally. Consider how long he reigned: he took power as a teenager and lived to be in his 80s. And while it's true that he didn't get along with Franz Ferdinand and treated his wife deeply shoddily (one reason Ferdinand got along with Wilhelm II was that the latter always made a point of treating Sophie like royalty-the couple couldn't even sit together in Vienna, which is why they went to Sarajevo together), I doubt he actually wanted to see his heir murdered, the famous anecdote about God's judgement aside. Least of all did he want the cataclysm that destroyed everything he'd worked for 65 years. He, like the state he in many ways embodied, just kept lumbering on from one shock to the next until their hearts gave out in the end, knowing it was all for nothing.

    (One anecdote I particularly like was his response to people questioning him taking care of Galician Jewish refugees in the Hofgarten in 1914. "They are my people, too". It really was a very different, very arch-conservative kind of mentality he had, a pre-social Darwinian, pre-racial mentality that contrasts sharply with the developing ideologies of many Austrian higher-ups, let alone the attitudes in, say, Berlin or Petersburg. Completely at odds with the pan-German racial nationalism that was coming.)

    Again, it reminds of me of the 7th Century Roman emperor Heraclius, who won back the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire against all the odds, only to have them taken from him as an old man by a new invader that came out of nowhere. His biographer, Kaegi, says he probably died not just depressed, but struggling with PTSD, convinced that God was punishing him.

    > Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination.

    It's said that his 34 year long relationship with Frau Schratt was platonic. I'm not sure that was true, but I'm more open to that suggesting for the genuinely devout Franz Josef than most monarchs.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @utu

    mutilated beyond repair by a terrorist’s bomb

    In 1905, Alexandra’s sister Ella went out in a Moscow street to pick up the pieces of her beloved gay husband Serge, Nicholas’s uncle, after a bomb exploded in his lap. In 1918, the Bolshies threw her down a mineshaft with other Romanovs, followed by some grenades. But the Russians were more accustomed to political murder than the Austrians.

  193. @Achilleus
    https://youtu.be/Ijk4j-r7qPA

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    The familiar part starts at 0:54

  194. @AnotherDad
    @Houston 1992


    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply…..what am I missing?
     
    -- It would hardly have been easy or cheap. (At the beginning of the war, the UK--inc. Ireland--and US populations were similar (30m). British industry was more developed, but the US had a better resource base and would be fighting in it's own waters.) They could break the blockade ... at the cost of losing a lot of ship and men and having a war they did not want.

    -- The Brits, while happy to see the US balkanize, didn't want to be associated with a slave state. No one did.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @LondonBob

    An Royal Navy blockade of the North would have been even more effective than the North’s blockade of the South. Smashing the Union navy, “The work of a few hours”, sniffed Palmerston. In 1861 the RN had 63 ships-of-the-line (60 guns and above) to the American 0. The total count of all commissioned warships was 598 to 42. Bye-bye Anaconda plan! Pretty soon it would be the British doing an “Anaconda plan” on Union ports. The North had no ocean going ironclads unlike the RN which had several. Britain would also have acted in conjunction with France, which was more pro-South than Britain. In any scenario with British involvement, you’re also talking French involvement on the same side. This makes an already huge impact bigger: add 35 ships-of-the-line and 231 smaller ships to the totals above.

    Also blockade runners in the South could run to Bermuda etc., whereas the North would have no nearby friendly ports. Blockade runners also relied on smokeless coal from Wales.

    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.

    http://67thtigers.blogspot.com/2010/06/royal-navy-force-designated-for-america.html

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @LondonBob

    Thanks for the info London Bob. Confess i was not aware that the naval skew was still quite that severe. (But then the US--not running an empire--didn't tend to spend heavily on military between wars.) As i noted, no doubt about the ability of the Brits to break the blockade. But then they are in a war they don't want.

    However on this score:


    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.
     
    you are deeply confused. They weren't into the Mesabi range yet--though they were mining in the UP--but the America steel industry--in the North and even the South--was well established. And easy for the North to expand--some of the best steel making coal in the world was right there in Pennsylvania. I don't know where you get this gunpowder idea either.

    The US imported from Britain--leading technology. But the US was basically never (after initial startup) trade dependent. Our resource base is huge. And--as is the case for most successful nations--the US specifically developed under a high tariff indigenous development model. (One of the sectional frictions leading to war.) Specifically--unlike--Britain, never an issue with feeding itself.

    My take would be all this does is accelerate the US industrial development, so that it overtakes Britain--which was a couple decades off--even faster. Plus poisons relations.


    It's an interesting counter-factual:

    The blockade is broken. I don't think that matters much in terms of the huge skew in industrial/manpower/military resources available on the ground. But perhaps it is sufficient enough to change the politics and the War is ended, the Confederacy independent.

    Then what?

    The US still rushes ahead industrially, overtakes Britain economically in the next few decades, but is now as a hostile power.

    Ireland perhaps is able to free itself earlier with robust American support. Perhaps even India is able to peel itself free earlier.

    If the Great War comes, without American help it drags to a stalemate. Or perhaps is even an outright Central Powers victory, as without worrying about American opinion Germany can engage in unrestricted submarine warfare and starve out Britain as the British were doing to them. (The U-boats had great success for while but were stopped a couple of times due to political concerns about America.) Though perhaps realizing they would not have American food/fuel/ammunition the Brits would decide not to get involved to start with? Who knows?

    This would eliminate the whole "Hitler" thing, though the Soviet Union problem would still be there.

    This is perhaps a more "natural" history than the America ex machina history that played out. Probably a better timeline for survival of the West than our own.

    Replies: @prosa123

  195. Off topic and gentle reminder:

    If you voted for Ronald Reagan….you voted for the death 0f Native Born White America….

  196. @Anon
    @Jon Halpenny

    Yep.

    Hitler spent a decade ranting about the threat of Jewish-Bolshevism. He didn't spend much time on Jews; it was Jewish-Bolshevism. Of course, in Anglo history books, it is viewed as the rantings of a mad man. Fast-forward a decade, Churchill is viewed as a geopolitical genius for finally recognizing the threat of the Iron Curtain of...Jewish-Bolshevism. ::shrug::

    With hindsight, it is apparent WW2 was a complete geopolitical debacle -- probably the largest in the past 500 years. We fought the wrong side in Europe, empowering the rise of the Soviet Union, which nearly blew up the planet. Our efforts in the Pacific -- while leading to the surrender of Japan -- also gave the Chinese Communist Party a new lease on life. Arguably, the CCP is a bigger long-term threat than the Soviet Union ever was. Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.

    It is also apparent that FDR, Churchill, Cordell Hull, et al were clowns. They completely misread the geopolitical realities of the 1930's and we are still paying for it, as will future generations. No amount of Boomer WW2-Churchill porn changes that. It can be said that all of this is apparent only in hindsight. But that's not true. One leader correctly foresaw it: Hitler.

    Replies: @Alden, @R.G. Camara, @Dissident

    I agree . But it’s not boomer WW2 Churchill porn, but greatest generation porn.

  197. Anon[272] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    Princeton anthro prof Augustin “Fabio” Fuentes materialized on Robert Wright’s show on Bloggingheads a few days ago to discuss his Darwin cancellation piece in Science.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/and-then-they-came-for-darwin/

    Wright, who is fluent and well-read in Darwin, had taken specific issue with the charge of colonialism, resulting in the booking. The joust was pretty interesting. Wright scores some points, and Fuentes says that if he had more than 700 words his piece would not have come across as so anti-Darwin.

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women’s brains are the same as men’s, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He’s pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn’t saying what he appears to be saying.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Anon


    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women’s brains are the same as men’s, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He’s pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn’t saying what he appears to be saying.
     
    There are various notions of "smart".

    I'm well aware that there are a bunch of SAT smart people--even a bunch quite a bit SAT smarter than me--who are on the other side.

    Still there's something very lacking in the supposed "smartness" of someone who actually believes things that are both wrong and obviously nonsense. Something is "just wrong". Yes, they have neurons that fire quickly, but they lack the will/desire to embrace facts and logic to make sense of the world.

    What you choose to parrot to get this and that goodie in life--that's one thing. But when someone's brain actually believes clearly contradicted nonsense, that's something else.
    , @John Johnson
    @Anon

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women’s brains are the same as men’s, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing.

    If anything that is evidence of being completely fake.

    All modern anthropologists are fakers. The whole practice is fake.

    They are more like a research division for the Secular Church of Equality.

    It doesn't matter what they really think about race or gender. Their job is to lie and they know it.

    Anyone that teaches anthropology or writes books on the subject is a liar. To outsiders that means the race/gender denial side has taken over. If you want a job then you will lie.

    , @Unladen Swallow
    @Anon

    If he really believes those things that are contradicted by reality, how smart can he actually be? He did once post on Twitter, responding to Gregory Cochran, " I am not a moron ", implying he said something that would fall into that category.

    Replies: @Anon

  198. Abe says:

    Good comments all! I don’t have much to add despite considering myself a bit of a WWI aficionado after having read close to 10 books on the subject in the last 2 years (basically Amazon/Kindle kept feeding me a new “cheapie” deal every couple weeks, so after I finished one book I’d acquire the next one for $3, swear it was my last and there was nothing more to learn, then acquire a new one when the next cheapie deal arrived… luckily I learned something new and important with each read!).

    So one minor thing I can add which hasn’t already been noted is that the Serbian assassin gang of which Gavrilo Princip was a member included a token Bosnian Serb Muslim, so WWI was actually sparked by one of those diverse/multicultural criminal gangs Hollywood seems so enamored of. A political assassination setting off a series of World Wars, revolutions, and genocides that destroy the lives of over 100 million souls is a shame. But if the diversity of our political-terrorist gangs became a casualty as well, that would be the greater tragedy.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Abe

    Diversity is their strength.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Abe

    Abe, could you--and anyone else here with good suggestions--pass along your book recommendations.

    The descent into the Great War is something i still can't wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just "wow, that was incredibly stupid".

    And while i now feel i have a basic wrapper on the whole deal--the catastrophe of imperialism--i still don't have a real understanding of the war aims of everyone involved. (For example: Germany?) I understand everyone thought they were going to grab up this or that piece of territory, or were worried about someone else grabbing up more stuff and getting "stronger", or were standing up for their allies. But the specific thinking that led the various parties weigh up their potential gains and think "yeah, this is worth a war, worth risking losing a war".

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Abe

    , @James J O'Meara
    @Abe

    I know the feeling. But as a cheapskate, I insist on no more than .99. Still, I've managed to acquire about 3000 of the little guys, which I might read through in a couple hundred years. People who say ebooks will "destroy reading" don't know what they're talking about. Instant access to books for less than a cup of coffee is a powerful addiction.

    Replies: @Morton's toes

  199. @R.G. Camara
    If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what's the likelihood of the Third Reich's rise?

    The bitter taste in many German's mouths over the loss and Treaty of Versailles to end WWI and the punishments unfairly heaped on Germany in that treaty did much to fuel the Nazis. Not to mention Hitler emerged a decorated war hero from WWI, giving him prestige when he began his political career.

    Of course, many Marxists gleefully thought the pain of WWI would cause Germany to go communist. They sought to speed that along by sending armed gangs of thugs into the streets to beat up any nascent German political party that threatened communism's rise. But they overplayed their hand, and started marauding so much the Germans begged for someone, anyone to kick the commie street gang's arses, and Hitler got his brownshirts with Rohm together for protection and Commie's started losing street battles and people started cheering the Nazis----after all, they were beating up the evil commie street thugs.

    Not long after, the commie street thugs rebranded themselves Antifa.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave, @Jon Halpenny, @Peter D. Bredon

    “If Germany had not entered WWI (whether other countries had gone to war or not), what’s the likelihood of the Third Reich’s rise?”

    I’d say the connection is so tight that asking is like asking “If African slaves had never set foot in the USA, what would the state of the Black Panther Party be?”

    OTOH I recall hearing that the real trauma was Wilhelm’s unnecessary surrender, and then his cowardly abdication, which need not have happened. I await correction.

  200. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar

    The nouveau seldom perceive themselves as big enough yet for magnanimity, at least toward their rivals.

  201. @Almost Missouri
    @anonymous


    Would the United States have been such a big player in WWI (first indirectly, then directly), if the CSA had been a separate country?
     
    The idea that letting the Confederacy go peacefully would have fatally crippled the power of the Union is, IMHO, overstated. The Union had twice the (white) population of the Confederacy and many multiples more industrial power. The North was also growing and expanding much faster. By the time the continent was finally settled from sea to sea around the end of the century, the North would have been nearly as prosperous and powerful as the current timeline USA was. And as a bonus, it would not have been so vulnerable to the legacy of the Great Migration as the current timeline USA was and is. By the turn of the millennium, a Unionist-descended USA would be nearly all white, free of a dusky, hostile and parasitical underclass, and without the deadweight of affirmative action or the toxic infection of pandering identity politics. In short, a present day Unionist-descended USA would be far more prosperous, unified and powerful than the current timeline USA is.

    For its part, the planter-dominated Confederacy may have made some headway as a Caribbean-oriented slave empire, making commercial and political inroads along the Latin American coasts, but ultimately, as the cotton bubble burst and and technological progress rendered slave labor obsolete, the Confederacy would have found itself economically moribund, heir to a sclerotic multiethnic empire: a sort of Greater Cuba. And unlike the actual post-Reconstruction southern states, it would not be able to discharge its now surplus slave population into its unwitting northern neighbors via the Great Migration, and so would have instituted practical and permanent means of coexistence.

    In short, getting hundreds of thousands of young Americans killed to "enforce" a mandatory union law that didn't exist was the most tremendous unforced error in US history.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Ralph L, @Alden

    Agree completely. I’ve always felt that way. Let the south and it’s negros go. Build a Great Wall around the slave states. Let the confederates deal with their unruly pets.

    Railroad Probation was common in the early and mid 20 the century. Black churches and local police often gave black thugs railroad tickets north and some money to leave town and never come back.

    The Great Migration began in the 1920s as soon as the immigration restrictions were proposed. Northern Capitalists recruited black southerners to keep wages down and destroy America’s great cities.

  202. @Abe
    Good comments all! I don’t have much to add despite considering myself a bit of a WWI aficionado after having read close to 10 books on the subject in the last 2 years (basically Amazon/Kindle kept feeding me a new “cheapie” deal every couple weeks, so after I finished one book I’d acquire the next one for $3, swear it was my last and there was nothing more to learn, then acquire a new one when the next cheapie deal arrived... luckily I learned something new and important with each read!).

    So one minor thing I can add which hasn’t already been noted is that the Serbian assassin gang of which Gavrilo Princip was a member included a token Bosnian Serb Muslim, so WWI was actually sparked by one of those diverse/multicultural criminal gangs Hollywood seems so enamored of. A political assassination setting off a series of World Wars, revolutions, and genocides that destroy the lives of over 100 million souls is a shame. But if the diversity of our political-terrorist gangs became a casualty as well, that would be the greater tragedy.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @James J O'Meara

    Diversity is their strength.

  203. Abe says:
    @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Oskar Morgenstern is said to be the grandson of a Kaiser, namely Frederick III, who ruled for three and a half months, so you probably don't have an opinion of him. This would make Kaiser Bill his uncle. He would be just as closely related to Wilhelm I (more closely if this "said to be" refers to illegitimacy).

    Replies: @Abe

    Oskar Morgenstern is said to be the grandson of a Kaiser, namely Frederick III, who ruled for three and a half months, so you probably don’t have an opinion of him. This would make Kaiser Bill his uncle. He would be just as closely related to Wilhelm I (more closely if this “said to be” refers to illegitimacy).

    From a book on the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, one of the sickest dynastic/bastardy burns ever-

    “The delegation’s leader was Germany’s foreign minister, Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau… The family was an old and distinguished one: Rantzaus had served Denmark; Germany; even, in the seventeenth century, France. A Marshal Rantzau was rumored to have been the real father of Louis XIV. When a French officer asked Brockdorff-Rantzau about it, the count replied: “Oh yes, in my family the Bourbons have been considered bastard Rantzaus for the past three hundred years.”

    — Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret Macmillan

  204. @nokangaroos
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval (and even on this board there are those who claim everything between Styria and the Black Sea is in reality Serbia), just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.

    - Franz Ferdinand was on a goodwill tour gathering creds for himself and the reforms he hoped to enact; chief among the former was that he was not afraid of his beloved subjects, not in the capital of a recently annexed province, not in a hotbed of Serb agitation, not on St. Vitus´Day
    (= anniversary of the battle of Kosovo Polje, the holiest of holies for orthodox Serbs, celebrated by imbibing, reminiscing about the almost twenty years they had a czar and fantasizing about political murder and martyrdom; never mind Milos Obilic is about as historical as Wilhelm Tell and Murad I died of constipation).
    For size, picture the US viceroy in Baghdad paying a visit to Kerbela, in an open Benz, on Eid al-Adhà. Whatever may be said against the archduke (an impressive list) he had testicles the size of a Holstein´s udder (and a syph to match).
    Maybe he could have saved the empire - maybe.

    Bonus trivia: Princip´s organization, the Black Hand ("crna ruka"), apart from a skull-and-bones and the motto "sloboda ili smrt" ("freedom or death") still carried the black, red and gold of the National Revolution 1848 (now usurped by the ZRG)

    Replies: @JMcG, @AKAHorace

    Do you have a source on Heydrich? I’ve never heard that before and I’m interested.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @JMcG

    Well, he introduced German labor protection laws (unheard of before or after) and turned the large (((international))) hotels in Karlsbad and Marienbad into workers´rehab centers à la KdF;
    none of this is secret, it´s just not talked about
    (like the Czech 68ers only for a very short time complained "When the Germans came, it took six months for the first Czech to die; when the Russians came, it took 45 minutes").
    The more contemporary the accounts, the better ;)

    Replies: @JMcG

  205. @JohnnyWalker123
    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

    Wouldn't that be interesting?

    The Twilight Zone had a few episodes like that. Here's one in which a man travels back in time to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This clip is less than 30 seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir_SGlDtci4

    Here's another episode in which we gain a little insight into why the old WASP elite is no longer in power. This clip is less than 3 minutes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuR0xIkxiw

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Anonymous, @Peter D. Bredon

    At 3:50

    “His grandfather sold it all in 1929… some people have no confidence in this country.”

    • Thanks: JohnnyWalker123
  206. @Dutch Boy
    @Colin Wright

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Colin Wright

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    Yes and they were correct. Germany would have become the leading European and global power. That also meant the possibility of Germany potentially conquering Britain in a future war which wouldn’t be difficult if they had the full resources of continental Europe. So Britain made the strategic decision to go on the offensive while they still had allies. WW1 really had nothing to do with Franz Ferdinand. A war was going to happen regardless. Neither side really cared about sending scores of men to their deaths because royalty on both sides viewed it as a war for survival.

    Both Britain and Germany were acting out of self-interest. We should have let them duke it out in a fair fight and made peace with the winner. But our globalists also wanted a British Europe and they got it. Of course they probably didn’t imagine globalist Britain to commit cultural suicide and become an American corporate outpost with a Muslim London. The Brits won the war but German brutishness and hard logic ultimately won the argument over British gentility and globalist ideals. German principles would have saved Europe from the madness it is currently in. The British aversion to face certain realities has doomed them. America will go the same path if it doesn’t wake up.

  207. @Anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123


    Imagine if we could travel back in time and alter historic events.

     

    https://i.imgur.com/aCXL21G.jpg

    Replies: @Skyler the Weird, @Reg Cæsar

    If time travel is in our future, why haven’t we seen it in the past?

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Reg Cæsar

    QED.

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Reg Cæsar

    Everything exists now. Everything that has happened. Everything that will happen.

    If you find a way to go back and make some effect, that exists too, so does its reverberations. An infinite complexity of timelines and realities, all exist, perceptible now, if you're so minded.

    It is a lot to consider.

  208. @prosa123
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I remember on my trip to Scotland seeing a memorial to war dead in Glasgow. There were at least four times as many killed in WW1 than there were in WW2.

    Something often forgotten today is that the First World War had more combat deaths than the Second, although the latter's total death toll was much higher because of all the civilian deaths.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.

    • Replies: @Tex
    @Hapalong Cassidy


    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.
     
    It set a high bar. In With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge recalled a Marine veteran saying that Peleliu was the worst fighting he'd ever seen, worse than the trenches of WWI. That's how Sledge knew he was in trouble.
    , @Paul Mendez
    @Hapalong Cassidy


    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in
     
    .

    Not sure about that.

    During the Centennial of WWI, the British press ran a lot of memoirs of individual Tommies. For some, it was the best days of their life. One week in the front trench, one week in the reserve trench, two weeks behind the lines. Plenty of food and liquor and mademoiselles. Kind of like Animal House with guns. Most of the time the front was quiet. If you were unlucky, of course, your mileage might differ.

    Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, The Crimean War, and the First and Second Balkan Wars were bad to fight in. The Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay was a horrific combination of fighting, hunger, thirst and disgusting tropical diseases in one of the more inhospitable places on earth that cost each nation 2-3 percent of its population. Iran-Iraq War was a meat grinder.

    To be a Japanese soldier in WWII or a Chinese soldier in Korea or a North Vietnamese soldier in Vietnam or an Iraqi soldier in Kuwait sucked.

    Replies: @Houston 1992, @Colin Wright, @Hereward

  209. @SafeNow
    In 1920, The Times of London conducted a contest to come up with the most dramatic newspaper headline conceivable. The winning entry was “Archduke Franz Ferdinand Alive, World War Fought by Mistake.” (doing this from memory; I think I have it right)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In 1920, The Times of London conducted a contest to come up with the most dramatic newspaper headline conceivable. The winning entry was “Archduke Franz Ferdinand Alive, World War Fought by Mistake.” (doing this from memory; I think I have it right)

    The rest of the Internet attributes this to Spike Milligan.

    The late Spike Milligan once said that when he died, he hoped to be laid to rest in a washing machine, for no other reason than to confuse the archaeologists of the future.

    https://www.scotsman.com/regions/aberdeen-and-north-east/stone-circle-isnt-ancient-it-justified-martyn-mclaughlin-1422421

  210. @Diversity Heretic
    @Mr. Anon

    Great Britain also wanted gains in the Middle East at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Italy entered the war after being given promises of territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Likewise Romania, but Romania was overwhelmed quite quickly.

    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was "peace without victory." It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @AnotherDad

    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was “peace without victory.” It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.

    Agree.

    And while i’m not on board with liberal-internationalists venturing out seeking monsters to destroy, Wilson’s 14-points–specifically the issues of national self-determination is spot on.

    This disaster–which the West has not recovered from–is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people … who don’t actually want them around.

    The same impulse and tyranny behind the minoritarian/woke plague America suffers from today.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Whitehall
    @AnotherDad

    Keynes wrote in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" about Wilson that

    "[N]ot only was he ill-informed, but his mind was slow and unadaptable ... There can seldom have been a statesman of the first rank more incompetent than the President in the agilities of the council chamber."

    But Keynes didn't live to see Biden at the G7.

    Replies: @JMcG

    , @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    This disaster–which the West has not recovered from–is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people … who don’t actually want them around.

    Do you live in America? This country was founded by imperialism. Most of the countries in the world didn't become countries until an imperial power created the infrastructure. That pattern goes all the way back to the Romans.

    The disaster was intra-European wars. Germany should have built their empire in the third world to save us all a headache.

    Now we are heading towards the third world population timebomb and Whites are guilting themselves into not having children. So instead of national imperialism we have national suicide and we don't even have leaders that can face that reality much less discuss it.

