patrick.net

It's all Putin's fault!!! (sarc alert for the impaired)

I was wondering why Town and Country magazine would have an article about the 1918 Russian revolution, but I guess that is the reason.

I feel devastated by the headline, too! Clickbait always hurts.

Nicholas II's Okhrana was so good at terrorizing/imprisoning people, that their methods were an inspiration to the Bolsheviks. Their torture/interrogation training manuals were adopted verbatim.

For some reason, they were too stupid to execute Stalin, Lenin and some other choice individuals who could have used some executing. Of course, the Okhrana's brutality contributed to the radicalization of guys like Stalin and Lenin (Lenin's brother was executed).

Nicholas killed thousands and thousands of people and ran the country into the ground. The Bolsheviks used to joke that the biggest hero of the revolution was the Czar, because he did so much to make it possible. When the Bolsheviks raise literacy rates dramatically where Nicholas barely budged them, it's clear that Nicholas was a bad ruler.

The nature of monarchy - your descendants inherit power - means they're fair game, same as you. Sucks for the kids, but it's the downside of being born to ultimate privilege.

I do not think that Tsar's Russia was that bloodthirsty and evil - they were more or less adequate given the time of their existence, and Russia was fairly rapidly being modernized. In revolution of 1905-1906, where whole Russia was engulfed in rebellion, only about 9000 were killed, out of those about 3000 were executed by authorities after trial, about 1000-1200 were killed by revolutionaries, and about 5000 were killed by authorities in battles or extra-judicial executions. This completely pales with killings by Soviets, where nearly 700 000 were executed in 1936-38, at a time where there was no mass unrest and the number does not include deaths in labor camps. During these years Stalin on some days sanctioned execution of 3000 people per day, and this puts 9000 killed in 3 years by Tsarists in perspective. I would take Tsars' monarchy over Stalin/Lenin socialism any day.

An interesting bit of history is that the German general Ludendorff deliberately shipped Lenin to Russia from his exile in Switzerland in a sealed train, with a few dozens conspirators, with the goal of destabilizing Russia's government and knock Russia out of WW1.
i.e. Lenin was a sort of German bacteriological weapon that by spreading his ideas in Russia would destroy the Russian will to fight.

The plan succeeded perfectly. Russia dropped out of the war, and German troops on that front were sent to the western front.

Only of course, the problem with these weapons is that you can't control the spread of the disease and limit it to your enemy. Some German troops were infected and brought ideas back in Germany. The home front in Germany collapsed before the troops in the west. There were strikes for example. Ludendorff was later a prominent proponent of the backstabbing theory, that was taken back by Hitler as well: i.e. Germany lost the war, not because of its army lost, but because they were betrayed by communists and jews.

In any case that single decision by a German general to use Lenin would have dramatic consequences, that shaped not only the entire 20th century but still have ramifications today.

This movie was pretty good

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3966942/

It's pure fiction but it reminds me of the Tsar's downfall and had the revolt not happened then it would have happened later anyway.

As for the death of the Romanovs, this was a tiny drama, in a war that all but destroyed Europe.
You can make a simple comparison:

- the US had 2000 dead on D-day.
- France had 20,000 dead on the first day of fighting in 1914

- the US had 750,000 casualties during its entire civil war.
- Europe had 750,000 casualties during the first month of a war that lasted 4 yrs.

How do you factor an entire generation slaughtered? Imagine 1,400,000 deads for a country like France of less than 40 millions: the equivalent of 10 millions dead for the US today. And the survivors telling stories of living for months in trenches half starved, half freezing, with decomposing bodies torn into pieces around them, and seeing thousands of their comrades massacred?

Russia fell to communism
The Austro-hungarian empire disappeared.
The Ottoman empire disappeared.
Germany would be led to WW2, where it was brought to its knees and divided.
France and England never recovered their previous peaks in power. England started as the wealthiest country in the world and ended up deeply in debt. The center of finance moved from England to NY.

They were Royals, and the Russian People were their ass wipes by birthright. Everybody should feel sorry for them.

Doesn't everybody get tired of the hundredth different "true" account of the RomanovFucks?

Heraclitusstudent says

An interesting bit of history is that the German general Ludendorff deliberately shipped Lenin to Russia from his exile in Switzerland in a sealed train, with a few dozens conspirators, with the goal of destabilizing Russia's government and knock Russia out of WW1.

