No one talks about you “nose” who supremacy.

Finance, Government, Media, …

Epic troll responses, Anatoly! Though FWIW if Russians are genuinely POC then Russia should certainly be renamed Chernorossiya! 😉

White supremacists in the days of Jim Crow: “Blacks are inferior! They should be prohibited from attending white schools or having white teachers!”

Woke people in the 21st century: “Whites are inherently and incurable racist! Therefore, they should be prohibited from attending and teaching in the same schools as blacks in order for blacks to be safe from evil white microaggressions!”

What goes around, comes around! 🙁

I would like to see similar versions of that infographic made for East Asian culture and Jewish culture.

what is up with Latvians being Bolsheviks? especially in light of their current NATO membership and atlanticist bent.

That is a very 19th/early 20th century Anglo version of whiteness. Many continental Europeans would disagree with some of the assumptions. And the Anglos abandoned those ‘white values’ long ago i.e. you have more chance of seeing a southern white rhino than a thin Barbie-like Anglo woman these days.

Also, there is no Judeo-Christian tradition. There is only the Christian tradition. Again, the Judeo in Judeo-Christian reeks of old Anglo Protestantism and New Age Catholicism.

Tzvetorossiya would be more appropriate (Цветороссия).

Jean Marie Le Pen once said something along the lines of: “Europeans have eyes and hair of different color and their skin varies from white to brown with red cheeks when they blush. Therefore, compared to the other populations that are somewhat more uniform in their coloration, Europeans are really people of color. I like Europeans, so I like people of color “. Monsieur Le Pen was also an epic troll of 1488th level.

And then she deleted her account in a fit of pique.

Latvians and Chinese Bolshevik troops were just mercenaries. Like the White Czech légionnaires on the opposite side of the political and military divide. They had an important military impact for a time, but a negligeable political impact.

What is more interesting is that in the times of NEP and even in the early 30ies a non-negligeable proportion of Latvian national income was dependent on what Latvians settled in Soviet Russia sent back home. Just like the Tadjik gastarbeiters today. Also Karma is a hammer, not a feather. Latvians paid a price for their involvement in the Russian revolution, Jews did too.

“White” is defined exclusively exclusively through the directionality of systems of oppression.

One of the more interesting things about the current CRT movement (for a left wing movement) is how this is supposed to be the case.

From a popular CRT resource website:

https://educatenotindoctrinate.org/

White:

A socially created “racial” group who historically and currently receive the benefits of racism in the United States. The category includes all the different ethnic groups of European origin, regardless of differences in their histories, ethnicities, or cultures.

Given how CRT has been spreading outside the US I suppose this now applies to any society in which BIPOC are present and whites are present (whether POC whites or not).

Racism is theorised to be manifest whenever there is any group power inequality, and the existence of power inequalities or systems of oppression can be determined by reference to the lived experience of the minority group.

One thing that strikes me about CRT itself is that it is like an extended exercise in Trotskyoid trolling, just IRL and at enormous, profitable length in academia. And they are pretty much never as charismatic as J.M. Le Pen.

I know this is an unrelated topic, but why do you think Russians have historically have had low combat capability in contrast to their peers?

Poland and Russia have similar IQs, yet throughout the 16th and 17th century, the Poles smashed the Russians repeatedly despite being massively outnumbered. Most notoriously at Klushino where they smashed the Russians desapite being outnumbered 6 to 1.

The Russians took similar beatings from the Swedes who were always at a 2-1 disadvantage or more.

Granted, the Russians ultimately defeated both these empires but only after they had been weakened by other wars and when they managed to muster a huge numerical advantage over them.

They performed slightly better in Post-Peter 18th century. They won against numerical superior foes like the Turks, Mongols and Tatars but never against Western peers.

In the Crimean war they embarassingly lost to an invading Franco-British force on their own territory despite having the advantage in numbers. The Russians also held a huge advantage in numbers in ww1 yet got trounced by Germany at Tannenberg and Mausarian lakes. Being driven out of Poland by the multiethnic Austrians and a third of the German army.