    WW1 style German imperialism would have saved the West.

    Here are the disasters:
    1. Lincoln choosing war over compromise
    2. Wilson getting involved in WW1
    3. Hitler wanting revenge on everyone
    4. Churchill/FDR letting Stalin have Eastern Europe

    In any case cuck island should have been taken by another power. The British are too nice for their own good.

  211. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous

    If time travel is in our future, why haven't we seen it in the past?

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Triteleia Laxa

    QED.

  212. Anon[272] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    I learned today that there is a Ramones cover of the Chris Farlowe-sung, Jagger/Richards-written song “Out of Time” on an all-covers Ramones album I’d never heard of. Accompanying Joey Ramone in the vocals is Canadian metal musician Sebastian Bach, also known for appearances on “The Gilmore Girls.”

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/guardian-before-the-great-awokening-nobody-had-ever-heard-of-thou-shalt-not-kill/?#comment-3615291

    In his 2012 autobiography Commando, Johnny Ramone called the album “hit-and-miss” …. He added that “we were getting all kinds of suggestions from everybody, and it was getting to be a pain in the ass. I mean, ‘She’s Not There’ by the Zombies?” Johnny awarded the album a “B-” grade. Bassist C.J. Ramone gave the album a “D” grade, saying that it was done strictly for the money. The album features several guest singers on backing vocals, [including] Traci Lords on “Somebody to Love.”

    • Thanks: Lurker
  213. @Anon
    As opposed to your "couldn't let it slide," etc., analysis, my understanding (based solely on G. J. Meyer's 2007 majesterial 800-pager A World Undone: The Story of the Great War) was that all the countries in question had various mutual and most-favored-nation treaties that obligated them to offer military assistance to each other if attacked. It was a simple IF-THEN infinite loop gone mad.

    Of course, these obligations can be ignored. An example is in immigration law when the Obama administration added Iran to its visa restriction list, which could have dominoed into all kinds of worldwide restrictions on American travel because of some obscure treaty with Germany that required retaliation (and the fact that Iran claims anyone born in Iran as a citizen for life) by a lot of other countries. The Intercept had an apocalyptic article about this at the time. But all countries involved just ignored it.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @JMcG, @Simon

    The Russians had no treaty or alliance with Serbia. Just a fellow-Slav feeling.

  214. .Franz Ferdinand assassination was pure bad luck, but war was inevitable: every involved country was so convinced in their own superiority and inevitable victory of their alliance. All of them expected quick victory and huge gains from it. It was not sleepwalking but voluntary jump for power grab.
    What is more troubling is that we never ever learn anything from history. We are now heading for war which will dwarf all previous wars combined, but nobody in power will do anything to prevent it. All signs are there but those i power think this high risk game will be rewarding for them.

  215. @Abe
    Good comments all! I don’t have much to add despite considering myself a bit of a WWI aficionado after having read close to 10 books on the subject in the last 2 years (basically Amazon/Kindle kept feeding me a new “cheapie” deal every couple weeks, so after I finished one book I’d acquire the next one for $3, swear it was my last and there was nothing more to learn, then acquire a new one when the next cheapie deal arrived... luckily I learned something new and important with each read!).

    So one minor thing I can add which hasn’t already been noted is that the Serbian assassin gang of which Gavrilo Princip was a member included a token Bosnian Serb Muslim, so WWI was actually sparked by one of those diverse/multicultural criminal gangs Hollywood seems so enamored of. A political assassination setting off a series of World Wars, revolutions, and genocides that destroy the lives of over 100 million souls is a shame. But if the diversity of our political-terrorist gangs became a casualty as well, that would be the greater tragedy.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @James J O'Meara

    Abe, could you–and anyone else here with good suggestions–pass along your book recommendations.

    The descent into the Great War is something i still can’t wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just “wow, that was incredibly stupid”.

    And while i now feel i have a basic wrapper on the whole deal–the catastrophe of imperialism–i still don’t have a real understanding of the war aims of everyone involved. (For example: Germany?) I understand everyone thought they were going to grab up this or that piece of territory, or were worried about someone else grabbing up more stuff and getting “stronger”, or were standing up for their allies. But the specific thinking that led the various parties weigh up their potential gains and think “yeah, this is worth a war, worth risking losing a war”.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AnotherDad

    >The descent into the Great War is something i still can’t wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just “wow, that was incredibly stupid”.

    The chronology of the July Crisis is tricky. You have a lot of events in rapid succession in multiple capitals. But it's crucial, especially during that last week of July leading up to the guns of August. Try and put yourself in the shoes of one of these men: and suppose you hear that the Austrians are shelling Belgrade, or that the Russians are moving troops up to your border. What would you believe with the information you had on hand, mixing with your previous international commitments... and your immediate interests, which weren't necessarily shared by your allies, either with the Entente or the Central Powers?

    (This is why I'm trying to stress the deeply tragic, unnecessary nature of WWI, and why clear communication is important in diplomacy. Had any of these statesmen known what their choices that summer would lead to, they would have stopped: none of them strike me as a Hitler-esque psychopath who genuinely liked war. And had they had access to the whole picture or been transparent with representatives from "hostile states", they would have. This applies every bit as much to Bethmann, Grey, and Poincare as to Berchtold or Sazanov, probably the two most obvious examples of diplomats trying to cover their own butts at home.)

    Even people on the ground at the time had a hard time keeping up. The Willy-Nicky telegrams were prompted partly because Nicholas knew what the "partial" mobilization implied in terms of leading toward a general war ("I will not be held responsible for a monstrous slaughter"), and partly because Wilhelm had realized that Sazanov had been lying to his ambassador's face for days.

    , @Abe
    @AnotherDad


    Abe, could you–and anyone else here with good suggestions–pass along your book recommendations.
     
    BY FAR the book I’d most strongly recommend reading is Margaret MacMillan’s PARIS 1919, as it addresses everyone’s real concern as to what were the causes of WWII and could it have been prevented. Based on MacMillan’s book, probably not- Japan, a WWI Ally and participant at the Paris Peace Conference with influence well beyond its modest wartime contributions, was already on the hunt for territorial acquisitions and, not really satisfied with what it got in 1919, was even by then on a collision course with the US (US Navy Operations Staff planners had already put together plans for a war with Japan). Italy likewise was howling about its “mutilated victory” at the hands of the other Allies and the seeds for postwar Italian nationalism and imperialism leading to Mussolini were already well-sown by 1919.

    Besides that I’d highly recommend JULY 1914: COUNTDOWN TO WAR by McMeekin for its day-by-day/hour-by-hour analysis of the diplomatic machinations of the Great Powers. No real gobsmackers, but Germany comes off looking less bad, Russia and France worse in particular to how they worked to sway (one could say deceive) British public opinion.

    Mr. Hirsi Ali’s PITY OF WAR has a good analysis of the economic consequences of the war and peace at the end, but I would not recommend it unless you’ve exhausted all the better works.

    Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet, but can’t imagine being anything less than awesome. Junger began life as a scar tissue-questing middle class nerd (cf. Ernest Hemingway, or his even more degenerated disciple Chuck Palahniuk) but became in real life the badass he always wanted to be- WWI stormtroooper wounded multiple times, recipient of the “Blue Max” (Germany’s Medal of Honor), wrote a crazy existential memoir of his war experiences the envy of any Iowa Writer’s Workshop tough guy, avoided any great personal taint during the Hitler years, lived to be over 100.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Old Palo Altan, @Morton's toes

  216. @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    The outcome of the Civil War decided which camp the United States would be in. And I think history shows that it was the right camp to be in.

    Yea worked out great.

    Around 1 trillion spent trying to prove the races are the same and yet you can lose your job in academia for simply asking why the evolutionary theory taught in schools conveniently excludes humans. I can list a dozen millionaires and billionaires that have invested into various race denial based education theories and have since abandoned them. Gates alone spent over 250 billion and then he went back to funding his malaria cure.

    Sliding academic standards, 30 trillion in debt and around half a million homeless. What a utopia the US has become after sticking to to those dumb rassist southerners.

    The civil war was never needed. Technology would have ended slavery and the Bantu would have been repatriated.

    But I would have been fine with the civil war if Lincoln didn't shut down the Northern press and told the people everything that scientists at the time knew about race. That would have sapped his volunteers which would have led to a peace agreement.

    Egalitarians have to lie and manipulate the people by controlling information. That is exactly how Lincoln got his support. The egalitarian is a resentful liar that fears honest conversation.

    Replies: @Jack D

    No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks “back” to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    'No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks “back” to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.'

    The viability tends to depend on how concerned you are with what happens to the blacks.

    Just to make my position clear, I think that in reality-land, a reimposition of Jim Crow would be a fairer, more practical, and more humane solution. The problem with blacks doesn't lie so much in what they are as in what we've encouraged them to become.

    We can give any black who objects a one-way ticket to Kinshasha. Even pay the regime there enough to agree to allow him to debark. No need to thank us.

    , @Hamlet's Ghost
    @Jack D

    Funny how they don't seem to have a problem talking about reparations though.

    , @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks “back” to Africa.

    What you think that was the problem? No one could figure out how to repatriate 9 million people? There was a lack of political will, it had nothing to do with feasibility.

    Madgascar at the time had less than 2 million people.

    Plenty of room for everyone to have 40 acres a mule.

    Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.

    I only view paradise as achievable on an individual level. I am a realist and the evidence suggests that African and European differences are significant enough to require separate standards. Liberals and egalitarians in education have already quietly reached this conclusion after spending hundreds of millions trying to prove that learning gaps are caused by racist Whites. Most liberals in education have stopped looking for solutions and the new trend is to do away with testing and AP classes. So lowered standards for everyone after hundreds of millions down the drain.

    Liberals and egalitarians in many areas have given up on equality but still believe in blaming and denigrating Whites for their failures.

    They are the ones that promised paradise and have since switched to lowered standards and suppressing critical thinkers. Racial realists have been correct the entire time. That is indisputable. To suggest I live in a fantasy world is ironic since I spend quite a bit of time showing how our liberal establishment refuses to engage reality.

    In the future liberals will admit they were lying about race and genetic engineering is needed to equalize everyone. That day is coming so in the scope of separation vs widespread gene manipulation I'm not convinced the idealists should really be considered as such. Peaceful separation would not have led to this type of egalitarian madness.

  217. Quite coincidentally, academic.edu just emailed me a recommended upload; not really the sort of book you’d expect from an author named Swami Satchitanand:

  218. @AnotherDad
    Really the debacle for the West.

    There are inevitable challenges from modernity (ex. the birth control pill) and the US was going to have some issues from "demographics". But so much of what's gone wrong can be traced back down a windy road to 1914.

    Mediocre leadership across the board. Political and military. (Including generals who hadn't even absorbed the lessons from the American Civil war a half century before.) But not just in Europe--in the US as well which should have worked tireless to bring it to an end.

    The simple critique is the dynamic great powers getting dragged into war by tired backward eastern empires.

    But i think the core culprit is simply imperialism. There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world's turf locked up?

    The post-War American system of free trade between independent nations is just far, far superior to empire.

    The only way you can accommodate the ebb and flow of history at least potentially peacefully, is through nationalism--free and independent nations charting their own course.

    Imperialism leads to war. Imperialism is at the root of our tortured 20th century history, which watered the seeds of insanity now destroying the West.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Hans, @Art Deco

    There was always going to be an issue with Germany rising into a world where Britain and France had locked up trade with huge swathes of the world. Imagine China rising today, if the US had half the world’s turf locked up?

    They hadn’t and couldn’t. Thos. Sowell critiquing Marxist literature on imperialism noted that French trade with Belgium exceeded in volume French trade with its whole portfolio of Tropical African dependencies. See also the imports and exports of British India; the sum of them by value exceeded those of Italy, but only by about 10%. Note also that half of India’s exports went to countries outside the sterling area. Trade with the rest of the world was inhibited, not banned.

  219. @Abe
    Good comments all! I don’t have much to add despite considering myself a bit of a WWI aficionado after having read close to 10 books on the subject in the last 2 years (basically Amazon/Kindle kept feeding me a new “cheapie” deal every couple weeks, so after I finished one book I’d acquire the next one for $3, swear it was my last and there was nothing more to learn, then acquire a new one when the next cheapie deal arrived... luckily I learned something new and important with each read!).

    So one minor thing I can add which hasn’t already been noted is that the Serbian assassin gang of which Gavrilo Princip was a member included a token Bosnian Serb Muslim, so WWI was actually sparked by one of those diverse/multicultural criminal gangs Hollywood seems so enamored of. A political assassination setting off a series of World Wars, revolutions, and genocides that destroy the lives of over 100 million souls is a shame. But if the diversity of our political-terrorist gangs became a casualty as well, that would be the greater tragedy.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @James J O'Meara

    I know the feeling. But as a cheapskate, I insist on no more than .99. Still, I’ve managed to acquire about 3000 of the little guys, which I might read through in a couple hundred years. People who say ebooks will “destroy reading” don’t know what they’re talking about. Instant access to books for less than a cup of coffee is a powerful addiction.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @James J O'Meara

    You can get books off archiv and gutenberg for free.

    + YOU do the choosing not some brainless Amazon bot!

  220. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Desiderius, @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar

    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.

    Probably.

    But it wasn’t ridiculous.** My German ancestry is from Alsace. My immigrant ancestors would have spoken what’s essentially a German dialect. And they considered themselves “German”–at least in the American ethnic background sense.

    ** Generally, while rivers make nice clear borders they are not natural ethno-national borders. The river valley tends to evolve toward being a common linguistic/cultural/ethnic unit. After oceans, it’s actually mountains that really divide people’s from one another. (Divide settled people’s from one another, with badasses in between.)

    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to … just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other’s right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That’s what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old “white bread” Americaness–our people, culture and history–can roll on with it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @AnotherDad

    'I think the program that actually leads to peace is to … just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other’s right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.'

    The difficulty there is that people can wind up awkwardly scattered about. To take one example, before the Second World War, there were substantial German communities in West Prussia, the Memelland, all of the Baltic states, parts of what was then Yugoslavia and Hungary, Transylvania, Bessarabia, and even as far afield as the Volga River.

    Should they all have been allowed to join 'Germany'?

    The solutions tend to be...draconian. Even leaving aside what happened to the Eastern Germans, consider what happened to the 'Turks' still in Greece and the 'Greeks' still in Turkey. 600,000 of the first group were exchanged with 1.2 million of the last group.

    See also Indian partition, and for that matter, the founding of Israel. Really, the whole concept of nationalism implies bloodshed and dispossession on a horrific scale. If you actually wanted a pleasant solution, you'd have to go with some supra-ethnic state along the lines of the Ottoman Empire, with it's separate milayets for each ethnicity.

    , @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to … just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other’s right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That’s what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old “white bread” Americaness–our people, culture and history–can roll on with it.

    This is so naïve.

    What happens when Brazil America runs out of cash and sees all the Whitebread Americans in the burbs with their nice cars and clean lawns?

    I'll tell you what happens. Eventually a Presidente Emilio comes along and tells the poor that the Bad Whites are the problem and need their wealth taken from them. Why would desperate people care if the core of the argument is true or not? It's a hilarious belief of conservatives that desperate people will remain principled and stand by the flag.

    Modern conservatism/Western passivism is in serious denial of the problem of envy. There is no reason to believe that bringing in third worlders will make them first worlders or that they will always just roll with living in the shadow of Whites.

    Blank slate leads people to believe that everyone just needs their separate space. But because of racial and cultural differences you end up with inequality and that is where the left steps in with their own explanations. The left can be as cynical as it wants and will eagerly pit one group against the other for the sake of power. Conservatives can only give talks about bootstraps and how more taxes are bad mmmmkay?

  221. Breaking fantasy news … …

    His, great-great-great granddaughter makes a sex tape, changes gender, runs for Congress.

  222. @John Johnson
    @LondonBob

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    America should never have entered world war one.

    In any war where there isn't a direct threat the supporting politicians should send their sons and nephews in first. Show us how much you believe in the war by sending your own relatives into the trenches. If that had been the standard then we wouldn't have clown world today.

    Woodrow Wilson was a cowardly globalist that believed in lying to the masses. He was one of the first globalists that believed race existed but the masses should be lied to for the sake of egalitarian ideals.

    Every following president has taken the same position. Acknowledge race behind the scenes but don't dare tell the masses cause who knows what they might do.

    Oh and Wilson lied about Lusitania. In fact the US gov lied about smuggling arms for decades.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘America should never have entered world war one.’

    Definitely. Absent America, I’m convinced the Allies would simply have found the prospect of overwhelming Germany unaided too daunting, and while they would have turned back Germany’s Kaiserschlacht, of the Spring of 1918, would have agreed to a status quo ante peace in the West. The rising threat of Revolutionary Socialism to all parties would have made that all the more attractive. A strong Germany was going to be needed to fend off the Bolsheviks.

    In an ideal world, the suitably chastened Ancien Regime moves towards democratic reforms and social welfare while forming a truly just League of Nations and banding together to suppress Bolshevism.

    …just a possibility, but America’s entry into the war didn’t exactly make it happen. A Germany that survives the war bloodied but unbeaten would have been the best thing for Europe and the world. To this day, we could be arguing about whether France and the Commonwealth could have eventually overwhelmed Germany and Austro-Hungary if the fight hadn’t been called.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Colin Wright

    Definitely. Absent America, I’m convinced the Allies would simply have found the prospect of overwhelming Germany unaided too daunting, and while they would have turned back Germany’s Kaiserschlacht, of the Spring of 1918, would have agreed to a status quo ante peace in the West. The rising threat of Revolutionary Socialism to all parties would have made that all the more attractive. A strong Germany was going to be needed to fend off the Bolsheviks.

    Agreed I would add that German arms could have made the difference in fighting off the Bolsheviks.

    Imagine if the Reds had to go against Cossacks armed with German machine guns.

    , @68W58
    @Colin Wright

    I asked the question once on the (British) Army Rumour Service (arrse.co.uk) where WWI is talked about obsessively. They reckoned that without the US the result would have been the same only six months later. The battles of 1916 had broken Germany and were the last chance for victory for them. After that France and the UK were able to draw from their colonies and wear the Germans down and German troops who advanced in the Kaiserschlacht were amazed at the stores of supply that the allies had and they often had to be prodded along lest they stop and gorge themselves.

    Then there were the tactical improvements the allies had made: indirect fire with machine guns is just one example. Using indirect fire to support an advance was something both sides had long done, but changing from artillery to machine guns as the weapon of choice was a wise move. After all, an artillery shell that falls short can kill many advancing soldiers, but a bullet that falls short may not kill anyone and both will serve to keep the enemy out of his trenches. Couple that with better air support and the use of armor and the stalemate of the trenches was being broken and the side with superior logistics will always fare better on the advance.

    The western allies were going to win WWI before we were ever involved. Whether our involvement made the situation better or worse for Germany is the better question as the victorious British and French might have tried to impose harsh conditions on the defeated Germans.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  223. My amateur take on this is that at the time of the assassination Europe was a complicated web of alliances and treaties. So if country A was attacked country B would help who would then be attacked by country C. The book Dreadnaught spells this out well. So if the right card was moved the whole house of cards would collapse. What worries me is the current situation between the US and the rest of the world is close to the same dynamic. Like waiting at Chernobyl for someone to pull all the carbon rods out simultaneously.

  224. @AnotherDad
    @Diversity Heretic


    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was “peace without victory.” It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.
     
    Agree.

    And while i'm not on board with liberal-internationalists venturing out seeking monsters to destroy, Wilson's 14-points--specifically the issues of national self-determination is spot on.

    This disaster--which the West has not recovered from--is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people ... who don't actually want them around.

    The same impulse and tyranny behind the minoritarian/woke plague America suffers from today.

    Replies: @Whitehall, @John Johnson

    Keynes wrote in “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” about Wilson that

    “[N]ot only was he ill-informed, but his mind was slow and unadaptable … There can seldom have been a statesman of the first rank more incompetent than the President in the agilities of the council chamber.”

    But Keynes didn’t live to see Biden at the G7.

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Whitehall

    FDR at Teheran and Yalta make Biden look like John Von Neumann.

  225. Re: “Demoting Hungary to equal status with the Slavs sounds like a
    real challenge”

    If you mean to equal status with the Southern Slavs, that may have very well
    been true. But not with the Western Slavs. It’s hard to think of two countries
    in Europe that have loved and respected each other more over a period now close
    to a thousand years than Poland and Hungary. The two countries are similar
    in many ways. Both are predominantly Catholic and both had their mini empires
    where they ruled over the neighboring Slavs. Greater Poland (or Polish-Lithuanian
    Commonwealth) encompassed much of today’s Belarus and western Ukraine.
    Kingdom of Hungary included much of today’s Slovakia and parts of
    Romania. The two constitute most of what many people call Central Europe
    (roughly synonymous with the Visegrad Group).

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anon 2

    Thank you. You are correct.

    , @Fox
    @Anon 2

    You must be a Pole....oh the days of Poland ruling over most of Europe, what a story!

    Replies: @Anon 2

  226. @SZ

    Why did the July 1914 crisis—but not crises in 1905, 1908–9, 1911, and 1912–13—escalate to great-power war despite occurring under similar international and domestic conditions?
     
    What a naive question! The Federal Reserve was established at the end of 1913 and only then there was a rationale for pushing great powers to war, knowing all parties had to borrow (the British from the US and the States from the Banks, etc.) and pay huge amounts of interest afterwards (including those of the reparations).

    The aim to weaken and/or to destabilise the three great White, Christian, European empires at its time, the British, the German, and the Russian, was of course a long-term desire, but the practicality and the profitability of a 'great war' was only established with the Federal Reserve in 1913, not before.

    Austria and Hungary had no significance, whatsoever, as it is the case with all the hyphenated countries like Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia and Montenegro (not even there any more!), maybe England and Wales after Brexit and Scotexit etc.

    Replies: @Hamlet's Ghost

    You are correct. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank opened its doors for business in May 1914, just in time to let the next European crisis to be fanned furiously into a world war.

    The timing was mighty convenient for (((some people))).

  227. @AnotherDad
    @Steve Sailer


    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.
     
    Probably.

    But it wasn't ridiculous.** My German ancestry is from Alsace. My immigrant ancestors would have spoken what's essentially a German dialect. And they considered themselves "German"--at least in the American ethnic background sense.

    ** Generally, while rivers make nice clear borders they are not natural ethno-national borders. The river valley tends to evolve toward being a common linguistic/cultural/ethnic unit. After oceans, it's actually mountains that really divide people's from one another. (Divide settled people's from one another, with badasses in between.)


    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to ... just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other's right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That's what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old "white bread" Americaness--our people, culture and history--can roll on with it.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson

    ‘I think the program that actually leads to peace is to … just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other’s right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.’

    The difficulty there is that people can wind up awkwardly scattered about. To take one example, before the Second World War, there were substantial German communities in West Prussia, the Memelland, all of the Baltic states, parts of what was then Yugoslavia and Hungary, Transylvania, Bessarabia, and even as far afield as the Volga River.

    Should they all have been allowed to join ‘Germany’?

    The solutions tend to be…draconian. Even leaving aside what happened to the Eastern Germans, consider what happened to the ‘Turks’ still in Greece and the ‘Greeks’ still in Turkey. 600,000 of the first group were exchanged with 1.2 million of the last group.