Another interesting tidbit of history is that after revolution of 1917, Bolsheviks selectively and deliberately destroyed the Tsarist police archives. Not because of "oppressive Tsarism", but because many of Bolsheviks, including, according to rumors, Stalin, were in police documents as ohranka (Tsar police) agents. According to one old Bolshevik whom I talked to in late 1970's, Tsarist police had permeated all the Bolshevik organizations and was playing with them as cat-and-mouse.

drBu says

I do not think that Tsar's Russia was that bloodthirsty and evil

I made a comment on a YouTube history of the Revolution to the effect that was it better to be killed or slaughtered by the Bolshviks than the Tsarists and they answered that I just didn't understand history.

justme says

It's all Putin's fault!!! (sarc alert for the impaired)

Sarc or no sarc, the guy is the member of the same organization and has never denounced any of the atrocities these fucks has perpetuated over the last 99 years.

And he has his own July 17th now.

Straw Man says

Sarc or no sarc, the guy is the member of the same organization and has never denounced any of the atrocities these fucks has perpetuated over the last 99 years.

Has any US president denounced the many atrocities perpetrated by themselves or any of their predecessors? For starters, Bush II has not been contrite, and Obama has not denounced Bush II, either.

Their are plenty of atrocities to account for. Pretty much any war since WW2 qualifies, with Vietnam on top, then Iraq, and many others. Plus all the coups and coup attempts in South America + Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and ensuing murder, torture and mayhem.

justme says

sarc alert for the impaired)

patnet is "impaired" Central.
Being impaired makes it easy to spot the other impairedes

drBu says

many of Bolsheviks, including, according to rumors, Stalin, were in police documents as ohranka (Tsar police) agents

The sheer amount of duplicity among revolutionaries meant that quite a few gave info to the Okhrana, but sometimes it was a little information in exchange for a slightly lighter sentence.

It's difficult, based on his history of imprisonments and escapes, to believe that Stalin was not an Okhrana agent in some capacity, but the complete lack of evidence indicates that he might truly have been a solid Bolshevik. So many have dug for even one scrap of evidence, for so long, that if there were anything, you'd think it would have surfaced by now. And a lot of other embarrassing stuff about him has been backed up with documentation - in spite of his best efforts, he didn't completely purge the archives.

Straw Man says

Sarc or no sarc, the guy is the member of the same organization and has never denounced any of the atrocities these fucks has perpetuated over the last 99 years.

I do not think he has to apologize for things done by Soviets in distant past. However, he himself has perpetuated a lot of crimes, including bombing one republic in Russia back to stone age with massive civilian casualties, Anschluss of Crimea, poisoning of opponents etc. What I fail to understand is why libertarians of the US admire Putin so much, despite him being extremely authoritarian, which should be anathema to people who think that state should not interfere in their life.

drBu says

Anschluss of Crimea

Yep, but contextually, the vast majority of Crimeans identified as Russians, they had 3 referendums to gain autonomy or independence from the Ukraine since 1991 that were ignored by Kiev, and it was part of Russia since before the US existed. The ONLY reason Crimea was in Ukraine was because one day in 1954, Kruschev, without consulting anybody including the Politburo, simply decided to attach Crimea to Ukraine SSR. Probably because Kruschev's power base was in Ukraine, and by doing so he could offer Dachas and Vacation spots to shore up political support. Crimea is like the Myrtle or Daytona Beach of Russia.

Furthermore, the context is within a US-backed coup that saw the elected President flee due to Ukrainian Nationalist Violence, and where the US Ambassador and high-level state official Victoria Nuland were literally handing out cookies to the protesters and Ultranationalists. Imagine if Lavrov went to Ferguson and handed out cookies to Black Lives Matter.

This reminds me of the scene in Red Storm Rising where the CIA analysts are watching Soviet Television and noticing they are running more Alexander Nevsky and Brest Fortress movies and such, and write a report suggesting that the Soviets are anticipating a conflict and are gearing up Anti-Western European/Anti-German sentiment.

Here, the Oligarch Media is running as much anti-Russian stuff they can.

German-speaking Czech provinces also wanted to be annexed to Germany in 1938 - it is a very direct analogy and was carried out in a very similar way to Crimean Anschluss.

If we are starting to dig into history and think why this or that belongs to that particular country, then the question is - how much back in history do we stop. Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954, as you noted. It was transferred by a decree of Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet which might or might not have been legal, and was signed by Voroshilov, and not Khruschev. Before that, Crimean Tatars and Greeks were deported from Crimea in illegal and criminal actions, and should that also be taken into account - Crimean Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, or anti-Russian, pick whichever you want. There was transfer or territory from Estonia and Latvia to Russia in 1944 - is that illegal or not, as it was done in a similar way to Crimea transfer? Tannu-Tuva was absorbed by Russia in 1944 - should Russia shed that autonomous republic. Chechnya wanted to get away from Russia with consequences that everyone knows. Taganrog was transferred from Ukraine to Russia in 1924, probably with similar legal procedure to Crimea transfer.