I won’t bring up Soviet failures in 1941 because Stalin’s idiocy hemooraged the army. But still, it took them a momentous efffort to ultimately reach Berlin. Despite having air supremacy, a two-one advantage in men, 3-1 in tanks and 5-1 in artillery, it took the Soviets 2 years to regain all their lost territory after Stalingrad.

It took the Germans 5 months to overrun them in 1941. This was despite a third of the German army and most of its air force being tied up elsewhere.

It seems that the Russians have never won against a numerically equal Catholic or former catholic nation, ever. This holds true even against fellow slavs like Poles.

Granted the Germans and Swedes have a slight IQ advantage over Russians( 105 vs 100) but the Poles and French are equal.

Do you think the catholic churhc had a civilizing effect on the lands it ruled? Its well known that manorialism and Catholicism had a eugenic effect in western Europe, selecting for the upper classes and more neurologically liberal people. Perhaps catholic rule instilled greater group cohesivness and ability to form functional institutions?

Russia for example has vastly higher corruption compared to Poland and is pooer than Poland as well. This is despite it having vast natural resources and Poland losing a quarter of its population in WW2 and spening 4 decades under Russian domination

I know this is an unrelated topic, but why do you think Russians have historically have had low combat capability in contrast to their peers?

Poland and Russia have similar IQs, yet throughout the 16th and 17th century, the Poles smashed the Russians repeatedly despite being massively outnumbered. Most notoriously at Klushino where they smashed the Russians desapite being outnumbered 6 to 1.

The Russians took similar beatings from the Swedes who were always at a 2-1 disadvantage or more.

Granted, the Russians ultimately defeated both these empires but only after they had been weakened by other wars and when they managed to muster a huge numerical advantage over them.

They performed slightly better in Post-Peter 18th century. They won against numerical superior foes like the Turks, Mongols and Tatars but never against Western peers.

In the Crimean war they embarassingly lost to an invading Franco-British force on their own territory despite having the advantage in numbers. The Russians also held a huge advantage in numbers in ww1 yet got trounced by Germany at Tannenberg and Mausarian lakes. Being driven out of Poland by the multiethnic Austrians and a third of the German army.

I won’t bring up Soviet failures in 1941 because Stalin’s idiocy hemooraged the army. But still, it took them a momentous efffort to ultimately reach Berlin. Despite having air supremacy, a two-one advantage in men, 3-1 in tanks and 5-1 in artillery, it took the Soviets 2 years to regain all their lost territory after Stalingrad.

It took the Germans 5 months to overrun them in 1941. This was despite a third of the German army and most of its air force being tied up elsewhere.

It seems that the Russians have never won against a numerically equal Catholic or former catholic nation, ever. This holds true even against fellow slavs like Poles.

Granted the Germans and Swedes have a slight IQ advantage over Russians( 105 vs 100) but the Poles and French are equal.

Do you think the catholic churhc had a civilizing effect on the lands it ruled? Its well known that manorialism and Catholicism had a eugenic effect in western Europe, selecting for the upper classes and more neurologically liberal people. Perhaps catholic rule instilled greater group cohesivness and ability to form functional institutions?

Russia for example has vastly higher corruption compared to Poland and is pooer than Poland as well. This is despite it having vast natural resources and Poland losing a quarter of its population in WW2 and spening 4 decades under Russian domination

Latvians were mere foot soldiers. Jews were heavily overrepresented in government, to the extent that even Putin admits it.

100 Years Ago in the U.S.

• God was included in Government & Public spaces. “Right” and “Wrong” were unambiguous terms shared by all Americans.
• Schools taught Patriotism as part of the curriculum.
• Principals and teachers (before unionization) enforced discipline with corporal punishment (a.k.a. The Paddle [MORE])
• Marriage was between One Man & One Woman
• Two parent families provided discipline and stability for children.

These values brought Americans through two world wars. Clearly they work.
____

Why has American society fallen apart:

— Exclusion of God from society ended moral authority. There is no longer a shared understanding of “Right” and “Wrong”.
— Broken families and out of wedlock births deprived children of discipline & stability at home.
— Socialist/Communist union teachers abolished Patriotism from the curriculum and refused to discipline unruly children.