    See also Indian partition, and for that matter, the founding of Israel. Really, the whole concept of nationalism implies bloodshed and dispossession on a horrific scale. If you actually wanted a pleasant solution, you’d have to go with some supra-ethnic state along the lines of the Ottoman Empire, with it’s separate milayets for each ethnicity.

  228. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks "back" to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Hamlet's Ghost, @John Johnson

    ‘No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks “back” to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.’

    The viability tends to depend on how concerned you are with what happens to the blacks.

    Just to make my position clear, I think that in reality-land, a reimposition of Jim Crow would be a fairer, more practical, and more humane solution. The problem with blacks doesn’t lie so much in what they are as in what we’ve encouraged them to become.

    We can give any black who objects a one-way ticket to Kinshasha. Even pay the regime there enough to agree to allow him to debark. No need to thank us.

  229. @JohnnyWalker123
    If not for the assassination of the Archduke, perhaps there would've been no WW1. If no WWI, then no WWII. If no WWII, then no Cold War.

    We'd have a multipolar world in which the older social order prevailed. America would be one power among many, not the world's dominant superpower.

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe. The power would be held not by American puppets, but by the landed aristocracy, military, and clergy.

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Jews would be influential, but they'd have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They'd have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    No Globohomo. Instead, lots of Putins jockeying for power&wealth.

    When you read accounts of what Europe was like in the early 1900s, you come across societies that had had a strong sense of national identity, with Christianity providing the moral justification for whatever the rulers wanted. You also see how dominated Europe was by "old" families, who took pride in their lineage and historical connection to their particular homeland. The rulers were certainly corrupt and Machiavellian, but they felt a kinship with the people who they ruled.

    In the post WWII era, under American domination, European leaders became far more comfortable with secularism and internationalism. Russia was headed this way, before Putin.

    Replies: @anonymous, @IHTG, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success. It is doubtful they would have been anything other than mid – level bureaucrats in a world where World War I hadn’t happened. Certainly Putin fits the mold of the grasping cunning peasant rising above his station that conservatives like Dostoevsky mocked in pre-WWI Russia.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success.

    Both mafia bosses have ample public support and Putin in particular has a hat full of accomplishments.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @AnotherDad
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success.
     
    What can one say to this?

    Putin is Putin. But he's done better for Russia than Western leaders have done for their people.

    Orban seems precisely to be a "conservative". A nationalist conservative, but that's the only real type--someone who actually wants to conserve his people and nation. And roughly half the Hungarians freely voted for his coalition in the last three elections. Half the Hungarians don't want to die.

    And seriously "profit is only metric"? You're assigning that to Putin and Orban? Not to leaders like Macron or Merkel, who are lap dogs barking in unison to the tune of globo-capital?

    Merkel trashed all sorts of rules and agreements--i.e. trashed the "rule of law"--to create a demographic problem of the scale of America's "legacy of slavery" out of globohomo bromides and a spasm of childless woman emotional pique.

    Contrasted with that Orban looks like a pillar of sober, rational, people-centered good governance.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A large fraction of elite European families were eliminated during the World Wars, then later under Communism. Especially in Russia, whose losses were particularly horrific.

    The mass liquidation of the "old" Euro elites enabled America to graft on a new elite during the post-WWII era. This new elite was financially, ideologically, and even militarily supported by the U.S. That was one of the main purposes of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

    America tried to do the same in the post-Soviet Eastern Euro republics. Initially, they were quite successful, especially with Yeltsin in Russia. However, Putin outmaneuvered them and established himself as a traditional right-wing autocrat.

    You might disdain Putin and prefer someone with better breeding, but a large fraction of the "old" elite are gone. Also, given that the "old" elites governed with the support of the long ago-dissolved Boyar aristocrats, they wouldn't be able to effectively rule today's Russia. Putin's support from the KGB/FSS provides him with the elite support necessary to exercise power.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  230. Anonymous[109] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright
    @Steve Sailer

    'Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.'

    On the other hand, Alsace and Lorraine had only been acquired by France in the Seventeenth Century, and the sections annexed, with the exception of the territory around Metz, were still German-speaking.

    It would have been bizarre for the nascent 'German Empire' not to demand at least the clearly German-speaking bits, and had she confined herself to that, would France have been any more inclined to accept the result than she was? Wasn't France at least as upset by the mere fact of having lost as she was by the specific territorial losses she suffered as a result? Would any peace have satisfied French amour propre?

    I tend to see the blame for the war not as residing in any one of the players in particular so much as in the system of powerful, bellicose, heavily armed, nationalistic states jostling against each other in a crowded space. It's really like one of those black block parties that as we like to point out, erupt in gunfire so often. With so many testosterone-fueled players packing heat in one place, violence was inevitable. Blaming Javontis rather than Kameeka really misses the primary cause.

    I mention France because -- rather strangely -- it is often omitted from considerations of blame. I'd say the reverse should be the case. While Serbia was just crazy, among the great powers, France was the one player that actually sought war. The national policies of Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Russia can all be seen as contributing to the final outcome, but essentially, they were 'satisfied powers.' War was not essential to the achievement of their goals -- at least within Europe. The case was different for France, and her behavior reflected that. That this may have been understandable is another matter.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Wasn’t France at least as upset by the mere fact of having lost as she was by the specific territorial losses she suffered as a result? Would any peace have satisfied French amour propre?

    That’s pretty much what the French said at Versailles to justify the harsh terms imposed on Germany: that Germany would seek revenge regardless of how she was treated and therefore a harsh peace was preferable to a lenient one.

  231. @IHTG
    @JohnnyWalker123

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. "No globohomo" in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    Replies: @anon, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics.

    This is very true. But left-wingers don’t really get it either. They ride social waves and then take credit for them as if they were the heroes. Feminism, greater acceptance of homosexuality, the destruction of the nuclear family, the irrelevance of traditional Christianity (as opposed to American style Megachurches, which are heretical by traditional standards) and even immigration are driven primarily by technological change. The irony that leftists oppose capitalism, which is actually the number one driving force for all the social changes they love so much, is particularly funny.

    • Agree: Kylie
  232. @AnotherDad
    The Serbs owe everyone an apology.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @for-the-record, @Vojkan

    If Austria-Hungary hadn’t annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had never been Austrian or Hungarian before, but had been Serbian before the Ottoman occupation, and whose population was still in majority Serbian in 1908, and if Franz-Ferdinand hadn’t timed his visit to happen on the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, he wouldn’t have been assassinated.

    We owe you Westerners no bloody apology and the more I think of it, the more I believe that you deserve to watch your wives and daughters being banged by blacks and Arabs because you truly are shit. Actually, blacks and Arabs are waaay more human than you are.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  233. Anonymous[109] • Disclaimer says:
    @LondonBob
    @Mr. Anon

    America should have entered the war much earlier, like Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans wanted to, Woodrow Wilson was an inept academic found severely wanting.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    Actually if Roosevelt had been president the U.S. would not have entered the war. The Germans would have feared him and would have been very cautious not to provoke him.

    They had no such fear of Wilson and it showed.

    International politics is kind of like a schoolyard or prison yard. The guy who goes around looking for trouble gets left alone, while the guy who wants to be left alone gets endlessly picked on.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Fox
    @Anonymous

    I wonder in which way the Germans were provoking the US. Wilson was behaving much like Roosevelt instead, pretending to be neutral but in reality trading with and financing the Entente powers while acting hostilely towards Germany.

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz

  234. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    One point that has often intrigued me is France's visit to Russia literally on the eve of war.

    Just what was said? Was the point to make sure the Russians followed through, now that der Tag really was about to happen?

    The French foreign minister or whatever comes on an official visit as the July crisis is unfolding, leaves, and (if I recall aright) almost immediately Russia begins making some of the key moves that made war inevitable.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I think there are a few crucial things to remember here:

    1) The relative military position of the Central Powers in the summer of 1914 was bad, but also promised to get better in the future. France was making 90% of its male populace eligible for service of some kind or another: that was simply not sustainable in the long term. Another key factor was Poincare’s tenuous political position back in Paris. Had war not broken out, it’s possible that the scandal surrounding Russian funding of his Presidential campaign could have led to a left-wing, socialist government that would have favored detente with Germany.

    These facts were not unknown in Berlin, and crucially, the military bill in France took place the year *after* the infamous 1912 German government meeting often cited as proof that Germany wanted a continent wide conflict. It’s a matter of historical debate whether Poincare knew about events during the preparatory period of war, because he was at sea, but by the time he was back in Paris, he would have known: and he was busy at work creating a narrative of events that would get the UK onto the Entente’s side. This influenced events, although it should be pointed out that without the German invasion of Belgium and attack on Liege, it would have been for nothing given British preoccupation with the Irish question and the split in the British government.

    2) The words of the German ambassador to Sazanov during the preparatory war period (“Germany shall take action to stand by its ally”) confirmed his opinion that Austrian policy *was* German policy. As I’ve mentioned, that wasn’t the case: the Austrian declaration of war on the 29th took Berlin by as much surprise as everyone else. The lack of relative coordination between the Central Powers relative to the Entente is notable: the Austrians didn’t even know about the Schlieffen Plan. Compare that to the detailed war plans the French and Russians had, to cooperate with each other.

    Had the German ambassador made this clear later in the day, or had Sazanov bothered to ask him, perhaps this split would have become apparent, and events could have turned out differently.

    But because Sazonov genuinely believed it was the case, and because the preparation period to war was kept a strict secret from the rest of the world during those crucial days in 1913, it meant that London and Paris were relying off Russian information about the course of events. It portrayed Russia as unable to ascede to aggressive German desires, despite the fact that it was Russia-not Serbia, Austria, France, or Germany-that took the first decisive steps to world war and the fact that Germany was asking for Russia to just stop mobilizing.

    (I’m not saying this to excuse either German or Austrian blunders or aggression. The Austrians decided to turn down the Serbian response, which was probably the best the Serbian PM could realistically do without getting assassinated. And Germans indeed wanted was a preemptive war… but the whole point of the blank cheque was for a quick war against Serbia alone, hence the quick part. However immoral that is-and really, imagine how Russia and France would have viewed the situation had the Serbian king been assassinated by guys with links all over the Habsburg government-that’s not the same thing as wanting a preemptive war against Russia and France.)

    3) Had Austria not declared war on Serbia on the 29th, the Russian mobilization would have become more apparent. There was no way for it not to be as the weeks dragged on, because like the Central Powers, the Russian military had no plan for anything other than a general, two-front war. This was crucial when it came to the UK. Don’t forget, many statesmen in Russia and England still looked at each other as the primary enemy. So, had Berchtold not declared war on Serbia, then London would have probably woken up to this fact. The arguments of the pro-Entente party would have been completely undermined.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Fox
    @nebulafox

    What is the "infamaous German government meeting of 1912"?
    You seem to be unaware of the secret military pact between Britain and France which had been established in 1906 on a proposal of Grey in 1906. France was giving substantial loans to Russia earmarked for building up the Russian military capabilities (e.g., by enlarging the raillroad system in the western part contiguous to Germany).
    France had diligently prepared for a war against Germany with the rationale to "recover the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine". These were German provinces which France had taken in a time of weakness from Germany when the Turks stood at the gates of Vienna, but France never accepted it that the war they declared on Germany in 1870 had in its wake the loss of the what was not theirs in the first place.
    France had found in Russia a willing accomplice in a campaign against Germany. This resulted in substantial combined military superiority of France + Russia combined against Germany, and with Britain counted in it resulted to about a 3 : 1 imbalance. Francis Neilson and E.D.Morel ("Truth and the War") give a useful account of the difference in armaments in their books. Naturally, these people are "revisionists" , but the numbers they present are not subject to interpretation.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @LondonBob
    @nebulafox

    Again France is not the issue, German war aims were in the East, they knew full well that Russia was modernising rapidly and that even in just a year or two Russia would be too strong. The Germans hoped to knock out France quickly, thus forestalling British involvement and then being able to focus on the East, WWI began in Eastern Europe for good reasons. Russia mobilising for war against the Austro-Hungarian Empire for their moves against Serbia hardly necessitates Germany going to war, good excuse though. Germany declared war on Russia and France, not the other way round.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @JMcG

  235. @Peter Akuleyev
    @JohnnyWalker123

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success. It is doubtful they would have been anything other than mid - level bureaucrats in a world where World War I hadn't happened. Certainly Putin fits the mold of the grasping cunning peasant rising above his station that conservatives like Dostoevsky mocked in pre-WWI Russia.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @JohnnyWalker123

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success.

    Both mafia bosses have ample public support and Putin in particular has a hat full of accomplishments.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Al Capone used to give out free turkeys on Thanksgiving too. If you steal $1000 and give people $10 as charity, is that an "accomplishment"?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Art Deco

  236. @Steve Sailer
    @Diversity Heretic

    The world at present seems to be more stable because everybody assumes that Constantinople permanently belongs to the Republic of Turkey. Partly that's due to air travel, which renders geography less predominant than in 1914.

    If that changes, however, watch out. If, for example, due to climate change, the world gives up on air travel, then Constantinople, "Caput Mundi," reverts to being, as Napoleon said, "As always, Constantinople is the great strategic question."

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny, @Diversity Heretic, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    Constantinople started losing its strategic significance the moment the Portuguese figured out they could sail to Asia by going around Africa. The Ottomans in general went into terminal decline once the European powers started colonizing the New World and no longer needed to pay the Turks to be middlemen for Asian goods. The Suez Canal was just the icing on the cake. At this point Istanbul is just another 2nd world metropolis slowly choking on its own growth.

    In a world without air travel you can argue Constantinople still makes it more difficult for Ukraine and Russian to ship grain and resources from their Black Sea ports, but assuming highways and trains will still exist, it is not close to the blocking point it was in the 1500s.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa, Travis
  237. @Svevlad
    @nebulafox

    Bosniaks (Muslims) didn't really exist up until 1960s. The whole damn ethnicity was basically made up from scratch by the Austrians as some D&C type thing. A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian, @Daniel H

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.
     
    I guess Hitler was right then. All these random assholes pissing around thinking they ought to rule themselves in their own countries. Who do they think they are?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @nokangaroos

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    You're kind of in a glass house, Jack.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jack D

    , @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    'Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.'

    This was true of the common man everywhere until surprisingly recently.

    As late as the War of 1870, French officers were distressed to discover that French peasants were disappointed if an arriving column of troops was French rather than Prussian.

    Both nationalities would seize horses, demand fodder, take food, etc -- but the French were more likely to impress the young men than the Prussians. So...

    That there should be ethnic homelands for anyone -- and even the very existence of those ethnicities to some extent -- is itself very largely an invention of the last two centuries. As late as the Eighteenth century, for example, one was not a 'Prussian' so much as a 'subject of the King of Prussia.' Frederick the Great had Polish-speaking regiments -- and saw nothing odd about it at all.

    , @Anon
    @Jack D

    So essentially you are saying that various South Slavic (Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian), West Slavic (Czech, Slovakian, Polish), Ukrainian, Romanian people have been honored to be ruled by Austrians. And if they try to achieve freedom from God given Austrian rulers we need to condemn it because they don't know what is better for them self.

    Austrian is stinky little nationality. Why they have been entitled to rule over some other people and territories where no Austrian live ? When somebody put chains on you, you are free to use any means (including assassination of some monarch heir) to find way to your freedom.

    And if they want to rule over others they better be ready to die for it. You know, Austrian lost WW1 and Serbian won it (with paying extreme price for it). All that Austrian did during the war was enlisting others (mainly with Slavic origins) to fight for them and killing Serbian civilians and bombing cities. Where was this great & famous Austrian culture when they executed prisoners of war, mass murdered and raped civilian populations, burned and looted villages and towns ?

    , @Rob
    @Jack D

    This comment is a amazingly Jewish. Jews would have done much better in the mid-twentieth century if you understood that most people feel about their own like Jews do. Perhaps so much better that they would not have gone up in smoke in Europe.

    You know how you (probably) think about Jews? How you think Jews are about the top, if not the top, ethnicity? How you lose objectivity when the subject of your people’s right to exist with security and self-determination? How every good Jew (Einstein) reflects the sheer wonderfulness of the ethnicity, but terrible Jews (Epstein) do not throw throw shade upon your people, because reasons? You know how you think that Jews are not responsible for any behavior that caused inter group conflict? How any misbehavior was on the part of (numerous) other peoples, and never yours?

    Everyone feels that way about his people. Serb, Croat, African-American, WASP… We all want for ourselves what you want for your people. No one is objective on his own folk. All the members of these stinky, dung-covered ethnicities who have the temerity, the unmitigated gall to not be Jews? They feel about having a homeland the same way you do. There are some differences. Middle man minorities value being able to live in and exploit other ethnicities more than people who have been comfortable in their homelands. Even then, there is variety. You are probably more fond of the ability to live in another nation’s homeland and use his rules against him than, say, Moshe Dayan, was.

    If Jews had been more respectful of the self-determination of other ethnicities, if they had realized that Germans are as fond of Germany as Jews are of their communities, much conflict could have been mitigated.

    Take this analogy. In 2022, 100,000 Brits immigrate to Israel. They brome lawyers, journalists, and financiers. At any conflict with the (sort of) natives, they scream about the horrors of anti-Anglicanism. They put considerable weight behind the cause of Israel’s stateless minority. They are incapable of understanding why anyone dislikes the British. In fact, they consider any conflict between anyone and a Brit as being a symptom of a disorder. A disorder of the non-Brit, of course… do you see how a neutral party might see how some part of the conflict, however small a part, might be caused by the behavior of the British? Do you see why Israel’s Jews might feel that the Brits did not have enough concern for the Israelis?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @rebel yell
    @Jack D


    The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland
     
    Israel?
  238. @AnotherDad
    @Abe

    Abe, could you--and anyone else here with good suggestions--pass along your book recommendations.

    The descent into the Great War is something i still can't wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just "wow, that was incredibly stupid".

    And while i now feel i have a basic wrapper on the whole deal--the catastrophe of imperialism--i still don't have a real understanding of the war aims of everyone involved. (For example: Germany?) I understand everyone thought they were going to grab up this or that piece of territory, or were worried about someone else grabbing up more stuff and getting "stronger", or were standing up for their allies. But the specific thinking that led the various parties weigh up their potential gains and think "yeah, this is worth a war, worth risking losing a war".

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Abe

    >The descent into the Great War is something i still can’t wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just “wow, that was incredibly stupid”.

    The chronology of the July Crisis is tricky. You have a lot of events in rapid succession in multiple capitals. But it’s crucial, especially during that last week of July leading up to the guns of August. Try and put yourself in the shoes of one of these men: and suppose you hear that the Austrians are shelling Belgrade, or that the Russians are moving troops up to your border. What would you believe with the information you had on hand, mixing with your previous international commitments… and your immediate interests, which weren’t necessarily shared by your allies, either with the Entente or the Central Powers?

    (This is why I’m trying to stress the deeply tragic, unnecessary nature of WWI, and why clear communication is important in diplomacy. Had any of these statesmen known what their choices that summer would lead to, they would have stopped: none of them strike me as a Hitler-esque psychopath who genuinely liked war. And had they had access to the whole picture or been transparent with representatives from “hostile states”, they would have. This applies every bit as much to Bethmann, Grey, and Poincare as to Berchtold or Sazanov, probably the two most obvious examples of diplomats trying to cover their own butts at home.)

    Even people on the ground at the time had a hard time keeping up. The Willy-Nicky telegrams were prompted partly because Nicholas knew what the “partial” mobilization implied in terms of leading toward a general war (“I will not be held responsible for a monstrous slaughter”), and partly because Wilhelm had realized that Sazanov had been lying to his ambassador’s face for days.

  239. @Art Deco
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success.

    Both mafia bosses have ample public support and Putin in particular has a hat full of accomplishments.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Al Capone used to give out free turkeys on Thanksgiving too. If you steal $1000 and give people $10 as charity, is that an “accomplishment”?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    Ending the lost-Soviet chaos and the Chechen war are handing out free turkeys? Has any recent American president been capable of doing the same?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    No, presiding over a 50% increase in total fertility, an increase in life expectancy at birth of 4 years. a 60% reduction in the homicide rate, a doubling of real income per capita, an end to wage arrearages as an important problem, an approach to full capacity in the labor market, and a reduction in dependence on fuel and mineral exports for prosperity, you have accomplishments. You can do it while avoiding foreign debt, being conservative about public sector borrowing, and bringing inflation down to tolerable levels, you have more accomplishment. He also stamped out a nagging insurgency with less bloodshed than his predecessor generated while failing to do so.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  240. @Tex
    @Almost Missouri

    A very good summary. From the diplomatic perspective, Britain preferred to rush to the aid of the victors. In 1863 Gladstone, the arch-SJW of Britain, implied he was ready to recognize the Confederacy as an independent country. British recognition of the Confederacy would have been followed by French recognition and a major freak-out in Washington, DC. War could easily have occurred.

    But Antietam showed the Confederacy was not going to pull off a victory (had Longstreet intervened at the Bloody Angle, world history might have been different). British support cooled rapidly.

    Militarily, the Royal Navy would have cleaned up the USN. Britain's fleet was optimized for decisive battles (and they had ironclad battleships). The USN was dispersed for blockade and composed on numerous gunboats (ie, targets). On land the British Army would have had to face the numerous, and battle-hardened Union Army. British reinforcements to the Confederacy would have been welcome. The price would have been a Yankee invasion of Canada. Napoleon III would have loved to aid the Confederacy. Unfortunately, his army was still trying to wipe out the Mexican Juaristas and not succeeding. A shift to the Southern states might have cost Maximilian his throne that much sooner.

    Had the British or French intervened, the Confederacy would have prevailed. But it would have been very costly for their saviors with not a whole lot of benefits.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).

    • Replies: @Tex
    @Jack D


    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).
     
    British naval engineering had something of a high point in the 1860s. In its day the Alabama was the finest cruisers ever to sail the seas. With better ammo she'd have sunk the Kearsarge. Clyde-built blockade runners deserve a lot of credit for keeping the Confederacy alive.

    There is a lot a of hand-wringing in modern leftist British circles about that. They often wonder that anti-slavery Liverpool workers could be found manning cruisers and blockade runners. I'm not sure it's that big a mystery. Brits may or may not oppose slavery, but none would turn down a chance to mess with Yankee shipping. Every single Limey born is either a smuggler, a pirate, or both.

    The Bulloch brothers were the purchasing agents for the CSA and did excellent work that enabled the Confederacy to maintain asymmetrical warfare at sea against the Union Navy. They bought the cruisers, blockade runners, and often the cargoes that the Confederacy needed.

    The Bullochs never returned to the US, remaining exiles to the end. Their little sister married a Yankee though, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    'The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability)...'

    I think it has more to do with the more limited conception of government that prevailed in that era.

    Reading over some of the diplomatic exchanges, the tenor is something like 'yes, Ramsbottom Brothers appears to be building a steam ram in their yard in Liverpool, but we can't do anything about that. WE'RE not building it.'

    Imagine a modern government taking such a position. Of course Germany is responsible if they permit a German shipyard to build a submarine for Israel.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  241. @nokangaroos
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval (and even on this board there are those who claim everything between Styria and the Black Sea is in reality Serbia), just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.

    - Franz Ferdinand was on a goodwill tour gathering creds for himself and the reforms he hoped to enact; chief among the former was that he was not afraid of his beloved subjects, not in the capital of a recently annexed province, not in a hotbed of Serb agitation, not on St. Vitus´Day
    (= anniversary of the battle of Kosovo Polje, the holiest of holies for orthodox Serbs, celebrated by imbibing, reminiscing about the almost twenty years they had a czar and fantasizing about political murder and martyrdom; never mind Milos Obilic is about as historical as Wilhelm Tell and Murad I died of constipation).
    For size, picture the US viceroy in Baghdad paying a visit to Kerbela, in an open Benz, on Eid al-Adhà. Whatever may be said against the archduke (an impressive list) he had testicles the size of a Holstein´s udder (and a syph to match).
    Maybe he could have saved the empire - maybe.