With respect to oligarch media, after being forced to watch Soviet TV for the first half of my life, I am pretty immune to any propaganda - I switch TV on only for weather news.

drBu says

in 1944

hubba hubba

P N Dr Lo R says

hubba hubba

Yes, Tuva was absorbed in 1944 and Pytalovo and Pechory removed from Latvian SSR/Estonian SSR and incorporated into Russian SFR in 1944 as well.

justme says

Straw Man says

Sarc or no sarc, the guy is the member of the same organization and has never denounced any of the atrocities these fucks has perpetuated over the last 99 years.

Has any US president denounced the many atrocities perpetrated by themselves or any of their predecessors?

Whataboutism, is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world.[1][2] It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy,[3] a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.

The term describing the technique was popularized in 2008 by Edward Lucas in an article for The Economist. Lucas said that this tactic is observed in the politics of modern Russia, along with this being evidence of a resurgence of Cold War and Soviet-era mentality within Russia's leadership

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

Straw Man says

Whataboutism, is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world

Is this an example?

justme says

Has any US president denounced the many atrocities perpetrated by themselves or any of their predecessors? For starters, Bush II has not been contrite, and Obama has not denounced Bush II, either.

Their are plenty of atrocities to account for. Pretty much any war since WW2 qualifies, with Vietnam on top, then Iraq, and many others. Plus all the coups and coup attempts in South America + Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and ensuing murder, torture and mayhem.

Straw Man says

Whataboutism

There is an old Soviet joke about this, which might be funny only for people who have lived under Socialism. Voice of America asks Armenian Radio "is it true that engineers in USSR earn only 120 rubles per month?". After waiting for three days, Armenian radio responds "А у вас негров линчуют" which translates as "Negroes are lynched in your country".

drBu says

German-speaking Czech provinces also wanted to be annexed to Germany in 1938 - it is a very direct analogy and was carried out in a very similar way to Crimean Anschluss.

The difference is those provinces were part of Bohemia for centuries upon centuries, countless generations before 1938.

Crimea was Russian for centuries, but only "Ukrainian" by the fiat of one Ukrainian Soviet Leader for about 60 years, 20 of which they exhausted every democratic effort to secceed which was denied.

Also, how many people died? Almost nobody.

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Monroe Doctrine? The US would never, ever tolerate Mexico hosting Chinese military bases. By hook, crook, coup, or outright invasion, no matter how democratic it was with 90% of Mexicans saying "YES" in a referendum to Chinese troops, ships, and air bases in Mexico, the USA would never allow. So NATO will not be permitted in Ukraine. Or risk nuclear war, your choice.

drBu says

. Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954, as you noted. It was transferred by a decree of Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet which might or might not have been legal, and was signed by Voroshilov, and not Khruschev.

By Fiat of Krushchev, there was no meeting. Voroshilov was told to get it done and he did it. There is no history of Ukraine owning Crimea. That's why you never hear any arguments about it because there are none. Democracy prevailed in the end, however.

The truth is Europe is a nice place because the Allies and the USSR did massive ethnic cleansing. There were tons of Germans in Holland and Belgium, who were there as minorities long before WW2, kicked the hell out by the Allies. Many Germans in Czechoslovakia also. Poles in Belaruss and Ukraine and Lithuania, also. There's a German Right Wing politician who built her career on demanding reparations for Germans exiled from other European countries after WW2.

In fact it was at the Potsdam Conference where the Czech Government in Exile asked and received permission to expell all Germans at the conclusion of the war.

By the way, how many people know the first acts of the Polish Republic after WW1 was to invade Russia and try to invade Czechoslovakia over some border towns to recreate the Commonwealth?

Straw Man says

Whataboutism

Noticing the pot calling the kettle black is fair play. It sucks the wind out of moral preening, and the despicable Human Rights bullshit that has Saudi Arabia leading the UNHCR with our blessing, a country that punishes "Witches and Sorcerers" and prohibits women from leaving the home without being covered head to toe in a sheet and escorted by a family member, and who spreads this extremist form of Islam world wide. In Contrast, Iranian Women compete in Car Races as professionals. Iran, though it is a theocracy, is far more advanced that Allah Akbar Arabia.

After all, when we took Falluja I guarantee there were civilian casualties. Also in Hue City. The US Military got smart and stopped counting civilian deaths after Vietnam, so it couldn't be used as criticism. And in Yemeni cities the Saudis use our cluster bombs to hit populated areas. To hear the Obama Human Rights bullshit about Aleppo, which is being taken back street-by-street from the most violent, radical Wahabi-Salafi terrorists, is absurd.
I also remember the whinging when Russia was smacking down Wahabi-backed Chechen Hilltribes who were terrorizing the secular city Chechens who drank beer and were about as Muslim as most Europeans are Christian.