Anti-Christian SJW intolerance has driven the U.S. to a breaking point. George Orwell warned about the Two Minutes Hate. And now, the state is pushing CRT Hate. When did the DNC begun using 1984 as a “How to ____ Guide”?

PEACE 😇

In the Soviet Union, being higher up in the regime increased one’s risk of being persecuted. For example, of the 139 full members and candidate members elected at the 17th Party Congress, 98 people were killed in the period 1936–1940. Of these 44 (out of 71) were full members, while 55 (out of 68) were candidate members.

There were also certain ethnic groups who were heavily persecuted, such as Poles.

Russians – 657,799 under/overrepresentation 0.75:1
Ukrainians – 189,410 0.81:1
Poles – 105,485 18.50:1
Germans – 75,331 6.63:1
Belorussians – 58,702 1.32:1
Jews – 30542 1.17:1
Latvians – 21,392 15:1
Iranians – 14,994 55:1
Estonians – 11,002 8:1
Finns – 10,678 7:1

— J. Otto Pohl (@JOttoPohl1) March 25, 2021

I think you put too much trust on statistics from Wikipedia battle boxes which I’m almost sure all your numbers comes from.

This mainly comes down to the technological level. In this regard the Western world has been in the lead for the last half millennium or so. But you won’t get any wiser from looking at old battles. The results of the Opium Wars tells you nothing about a future conflict versus China.

“zero mentions of them”?

A notorious anti-Semite, Rodzaevsky published numerous articles in the party newspapers Our way and The Nation; he was also the author of the brochure “Judas’ End”[1] and the book “Contemporary Judaisation of the World or the Jewish Question in the 20th Century”.[2]

Cowardly bullies know which dog is safe to kick. Vilification of Latvians is risk free.

Catholic Poland’s failure to mobilize sufficient infantry is a damning indictment of the Polish ruling class.

In neighboring Orthodox Russia, Protestant Sweden and Protestant Prussia, the ruling class considered themselves to be of the same race as the common people, and thus had an attitude of solidarity with the common people which enabled them to mobilize large numbers of high quality infantrymen.

In Poland, on the other hand, the ruling class considered themselves to be members of a separate and antagonistic non-Slavic race, the Sarmatians. Poland’s “Sarmatian” nobility (Slavs LARPing as Turks) gave more privileges to ethnic outsiders such as Lipka Tatars and Jews than to Polish commoners.

So did Poles.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/

Dzerzhinsky and Pilsudski crossed paths.

This sounds like a Stalinist urban legend. The Baltics were vastly wealthier than the USSR.

Baltics were around the same level of relative wealth as the 1930ies Ireland, which was rather poor. OTOH Latvians living in Moscow with the connections in the NKVD and the higher levels of CPUS had a higher standard of living than both heir Latvian relatives back home and the majority of the Soviet citizens.

Latvian riflmen were indeed among the most combat ready units in the early Red Army and later Latvians were very much present in the CheKa. But I don’t think their role was decisive.

It took the Germans 5 months to overrun them in 1941. This was despite a third of the German army and most of its air force being tied up elsewhere.

Operation Barbarossa involved 4 million Axis vs 3 million frontline Soviets. West had significant numerical advantage, it wouldn’t have attacked otherwise.

Same with Napoleonic Grand Army.

Russian armies made it to Paris and a couple of times to Berlin. In WW1, Brusilov offensive wrecked Austro-Hungarian forces. Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov etc were quite capable of winning battles against Western opponents.

Polish and Swedes got wrecked by Russians too (don’t hear much these days about Polish Commonwealth and Swedish Empire).

Don’t see Russia being much inferior in wars. As for West being good, Europe was always a slaugher house, constantly at war. Nothing to do with civilizing effect of the Church – totally opposite actually. Wars of religion were massive slaughters and West got good at killing.

Practice, get better. Those who didn’t get better at killing got killed off.

I guess he meant Latvians.

I never knew about Sarmatianism. What a sad development. From a Helleno-Roman perspective, the Poles are an admirable people in the same way one admires, the Irish but there always seemed to be a tragic-comic farcical element to their history.