    Bonus trivia: Princip´s organization, the Black Hand ("crna ruka"), apart from a skull-and-bones and the motto "sloboda ili smrt" ("freedom or death") still carried the black, red and gold of the National Revolution 1848 (now usurped by the ZRG)

    Replies: @JMcG, @AKAHorace

    I really liked your comment

    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval

    This is true, revolutionaries often target the most humane members of the old regime, but then you go on to say

    just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.

    Could you say a bit more or give a reference here ? Just because someone is shot by the opposition is not proof that they are a reformer. People who want upheaval also benefit from killing those who are well known to be cruel.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @AKAHorace

    '...just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers...'

    I've heard this as well.

    Apparently, the difficulty was that while Heydrich was very undesirable as far as the classes in which a sense of Czech nationalism resided -- he was totally intolerant of political activity and ruthless in repressing it, I imagine -- at the same time he was introducing Nazi German-style perks for the workers.

    Lots of Czechs contentedly laboring away at Skoda -- not at all what the British and Free Czechs had in mind. Hence the assassination.

    Replies: @Wielgus

  242. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous

    If time travel is in our future, why haven't we seen it in the past?

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Triteleia Laxa

    Everything exists now. Everything that has happened. Everything that will happen.

    If you find a way to go back and make some effect, that exists too, so does its reverberations. An infinite complexity of timelines and realities, all exist, perceptible now, if you’re so minded.

    It is a lot to consider.

  243. What if Franz Ferdinand Had Lived?

    What if Franz Ferdinand had had 94 children?

    Head of world’s ‘largest family’ dies in India, leaving behind 39 wives and 94 children

    (And who is the “Canadian man” they refer to?)

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Reg Cæsar


    (And who is the “Canadian man” they refer to?)
     
    Could they be referring to this Canadian dude?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8XKccuB_ao

    Hollywood remake.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1hp0stqxEI
  244. @res
    @LondonBob

    Thanks. More on that prediction (first link says it was made in 1911, second link says 1908).
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/462613/Great-War-Centenary-Britannia-rules-the-waves-but-for-how-long

    This link discusses the military impact and is skeptical of the causal idea. Worth noting 1914 was completion of the widening of the canal to accommodate Dreadnoughts.
    http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/kiel-canal.html
    Initial opening was in 1895.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_Canal

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Germany had decisively lost the naval race by 1913. Both London and Berlin knew it. That’s why there were moves in the direction of a warming of relations in early 1914.

    Now, I do think Bismarck had the right idea-and thus Wilhelm had the wrong one-in keeping Germany a predominantly land based power, thus preserving good relations with London. Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary. But it’s a stretch to say that British fears about a German navy led to the path to war, because both parties had recognized British dominance on the seas by 1914. British fears about Germany were primarily economic, not military, and were not uniform across the British government. Bethmann’s whole life work (ironically) revolved around a British-German entente, because he knew that Germany needed to break out of its relative isolation.

    It’s also worth remembering that Britain (and Russia) did not perceive the Entente agreement as an anti-German arrangement, per se. Russia was mainly concerned with Austria as its main rival in the Balkans, Britain with its global empire, in which Russia loomed as a main rival. Only France viewed the Entente through this lens, because-no duh-Germany was the primary geopolitical threat for them in a way it wasn’t for the others. There was a lot of panic in the French embassy in London around August 1st 1914 that the British weren’t going to intervene.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary.

    The economics never made any sense. You lose a massive trading partner which you have to make up somewhere else and then you expend a massive amount of resources getting into a pissing match with them on the high seas. You also potentially lose trade with America so there goes another market.

    If anything the unrestricted warfare just strengthened their resolve and allowed their government to depict Germany as an amoral menace that had to be destroyed at any cost. In both wars Germany tried to isolate Britain and it completely failed. Playing battleship was exactly what Britain wanted and Germany took the bait twice. If they had put those same resources into air power and landing craft then Germany could have won in either war.

    Just look at what happened to the Bismark. The Germans launched their largest ship and the British couldn't wait to sink it as a prize. It didn't even last a year. About 2000 men went down with the ship. What a waste.

    , @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    The growth of the German navy had its roots in the quarrels with the British over South Africa during the Boer War. There was great sympathy in Germany for the plight of the Boers and frustration at Germany's incapacity to do anything to help them. This is when Germany began to seriously contemplate challenging British sea power.

    Replies: @Patrick McNally, @Fox

  245. @nebulafox
    @for-the-record

    I can assure you all of this: Gavrilo Princip's legacy among the non-Serbs of the region is that of a terrorist who kicked off many decades of war, chaos, and Serb dominance. Him being lionized by the Communists really did not sooth Croat and Muslim resentment toward the Serbs underneath the surface during the Tito years.

    (The Black Hand and Young Bosnia did have non-Serb members: IIRC, the guy who threw the bomb at Franz Ferdinand was a Muslim. It was a youthful movement inspired by anarchism, not an overtly Orthodox thing. But they were predominantly Serb. The Haspburg burgermeister of Sarajevo on that day was also a Muslim, and one of the guys who drafted the ultimatum back in Vienna was, tellingly, a Croat. Serbia basically viewed Croats and Bosniaks as Serbs who'd been brainwashed, and had been engaging in a widespread policy of mosque destruction and Catholic church conversion in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, which the non-Serbs obviously weren't too happy about.)

    Replies: @Hrw-500, @Svevlad, @J.Ross

    Oh sure, put the Muslim in charge of bombs.

  246. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Al Capone used to give out free turkeys on Thanksgiving too. If you steal $1000 and give people $10 as charity, is that an "accomplishment"?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Art Deco

    Ending the lost-Soviet chaos and the Chechen war are handing out free turkeys? Has any recent American president been capable of doing the same?

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @J.Ross

    Even I will give Putin credit for taking back Crimea, but „ending the Chechen war“? Well, yes if giving Chechen criminals a free hand to operate openly in Russia is „ending the war“. Not sure most Russians see that as one of Putin’s major accomplishments.

    Replies: @Jack D

  247. Tex says:
    @Jack D
    @Tex

    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).

    Replies: @Tex, @Colin Wright

    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).

    British naval engineering had something of a high point in the 1860s. In its day the Alabama was the finest cruisers ever to sail the seas. With better ammo she’d have sunk the Kearsarge. Clyde-built blockade runners deserve a lot of credit for keeping the Confederacy alive.

    There is a lot a of hand-wringing in modern leftist British circles about that. They often wonder that anti-slavery Liverpool workers could be found manning cruisers and blockade runners. I’m not sure it’s that big a mystery. Brits may or may not oppose slavery, but none would turn down a chance to mess with Yankee shipping. Every single Limey born is either a smuggler, a pirate, or both.

    The Bulloch brothers were the purchasing agents for the CSA and did excellent work that enabled the Confederacy to maintain asymmetrical warfare at sea against the Union Navy. They bought the cruisers, blockade runners, and often the cargoes that the Confederacy needed.

    The Bullochs never returned to the US, remaining exiles to the end. Their little sister married a Yankee though, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Tex


    There is a lot a of hand-wringing in modern leftist British circles about that. They often wonder that anti-slavery Liverpool workers could be found manning cruisers and blockade runners.
     
    Liverpool was the most pro-Confederate city in Britain. The locals don't like to be reminded of that nowadays.
  248. Serbs were tools for Western powers like Britain, France and the USA, who wanted to crush all the remaining old empires (Austria, Germany and Russia, in one fell swoop).
    War was inevitable with or without Franz Ferdinand.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @BB753

    Germany was a national state assembled during the period running from 1864 to 1871. It was an empire in the sense that in consisted of formerly sovereign parts, but it was not an old empire. No clue where you got the idea that the US in 1913 maintained some secret goal of crushing the Hapsburgs and Russia.

    Replies: @BB753

  249. @Skyler the Weird
    @Thomm

    I'd say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @James N. Kennett

    I’d say 1914-1989, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War was the 75 years war.

    And then we had 12 years of peace. And then the “Forever War” of 2001-

  250. @Ralph L
    @nokangaroos

    Wilhelm was a first cousin of Alexandra and George but not Nicholas. George was first cousin of N and A and W.

    I believe the traditional view is that Britain entered the war to keep Germany (or any great power) out of Belgium, which is very close to the mouth of the Thames. They'd fought France and Spain several times for the same reason.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    In slightly more actual truth “Belgium” was created by Britain to ensure neither France nor Germany had control of the Schelde estuary
    (and to keep them warring forever), and the problems of that contraption are as evident as ever;
    its “neutrality” has always been a fiction.

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @Alden
    @nokangaroos

    Very true that Belgium was created by Britain as a British port to the continent.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Lurker
    @nokangaroos

    Yes. Belgium was designed to be a tripwire. Other than the estuary I assumed it was also because any French invasion of Germany or vice versa was pretty much guaranteed to be through the flat lands of Belgium.

  251. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Berchtold's decision to declare war a month after the assassination, not least to burnish his own domestic image, probably competes with the German invasion of Belgium as the biggest blunder of the crisis. There was never any real chance that the Serbs would 100% accept the ultimatum-the civilians in Belgrade understood the complicity that their intelligence establishment had in the assassination-but Pašić tried to come as close as he could to it because he had no way of knowing how things would turn out. Serbia was going to be doomed without Russian intervention.

    That said, Austria was in a deeply difficult position in the summer of 1914. The heir to their octogenerian monarch had just been murdered in broad daylight. By terrorists who had links to people high up in the Serbian government, especially in the intelligence services which largely operated outside the control of the civilians in Belgrade. The Serbian leadership was partially unable and partially unwilling to ensure that such people were punished, as Vienna well knew: outside control of the investigation, the point that Serbia rejected, was going to be essential. But they couldn't just not respond. Austria had staked its existence on being a Balkan power after it became clear they weren't going to be the German one in 1867.

    Austria also had to deal with an entrenched Magyar elite that was deeply hostile to both Franz Ferdinand and to anything that could dilute their influence, as foreign adventures almost certainly would. Although the Magyars would eventually concede, that crucial time lag was what made the European-wide war a possibility.

    >Germany probably had little choice, given the power politics of the time, once it was clear that Russia was going after Austria-Hungary.

    The thing that's often misunderstood in popular histories about the July Crisis was that Russian "partial mobilization" was a fiction. As I mentioned earlier, Sazanov-the Russian foreign minister-believed that Austrian policy was dictated from Berlin. This wasn't true, especially in the Balkans, but Sazanov genuinely believed it was. This was what led to conflict with Germany, and that's critical to understand because of the three Entente powers, only the French perceived the arrangement as being meant to contain Germany. Britain and Russia still viewed each other as the primary global rival in many ways after 1907, which was part of why the notion of an Anglo-German entente was gaining currency by 1914.

    Due to geography and military logistics (again, all the railroads in Poland), mobilizing against Austria meant mobilizing against Germany. And Russia, like Germany, had no plans for a "one front" great power war, because it was widely assumed to be an impossibility. Russian mobilization happened first: days before Austria's declaration of war. Sazanov's insistent lies about it were an integral part of the path to wider war, because it was his version of events-with French aid-that were taken at face value in London.

    >I assume that all Germany could have done to avert the catastrophe is to try to restrain Vienna, mediate a resolution with Serbia, etc.

    Berlin expected Vienna to crush Serbia preemptively before anybody could intervene. That was the idea behind the "blank check" for a Serbia-only preemptive war. Austrian diplomats knew Wilhelm well, and exploited that fact: Franz Ferdinand was one of the few men Willy, something of a black sheep in European royal family dynamics, could call "friend". Berlin thought Russia was unlikely to intervene for a couple of reasons: rearmament program wasn't done, for one thing. There was also a deeply misguided belief in Berlin, considering 1903 in Serbia, that Russia wouldn't support regicides for ideological reasons. There were people in the Russian government who leaned in that direction-Durnovo-but they didn't control the government.

    Anyway, that was Grey's idea: a four party conference to resolve the situation. But the choice of the players would have ensured that Austria would have lost, as the Central Powers knew. Three of the four-France, Russia, Italy-would have been unsympathetic to any attempt to force Serbia to do anything, on the grounds of the national sovereignty. The first two had chosen Serbia as their stake point in the region for a reason, and Italy's main focus was on Italian speaking lands still controlled by the Habsburgs.

    (Whether Grey himself was being disingenuous or was simply uninformed is up for debate. It's important to remember that in England, the big focus of 1914 was the Irish question, not Europe. There was a very real threat of civil disorder over Ireland at the time. This was causing a mass political stalemate in London, and the political dynamics in the cabinet and Parliament that resulted were not a small part of the process that led the UK along the path to war, especially amongst the anti-Home Rule crowd.)

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Patrick McNally

    Russian mobilization was ordered on August 31. Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28. All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria. It was obvious that the Austrian conservatives themselves were happy to see Ferdinand gone. All that they should have needed to top it off was a diplomatic humiliation of Serbia, which they got. But they weren’t satisfied with that because they already desired a war on Serbia, and Wilhelm II wasn’t willing to reign them in. The Kaiser’s choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Patrick McNally

    That's how popular history portrays it, but the reality was different. Russia started mobilizing on July 25th, a full three days before the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. This was portrayed to the outside world as a "partial" mobilization, but it was nothing of the sort, and the Russians knew it. That's why they kept the preparatory details secret.

    >All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria.

    Serbia came as close as it reasonably could with the response to the ultimatum. But Belgrade was never going to concede the point of letting foreign investigators run the investigation with impunity, because they knew there were people high in the military and intelligence services with links to the kinds of groups that killed Franz Ferdinand. Said elements were already in a tense, near civil war situation with the civilians anyway due to differences over how to administer Serbia's post-Balkan war gains.

    Problem is, that's exactly the point that Vienna was going to press, because that's was the only way there would ever be justice over the assassination. The Serbian government had no effective control over its military or spy services, and everybody knew it. Ultimately, the Austrian and Serbian governments had irreconcilable goals.

    >The Kaiser’s choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    The unconditional blank cheque was meant for a preemptive, immediate operation against Serbia alone, not for the declaration of war to come a month later when international shock over the assassination had faded.

    Wilhelm was irresponsible in giving the blank cheque. Wilhelm should have known his ally better. And as I've made clear repeatedly: Wilhelm was not somehow morally averse to aggressive war. That doesn't mean he wanted a full scale preemptive confrontation with Russia and France, which is what the Austrian move was going to risk. The Austrian declaration of war on the 28th did come without the prior knowledge or blessing of Germany, which was entirely contrary to what the Russians told the West: and entirely contrary, to be fair, to what the Russians genuinely believed.

    I mean, for Pete's sake, Wilhelm was the last guy standing trying to propose mediation plans in the Balkans and tried to get Moltke to change decades of military plans on a whim to create a one-front great power war. The man had a lot of problems as a ruler and was an unattractive human being, to say the least, but it's just not true that he was the main agent of plunging the continent into chaos. He wasn't even the main agent of doing so within his own government. (Much the same could be said for Tsar Nicholas II, incidentally.)

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

  252. @AnotherDad
    @Diversity Heretic


    The United States would have done better not to have intervened, but President Woodrow Wilson did have the right idea that the best solution to the conflict, once it had started, was “peace without victory.” It was American intervention that made victory possible for the Allies, but it came at a huge cost.
     
    Agree.

    And while i'm not on board with liberal-internationalists venturing out seeking monsters to destroy, Wilson's 14-points--specifically the issues of national self-determination is spot on.

    This disaster--which the West has not recovered from--is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people ... who don't actually want them around.

    The same impulse and tyranny behind the minoritarian/woke plague America suffers from today.

    Replies: @Whitehall, @John Johnson

    This disaster–which the West has not recovered from–is from imperialism. And the desire of some people to boss around other people … who don’t actually want them around.

    Do you live in America? This country was founded by imperialism. Most of the countries in the world didn’t become countries until an imperial power created the infrastructure. That pattern goes all the way back to the Romans.

    The disaster was intra-European wars. Germany should have built their empire in the third world to save us all a headache.

    Now we are heading towards the third world population timebomb and Whites are guilting themselves into not having children. So instead of national imperialism we have national suicide and we don’t even have leaders that can face that reality much less discuss it.

    WW1 style German imperialism would have saved the West.

    Here are the disasters:
    1. Lincoln choosing war over compromise
    2. Wilson getting involved in WW1
    3. Hitler wanting revenge on everyone
    4. Churchill/FDR letting Stalin have Eastern Europe

    In any case cuck island should have been taken by another power. The British are too nice for their own good.

  253. @Peter Akuleyev
    @JohnnyWalker123

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success. It is doubtful they would have been anything other than mid - level bureaucrats in a world where World War I hadn't happened. Certainly Putin fits the mold of the grasping cunning peasant rising above his station that conservatives like Dostoevsky mocked in pre-WWI Russia.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @JohnnyWalker123

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success.

    What can one say to this?

    Putin is Putin. But he’s done better for Russia than Western leaders have done for their people.

    Orban seems precisely to be a “conservative”. A nationalist conservative, but that’s the only real type–someone who actually wants to conserve his people and nation. And roughly half the Hungarians freely voted for his coalition in the last three elections. Half the Hungarians don’t want to die.

    And seriously “profit is only metric”? You’re assigning that to Putin and Orban? Not to leaders like Macron or Merkel, who are lap dogs barking in unison to the tune of globo-capital?

    Merkel trashed all sorts of rules and agreements–i.e. trashed the “rule of law”–to create a demographic problem of the scale of America’s “legacy of slavery” out of globohomo bromides and a spasm of childless woman emotional pique.

    Contrasted with that Orban looks like a pillar of sober, rational, people-centered good governance.

  254. @Jack D
    @Svevlad

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always "existed". They just didn't think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright, @Anon, @Rob, @rebel yell

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    I guess Hitler was right then. All these random assholes pissing around thinking they ought to rule themselves in their own countries. Who do they think they are?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @AnotherDad

    Is this the archetypical Jack D comment?

    , @nokangaroos
    @AnotherDad

    Wait until you hear what Marx had to say about "geschichtslose Völker" :D

  255. Abe says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Abe

    Abe, could you--and anyone else here with good suggestions--pass along your book recommendations.

    The descent into the Great War is something i still can't wrap my brain fully around. As a kid learning history you get to it and the reaction is just "wow, that was incredibly stupid".

    And while i now feel i have a basic wrapper on the whole deal--the catastrophe of imperialism--i still don't have a real understanding of the war aims of everyone involved. (For example: Germany?) I understand everyone thought they were going to grab up this or that piece of territory, or were worried about someone else grabbing up more stuff and getting "stronger", or were standing up for their allies. But the specific thinking that led the various parties weigh up their potential gains and think "yeah, this is worth a war, worth risking losing a war".

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Abe

    Abe, could you–and anyone else here with good suggestions–pass along your book recommendations.

    BY FAR the book I’d most strongly recommend reading is Margaret MacMillan’s PARIS 1919, as it addresses everyone’s real concern as to what were the causes of WWII and could it have been prevented. Based on MacMillan’s book, probably not- Japan, a WWI Ally and participant at the Paris Peace Conference with influence well beyond its modest wartime contributions, was already on the hunt for territorial acquisitions and, not really satisfied with what it got in 1919, was even by then on a collision course with the US (US Navy Operations Staff planners had already put together plans for a war with Japan). Italy likewise was howling about its “mutilated victory” at the hands of the other Allies and the seeds for postwar Italian nationalism and imperialism leading to Mussolini were already well-sown by 1919.

    Besides that I’d highly recommend JULY 1914: COUNTDOWN TO WAR by McMeekin for its day-by-day/hour-by-hour analysis of the diplomatic machinations of the Great Powers. No real gobsmackers, but Germany comes off looking less bad, Russia and France worse in particular to how they worked to sway (one could say deceive) British public opinion.

    Mr. Hirsi Ali’s PITY OF WAR has a good analysis of the economic consequences of the war and peace at the end, but I would not recommend it unless you’ve exhausted all the better works.

    Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet, but can’t imagine being anything less than awesome. Junger began life as a scar tissue-questing middle class nerd (cf. Ernest Hemingway, or his even more degenerated disciple Chuck Palahniuk) but became in real life the badass he always wanted to be- WWI stormtroooper wounded multiple times, recipient of the “Blue Max” (Germany’s Medal of Honor), wrote a crazy existential memoir of his war experiences the envy of any Iowa Writer’s Workshop tough guy, avoided any great personal taint during the Hitler years, lived to be over 100.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Abe

    '...Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet...'

    If the list is just World War One books in general, I'd add:

    The Donkeys, about the B.E.F. in 1915. The reference is to the exchange between German staff officers, ''The British fight like lions'/'Yes: lions led by donkeys.'

    Pitt, 1918: the Last Act.' Probably the best short history (on any subject) that I've ever read.

    There's The Bastard War, which is a history of the Mesopotamian campaign of 1914-18. And a thoroughly miserable time was had by all...

    Robert Graves, Good Bye to All That, and Siegfried Sassoon's Memoirs of an Infantry Officer.

    Rommel, The Infantry Attacks. Basically, a compendium of Rommel's actions as a young officer in the First World War in France, Romania, and Italy. Rommel is, of course, absolutely brilliant, but it's a good read nevertheless.

    Storm of Steel has its moments, but on the whole, I found it disappointing.

    Replies: @JMcG

    , @Old Palo Altan
    @Abe

    Churchill's prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.

    Ernst Junger, after a long lifetime of - shall we call it "noticing"? - finally noticed the One Big Thing. realised it was God, and became a Catholic the year before he died.

    Replies: @Abe, @Desiderius

    , @Morton's toes
    @Abe

    Ernst Junger's war diaries are intermittently fantastic. Skim over the parts where he displays his fascination with his own dream material. During the war he was People Magazine's top dude in the world 40 years before such a thing existed. He dined with Picasso and Cocteau.

    All of his German army buddies were murdered for plotting against Hitler. He was spared on the personal instructions of Adolf himself. "Nobody touches Junger".

    In the 1960's he was acid tripping with Hoffman but that is obviously not in the faboo war diaries.

  256. @Anon
    @Jon Halpenny

    Yep.

    Hitler spent a decade ranting about the threat of Jewish-Bolshevism. He didn't spend much time on Jews; it was Jewish-Bolshevism. Of course, in Anglo history books, it is viewed as the rantings of a mad man. Fast-forward a decade, Churchill is viewed as a geopolitical genius for finally recognizing the threat of the Iron Curtain of...Jewish-Bolshevism. ::shrug::

    With hindsight, it is apparent WW2 was a complete geopolitical debacle -- probably the largest in the past 500 years. We fought the wrong side in Europe, empowering the rise of the Soviet Union, which nearly blew up the planet. Our efforts in the Pacific -- while leading to the surrender of Japan -- also gave the Chinese Communist Party a new lease on life. Arguably, the CCP is a bigger long-term threat than the Soviet Union ever was. Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.

    It is also apparent that FDR, Churchill, Cordell Hull, et al were clowns. They completely misread the geopolitical realities of the 1930's and we are still paying for it, as will future generations. No amount of Boomer WW2-Churchill porn changes that. It can be said that all of this is apparent only in hindsight. But that's not true. One leader correctly foresaw it: Hitler.