Or when Serbians were being terrorized by Saudi Backed Albanians and Bosnians, and Gulf State funded Islamic Terrorists (as well as Chechen and Afghan trainers whose airfare and expenses were paid by King Fahd) there beheading Serbian civilians. Not a surprise, tens of thousands of Muslims served Hitler from Bosnia and Albania.

There is no ideal or even kinda-sorta okay viable Democrat/Liberal forces in Syria. There is only the Government, extreme Wahabis, and Wahabis so extreme even other Wahabis think them Fanatical.

Hypocrisy is always worth pointing out.

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

The difference is those provinces were part of Bohemia for centuries upon centuries.

Czechoslovak republic was only 20 years old at the time of Germany annexation. Ukraine, as country owned Crimea for 22 or 59 years at the time of annexation, depending on how it is counted. Besides, what is sufficient time for "owning" a territory when it becomes yours? I fail to see the difference between Hitlers' actions in Bohemia and Putins' in Crimea. In both cases, very few people died in the process of annexation and some fairly significant segments of population welcomed the change.

About Khruschev and Crimea, I do not know how this was decided, and I suppose no one knows exactly at this time. Usually Soviets made decisions in Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, e.i. it was an oligarhic system where the collective leadership of about 25 made key decisions. I do not know why they would decide Crimea issue in other way.

drBu says

. Ukraine, as country owned Crimea for 22 or 59 years at the time of annexation, depending on how it is counted. Besides, what is sufficient time for "owning" a territory when it becomes yours? I fail to see the difference between Hitlers' actions in Bohemia and Putins' in Crimea. In both cases, very few people died in the process of annexation and some fairly significant segments of population welcomed the change.

But, a unified Germany didn't exist until the mid 1800s, and the Sudentenland was never a part of this Germany. Whereas Crimea was Russian for centuries. Ukraine SSR was a subdivision of the USSR and not a independent country. In fact Ukraine never existed, ever, in all history, it's an entirely new state. It's either been part of the Golden Horde, Poland, Austria-Hungary, or Russia at various times.

So the difference is stark.

Again, the Crimeans had multiple Referendums for greater autonomy or independence; the first one within a year or two of the fall of the Soviet Union. Each attempt was shot down by Kiev, often by changing the constitution after the fact. At some point there must be a remedy.

Should we return Texas to Mexico?

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Monroe Doctrine? The US would never, ever tolerate Mexico hosting Chinese military bases. By hook, crook, coup, or outright invasion, no matter how democratic it was with 90% of Mexicans saying "YES" in a referendum to Chinese troops, ships, and air bases in Mexico, the USA would never allow. So NATO will not be permitted in Ukraine. Or risk nuclear war, your choice.

The reason why a lot of Eastern Europeans want NATO troops in their countries is Russian activities now and in the past, so it is somewhat circular argument. Russia does not want NATO nearby but acts to create fear in neighboring countries.

Before Ukrainian crisis the support for NATO was dropping, at least outside CIS area. After Crimea/Donbass even Lukashenko in Belarus is making overtures to NATO, and he is basically the smaller twin of Putin who at one point wanted to rule Russia in addition to Belarus. So one can pick either the conspiracy theory - NATO arranged Ukrainian business to move east and get more support in E. Europe, which was waning, or alternatively Russians acted stupid and instead of buying off the new government in Kiev (they successfully did it with the previous pro-Western government of Yuschenko, and I am nearly sure they would be able to do it also with the current government), they opted to occupy parts of Ukraine.

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

But, a unified Germany didn't exist until the mid 1800s, and the Sudentenland was never a part of this Germany.

It was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Austria was anschlussed as well. Furthermore, they all were a part of Holy Roman empire, and the question about length of possession still stands. At some point, countries appear, and if they are recognized by their neighbors and the country they split from, then it does not matter how long they existed. Soviet Russia was formed in 1917, so if Ukraine is not a real country, then so is current Russia, which was formed in violent overthrow of the "legal" Tsar Russia. Ukraine was recognized by Russia in 1991.

drBu says

I do not think he has to apologize for things done by Soviets in distant past.

It's like saying that if a former head of Gestapo were sitting as Germany's President it would be perfectly OK for him to not apologize for Holocaust but instead mourn the demise of Third Reich as "the biggest tragedy of XX Century". By sheer body count, btw, ChK-NKVD-MGB-KGB-FSB has surpassed Hitler and his cronies several times over and there is a continuity between "distant past" and present. The terror which started in 1917 has never stopped.

drBu says

The reason why a lot of Eastern Europeans want NATO troops in their countries is Russian activities now and in the past, so it is somewhat circular argument. Russia does not want NATO nearby but acts to create fear in neighboring countries.