That fits me to a “T” except for the last “Competition” part. White people always have difficulty deciding whether to compete or cooperate with each other.

Neo-Nazis and Alt Rightoids are just obsessed with jooz.

Der Ewige Lette just doesn’t have the right ring to it.

I think that was due to success of Turks/turkics.

everyone wants to be a winner or larp as a “successful” race.

just like how people ape the West now and used to ape the Greeks in the past(yes I know now there has been like a 1000 year decline for the Greek world)

Even look at your past compatriots, its impressive how Turks have managed to completely assimilate all those Greeks and other races especially with how different actual turks look. Usually its very hard to assimilate a foreign entity with such a different haplogroup. Even now with Turks working on Azeris you see them also larping as Turks when Azeris are more Iranic than Turkish.

The first remark I’d make is that Jews are, in a sense, not that special. Any minority group excluded from political power will resent being excluded and will support outsiders, conquerors, revolutions, whatnot. It’s a human universal. The Romanian Communist Party in the 1930s had a number of ethnic Hungarian leaders (besides the usual Jews). The Hungarian communist party, in contrast, had Jewish and (to a smaller extent) ethnically German leadership. The ethnically Hungarian leaders were oddities, like Kádár, the later Hungarian general secretary, was born to a half-Slovak maid in Fiume, a largely Italian city, as a bastard child of a Hungarian soldier who he first met when he was already 48 years old and a dictator. He then grew up in great poverty (and being much smarter than most of his peers in poverty, he must’ve resented it a lot). Such people were bound to harbor resentment against the political system and society at large the same way ethnic minorities were resentful against the oppressive rule of the ethnic majority, and were likely to join utopian political movements.

Jews were only different for two reasons. One is their higher ethnocentrism and their culture already geared towards loathing the ethnic majority and its traditions. The other is their higher intelligence and organizational abilities, which make their role indispensable for those utopian movements, including wokeness.

When Lenin (25% Jewish, 0% Latvian) died, there were four leaders who eventually fought it out among themselves to replace him: Trotsky (100% Jewish, 0% Latvian), Stalin (100% Caucasian, probably all Georgian, 0% Latvian), Zinoviev (100% Jewish, 0% Latvian), and Kamenev (50% Jewish, 0% Latvian). By my count this is a group over 60% Jewish and just 0% Latvian. The proportion increases if you take wives into account.

As to the Latvian vote, it was obviously a protest vote for the only political party which promised Latvia the right of secession. If Russia was a province of the Chinese Empire, would you vote for Mao Zedong if he was the only one to promise Russian independence?

I think that while the Latvian role in the Bolshevik Revolution is a good retort to Latvian arguments about evil Russia, and it’s interesting to an extent, constantly bringing it up comes off as butthurt. Especially given how much bigger and stronger Russia is than Latvia, it really looks disproportionate.

The USSR was poorer still, and the Soviet ruble was not convertible to foreign currencies for private citizens, except on the black market, so it’s hard to believe. The NKVD officials weren’t even really high income, they just received lots of perks and privileges which couldn’t be sent abroad.

Pretty much this

There’s still a more Jewish angle to it than Latvian (Which Karlin wont discuss about because thats unsafe)

but ultimately 99% of it was all the Russians doing.(there is a reason why the rest of their neighbors considers them insane) and back before WW2 all you heard was either JudeoBolshevism or MuscoviteBolshevism.

But if If you others wont listen to a Ukrainian, how about the Poles, Balts, Finns, even Kazakhs and all others around Russia? Maybe there is a reason?

But its not enough that those Russian creatures wrecked their own country, in their imperial fashion they brought their henchmen and themselves to Ukraine and destroyed the Ukrainian People’s Republic

You know, also before wokeness, I thought national masochism was a russian only trait, but apparently Americans arent immune to it either.

True. Whether it be the Jews in America, Szlachta in Poland or Normans in England, its fatal for a society to have a ruling class drawn from a different race than the population.

Most Russians hated Bolshevism. Ethnic Russians were massively underrepresented in the ruling elite. The Soviet union is best understood as a collective oppression of the Russian people by the minorities of the Russian empire.