    Replies: @Alden, @R.G. Camara, @Dissident

    Beating Japan was America’s ticket to global dominance.

    When Japan put the English Navy and Far East holdings in tatters, they were poised to rule the waves as the most powerful blue water navy in the world. And history has shown since the Age of Sail — heck, going back to the Ottomon Empire–he who controls the waves controls the world.

    While the European part of WW2 is debatable, had the U.S. not defeated Japan and taken over the oceans the language of business today would be Japanese, not English.

    What’s even more impressive is how we beat the Japanese Navy basically ourselves, with the Australians and English playing minor roles. Contrast that with Europe, where it was largely Stalin who beat Hitler, with us coming in a far second, and the English and French contributed mightily as well.

    It would have been poetic had the Japanese defeated us to become the world’s ocean masters after it was our Commodore Perry who’s cannons announced to Japan that it was time to come into the modern world. But that did not happen; instead, we took ourselves from a major world power to world super power, tied with the Soviets.

    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    @R.G. Camara

    The Americans also tipped the balance in Europe.

    Operation Torch was arguably the pivotal operation of WW2. It caused the Germans and Italians to each lose an army in Tunisia. And it allowed the invasions of Sicily and Italy, causing the downfall of Mussolini. Hitler diverted many divisions to Italy and the Balkans in summer 1943, thus allowing the Russians to gain dominance on the Eastern Front.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  257. @Achilleus

    What if Franz Ferdinand Has Lived?
     
    You might run into people now and then with the surname “Hitler” (there had to be others, right?). You know you’ve been really really really bad when your name is retired.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia, @Anon

    Further evidence that Franz Ferdinand (the band) is truly great is this live cover of a song from The Go-Betweens, “Was There Anything I Can Do?”

    Song starts at 0.43.

  258. @nebulafox
    @res

    Germany had decisively lost the naval race by 1913. Both London and Berlin knew it. That's why there were moves in the direction of a warming of relations in early 1914.

    Now, I do think Bismarck had the right idea-and thus Wilhelm had the wrong one-in keeping Germany a predominantly land based power, thus preserving good relations with London. Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary. But it's a stretch to say that British fears about a German navy led to the path to war, because both parties had recognized British dominance on the seas by 1914. British fears about Germany were primarily economic, not military, and were not uniform across the British government. Bethmann's whole life work (ironically) revolved around a British-German entente, because he knew that Germany needed to break out of its relative isolation.

    It's also worth remembering that Britain (and Russia) did not perceive the Entente agreement as an anti-German arrangement, per se. Russia was mainly concerned with Austria as its main rival in the Balkans, Britain with its global empire, in which Russia loomed as a main rival. Only France viewed the Entente through this lens, because-no duh-Germany was the primary geopolitical threat for them in a way it wasn't for the others. There was a lot of panic in the French embassy in London around August 1st 1914 that the British weren't going to intervene.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary.

    The economics never made any sense. You lose a massive trading partner which you have to make up somewhere else and then you expend a massive amount of resources getting into a pissing match with them on the high seas. You also potentially lose trade with America so there goes another market.

    If anything the unrestricted warfare just strengthened their resolve and allowed their government to depict Germany as an amoral menace that had to be destroyed at any cost. In both wars Germany tried to isolate Britain and it completely failed. Playing battleship was exactly what Britain wanted and Germany took the bait twice. If they had put those same resources into air power and landing craft then Germany could have won in either war.

    Just look at what happened to the Bismark. The Germans launched their largest ship and the British couldn’t wait to sink it as a prize. It didn’t even last a year. About 2000 men went down with the ship. What a waste.

  259. Now listen up…

  260. @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius

    Funny, and perhaps true. I don't know enough about British agronomy to have an opinion. But any situation where you end up outsourcing your basic sustenance is, at best, risky.

    Perhaps European population pressure was such that this was unavoidable though. As early as 1776, Thomas Paine wrote that , "The commerce, by which [America] hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe." So it was hardly a secret that European caloric demand was long met by non-European supplies.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    UK wasn’t in Europe then, which was the original point of the Corn Laws themselves – to keep it that way.

    What’s funny is looking back on the first class honours paper I wrote lauding Peel, comparing him to Gorbachev, and predicting that a young upstart named Clinton would follow in their footsteps. In 1989.

    Back then the Economist was Thatcherite (some would say still is but in an entirely different way) so a young man could get easily confused. Things didn’t quite turn out the way I had envisioned. Or maybe they did too much.

  261. @Jack D
    @Svevlad

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always "existed". They just didn't think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright, @Anon, @Rob, @rebel yell

    The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    You’re kind of in a glass house, Jack.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Art Deco

    No, no, you see, it makes sense when you remember to presuppose Jewish racial superiority.

    , @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright

  262. “We don’t have to take this nonsense lying down. Remember that.”

    That’s nice for you. Thanks for sharing.

    What about the rest of us who do?

  263. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.
     
    I guess Hitler was right then. All these random assholes pissing around thinking they ought to rule themselves in their own countries. Who do they think they are?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @nokangaroos

    Is this the archetypical Jack D comment?

  264. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    You're kind of in a glass house, Jack.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jack D

    No, no, you see, it makes sense when you remember to presuppose Jewish racial superiority.

  265. @Gamecock
    @nebulafox


    Had Berchtold, Sazonov, Bethmann, Poincare, and Grey been able to see where their actions, lies, and evasions were going to lead, they surely would have stopped.
     
    Maybe. But they didn't see. How could they?

    The big mashup of WWI came, as often happened, with technological advances obsoleting previous tactics. In this case, smokeless powder.

    The tech advance that made WWII different was mobile warfare. Tank divisions made static defenses useless. Naval mobility made it world wide.

    The best WWII story I have read is Kurt (Panzer)Meyer's "Grenadiers" account of his personal blitzkrieg across southern Ukraine. He penetrated as much as 50 miles a day, capturing Soviets unaware in their staging areas, way behind the front lines.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    The French put great faith in the “poudre B” (after Gen. Boulanger, the shining saviour figure of the revanche – until he shot himself over the casket of his mistress. Gawd, how french) and for a full two years they had the best military rifle in the world; until it was greatly outclassed by the Judenflinte M.88 (which as you might have guessed was not intoxicating either).

    It was the machine gun that did away with the glitzy soldateska of the past and birthed the helmeted mud-colored war pigs of the XX century. Its tactical and sociological consequences far eclipsed the tank and the nuke.
    Most major armies regarded it as a toy (though dandy for colonial purposes),
    largely because the Montigny had stunk off badly against Prussian arty in 1870/71.
    In 20/20 hindsight there is no excuse whatsoever as there had already been a full-on dress rehearsal of all that was to come – the battle over the High Mountain at Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war 1904/05 (Gen. Nogi/Gen. Kondratyenko).

    But as the saying goes the generals are always fighting the last war …
    the Russians were quoting Kutusow (“Stupid is the bullet, and brave the bayonet”) and answered the “modernizers” that “the bullet may become somewhat smarter but never braver”. It is better not to dwell on it too long lest one get depressed 😉

  266. @Hhsiii
    @R.G. Camara

    Commie street gangs were losing battles long before the Nazis. The Freikorps easily put down the Spartacists in 1919.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Commie street gangs were losing battles long before the Nazis. The Freikorps easily put down the Spartacists in 1919.

    Which is why the Communists wanted to take over the central government and use the military to eliminate the opposition.

    But the Nazis beat them to it.

    What many don’t realize is that the German Communists were openly pro-Soviet. They didn’t think Germany should exist as a state. That was before the major failures of Communism so there were plenty of revolutionaries willing to sacrifice themselves for Soviet rule. In their minds eliminating Germany would lead to utopia. They even expected the language to be destroyed.

    Germany was viewed as the greatest threat to Communism. The Soviets correctly believed that France would fall with Germany and then Britain and America would be isolated. So flipping Germany was goal number one.

    But the Germans pulled a trick play with national socialism which Hitler ruined by going on the warpath.

  267. @Jack D
    @Svevlad

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always "existed". They just didn't think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright, @Anon, @Rob, @rebel yell

    ‘Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.’

    This was true of the common man everywhere until surprisingly recently.

    As late as the War of 1870, French officers were distressed to discover that French peasants were disappointed if an arriving column of troops was French rather than Prussian.

    Both nationalities would seize horses, demand fodder, take food, etc — but the French were more likely to impress the young men than the Prussians. So…

    That there should be ethnic homelands for anyone — and even the very existence of those ethnicities to some extent — is itself very largely an invention of the last two centuries. As late as the Eighteenth century, for example, one was not a ‘Prussian’ so much as a ‘subject of the King of Prussia.’ Frederick the Great had Polish-speaking regiments — and saw nothing odd about it at all.

  268. Steve’s question, which amounts to asking what Franz Ferdinand would have done in the face of a threatened war involving Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia is actually very simply answered: he would have stopped it.

    His guiding principle in international affairs was: above all, no war between the Emperors. FF was above all a legitimist, a believer in monarchical, Christian Europe. But he was aware that the system, triumphant in 1815, had been weakened in 1848, and might well not survive another major shock.
    Shocks from outside (Revolution) could be overcome, as they had been all through the nineteenth century, but shocks from within (wars, either dynastic or nationalistic) were luxuries no longer affordable.

    The three emperors reigning on together into the 1940s, and their heirs after them: a world of continued European and Christian hegemony. Called Christendom, it was the finest civilisation the world has ever known or ever will.

    A small point: no Hitler? No daemon of the name, but I like to think that connoisseurs would still be collecting his modest but as the years went by increasingly competent watercolours of Vienna and Linz.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @Old Palo Altan

    I believe that Franz Ferdinand had plans to make the various regions of the Empire more autonomous; but that Hungary opposed those plans.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria

    , @JackOH
    @Old Palo Altan

    OPA, thanks. Please consider my comment #101, or thereabouts:

    I’m trying to imagine in 2021 a still extant Austria-Hungary, British Empire, French Third Republic, Imperial Germany, and Imperial Russia, with their possessions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas intact with some adjustments for devolution of political power. WWI and WWII–the 1914-1945 War–never happened.

    I and everyone else commenting here know what did happen was awful, and we’re living with the political sequelae of that terrible period to this day.

    Serious question: how much better would Europe and the world be today if Europe retained the relative peace and stability it had enjoyed since the 1870s? Is it even productive to ask that question?


    I won't try to defend the wrongnesses and sheer windbagginess of Imperial Europe, which, with its possessions and influence, ranged all over the world. Yet, why ought we to be asked to say that Idi Amin, the Emperor Bokassa, the Duvaliers, and numerous others are the big improvement over European colonial administration? Yes, some former colonies are quite well rid of their European masters. Others, not so much.

    Replies: @Old Palo Altan

  269. Try and put yourself in the shoes of one of these men: and suppose you hear that the Austrians are shelling Belgrade, or that the Russians are moving troops up to your border.

    One of the French ministers said, “We will lose 25km of territory every day we delay mobilizing”.

  270. Steve — suicide rate for Black youth up 47%

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780380

    * with the caveat that the baseline is pretty low

  271. each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland

    Oops.

  272. @IHTG
    @JohnnyWalker123

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. "No globohomo" in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    Replies: @anon, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics. “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!

    There is indeed a globohomo which is the global establishment. It uses technologies created by the private sector to deceive the masses into accepting a worldview that primarily benefits a small wealthy minority in each Western country. This minority views itself as above the masses and above the idea of a country itself. No I am not referring to Jews here. This problem existed before Jews were even in America.

    I do not identify as a right-winger but we have certainly given the left plenty of chances to prove their basic theory which is that progress is entirely environmental. They have completely failed and in response to these failures they have chosen to lock out the right instead of facing reality. What we call “Conservatism” in the West is really just appeasing left-wingers/liberals in the hope that there is an end to it. There really is no right-wing as modern conservatism merely drags its feet as the left continues to lock down society in an effort to keep the people and especially White people from learning the truth. The left will happily destroy society and turn the world into a giant favela if it means keeping White people in the dark. You can even find Marxist articles on how destroying White people is needed for the sake of racial equality.

    As for mass education there is no such thing. Most people are indoctrinated. Liberals that visit this website don’t even deny it. In fact we have had liberals come here and tell us that lying about race is the right thing to do.

  273. @Abe
    @AnotherDad


    Abe, could you–and anyone else here with good suggestions–pass along your book recommendations.
     
    BY FAR the book I’d most strongly recommend reading is Margaret MacMillan’s PARIS 1919, as it addresses everyone’s real concern as to what were the causes of WWII and could it have been prevented. Based on MacMillan’s book, probably not- Japan, a WWI Ally and participant at the Paris Peace Conference with influence well beyond its modest wartime contributions, was already on the hunt for territorial acquisitions and, not really satisfied with what it got in 1919, was even by then on a collision course with the US (US Navy Operations Staff planners had already put together plans for a war with Japan). Italy likewise was howling about its “mutilated victory” at the hands of the other Allies and the seeds for postwar Italian nationalism and imperialism leading to Mussolini were already well-sown by 1919.

    Besides that I’d highly recommend JULY 1914: COUNTDOWN TO WAR by McMeekin for its day-by-day/hour-by-hour analysis of the diplomatic machinations of the Great Powers. No real gobsmackers, but Germany comes off looking less bad, Russia and France worse in particular to how they worked to sway (one could say deceive) British public opinion.

    Mr. Hirsi Ali’s PITY OF WAR has a good analysis of the economic consequences of the war and peace at the end, but I would not recommend it unless you’ve exhausted all the better works.

    Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet, but can’t imagine being anything less than awesome. Junger began life as a scar tissue-questing middle class nerd (cf. Ernest Hemingway, or his even more degenerated disciple Chuck Palahniuk) but became in real life the badass he always wanted to be- WWI stormtroooper wounded multiple times, recipient of the “Blue Max” (Germany’s Medal of Honor), wrote a crazy existential memoir of his war experiences the envy of any Iowa Writer’s Workshop tough guy, avoided any great personal taint during the Hitler years, lived to be over 100.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Old Palo Altan, @Morton's toes

    ‘…Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet…’

    If the list is just World War One books in general, I’d add:

    The Donkeys, about the B.E.F. in 1915. The reference is to the exchange between German staff officers, ‘‘The British fight like lions’/’Yes: lions led by donkeys.’

    Pitt, 1918: the Last Act.’ Probably the best short history (on any subject) that I’ve ever read.

    There’s The Bastard War, which is a history of the Mesopotamian campaign of 1914-18. And a thoroughly miserable time was had by all…

    Robert Graves, Good Bye to All That, and Siegfried Sassoon’s Memoirs of an Infantry Officer.

    Rommel, The Infantry Attacks. Basically, a compendium of Rommel’s actions as a young officer in the First World War in France, Romania, and Italy. Rommel is, of course, absolutely brilliant, but it’s a good read nevertheless.

    Storm of Steel has its moments, but on the whole, I found it disappointing.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Colin Wright

    I agree with you as regards Storm of Steel. Perhaps I had a bad translation, but I didn’t think much of it. Manning’s Middle Parts of Fortune was very good. Patrick MacGill is unknown these days, but he had a couple of good books based on his time with the London Irish early in the War. The Red Horizon and The Great Push were two of them.

  274. @Abe
    @AnotherDad


    Abe, could you–and anyone else here with good suggestions–pass along your book recommendations.
     
    BY FAR the book I’d most strongly recommend reading is Margaret MacMillan’s PARIS 1919, as it addresses everyone’s real concern as to what were the causes of WWII and could it have been prevented. Based on MacMillan’s book, probably not- Japan, a WWI Ally and participant at the Paris Peace Conference with influence well beyond its modest wartime contributions, was already on the hunt for territorial acquisitions and, not really satisfied with what it got in 1919, was even by then on a collision course with the US (US Navy Operations Staff planners had already put together plans for a war with Japan). Italy likewise was howling about its “mutilated victory” at the hands of the other Allies and the seeds for postwar Italian nationalism and imperialism leading to Mussolini were already well-sown by 1919.

    Besides that I’d highly recommend JULY 1914: COUNTDOWN TO WAR by McMeekin for its day-by-day/hour-by-hour analysis of the diplomatic machinations of the Great Powers. No real gobsmackers, but Germany comes off looking less bad, Russia and France worse in particular to how they worked to sway (one could say deceive) British public opinion.

    Mr. Hirsi Ali’s PITY OF WAR has a good analysis of the economic consequences of the war and peace at the end, but I would not recommend it unless you’ve exhausted all the better works.

    Besides those, I’d recommend Churchill’s WORLD CRISIS for its exquisite prose style, and Winston Groom’s (yes, FORREST GUMP guy’s) A STORM IN FLANDERS for one of the better (best?) accounts of specifically the BEF’s experience.

    Dark horse mention to Ernst Junger’s STORM OF STEEL which I bought on Kindle and have not actually read yet, but can’t imagine being anything less than awesome. Junger began life as a scar tissue-questing middle class nerd (cf. Ernest Hemingway, or his even more degenerated disciple Chuck Palahniuk) but became in real life the badass he always wanted to be- WWI stormtroooper wounded multiple times, recipient of the “Blue Max” (Germany’s Medal of Honor), wrote a crazy existential memoir of his war experiences the envy of any Iowa Writer’s Workshop tough guy, avoided any great personal taint during the Hitler years, lived to be over 100.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Old Palo Altan, @Morton's toes

    Churchill’s prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.

    Ernst Junger, after a long lifetime of – shall we call it “noticing”? – finally noticed the One Big Thing. realised it was God, and became a Catholic the year before he died.

    • Agree: Not Raul, JMcG
    • Replies: @Abe
    @Old Palo Altan


    Churchill’s prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.
     
    Churchill’s style is self-consciously neo-Gibbon-esque. I can understand some not liking it, but I (especially for world history told at the grandest scale) do. There is also Churchill’s characteristic puckish wit. Whenever referring to the command duo of Hindenburg/Ludendorff (who themselves insisted neither could tell where the one’s schwerpunkt ended and the other’s kesselschlacht began) Churchill insisted on using the combined ligature HL in his text :-)
    , @Desiderius
    @Old Palo Altan

    As if there’s a pro who doesn’t look down his nose at a dilettante.

    He made a living at it when he needed it and a good one. My taste for Churchill’s content (and Gibbon’s too for that matter) has soured somewhat over the years but I’d be surprised to discover I’d also misjudged the form. At the time he was a page turner - particularly the Marlborough.

  275. @Dutch Boy
    @Colin Wright

    True but the British declaration of war on Germany made it a world war rather than a European conflict. It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Colin Wright

    ‘…It is generally acknowledged that the British reason (violation of Belgian neutrality) was a pretext and the true reason was to prevent Germany from dominating Europe (and the destruction of an economic and imperial rival).’

    Quite likely, but…

    Germany deciding to build a High Seas Fleet didn’t help. Nations usually go to war for a complex of motives, and which motive is the most important depends on which particular individual within that nation you ask (our invasion of Iraq illustrated this quite nicely).

    So a significant number of Britons were led into a position of hostility to Germany by her attempt to seriously challenge British naval supremacy. In exchange, Germany got…

    Nothing. For that reason, not only was Britain’s hostility partly Germany’s own fault, but the provocation has to go down as one of the most egregiously stupid plays in history.

  276. @anon
    @IHTG


    As always, right-wingers fail to understand how many social changes are driven by evolutions in technology, education, lifestyle and economic organization that are orthogonal to politics.
     
    Which group leads the opposition to internet porn, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to the managerial state, left-wingers or right-wingers?
    Which group leads the opposition to an unregulated big tech alliance with big gov, left-wingers or right-wingers?

    “No globohomo” in a world of highly complex knowledge industries, managerialism, mass education and mass communication. Good luck with that!
     
    As always, left-wingers fail to remember that social changes are also driven by moral revulsion.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Until not long ago neither.

    Winds of change are blowing.

  277. Tex says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    @prosa123

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.

    Replies: @Tex, @Paul Mendez

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.

    It set a high bar. In With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge recalled a Marine veteran saying that Peleliu was the worst fighting he’d ever seen, worse than the trenches of WWI. That’s how Sledge knew he was in trouble.

  278. @Anon
    OT

    Princeton anthro prof Augustin "Fabio" Fuentes materialized on Robert Wright's show on Bloggingheads a few days ago to discuss his Darwin cancellation piece in Science.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/and-then-they-came-for-darwin/

    Wright, who is fluent and well-read in Darwin, had taken specific issue with the charge of colonialism, resulting in the booking. The joust was pretty interesting. Wright scores some points, and Fuentes says that if he had more than 700 words his piece would not have come across as so anti-Darwin.

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women's brains are the same as men's, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He's pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn't saying what he appears to be saying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLlBjNte78

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @John Johnson, @Unladen Swallow

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women’s brains are the same as men’s, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He’s pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn’t saying what he appears to be saying.

    There are various notions of “smart”.

    I’m well aware that there are a bunch of SAT smart people–even a bunch quite a bit SAT smarter than me–who are on the other side.

    Still there’s something very lacking in the supposed “smartness” of someone who actually believes things that are both wrong and obviously nonsense. Something is “just wrong”. Yes, they have neurons that fire quickly, but they lack the will/desire to embrace facts and logic to make sense of the world.

    What you choose to parrot to get this and that goodie in life–that’s one thing. But when someone’s brain actually believes clearly contradicted nonsense, that’s something else.

  279. @but an humble craftsman
    At the time of the German decöaration of war both French and Russian armies were rushing towards the German border.

    They made significant inroads at first but were then thrown out.

    The declaration of war has ever since been used to great effect by perfidious Albion's prpaganda.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @SaneClownPosse, @Haxo Angmark

    actually, la Belle France played the victim by pulling its troops about 5 km. AWAY from the French-German border. No question, though, that France was the ultimate culprit: via its 40-year-long post Franco-Prussian War policies of la revanche and l’encerclement. Which a few honest French contemporaries admit. Cf. Abel Ferry (secretaire d’etat aux Affaires Etrangeres AND frontline soldier, 1914-18), in Carnets Secrets 1914-1918, suivis de lettres et notes de guerre (orig, Paris, 1957; republ. 2005), pp. 50-51:

    “the little French spider spun a web….and the fat German fly buzzed straight into it”.

  280. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tex
    @Jack D


    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).
     
    British naval engineering had something of a high point in the 1860s. In its day the Alabama was the finest cruisers ever to sail the seas. With better ammo she'd have sunk the Kearsarge. Clyde-built blockade runners deserve a lot of credit for keeping the Confederacy alive.

    There is a lot a of hand-wringing in modern leftist British circles about that. They often wonder that anti-slavery Liverpool workers could be found manning cruisers and blockade runners. I'm not sure it's that big a mystery. Brits may or may not oppose slavery, but none would turn down a chance to mess with Yankee shipping. Every single Limey born is either a smuggler, a pirate, or both.

    The Bulloch brothers were the purchasing agents for the CSA and did excellent work that enabled the Confederacy to maintain asymmetrical warfare at sea against the Union Navy. They bought the cruisers, blockade runners, and often the cargoes that the Confederacy needed.

    The Bullochs never returned to the US, remaining exiles to the end. Their little sister married a Yankee though, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    There is a lot a of hand-wringing in modern leftist British circles about that. They often wonder that anti-slavery Liverpool workers could be found manning cruisers and blockade runners.

    Liverpool was the most pro-Confederate city in Britain. The locals don’t like to be reminded of that nowadays.