You realize that it's not a one way street: Russia was invaded regularly by the Teutonic Order and the Northern Crusades as well as by Poland, Austria-Hungary, Napoleonic France etc. right up until 1941, when Hitler invaded it. Or in 1920, when Poland invaded it in an attempt to recreate the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania. It was literally the first thing the new Polish Government did.

Western Europeans feel entitled to Russia's wealth. Come and take it!

Why not have neutral buffer states?

drBu says

Soviet Russia was formed in 1917, so if Ukraine is not a real country, then so is current Russia, which was formed in violent overthrow of the "legal" Tsar Russia. Ukraine was recognized by Russia in 1991.

That's like saying England and Wales didn't exist before Cromwell's Dictatorship. That the Tudors didn't rule England and Wales because Cromwell interrupted it, therefore it only existed starting with King James. Ukraine literally never existed, either as a Monarchy, Dictatorship, or anything. With or without breaks.

Did you know Ivan the Terrible's contemporary, King Louis of France, massacred more Protestants on St. Bart's day than Ivan executed during his entire reign?

The USSR (at least in Europe) was actually smaller than Tsar's Russia, which included a big chunk of Poland, Belarus, and huge chunk of "Frontier" or "March" which is what the word Ukraine means. (Compare the "Krajina" in Serbo-Croatian, also means Frontier)

Straw Man says

. The terror which started in 1917 has never stopped.

Oh, desperate Neocon. Why do you insist on wasting the taxpayer's money on adventures around the world?

Human Rights in Diplomacy is total bullshit. You want US taxpayers to shell out billions to compensate all the Filipino villages we burned under Blackjack Pershing?

The real danger to Europe isn't Russia, it's the 4th Reich, aka the EU, which is trying to import millions of Muslims. It may be that Russia will have to liberate Europe again, just like it did with Napoleon and Hitler.

80% of German casualties happened on the East Front.

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

But, a unified Germany didn't exist until the mid 1800s, and the Sudentenland was never a part of this Germany. Whereas Crimea was Russian for centuries.

Wilsonian principles of defending the rights of people to self-determination, might force one to approve of both Sudetenland and Crimea.

Why is Russia so opposed to becoming a part of the neo-liberal globalists universe??
They're not communists anymore. Why the opposition?
(They could take some of these Syrian refugees. )

Heraclitusstudent says

Why is Russia so opposed to becoming a part of the neo-liberal globalists universe??

They're not communists anymore. Why the opposition?

(They could take some of these Syrian refugees. )

Tee-hee!

Yet a Wahabi Country that produces terrorists, including female ones that shot up a bunch of California State Employees, has a nuclear weapon and is one coup away from a Saudi-backed fanatic taking over, not a big deal. How many Americans heard of AQ Khan? The Pakistani who gave nuclear weapons secrets to North Korea, and flew useful equipment and advisors to Pyongyang in US-provided C-130s.

Churchill in Parliament at the end of 1944 on redrawing borders to ethnicities and moving them around after the war.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1944/dec/15/poland

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Monroe Doctrine? The US would never, ever tolerate Mexico hosting Chinese military bases. By hook, crook, coup, or outright invasion, no matter how democratic it was with 90% of Mexicans saying "YES" in a referendum to Chinese troops, ships, and air bases in Mexico, the USA would never allow.

Different strokes ... the Monroe Doctrine, plus Roosevelt Corollary, firmly established that the US was the hegemonic power of the American continents.

The problem today is that too many bozos, think that NATO is some SAM's club for military alliances. It isn't.

For the most part, it's the extended Anglo-American (meaning Britain, USA, and Canada) military pact, but extended onto other western European nations, as a counterpoint to the Warsaw Pact w/ the USSR during the cold war.

Today, it should simply regress back to the usual Anglo-American alliance.

If Russia wants to dick around in Ukraine, Georgia, etc, so be it. Notice that there are no problems with Kazakhstan, as Nazarbayev and Putin appear to be in cahoots. In essence, let the former Soviets, deal with their own problems.

Straw Man says

Whataboutism,

Thunderlips already raked you over the coals over this one, but may I also point out that I was comparing atrocities to atrocities, which is very much a fair comparison.

Also, don't forget that close cousin of whatabouttism, which we might call the double-standard-ism. Holding Putin to a higher standard than US presidents would be a prime example of double-standard-ism.