  281. @Peter Akuleyev
    @JohnnyWalker123

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Putin and Orban are not right wingers, they are mafia bosses who are able to take advantage of the slow deterioration in morality in a global world where profit is the only metric of success. It is doubtful they would have been anything other than mid - level bureaucrats in a world where World War I hadn't happened. Certainly Putin fits the mold of the grasping cunning peasant rising above his station that conservatives like Dostoevsky mocked in pre-WWI Russia.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @AnotherDad, @JohnnyWalker123

    A large fraction of elite European families were eliminated during the World Wars, then later under Communism. Especially in Russia, whose losses were particularly horrific.

    The mass liquidation of the “old” Euro elites enabled America to graft on a new elite during the post-WWII era. This new elite was financially, ideologically, and even militarily supported by the U.S. That was one of the main purposes of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

    America tried to do the same in the post-Soviet Eastern Euro republics. Initially, they were quite successful, especially with Yeltsin in Russia. However, Putin outmaneuvered them and established himself as a traditional right-wing autocrat.

    You might disdain Putin and prefer someone with better breeding, but a large fraction of the “old” elite are gone. Also, given that the “old” elites governed with the support of the long ago-dissolved Boyar aristocrats, they wouldn’t be able to effectively rule today’s Russia. Putin’s support from the KGB/FSS provides him with the elite support necessary to exercise power.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @JohnnyWalker123

    A large fraction of elite European families were eliminated during the World Wars, then later under Communism. Especially in Russia, whose losses were particularly horrific. The mass liquidation of the “old” Euro elites enabled America to graft on a new elite during the post-WWII era. This new elite was financially, ideologically, and even militarily supported by the U.S. That was one of the main purposes of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

    This is insane. The United States didn't graft any elite on in Eastern Europe and it certainly did not do so in Soviet Russia, which had the largest proportionate losses. About 6% of the population of non-Russian Europe died during the war. Have a gander at the political leadership: Konrad Adenaur, Alcide de Gaspari, and Winston Churchill had all bee prominent politicians during the 1920s; Clement Atlee and Anthony Eden were so in the 1930s. General de Gaulle was obtrusive enough in the French military that he was known to the prime minister in charge in 1940 and the Gen Petain as well.

  282. @Old Palo Altan
    Steve's question, which amounts to asking what Franz Ferdinand would have done in the face of a threatened war involving Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia is actually very simply answered: he would have stopped it.

    His guiding principle in international affairs was: above all, no war between the Emperors. FF was above all a legitimist, a believer in monarchical, Christian Europe. But he was aware that the system, triumphant in 1815, had been weakened in 1848, and might well not survive another major shock.
    Shocks from outside (Revolution) could be overcome, as they had been all through the nineteenth century, but shocks from within (wars, either dynastic or nationalistic) were luxuries no longer affordable.

    The three emperors reigning on together into the 1940s, and their heirs after them: a world of continued European and Christian hegemony. Called Christendom, it was the finest civilisation the world has ever known or ever will.

    A small point: no Hitler? No daemon of the name, but I like to think that connoisseurs would still be collecting his modest but as the years went by increasingly competent watercolours of Vienna and Linz.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @JackOH

    I believe that Franz Ferdinand had plans to make the various regions of the Empire more autonomous; but that Hungary opposed those plans.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria

  283. @Achilleus
    @Diversity Heretic

    I love those Sissi movies - a window into a beautiful but lost White European world. I realize those movies romanticize the Austrian empire, but I’ll take that over retconning blacks into BBC historical portrayals.

    I love historical movies and “costume” dramas, but I find I can only watch older ones now. If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar, @Voltarde, @Jim Christian

    If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    Spot on. You’re watching something and … bam! … you’re right back into the hateful, pissy minoritarian war against Western Christian peoples, their history and culture.

    You just want to give those people a good hard slap. F’ off a*holes.

    • Agree: Achilleus
  284. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @res

    Germany had decisively lost the naval race by 1913. Both London and Berlin knew it. That's why there were moves in the direction of a warming of relations in early 1914.

    Now, I do think Bismarck had the right idea-and thus Wilhelm had the wrong one-in keeping Germany a predominantly land based power, thus preserving good relations with London. Germany was a newcomer on the world stage that could never hope to-and never would-eclipse Britain as a global sea power. No benefits could come of it that would be worth the potential alienation of Britain. The decision to try and compete with Britain on the seas was thus a stupid one that helped isolate Berlin more than was necessary. But it's a stretch to say that British fears about a German navy led to the path to war, because both parties had recognized British dominance on the seas by 1914. British fears about Germany were primarily economic, not military, and were not uniform across the British government. Bethmann's whole life work (ironically) revolved around a British-German entente, because he knew that Germany needed to break out of its relative isolation.

    It's also worth remembering that Britain (and Russia) did not perceive the Entente agreement as an anti-German arrangement, per se. Russia was mainly concerned with Austria as its main rival in the Balkans, Britain with its global empire, in which Russia loomed as a main rival. Only France viewed the Entente through this lens, because-no duh-Germany was the primary geopolitical threat for them in a way it wasn't for the others. There was a lot of panic in the French embassy in London around August 1st 1914 that the British weren't going to intervene.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anonymous

    The growth of the German navy had its roots in the quarrels with the British over South Africa during the Boer War. There was great sympathy in Germany for the plight of the Boers and frustration at Germany’s incapacity to do anything to help them. This is when Germany began to seriously contemplate challenging British sea power.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    @Anonymous

    Wrong. The Second Boer War began in 1899, but Wilhelm II's drive to expand the navy was well launched by 1897.

    , @Fox
    @Anonymous

    In looking at real numbers of ships built and planned, of naval and army expenditures,it emerges that this "challenge" is merely a pretext to pass blame for the catastrophe of the First World War on Germany. Numbers for the respective naval expenditures and ship volumes built, as well as military service time for draftees army expenditures are to be found in the writings of Francis Neilson (e.g. The Tragedy of Europe, Hate, the Enemy of Peace) and E.D.Morel (Truth and the War).
    The quarrel about South Africa you are referring to was about a congratulatory telegram the Kaiser sent to the Kruger during the Second Boer War, a war of defense against a coup against Britain.

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

  285. @Old Palo Altan
    @Abe

    Churchill's prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.

    Ernst Junger, after a long lifetime of - shall we call it "noticing"? - finally noticed the One Big Thing. realised it was God, and became a Catholic the year before he died.

    Replies: @Abe, @Desiderius

    Churchill’s prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.

    Churchill’s style is self-consciously neo-Gibbon-esque. I can understand some not liking it, but I (especially for world history told at the grandest scale) do. There is also Churchill’s characteristic puckish wit. Whenever referring to the command duo of Hindenburg/Ludendorff (who themselves insisted neither could tell where the one’s schwerpunkt ended and the other’s kesselschlacht began) Churchill insisted on using the combined ligature HL in his text 🙂

  286. @Houston 1992
    @Desiderius

    hmm UK neutrality was bizarre, when the RN could have crushed the Union blockade easily and cheaply.....what am I missing?

    Replies: @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Reg Cæsar, @AnotherDad, @Almost Missouri, @MarkinPNW, @Regret

    Russia is the missing ingredient; having just lost a major skirmish of the Great Game with Great Britain in the Crimean War, they were anxious to check Britain in any way they could. The American War Between the States offered an opportunity, as it appeared and probably was seen by Britain as an opportunity to shatter the US as an upcoming rival, so the Czar offered his Navy to the North to help support and enforce their blockade of the South. The Russian Baltic/Atlantic fleet would winter in New York, the Russian Pacific fleet in San Francisco, thus providing another disincentive for Britain to get directly involved and risking another war with Russia, along with the other disincentives mentioned (i.e. slavery, etc.).

  287. @Gaius Gracchus
    I blame the English overall for the disaster know as the Great War. England was not treaty bound to fight. Churchill, one of the 20th century's chief villians, urged the King who hated the Kaiser, his first cousin, to war.

    England also refused any peace in 1916, when the only result would have been some minor territory concessions by Serbia, Russia, and France, plus some too expensive to maintain colonies.

    No Soviet Union, no Hitler, no Weimar Republic, etc.

    Second to this I blame the idiot in the White House......

    There was plenty of other blame to go around, but those were significant.

    Replies: @Bill B., @Not Raul, @anonymouseperson

    Germany’s insistence on unrestrained naval warfare in the Atlantic annoyed the American’s enough to bring them into the war – stopping them playing a mediating role and ending a silly war.

    Also it is forgotten that a part of the French elite wanted war to punish Germany for their defeat in the late 19th Century. WW1 was WW2 as far as the French were concerned.

    Churchill was not that important at that time (and could have been ignored): Lloyd George was ultimately culpable.

  288. @Achilleus
    @Diversity Heretic

    I love those Sissi movies - a window into a beautiful but lost White European world. I realize those movies romanticize the Austrian empire, but I’ll take that over retconning blacks into BBC historical portrayals.

    I love historical movies and “costume” dramas, but I find I can only watch older ones now. If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Reg Cæsar, @Voltarde, @Jim Christian

    If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.

    I doubt I could sit through Gone With the Wind for the same reason.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Reg Cæsar

    I can’t stand GWTW because of the blacks.

    The 2 worst scenes are 1 about 2 minutes in the ugly black woman sticks her head out a window and starts cackling and screeching. 2 After the war Scarlett gets the sawmill going. Driving home one night several no ‘count po’ White trash men stop her horse and drag her down presumably with rape in mind. As if And then a brave black man saves her. Gag I’ve never watched the whole thing on TCM. One of the greatest shots in all of cinema photography is the camera pulls back to show all the dying and wounded soldiers in the ground after Sherman conquered Atlanta.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  289. @JMcG
    @nokangaroos

    Do you have a source on Heydrich? I’ve never heard that before and I’m interested.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    Well, he introduced German labor protection laws (unheard of before or after) and turned the large (((international))) hotels in Karlsbad and Marienbad into workers´rehab centers à la KdF;
    none of this is secret, it´s just not talked about
    (like the Czech 68ers only for a very short time complained “When the Germans came, it took six months for the first Czech to die; when the Russians came, it took 45 minutes”).
    The more contemporary the accounts, the better 😉

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @nokangaroos

    Thank you.

  290. @Joe Stalin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc65lJQ4DrE

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Gabrillo_Princip%27s_pistol_%283444725633%29.jpg

    Gavrillo's Precip's FN 1910

    Replies: @Tex, @Bill B.

    This is entertaining on the hours that lead up to the assassination. (Listen for around half an hour because he drifts off afterwards. His book is overrated.)

  291. @Patrick McNally
    @nebulafox

    Russian mobilization was ordered on August 31. Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28. All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria. It was obvious that the Austrian conservatives themselves were happy to see Ferdinand gone. All that they should have needed to top it off was a diplomatic humiliation of Serbia, which they got. But they weren't satisfied with that because they already desired a war on Serbia, and Wilhelm II wasn't willing to reign them in. The Kaiser's choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    That’s how popular history portrays it, but the reality was different. Russia started mobilizing on July 25th, a full three days before the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. This was portrayed to the outside world as a “partial” mobilization, but it was nothing of the sort, and the Russians knew it. That’s why they kept the preparatory details secret.

    >All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria.

    Serbia came as close as it reasonably could with the response to the ultimatum. But Belgrade was never going to concede the point of letting foreign investigators run the investigation with impunity, because they knew there were people high in the military and intelligence services with links to the kinds of groups that killed Franz Ferdinand. Said elements were already in a tense, near civil war situation with the civilians anyway due to differences over how to administer Serbia’s post-Balkan war gains.

    Problem is, that’s exactly the point that Vienna was going to press, because that’s was the only way there would ever be justice over the assassination. The Serbian government had no effective control over its military or spy services, and everybody knew it. Ultimately, the Austrian and Serbian governments had irreconcilable goals.

    >The Kaiser’s choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    The unconditional blank cheque was meant for a preemptive, immediate operation against Serbia alone, not for the declaration of war to come a month later when international shock over the assassination had faded.

    Wilhelm was irresponsible in giving the blank cheque. Wilhelm should have known his ally better. And as I’ve made clear repeatedly: Wilhelm was not somehow morally averse to aggressive war. That doesn’t mean he wanted a full scale preemptive confrontation with Russia and France, which is what the Austrian move was going to risk. The Austrian declaration of war on the 28th did come without the prior knowledge or blessing of Germany, which was entirely contrary to what the Russians told the West: and entirely contrary, to be fair, to what the Russians genuinely believed.

    I mean, for Pete’s sake, Wilhelm was the last guy standing trying to propose mediation plans in the Balkans and tried to get Moltke to change decades of military plans on a whim to create a one-front great power war. The man had a lot of problems as a ruler and was an unattractive human being, to say the least, but it’s just not true that he was the main agent of plunging the continent into chaos. He wasn’t even the main agent of doing so within his own government. (Much the same could be said for Tsar Nicholas II, incidentally.)

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    @nebulafox

    While I certainly agree that there's no evidence of Wilhelm II ever having any coherent plot to start WWI, you're sounding a but naive when saying that Franz Joseph I was all that concerned about "justice over the assassination." Berchtold had recommended on June 14, before the assassination of Ferdinand, the "elimination of Serbia." On July 5 Hoyos relayed to Wilhelm II the letters from Austrian officials which clearly stated the aim of wiping out Serbia. When Wilhelm II agreed to this he was explicitly acknowledging the Austrian intent to have a war no matter what the Serbs did.

    Furthermore, it was clear that no one in the Austrian government missed Ferdinand. This is what has always spurred on the speculations that Ferdinand's assassination was a case of LIHOP by the Austrian state. In light of the fact that all Austrian conservatives were happy to be rid of the liberal Ferdinand, the correct step for Wilhelm II to have taken would have been to tell Franz Joseph I that Germany could not support an Austrian war after the Serbs had responded with such humility to Austria's demands. The fact that the Serbs were still trying to cover tracks over the assassination was true, but redundant. None of Austria's actions were driven by an honest desire to catch the assassins. They were motivated by aims which had been laid out in the Austrian government before the assassination had ever occurred.

    Wilhelm II may be thought of as naive over certain things, but not over this. He certainly understood that Austria had already arrived at the aim of crushing Serbia even before the assassination. His motive here was simply to humiliate Russia by making the country stand back while the small Slavic state of Serbia was crushed with German backing. No, it wasn't part of a grand conspiracy to start a general world war. But it was exactly the type of arrogant display of power which most often triggers such wars.

    Replies: @JMcG, @nebulafox

  292. @JohnnyWalker123
    If not for the assassination of the Archduke, perhaps there would've been no WW1. If no WWI, then no WWII. If no WWII, then no Cold War.

    We'd have a multipolar world in which the older social order prevailed. America would be one power among many, not the world's dominant superpower.

    There would also be many right-wing states (ethnocentric, capitalist, militaristic) in Europe. The power would be held not by American puppets, but by the landed aristocracy, military, and clergy.

    More leaders like Putin and Orban, few (if any) leaders like Merkel, Johnson, and Macron.

    Jews would be influential, but they'd have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They'd have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.

    No Globohomo. Instead, lots of Putins jockeying for power&wealth.

    When you read accounts of what Europe was like in the early 1900s, you come across societies that had had a strong sense of national identity, with Christianity providing the moral justification for whatever the rulers wanted. You also see how dominated Europe was by "old" families, who took pride in their lineage and historical connection to their particular homeland. The rulers were certainly corrupt and Machiavellian, but they felt a kinship with the people who they ruled.

    In the post WWII era, under American domination, European leaders became far more comfortable with secularism and internationalism. Russia was headed this way, before Putin.

    Replies: @anonymous, @IHTG, @Peter Akuleyev, @John Johnson

    WW1 would have happened. In fact the Germans probably would have won if they waited a few years and let Russia fall into civil war first.

    The Germans were itching to try out their new toys (especially artillery) and prove that they were masters of both war and peace. In both WW1 and WW2 they had all kinds of plans drawn up to defeat the militaries of their neighbors. What we call modern warfare is mostly derived from German tactics.

    WW1 was not some accident caused by a Bosnian military reject. The German military wanted a war and were thrilled when Germany finally had an excuse to invade their neighbors. The German people supported the war early on even though they were obviously the aggressor. There is a photo somewhere of a young Hitler cheering with the crowd when war was announced.

  293. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always “existed”. They just didn’t think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.
     
    I guess Hitler was right then. All these random assholes pissing around thinking they ought to rule themselves in their own countries. Who do they think they are?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @nokangaroos

    Wait until you hear what Marx had to say about “geschichtslose Völker” 😀

  294. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    You're kind of in a glass house, Jack.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jack D

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    • LOL: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    No excuse to be so petty about it. C’mon man, this isn’t how y’all hung on for 1900 years until you did.

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Which 'everyone else' did you have in mind? And why are you making use of an idiosyncratic definition of 'no choice'? The Jewish population of Europe had after 1918 reasons to emigrate as public policy and the general political climate in various locales was getting more disagreeable (in Hungary and Poland in particular). They also had reasons to stay and reasons to decamp to somewhere else than the Near East. The more compelling circumstance emerged during and after the war when Jewish community life in Europe had been wrecked. It's really inane to attribute that to Polish or Hungarian particularism. The division of labor in Polish and Hungarian life would have generated resentment and conflict no matter where the national capital was located or who was in the legislature and the impetus from lethal violence came from a foreign power in all cases.

    And which 'sh!tty little countries' did you have in mind? In our own time, any country with a satisfactory quantum of human capital per person and a critical mass of labor can sustain research universities, university medical centers, full spectrum capital markets, and assemble a foreign service to staff embassies and consulates in its major trading partners. Somewhat north of 4 million people and a domestic product of $200 bn will suffice. Of the national states which emerged between 1917 and 1923 in Europe, Ireland, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia taken together meet that standard today. Yugoslavia and Greater Roumania had populations which were above the median for European states as measured in 1912.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    'The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.'

    In a universe of lame arguments, that is definitely a contender.

    If you actually want me to demonstrate its precise lameness, you're going to have to pay in advance.

  295. @R.G. Camara
    @Anon

    Beating Japan was America's ticket to global dominance.

    When Japan put the English Navy and Far East holdings in tatters, they were poised to rule the waves as the most powerful blue water navy in the world. And history has shown since the Age of Sail -- heck, going back to the Ottomon Empire--he who controls the waves controls the world.

    While the European part of WW2 is debatable, had the U.S. not defeated Japan and taken over the oceans the language of business today would be Japanese, not English.

    What's even more impressive is how we beat the Japanese Navy basically ourselves, with the Australians and English playing minor roles. Contrast that with Europe, where it was largely Stalin who beat Hitler, with us coming in a far second, and the English and French contributed mightily as well.

    It would have been poetic had the Japanese defeated us to become the world's ocean masters after it was our Commodore Perry who's cannons announced to Japan that it was time to come into the modern world. But that did not happen; instead, we took ourselves from a major world power to world super power, tied with the Soviets.

    Replies: @Jon Halpenny

    The Americans also tipped the balance in Europe.

    Operation Torch was arguably the pivotal operation of WW2. It caused the Germans and Italians to each lose an army in Tunisia. And it allowed the invasions of Sicily and Italy, causing the downfall of Mussolini. Hitler diverted many divisions to Italy and the Balkans in summer 1943, thus allowing the Russians to gain dominance on the Eastern Front.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Jon Halpenny


    And it allowed the invasions of Sicily and Italy, causing the downfall of Mussolini. Hitler diverted many divisions to Italy and the Balkans in summer 1943, thus allowing the Russians to gain dominance on the Eastern Front.
     
    And in a very weird historical tangent, the Allies choice to invade through Sicily was made for them nearly 7 years before hand when New York mafia boss Lucky Luciano was put away for 50 years by crusading prosecutor Thomas Dewey.

    When Dewey amazingly got Luciano put away for 5 decades, it was a huge shock to the national underworld--they had believed they were untouchable, and that local DAs were powerless against corrupt/scared juries and judges. Dewey's win was like an atom bomb.

    But then WW2 happened. And Luciano, though in prison, had deep connections with both the unions on the U.S. docks and the Sicilian underworld back Sicily. So the Feds forced New York to make a deal: Luciano's sentenced would be drastically commuted in exchange for keeping saboteurs and protesters off the docks AND getting Sicilian mobsters to help with the Allied invasion.

    Which is why Patton rolled through Italy ahead of Monty.

    After WW2, Luciano's was set free in 1946, but he was deported to Italy (he had been born there). And for the next 20 years J. Edgar Hoover's FBI secret police pretended the mafia didn't exist, causing hundreds of thousands of people to be exploited, beaten, or killed by the mob without the feds even noticing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @BB753

  296. @Svevlad
    @nebulafox

    Bosniaks (Muslims) didn't really exist up until 1960s. The whole damn ethnicity was basically made up from scratch by the Austrians as some D&C type thing. A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian, @Daniel H

    Typical bullshit. Bosniaks or Bosnian Muslims considered themselves to be Bosnian Turks, essentially Turks placed in a Slavophone country & possessing a regional Bosnian loyalty. They differed between Oriental Turks & themselves.

    Most of their intelligentsia, from 1879 until WW2, declared themselves to be Croatian (for instance, out of 19 members of Yugoslav Muslim Organization’s members of Yugoslav/SHS parliament in 1923, 18 stated they were Croats). Over 90% of Bosnian Muslim cultural figures from the 1880s to the 1940s had been explicitly Croatian.

    But this doesn’t matter much, because well over 95% of Bosnian Muslim people did not feel affinity either with Croats or with Serbs. They were just slow in their national crystallization.

    As Camus had said: People become what they already are, whether they are conscious of it or not.

  297. @Old Palo Altan
    @Abe

    Churchill's prose stye was abominable, as real stylists like Waugh and Orwell never tired of pointing out.

    Ernst Junger, after a long lifetime of - shall we call it "noticing"? - finally noticed the One Big Thing. realised it was God, and became a Catholic the year before he died.

    Replies: @Abe, @Desiderius

    As if there’s a pro who doesn’t look down his nose at a dilettante.

    He made a living at it when he needed it and a good one. My taste for Churchill’s content (and Gibbon’s too for that matter) has soured somewhat over the years but I’d be surprised to discover I’d also misjudged the form. At the time he was a page turner – particularly the Marlborough.

  298. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright

    No excuse to be so petty about it. C’mon man, this isn’t how y’all hung on for 1900 years until you did.

  299. @Anon
    OT

    Princeton anthro prof Augustin "Fabio" Fuentes materialized on Robert Wright's show on Bloggingheads a few days ago to discuss his Darwin cancellation piece in Science.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/and-then-they-came-for-darwin/

    Wright, who is fluent and well-read in Darwin, had taken specific issue with the charge of colonialism, resulting in the booking. The joust was pretty interesting. Wright scores some points, and Fuentes says that if he had more than 700 words his piece would not have come across as so anti-Darwin.

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women's brains are the same as men's, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He's pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn't saying what he appears to be saying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLlBjNte78

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @John Johnson, @Unladen Swallow

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women’s brains are the same as men’s, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing.

    If anything that is evidence of being completely fake.

    All modern anthropologists are fakers. The whole practice is fake.

    They are more like a research division for the Secular Church of Equality.

    It doesn’t matter what they really think about race or gender. Their job is to lie and they know it.

    Anyone that teaches anthropology or writes books on the subject is a liar. To outsiders that means the race/gender denial side has taken over. If you want a job then you will lie.

  300. What if Franz Ferdinand Had Lived?

    Another event to start the war would have been found.
    Far too many people had been working far too long for it not to be inevitable.

    The irreplaceable James Corbet did an excellent – and as always, with all of his sources cited, documentary about this,

    https://www.corbettreport.com/the-wwi-conspiracy/

  301. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    No one ever came up with a viable plan for sending blacks "back" to Africa. Your imaginary paradise is premised on a fantasy.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Hamlet's Ghost, @John Johnson

    Funny how they don’t seem to have a problem talking about reparations though.

  302. @AnotherDad
    @Steve Sailer


    Right, a timeline in which Germany in 1870 is slightly more magnanimous toward France regarding Alsace and Lorraine than in our world is a much better one.
     
    Probably.

    But it wasn't ridiculous.** My German ancestry is from Alsace. My immigrant ancestors would have spoken what's essentially a German dialect. And they considered themselves "German"--at least in the American ethnic background sense.

    ** Generally, while rivers make nice clear borders they are not natural ethno-national borders. The river valley tends to evolve toward being a common linguistic/cultural/ethnic unit. After oceans, it's actually mountains that really divide people's from one another. (Divide settled people's from one another, with badasses in between.)


    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to ... just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other's right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That's what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old "white bread" Americaness--our people, culture and history--can roll on with it.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson

    I think the program that actually leads to peace is to … just ask people. Let the people of any given place decide whether they are a nation or part of whatever other nation. Nationalism that recognizes other’s right to nationalism is the one path that can lead toward peace.

    That’s what we need now in the US. Separation so those of us who are not minoritarians, but happy with regular old “white bread” Americaness–our people, culture and history–can roll on with it.

    This is so naïve.

    What happens when Brazil America runs out of cash and sees all the Whitebread Americans in the burbs with their nice cars and clean lawns?

    I’ll tell you what happens. Eventually a Presidente Emilio comes along and tells the poor that the Bad Whites are the problem and need their wealth taken from them. Why would desperate people care if the core of the argument is true or not? It’s a hilarious belief of conservatives that desperate people will remain principled and stand by the flag.

    Modern conservatism/Western passivism is in serious denial of the problem of envy. There is no reason to believe that bringing in third worlders will make them first worlders or that they will always just roll with living in the shadow of Whites.

    Blank slate leads people to believe that everyone just needs their separate space. But because of racial and cultural differences you end up with inequality and that is where the left steps in with their own explanations. The left can be as cynical as it wants and will eagerly pit one group against the other for the sake of power. Conservatives can only give talks about bootstraps and how more taxes are bad mmmmkay?

  303. Perhaps interesting …… but ultimately wrong.

    Looking form superficially humanist perspective, one could say it would have been better had that bloodshed been avoided.

    But, in my opinion, it was better that all those rusty oppressive empires were gone for ever & that modern peoples, big and small, found their identity & freedom.

    To conclude with Marx’s quote from Goethe:

    “Sollte these Qual uns quälen
    Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt,..

    [“Should this torture then torment us
    Since it brings us greater pleasure?

  304. @Reg Cæsar

    What if Franz Ferdinand Had Lived?

     
    What if Franz Ferdinand had had 94 children?


    Head of world's 'largest family' dies in India, leaving behind 39 wives and 94 children


    (And who is the "Canadian man" they refer to?)

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    (And who is the “Canadian man” they refer to?)

    Could they be referring to this Canadian dude?

    Hollywood remake.

  305. My hearsay is that Jaures had the creds to give a speech concluding with an orchestra softly coming up behind him with the Choral theme of Beethoven’s 9th, and it worked: the hall of Europe rose in applause, and the crisis found some attitude of accord. But Jaures dined at an open window of a street cafe and who knows who killed him with a shot. Now there’s a what if.

    • Replies: @Dube
    @Dube

    I read that Ode to Joy story somewhere, and I'm as certain of that as I am that the sun rose yesterday, but I've never been able to find the source again, nor confirm the tale. So taking the report on its own merits, of course it must be true. Confessing that, it needn't detain us. And yes, it's not Jaures, but Jaurès, as the French foppishly put it.

  306. Man, there’s no argument of the form “the people are deluded about x but you’re not” that they won’t fall for to soothe that massive (and well-earned) status anxiety. Perfect disinformation laundering since the people feeding them this nonsense know that they’re constitutionally incapable of looking too closely at what x actually says lest they miss out on the next hit from the ego pipe. So they keep stepping on every rake.

    The electorate wants us out of Afghanistan for about 15 reasons more pressing than “ending the war there” and claiming otherwise in public does as much to damage your own credibility as our collective clusterf*ck there has done to our country’s.

    That this clown and his hand-picked dorkwad took it upon themselves to overrule that electorate – and that no one in a position to do so was capable of or interested in stopping them – really says it all about the Top. Men. of our Unruling Class and the Top. Schools. which carefully taught them.

  307. @Anon
    OT

    Princeton anthro prof Augustin "Fabio" Fuentes materialized on Robert Wright's show on Bloggingheads a few days ago to discuss his Darwin cancellation piece in Science.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/and-then-they-came-for-darwin/

    Wright, who is fluent and well-read in Darwin, had taken specific issue with the charge of colonialism, resulting in the booking. The joust was pretty interesting. Wright scores some points, and Fuentes says that if he had more than 700 words his piece would not have come across as so anti-Darwin.

    Fuentes is obviously not a faker and is pretty smart and well read. On the other hand, he is an anthropologist, and he thinks that women's brains are the same as men's, blacks are as smart as whites, and that race is not a biological thing. He's pretty good as redefining words or adding modifiers to his statements that allow him to win by claiming he isn't saying what he appears to be saying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLlBjNte78

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @John Johnson, @Unladen Swallow

    If he really believes those things that are contradicted by reality, how smart can he actually be? He did once post on Twitter, responding to Gregory Cochran, ” I am not a moron “, implying he said something that would fall into that category.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Unladen Swallow

    Fuentes comes off much better than Cochran in recorded media, even though I tend to agree with Cochran more than Fuentes. Fuentes is attentive to what Wright is saying, doesn't interrupt, is polite, cites specific evidence, is specific in explaining his views, and is willing to concede points. Cochran on podcasts is an arrogant asshole who is not an expert in every field in science, but is unwilling to admit that.

    Fuentes is clear and detailed about why he believes what he does. For instance, regarding male/female brains his main point is that they are not sharply binary in distinction like genitals. This is true, and so what? Murray went through this in Human Diversity in detail. Fuentes says you cannot tell the sex of a brain you're holding in your hands. My view is that if you can weigh it and take three or four other measurements that would require minor dissection, you can probablistically sex it with 98 percent accuracy. But what he says is not strictly speaking wrong. And so on.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

  308. @nokangaroos
    @Ralph L

    In slightly more actual truth "Belgium" was created by Britain to ensure neither France nor Germany had control of the Schelde estuary
    (and to keep them warring forever), and the problems of that contraption are as evident as ever;
    its "neutrality" has always been a fiction.

    Replies: @Alden, @Lurker

    Very true that Belgium was created by Britain as a British port to the continent.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Alden

    It isn't.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  309. Anon[343] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Svevlad

    Of course they existed, just as Palestinians always "existed". They just didn't think of themselves as a nationality entitled to their own country. Nor did Ruthenians, Kurds, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. The idea that each stinky little nationality is entitled to its own ethnic homeland is the 3rd shittiest idea to come out of the last two centuries, after Communism and National Socialism.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright, @Anon, @Rob, @rebel yell

    So essentially you are saying that various South Slavic (Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian), West Slavic (Czech, Slovakian, Polish), Ukrainian, Romanian people have been honored to be ruled by Austrians. And if they try to achieve freedom from God given Austrian rulers we need to condemn it because they don’t know what is better for them self.

    Austrian is stinky little nationality. Why they have been entitled to rule over some other people and territories where no Austrian live ? When somebody put chains on you, you are free to use any means (including assassination of some monarch heir) to find way to your freedom.

    And if they want to rule over others they better be ready to die for it. You know, Austrian lost WW1 and Serbian won it (with paying extreme price for it). All that Austrian did during the war was enlisting others (mainly with Slavic origins) to fight for them and killing Serbian civilians and bombing cities. Where was this great & famous Austrian culture when they executed prisoners of war, mass murdered and raped civilian populations, burned and looted villages and towns ?

  310. @anonymous
    The Hapsburgs were expansionist with AH annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, an area with little in common with the rest of the empire culturally or in any other way. This brought them into conflict with Serbia which promoted Slav nationalism, a danger to the artificial AH empire. Ferdinand may be described as kind to Slavs but they were to be under his thumb and not independent. Motoring triumphantly around in an area they had just decided to take for themselves displays Ferdinand's arrogance and hubris.
    All the major players knew war was coming and had been preparing for years, upgrading their militaries and putting up large contracts for armaments. The unexpected event caught them off guard so they weren't prepared as fully as they had planned. WW I was going to happen. It was just a question of when and the match was lit prematurely.

    Replies: @Roger Sweeny

    Austria-Hungary had occupied and run Bosnia-Herzegovina for decades. The 1908 annexation just made it official. On the other hand, it pissed off a lot of Serbians, who thought the area should be part of Serbia. The place was a crazy-quilt of mostly Serbians, Croatians, and Muslims. It didn’t fit into any ethnically homogeneous country.

  311. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achilleus


    If I see an inexplicably black face in some mid-19th Century girls boarding school, I’m out. It’s off-putting and it pulls you out of the period portrayed and reminds you of the petty present.
     
    I doubt I could sit through Gone With the Wind for the same reason.

    Replies: @Alden

    I can’t stand GWTW because of the blacks.

    The 2 worst scenes are 1 about 2 minutes in the ugly black woman sticks her head out a window and starts cackling and screeching. 2 After the war Scarlett gets the sawmill going. Driving home one night several no ‘count po’ White trash men stop her horse and drag her down presumably with rape in mind. As if And then a brave black man saves her. Gag I’ve never watched the whole thing on TCM. One of the greatest shots in all of cinema photography is the camera pulls back to show all the dying and wounded soldiers in the ground after Sherman conquered Atlanta.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Alden

    I can’t stand GWTW because of the blacks.

    I can't stand the cheesy dialog and the whole thing is too damn long.

    Dumb war followed by a dumb movie.

  312. @LondonBob
    @AnotherDad

    An Royal Navy blockade of the North would have been even more effective than the North’s blockade of the South. Smashing the Union navy, “The work of a few hours”, sniffed Palmerston. In 1861 the RN had 63 ships-of-the-line (60 guns and above) to the American 0. The total count of all commissioned warships was 598 to 42. Bye-bye Anaconda plan! Pretty soon it would be the British doing an “Anaconda plan” on Union ports. The North had no ocean going ironclads unlike the RN which had several. Britain would also have acted in conjunction with France, which was more pro-South than Britain. In any scenario with British involvement, you’re also talking French involvement on the same side. This makes an already huge impact bigger: add 35 ships-of-the-line and 231 smaller ships to the totals above.

    Also blockade runners in the South could run to Bermuda etc., whereas the North would have no nearby friendly ports. Blockade runners also relied on smokeless coal from Wales.

    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.

    http://67thtigers.blogspot.com/2010/06/royal-navy-force-designated-for-america.html

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Thanks for the info London Bob. Confess i was not aware that the naval skew was still quite that severe. (But then the US–not running an empire–didn’t tend to spend heavily on military between wars.) As i noted, no doubt about the ability of the Brits to break the blockade. But then they are in a war they don’t want.

    However on this score:

    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.

    you are deeply confused. They weren’t into the Mesabi range yet–though they were mining in the UP–but the America steel industry–in the North and even the South–was well established. And easy for the North to expand–some of the best steel making coal in the world was right there in Pennsylvania. I don’t know where you get this gunpowder idea either.

    The US imported from Britain–leading technology. But the US was basically never (after initial startup) trade dependent. Our resource base is huge. And–as is the case for most successful nations–the US specifically developed under a high tariff indigenous development model. (One of the sectional frictions leading to war.) Specifically–unlike–Britain, never an issue with feeding itself.

    My take would be all this does is accelerate the US industrial development, so that it overtakes Britain–which was a couple decades off–even faster. Plus poisons relations.

    It’s an interesting counter-factual:

    The blockade is broken. I don’t think that matters much in terms of the huge skew in industrial/manpower/military resources available on the ground. But perhaps it is sufficient enough to change the politics and the War is ended, the Confederacy independent.

    Then what?

    The US still rushes ahead industrially, overtakes Britain economically in the next few decades, but is now as a hostile power.

    Ireland perhaps is able to free itself earlier with robust American support. Perhaps even India is able to peel itself free earlier.

    If the Great War comes, without American help it drags to a stalemate. Or perhaps is even an outright Central Powers victory, as without worrying about American opinion Germany can engage in unrestricted submarine warfare and starve out Britain as the British were doing to them. (The U-boats had great success for while but were stopped a couple of times due to political concerns about America.) Though perhaps realizing they would not have American food/fuel/ammunition the Brits would decide not to get involved to start with? Who knows?

    This would eliminate the whole “Hitler” thing, though the Soviet Union problem would still be there.

    This is perhaps a more “natural” history than the America ex machina history that played out. Probably a better timeline for survival of the West than our own.

    • Replies: @prosa123
    @AnotherDad

    But then the US–not running an empire–didn’t tend to spend heavily on military between wars.

    In the pre-war summer of 1939 the US Army had about 188,000 active duty soldiers. It ranked 19th in the world, just below Portugal and just ahead of Bulgaria.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  313. @Wade Hampton
    @anonymous

    Old Honest Abe and the Yankees were progressives. The South was a agricultural colony which was a tremendous source of tax revenue for the Yankees. There is no way the progressive Yankees were ever going to willingly let their exploited colonials go. Neither then nor now.

    Replies: @Gamecock

    Exactly. The War of Northern Aggression was about lighthouses.

    The fundamental flaw in the American founding was taxation. It wasn’t a problem at first, because the federal government didn’t do much, so it didn’t need much money. The federal government show was being paid for by tariffs, generally paid by Southerners.

    Got hot around 1828 with the Tariffs of Abomination, but Andrew Jackson cooled that down.

    Got hot again in the late 1850s, as Lincoln and his fellow jerks wanted the federal government to do a lot more. As the whole damn show was financed by tariffs paid by Southerners, and Lincoln et al wanted the Morrill Tariff, a TRIPLING of the tariff, Southerners thought, “You ****ers won’t even enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and you want us to pay MORE! HELL NO, WE AIN’T DOING IT!”

    The South paid for the United States. Congress, comprised of a majority Yankees and Westerners decided how to spend the money. They built twice as many lighthouses in the North, even though the South paid for all of them.

    The war was a mag 9 seismic shock on the federal government, as their source of revenue evaporated. Lincoln tried an income tax, but the Supremes declared that unconstitutional.

    Slavery and the War is teleological. The war did indeed end slavery, but that was a result, not a cause. The idea that the war was about slavery is nonsense, pushed to cover up the killing of 630,000 people, so Lincoln wouldn’t be forever known in history for the dissolution of the nation. The War was for Lincoln’s ego. And to some extent, not really measurable, the shock of no means of support. Lincoln even said the South could go, as long as they paid their taxes.

    I have said many times, if dumbass, hothead P.G.T. Beauregard had just sent some sandwiches out to Major Anderson, and thanked him for guarding our harbor, the whole damned mess could have been avoided.

    Fast-forward 80 years. Admiral Yamamoto, having spent a few years in the US, knew damn well that attacking Pearl Harbor would be exactly the same thing as Beauregard’s attacking Fort Sumter.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Gamecock

    The North wanted Southerners to buy stuff from the North, not foreign countries. There was a similar dynamic in Italy after unification in 1860.

  314. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Al Capone used to give out free turkeys on Thanksgiving too. If you steal $1000 and give people $10 as charity, is that an "accomplishment"?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Art Deco

    No, presiding over a 50% increase in total fertility, an increase in life expectancy at birth of 4 years. a 60% reduction in the homicide rate, a doubling of real income per capita, an end to wage arrearages as an important problem, an approach to full capacity in the labor market, and a reduction in dependence on fuel and mineral exports for prosperity, you have accomplishments. You can do it while avoiding foreign debt, being conservative about public sector borrowing, and bringing inflation down to tolerable levels, you have more accomplishment. He also stamped out a nagging insurgency with less bloodshed than his predecessor generated while failing to do so.

    • Agree: Paperback Writer
    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Art Deco

    I realize you're referring to Putin but let's put in a good word about Orban here -

    They won't be having Drag Queen Story Hour in Budapest schools!

  315. @nokangaroos
    @Ralph L

    In slightly more actual truth "Belgium" was created by Britain to ensure neither France nor Germany had control of the Schelde estuary
    (and to keep them warring forever), and the problems of that contraption are as evident as ever;
    its "neutrality" has always been a fiction.

    Replies: @Alden, @Lurker

    Yes. Belgium was designed to be a tripwire. Other than the estuary I assumed it was also because any French invasion of Germany or vice versa was pretty much guaranteed to be through the flat lands of Belgium.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  316. @BB753
    Serbs were tools for Western powers like Britain, France and the USA, who wanted to crush all the remaining old empires (Austria, Germany and Russia, in one fell swoop).
    War was inevitable with or without Franz Ferdinand.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Germany was a national state assembled during the period running from 1864 to 1871. It was an empire in the sense that in consisted of formerly sovereign parts, but it was not an old empire. No clue where you got the idea that the US in 1913 maintained some secret goal of crushing the Hapsburgs and Russia.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Art Deco

    OK, old-style empires, if you don't buy that the German Empire was an attempt to revive the medieval Holy Roman Empire.
    It's widely documented that both Britain and the US wanted to crush the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs.
    Historian Carroll Quigley found the evidence in the archives of the CFR and of the Rhodes Society, as published in "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Anglo-american Establishment".

    Replies: @Art Deco

  317. @Steve Sailer
    @The Alarmist

    Because I'm old, I can never keep straight Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, and Arctic Monkeys. I kind of can tell The Killers apart from them, except for "Mr. Brightside:"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdGFtwCNBE

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Boomthorkell

    Such a fun song.

  318. @Steve Sailer
    @Lockean Proviso

    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn't get as much press as they deserved.

    Replies: @Prosa123, @FPD72

    C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley both died on 11/22/1963, but they didn’t get as much press as they deserved.

    There’s a good book, Between Heaven and He’ll, by Peter Kreeft. The thesis of the book is a meeting in purgatory of these two and JFK, pending their final disposition. Each of the three figures represents a philosophical/theological position. I’ve always thought it would make a good stage play but I’m afraid if done now it would be twenty or thirty years out of date, although there is still a lot of interest in Lewis.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @FPD72

    There’s still a lot of interest in all three. Be not afraid. Kreeft’s book is heavily didactic.

  319. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Which ‘everyone else’ did you have in mind? And why are you making use of an idiosyncratic definition of ‘no choice’? The Jewish population of Europe had after 1918 reasons to emigrate as public policy and the general political climate in various locales was getting more disagreeable (in Hungary and Poland in particular). They also had reasons to stay and reasons to decamp to somewhere else than the Near East. The more compelling circumstance emerged during and after the war when Jewish community life in Europe had been wrecked. It’s really inane to attribute that to Polish or Hungarian particularism. The division of labor in Polish and Hungarian life would have generated resentment and conflict no matter where the national capital was located or who was in the legislature and the impetus from lethal violence came from a foreign power in all cases.

    And which ‘sh!tty little countries’ did you have in mind? In our own time, any country with a satisfactory quantum of human capital per person and a critical mass of labor can sustain research universities, university medical centers, full spectrum capital markets, and assemble a foreign service to staff embassies and consulates in its major trading partners. Somewhat north of 4 million people and a domestic product of $200 bn will suffice. Of the national states which emerged between 1917 and 1923 in Europe, Ireland, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia taken together meet that standard today. Yugoslavia and Greater Roumania had populations which were above the median for European states as measured in 1912.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    The Polish nationalist parties had a specific program to "Polonize" small business and get Jews to leave Poland. I suppose you are right that if they had been Martians instead of Poles they would have wanted to "Martianize" small business instead of Polonizing it, but my point is that if petty nationalism didn't exist (i.e. if the locals hadn't tried to form a specific national identity) then neither would have the friction. In the original Polish setup it didn't bother Polish peasants that Jews dominated trade - they were happy that Jews were filling this formerly unfilled niche because they didn't think in specifically nationalistic terms.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Art Deco, @Anon, @Paperback Writer

  320. @AKAHorace
    @nokangaroos

    I really liked your comment


    Reformers, especially promising reformers, are always most hated by those desiring upheaval
     
    This is true, revolutionaries often target the most humane members of the old regime, but then you go on to say

    just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers.
     
    Could you say a bit more or give a reference here ? Just because someone is shot by the opposition is not proof that they are a reformer. People who want upheaval also benefit from killing those who are well known to be cruel.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…just as they popped Heydrich because he was too popular with Czech workers…’

    I’ve heard this as well.

    Apparently, the difficulty was that while Heydrich was very undesirable as far as the classes in which a sense of Czech nationalism resided — he was totally intolerant of political activity and ruthless in repressing it, I imagine — at the same time he was introducing Nazi German-style perks for the workers.

    Lots of Czechs contentedly laboring away at Skoda — not at all what the British and Free Czechs had in mind. Hence the assassination.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    The Czechs in London were worried they would get sold down the river again like at Munich, and needed some grand gesture to assert the existence of Czech resistance. Czechs had narrowly escaped assimilation by Germans - in the 18th century Czech was a rural dialect of Bohemia and Moravia and in decline, and the Prague that Mozart visited was an almost wholly German-speaking city.
    Czechs were treated somewhat better in the Protectorate than Poles in the General Government, but contented labouring is overstating it.

  321. @Hans
    @anonymous

    Yes, but


    Jews would be influential, but they’d have to bend their knee sometimes to the ethnocentric ruling class that dominated the host nation in which they resided. They’d have to bend their knee to the national churches sometimes too.
     
    would be intolerable. After all, as the great rabbi Ovadiah Yosef explained in 2010, "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world - only to serve the People of Israel,. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created."

    Replies: @FPD72

    After all, as the great rabbi Ovadiah Yosef explained in 2010, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.

    And this comment was condemned by both the American Jewish Committee (Commentary magazine) and the ADL, although I suspect that the latter’s condemnation was more for the comment’s optics as anything else.

  322. @nebulafox
    @Patrick McNally

    That's how popular history portrays it, but the reality was different. Russia started mobilizing on July 25th, a full three days before the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. This was portrayed to the outside world as a "partial" mobilization, but it was nothing of the sort, and the Russians knew it. That's why they kept the preparatory details secret.

    >All that would have been needed to avoid war was that Serbia gave a submissive response to the Austrian ultimatum then Kaiser Wilhelm II should have withdrawn his support for the war-mongers in Austria.

    Serbia came as close as it reasonably could with the response to the ultimatum. But Belgrade was never going to concede the point of letting foreign investigators run the investigation with impunity, because they knew there were people high in the military and intelligence services with links to the kinds of groups that killed Franz Ferdinand. Said elements were already in a tense, near civil war situation with the civilians anyway due to differences over how to administer Serbia's post-Balkan war gains.

    Problem is, that's exactly the point that Vienna was going to press, because that's was the only way there would ever be justice over the assassination. The Serbian government had no effective control over its military or spy services, and everybody knew it. Ultimately, the Austrian and Serbian governments had irreconcilable goals.

    >The Kaiser’s choice of giving unconditional backing to the Austrians against Serbia was just another of his reckless moves such as when he instigated the confrontation over Morocco with France in 1905-6. A totally needless display of bravado which created risks of war.

    The unconditional blank cheque was meant for a preemptive, immediate operation against Serbia alone, not for the declaration of war to come a month later when international shock over the assassination had faded.

    Wilhelm was irresponsible in giving the blank cheque. Wilhelm should have known his ally better. And as I've made clear repeatedly: Wilhelm was not somehow morally averse to aggressive war. That doesn't mean he wanted a full scale preemptive confrontation with Russia and France, which is what the Austrian move was going to risk. The Austrian declaration of war on the 28th did come without the prior knowledge or blessing of Germany, which was entirely contrary to what the Russians told the West: and entirely contrary, to be fair, to what the Russians genuinely believed.

    I mean, for Pete's sake, Wilhelm was the last guy standing trying to propose mediation plans in the Balkans and tried to get Moltke to change decades of military plans on a whim to create a one-front great power war. The man had a lot of problems as a ruler and was an unattractive human being, to say the least, but it's just not true that he was the main agent of plunging the continent into chaos. He wasn't even the main agent of doing so within his own government. (Much the same could be said for Tsar Nicholas II, incidentally.)

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

    While I certainly agree that there’s no evidence of Wilhelm II ever having any coherent plot to start WWI, you’re sounding a but naive when saying that Franz Joseph I was all that concerned about “justice over the assassination.” Berchtold had recommended on June 14, before the assassination of Ferdinand, the “elimination of Serbia.” On July 5 Hoyos relayed to Wilhelm II the letters from Austrian officials which clearly stated the aim of wiping out Serbia. When Wilhelm II agreed to this he was explicitly acknowledging the Austrian intent to have a war no matter what the Serbs did.

    Furthermore, it was clear that no one in the Austrian government missed Ferdinand. This is what has always spurred on the speculations that Ferdinand’s assassination was a case of LIHOP by the Austrian state. In light of the fact that all Austrian conservatives were happy to be rid of the liberal Ferdinand, the correct step for Wilhelm II to have taken would have been to tell Franz Joseph I that Germany could not support an Austrian war after the Serbs had responded with such humility to Austria’s demands. The fact that the Serbs were still trying to cover tracks over the assassination was true, but redundant. None of Austria’s actions were driven by an honest desire to catch the assassins. They were motivated by aims which had been laid out in the Austrian government before the assassination had ever occurred.

    Wilhelm II may be thought of as naive over certain things, but not over this. He certainly understood that Austria had already arrived at the aim of crushing Serbia even before the assassination. His motive here was simply to humiliate Russia by making the country stand back while the small Slavic state of Serbia was crushed with German backing. No, it wasn’t part of a grand conspiracy to start a general world war. But it was exactly the type of arrogant display of power which most often triggers such wars.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Patrick McNally

    Austria had an airtight case for punishing Serbia. Austria’s military was deployed only against Serbia. Russia started general mobilization directly after a state visit by the French President and Prime Minister.
    General mobilization meant an existential threat to Germany, as was well known at the time. That step, more than any other, was the spark that lit the tinder.
    Russia was under no treaty obligation whatsoever to come to the aid of the Serbs in any case.

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

    , @nebulafox
    @Patrick McNally

    It's certainly true that Franz Ferdinand was widely disliked among the Magyar elite and Viennese court society, albeit for different reasons. Tragically, part of the reason the couple went to Sarajevo together was because they could simply be together in a way they couldn't in Vienna on their anniversary.

    (Unfortunately, it was also Saint Vitus' day, the anniversary of the blackest day in Serbian history, when the Ottoman Turks crushed the Serbs at Kosovo. The emotional significance of this in Serbian nationalism can't be understated.)

    But whether he was personally popular was completely irrelevant to the political significance of his murder. He was the heir to a monarch that was in his 80s and was clearly not going to be around for much longer. By 1914, he'd already assembled his own shadow cabinet and taken up much of the burden of government from an increasingly frail Franz Josef. And his impact was beginning to become felt. Conrad von Hotzendorf-initially an ally of Ferdinand's-had fallen out with by that point, and was looking at cashierment. Franz Ferdinand wasn't just some random, powerless royal. He was going to be emperor, and in many ways already was.

    To be explicitly clear: this does not mean that much, though by no means all (the Magyars certainly didn't) of the Austrian government didn't welcome a chance to crush Serbia in an aggressive war. Conrad certainly wanted just that, not least because of his burgeoning racial nationalism. Many people in Vienna did look at Franz Ferdinand's assassination as an excellent cover under which to crush Serbia for good. Vienna also had a very legitimate grievance against Serbia, whose government was riddled with people who sponsored and guided men like Princip and would, in the 21st Century, probably be considered a rogue state. It's not either/or.

    (One guy who did genuinely like Franz Ferdinand was, ironically, Wilhelm II. As something of an outcast in European royal family dynamics himself, he was sympathetic to the Austrian couple's long suffering: one of the few good things that can be said about Wilhelm was that he always conscipciously treated Sophie Chotek as royalty, something which Franz Ferdinand never forgot. Franz Ferdinand was one of the very few men Wilhelm could call a "friend" of sorts, and Wilhelm's emotional instability was not a secret in the capitals of Europe by that point. Hence the Austrian effort to exploit this to get the blank cheque of German support they'd need to get Magyar consent.)

    >On July 5 Hoyos relayed to Wilhelm II the letters from Austrian officials which clearly stated the aim of wiping out Serbia. When Wilhelm II agreed to this he was explicitly acknowledging the Austrian intent to have a war no matter what the Serbs did.

    Absolutely. I'm not making some kind of moral defense of Wilhelm II. As I've stated before: the Germans expected, and in many cases welcomed a preemptive war against Serbia. A lot of Wilhelm's pre-war Balkan policies revolved around courting the other small powers in the region to form a cordon sanitaire of sorts around Serbia.

    But this was meant to be done quickly, before any other power could intervene and when shock over the assassination could still be used. The Germans assumed-foolishly in contradiction of all experience-that the Austrian government was like theirs, able to carry out quick, decisive policies. It was not meant to happen a month after the assassinations, when it was much more likely to spark the kind of continent-wide conflict that the Central Powers were ill-prepared for, especially after the Russian ambassador's sudden death while visiting the Austrian ambassador.

    The funny thing was, Wilhelm was a bit of a Chicken Little figure when actual war came into the equation. His words on the 27th were this:

    '"An excellent result for a forty-eight hour [deadline]. This is more than we could have expected! But this does away with any need for war.... *I* would never order mobilization on this basis."

    This was followed by a letter to Jagow in the foreign office saying that every cause for war against Serbia was gone and that it was time to inform the Austrians of his wish to mediate for peace.

    Now, I should say before we get too rosy of a view of Wilhelm, he also suggested that the Austrians temporarily occupy Belgrade anyway, just to ensure Serb compliance with the ultimatum. Nevertheless, he seemed to regard the ultimatum as a genuine diplomatic instrument rather than a pretext for war, unlike many senior figures in Berlin and Vienna. Shockingly, though, Bethmann-Hollweg omitted this in his report to the German ambassador in Vienna, telling him to "avoid very carefully giving rise to the impression that we wish to hold the Austrians back." Why Bethmann did this has never been conclusively established, but it would fit in with the misguided sense of propiety that would lead to some of the worst diplomatic blunders in modern history in the coming days.

    Even Conrad, the living embodiment of "finis Serbiae" sentiment in Vienna, didn't want or expect war to be declared when Berchtold declared it (as opposed to earlier or later as he wished), because the Austrian military was not ready for any military campaign in mid-to-late July due to the harvest leave. If that was the situation in Vienna, it's easy to see why the declaration of war shocked other European powers, Germany as much as anybody.

    >His motive here was simply to humiliate Russia by making the country stand back while the small Slavic state of Serbia was crushed with German backing.

    In Russia, there was a strong lingering memory of the 1908-1909 Bosnian annexation, where it was perceived that the Central Powers did just that. I'm sure the memories of that did play a major role in Russian foreign policy thinking in the summer of 1914.

    But the irony is that this was based off lies: the Austrians and Germans didn't strong-arm anybody in 1908. The Russian Foreign Minister at the time happily agreed to the deal with the Austrians because he felt the Dardanelles project was a lot more important. He didn't understand how negatively the British would react to Russian demands to open the Turkish straits, and he grossly underestimated how nationalist opinion at home would feel about the Austrian annexation of Bosnia. Once he figured out, he retrospectively made himself into a dupe in order to save his reputation and career.

    And he did-fatefully. He got made ambassador to Paris...

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Fox

  323. @Jack D
    @Tex

    The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability).

    Replies: @Tex, @Colin Wright

    ‘The British did a lot of wink wink nod nod stuff to help the Confederacy such as selling them warships (but without the guns to preserve deniability)…’

    I think it has more to do with the more limited conception of government that prevailed in that era.

    Reading over some of the diplomatic exchanges, the tenor is something like ‘yes, Ramsbottom Brothers appears to be building a steam ram in their yard in Liverpool, but we can’t do anything about that. WE’RE not building it.’

    Imagine a modern government taking such a position. Of course Germany is responsible if they permit a German shipyard to build a submarine for Israel.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Colin Wright

    The era of laissez faire economics. To some extent laissez faire diplomacy also.

  324. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Art Deco, @Colin Wright

    ‘The Jews had no choice but to get into the game once everyone else had.’

    In a universe of lame arguments, that is definitely a contender.

    If you actually want me to demonstrate its precise lameness, you’re going to have to pay in advance.

  325. @Trelane
    OT:
    Rumor spreadin' 'round in that Texas town
    About that shack outside La Grange...

    https://youtu.be/X9zS-3OdODM?list=RDMGemtjVtfZM

    Replies: @theMann, @Jim Christian

    Another lousy-drummin chick attempting to copy (but never duplicating) the works of the original artist. She really should start by holding the left stick correctly, instead of her ham-fisted method shown in her lousy excuse for a ‘cover’, which produces lousy rolls and fills. How these broads are celebrated for this escapes me.

    • LOL: Trelane
  326. @Tetra
    I think the murder of the Romanovs in Russia is far more significant to world history than the ones you mentioned. In many ways we're still paying the price of the lack of justice on that horrendous act.

    Replies: @Getaclue

    The question is who was behind it all? Bolsheviks still running Wall Street/Banksters (they funded Lenin and the “Revolution” and have been funding terror worldwide ever since) — reason you hear almost nothing of the tens of millions murdered due to Lenin/Stalin? They’re still in charge of the Mainslime Media and Banking…now pushing the NWO Great Reset using CVirus Medical Martial Law

  327. @AnotherDad
    @LondonBob

    Thanks for the info London Bob. Confess i was not aware that the naval skew was still quite that severe. (But then the US--not running an empire--didn't tend to spend heavily on military between wars.) As i noted, no doubt about the ability of the Brits to break the blockade. But then they are in a war they don't want.

    However on this score:


    There are also specific issues the North would face with a blockade, gunpowder could not be produced and the North relied on iron imported from Britain.
     
    you are deeply confused. They weren't into the Mesabi range yet--though they were mining in the UP--but the America steel industry--in the North and even the South--was well established. And easy for the North to expand--some of the best steel making coal in the world was right there in Pennsylvania. I don't know where you get this gunpowder idea either.

    The US imported from Britain--leading technology. But the US was basically never (after initial startup) trade dependent. Our resource base is huge. And--as is the case for most successful nations--the US specifically developed under a high tariff indigenous development model. (One of the sectional frictions leading to war.) Specifically--unlike--Britain, never an issue with feeding itself.

    My take would be all this does is accelerate the US industrial development, so that it overtakes Britain--which was a couple decades off--even faster. Plus poisons relations.


    It's an interesting counter-factual:

    The blockade is broken. I don't think that matters much in terms of the huge skew in industrial/manpower/military resources available on the ground. But perhaps it is sufficient enough to change the politics and the War is ended, the Confederacy independent.

    Then what?

    The US still rushes ahead industrially, overtakes Britain economically in the next few decades, but is now as a hostile power.

    Ireland perhaps is able to free itself earlier with robust American support. Perhaps even India is able to peel itself free earlier.

    If the Great War comes, without American help it drags to a stalemate. Or perhaps is even an outright Central Powers victory, as without worrying about American opinion Germany can engage in unrestricted submarine warfare and starve out Britain as the British were doing to them. (The U-boats had great success for while but were stopped a couple of times due to political concerns about America.) Though perhaps realizing they would not have American food/fuel/ammunition the Brits would decide not to get involved to start with? Who knows?

    This would eliminate the whole "Hitler" thing, though the Soviet Union problem would still be there.

    This is perhaps a more "natural" history than the America ex machina history that played out. Probably a better timeline for survival of the West than our own.

    Replies: @prosa123

    But then the US–not running an empire–didn’t tend to spend heavily on military between wars.

    In the pre-war summer of 1939 the US Army had about 188,000 active duty soldiers. It ranked 19th in the world, just below Portugal and just ahead of Bulgaria.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @prosa123

    Isn't that.... amazing?

  328. @Anon
    OT

    Part of my Coronalife has been spent watching way too much YouTube, and that includes Curb Your Enthusiasm clips -- I had never seen the show when it was on in real time.

    Here's a remarkably unfunny clip that is actually awkward, not awkward in the sense that Larry David is doing something embarrassing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj7EKAGgS_s

    Larry walks into a home where eight or ten black professionals are having an erudite conversation. Larry apologizes to one for "that thing the other day," apology accepted, and then things move on ... or don't. The others want to know what the apology was for. They eventually force it out of Larry: He was at Santa Monica beach with a friend, met the friend's dermatologist, who is black, and then jokes (03:05), "You let him work on you even with the whole affirmative action thing?" Crickets. Larry stammers out more apologies and in response to a question says, yeah, he supports affirmative action, and all white people should be trampled on for a couple of hundred years.

    I found the preceding clip, and the doctor responded to the initial joke with a variation of the "I had to work twice as hard ..." black trope.

    I guess the intended message is that affirmative action doesn't let lesser qualified blacks into the medical profession; rather, the blacks are just as qualified, but the standardized measures are somehow not picking that up, and AA magically fixes that.

    Replies: @Getaclue

    What do you think the chances are Larry David ever sees a Black MD in real life?

  329. @Anon

    What if Franz Ferdinand had lived?
     
    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?

    Replies: @Hans, @Hrw-500, @Richard B

    What if Chaim Weizmann had died?

    See the first four paragraphs of Chapter 5 of The Controversy of Zion.

  330. @Whitehall
    @AnotherDad

    Keynes wrote in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" about Wilson that

    "[N]ot only was he ill-informed, but his mind was slow and unadaptable ... There can seldom have been a statesman of the first rank more incompetent than the President in the agilities of the council chamber."

    But Keynes didn't live to see Biden at the G7.

    Replies: @JMcG

    FDR at Teheran and Yalta make Biden look like John Von Neumann.

  331. An excellent analysis of the causes of World War I by James Corbett:

    https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

    Yes, even the official history books—the books written and published by the “winners”—record that the First World War started as the result of a conspiracy. After all, it was—as all freshman history students are taught—the conspiracy to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the outbreak of war.

    But this official history leaves out so much of the real story about the build up to war that it amounts to a lie. But it does get one thing right: The First World War was the result of a conspiracy.

    To understand this conspiracy we must turn not to Sarajevo and the conclave of Serbian nationalists plotting their assassination in the summer of 1914, but to a chilly drawing room in London in the winter of 1891. There, three of the most important men of the age—men whose names are but dimly remembered today—are taking the first concrete steps toward forming a secret society that they have been discussing amongst themselves for years. The group that springs from this meeting will go on to leverage the wealth and power of its members to shape the course of history and, 23 years later, will drive the world into the first truly global war.

    Their plan reads like outlandish historical fiction. They will form a secret organization dedicated to the “extension of British rule throughout the world” and “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire.” The group is to be structured along the lines of a religious brotherhood (the Jesuit order is repeatedly invoked as a model) divided into two circles: an inner circle, called “The Society of the Elect,” who are to direct the activity of the larger, outer circle, dubbed “The Association of Helpers” who are not to know of the inner circle’s existence.

    “British rule” and “inner circles” and “secret societies.” If presented with this plan today, many would say it was the work of an imaginative comic book writer. But the three men who gathered in London that winter afternoon in 1891 were no mere comic book writers; they were among the wealthiest and most influential men in British society, and they had access to the resources and the contacts to make that dream into a reality.

    Present at the meeting that day: William T. Stead, famed newspaper editor whose Pall Mall Gazette broke ground as a pioneer of tabloid journalism and whose Review of Reviews was enormously influential throughout the English-speaking world; Reginald Brett, later known as Lord Esher, an historian and politician who became friend, confidant and advisor to Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, and King George V, and who was known as one of the primary powers-behind-the-throne of his era; and Cecil Rhodes, the enormously wealthy diamond magnate whose exploits in South Africa and ambition to transform the African continent would earn him the nickname of “Colossus” by the satirists of the day.

    But Rhodes’ ambition was no laughing matter. If anyone in the world had the power and ability to form such a group at the time, it was Cecil Rhodes.

    Please read or watch on for primary source based revisionist history that helps us understand the world today.

    • Agree: Morton's toes
  332. And what if Wilson had simply kept us OUT of the conflict by NOT shipping munitions to the UK in violation of the neutrality agreement?

    The stalemate of WW1 would have left the empires intact (likely including the Ottoman and Russian), and much of the insanity of the 20th century that followed and continues today in the Middle East, likely would never have come to pass. Blame the lone gunman for sure, but blame Wilson far more for all the damage his desperate need for wartime involvement caused for hundreds of millions around the globe.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @MrLiberty

    The stalemate of WW1 would have left the empires intact (likely including the Ottoman and Russian), and much of the insanity of the 20th century that followed and continues today in the Middle East, likely would never have come to pass.

    The 'insanity' in the Near East, North Africa, and Central Asia consists of cultural conflicts and rivalries between lineages that are of local significance. Doesn't have anything to do with a European war fought a century ago.

  333. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @prosa123

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in.

    Replies: @Tex, @Paul Mendez

    It’s been said that World War I was the worst war in history to have been a soldier in

    .

    Not sure about that.

    During the Centennial of WWI, the British press ran a lot of memoirs of individual Tommies. For some, it was the best days of their life. One week in the front trench, one week in the reserve trench, two weeks behind the lines. Plenty of food and liquor and mademoiselles. Kind of like Animal House with guns. Most of the time the front was quiet. If you were unlucky, of course, your mileage might differ.

    Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, The Crimean War, and the First and Second Balkan Wars were bad to fight in. The Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay was a horrific combination of fighting, hunger, thirst and disgusting tropical diseases in one of the more inhospitable places on earth that cost each nation 2-3 percent of its population. Iran-Iraq War was a meat grinder.

    To be a Japanese soldier in WWII or a Chinese soldier in Korea or a North Vietnamese soldier in Vietnam or an Iraqi soldier in Kuwait sucked.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
    @Paul Mendez

    did North Vietnamese veterans enjoy better marriage prospects after they finally won in 1975?

    , @Colin Wright
    @Paul Mendez

    'To be a Japanese soldier in WWII or a Chinese soldier in Korea or a North Vietnamese soldier in Vietnam or an Iraqi soldier in Kuwait sucked.'

    Add a Russian soldier in the Second World War. In fact, I think that's the winner.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    , @Hereward
    @Paul Mendez

    All are excellent examples, though I think a Swedish soldier of the 30 Years War would have them all beat.

  334. @Svevlad
    @nebulafox

    Bosniaks (Muslims) didn't really exist up until 1960s. The whole damn ethnicity was basically made up from scratch by the Austrians as some D&C type thing. A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bardon Kaldian, @Daniel H

    A similar thing happened with Albanians, who barely had any collective national consciousness until the late 19th early 20th century

    The only Albanian national hero was Skanderbeg.

    • Replies: @Svevlad
    @Daniel H

    And even then, could he really have been considered truly Albanian ethnically?

  335. HA says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    @nebulafox

    His marriage to the Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria (nicknamed Sissi) was similarly not happy. It started out as a kind of fairy-tale marriage, but Sissi disliked Vienna court life. (In fairness the Vienna court of the 19th century makes the House of Windsor look like a hippie commune.) Sissi started absenting herself from the court and ended up having various affairs. She appears to have been anorexic and, although movie-star beautiful, refused to age gracefully and avoided photographers. Franz Joseph had a mistress, of course, but loved Sissi until her tragic and pointless assassination. There were three movies made about Sissi, all starring the stunning Romi Schneider, but the actors never age.

    You're right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Achilleus, @HA

    “You’re right, being Austro-Hungarian emperor did not result in a happy personal life.”

    [The] traditional ceremony for the burial of Hapsburg emperors….

    The Grand Chamberlain knocks three times with a silver cane on the door of the Capuchin convent which contains the Imperial crypt. The Capuchin porter asks:

    – “Who is there?”

    The Grand Chamberlain proclaims the name and titles of the deceased Hapsburg emperor:

    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria, of Illyria, and King of Jerusalem, Archduke of Austria, Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine , Salzburg, STIR, Carinthia, of Carniola and Bukovina, Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia, Duke of Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator of Ticino, Friuli, Ragusa and Zara, Prince of Conde-Hapsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, in Goritz and Gradisca, Prince of Trent and Brixen, Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria, Earl of Hohenembs of Feldkirch of Brigance, in Sonnenberg, Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and Marche, Great Voivode of Serbia, etc. … ”

    Upon hearing this, the porter refuses to open the door and says:

    – “I do not know you.”

    The Grand Chamberlain knocks on the door again and in answer to the porter’s question “Who is there?” gives just the name of the deceased prince:

    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, His Majesty the Emperor and the King. ”

    The porter again refuses admission:

    – “I do not know you.”

    For a third time, the Grand Chamberlain knocks on the door and the porter asks anew, “Who is there?”

    This time, the Grand Chamberlain simply says:

    – “I am Franz Josef Karl, a poor mortal and a sinner.”

    To this, the Capuchin friar responds:

    – “Come in.”

    • Thanks: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    @HA

    I witnessed this in real life, twice. First for the funeral of the Empress Zita in 1989 and then for that of her son Otto in 2011. She had been a true empress, and he a true crown prince. She was 96 when she died, he 98.
    In 1989 I stood and watched her numerous progeny and theirs as they stood some fifty strong awaiting the beginning of the procession into the cathedral. They were like a race apart: bred for rule over something like a thousand years their features, their stance, their often extraordinary height - all spoke of distinction and lofty otherness.
    I was entranced: who wants to be ruled by one's equals? Take your Wilsons, your Clemenceaus, your Clintons, and, God help us, your Bidens and follow them down the drain to perdition, and give me a man or a woman (Maria Theresa was perhaps the greatest Habsburg of them all) who is bred, under God and chosen by Him, to lead his people not towards some unobtainable and blasphemous Utopia but simply into earthly sufficiency and spiritual completeness.
    Success was neither immediate nor even assured, but the constant effort alone made for better men and a maturer society. The monuments they left prove that to anyone whose gaze has not been corrupted by horizontalist materialism.
    Franz Ferdinand did see all that (he was one of the first conservationists in Europe), and there too he found reason enough to avoid war.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  336. ES says:

    If Gavrilo Princip had missed, the house of Habsburg would have found another excuse for launching the war. They wanted to conquer the Balkans. Franz Ferdinand’s provocative carriage ride through Sarajevo was meant to further that plan. Although they had the most incompetent army in Europe, and could never take Russia on their own, they figured the Germans would have to back them once they goaded Russia into war. If Gavrilo had missed, the victors would have had to exe