Most prominently Jews, who were financed by Jewish bankers abroad, like Max Warburg and Jacob Schiff. In the early soviet union, there was a death penalty for saying the word Yid, the world’s first hate speech laws.

The revolution even succeeded in the first place because failures in ww1 had weakened the Tsar’s standings and decades of failures finally came to a boiling point.

But perhaps the most decisive factor that led to Bolshevik victory was land reform. They gave away the nobility and state’s estates to the peasants, thus winning their support.

In every country in which they came into power, they won it through this means: land reform. Mao won over the Chinese peasantry, Ho Chi Minh won over the Vietnamese peasantry and so on.

Ironically, communism failed to gain ground in industrial societies as Marx had predicted and instead succeeded in agrarian/feudal societies.

Russians only started hating Bolshevism after it started turning the screws on them even though it was explicit about it right away. I dont know how one would call a creature that would vote for such a system but hey oh well. They were the only ones cretinous enough to fall for it in the first place(when literally no one else around them did and guess what other nations and people that russia occupied were also agrarian societies as well).

Nothing will absolve russians of their “original” Bolshevism sin.

(1) Speaking of that political horseshoe, if CRT and WN agree at the edges — whites (in the main) value what both the Left and the Right acknowledge as “white traits” — intelligence, focus, logic, dispassion, self-reliance, punctuality; then that leaves the middle, “classical Liberalism”, clinging to the never wholly accepted (not even by the most liberal of Episcopalian Hillary-Clinton whites) belief that “we’re all the same, can’t we all just get along?!”

(With thanks to that drowned druggie and black classical liberal philosopher, Rodney King.)

(2) And let’s not forget that, by inescapable dictum of logic, if lefty CRT acknowledges and disseminates in poster form “white traits of logic, perserverance, self-reliance, punctuality” et cetera, then lefty CRT implicitly and inescapably acknowledges …

… brown traits of “irrationality, fickleness, dependence on and parasitically living off of others, inability to gauge time” et cetera.

Weirdly enough, it’s been popularly acknowledged for decades if not centuries — way before CRT was synthesized — that blacks are … “lazy, shiftless, shuffling, welfare-cheats, observe their own Negro time-zone” et cetera.

Clearly CRT has caught up with WN in elucidating these truths.

So now where’s the poster to be hung in every classroom listing BLACK/BROWN traits?

(See also the new article on British explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton, right here on UNZ.)

They were the only ones cretinous enough to fall for it in the first place(when literally no one else around them did

Hungarians (though that was also not a democratically elected government), Munich Bavarians, even Vienna Austrians (the Austrian Social Democrats were not communist, but they were perhaps the closest to it), even many Italians (the Italian socialists, like the Austrian social democrats, were pretty radical, hell bent on abolishing private property etc.), and then after WW2 the Czechs. The latter voted it into the strongest political party in 1945.

And you didn’t answer the Latvian vote. Sure you can explain it, but so can you Russian support for this.

In the UK, descendants of Normans are more likely to align with (and even mate with) the rich of other countries – Euros, Jews, Arabs, Americans etc – than ever mingle with the UK lower orders. In fact, I don’t know of even one instance of the latter.

In 1917 an election was held and the Bolsheviks only won 20% of the vote

Well I always thought the Hungarian commie government was forced on them with that Bela Kun guy?

The Czechs idk maybe they never got to experience communism thats why they voted for it? Remember in since the 30s the USSR had “tours” where they would literally let foreigners tour into certain parts of the country and give them gifts to promote socialism abroad. So maybe the Czechs toured the rich part of the USSR?

And you answered the Latvian vote yourself. They were promised freedom and power by the Bolsheviks.

Yes I know that ….but even 20% is excessive.

Well I always thought the Hungarian commie government was forced on them with that Bela Kun guy?

One guy can never force himself on a whole country. The leftist government and interim president Károlyi resigned on March 20, 1919 after the ultimatum of the Entente powers requiring to give up a quarter of what remained of the country at that point. Károlyi asked the social democrats to form a new government alone. But they felt too weak to start a war against the Entente (in practice the Romanians and the Czechs), and so they asked Kun and his communists. Kun didn’t have overwhelming support, but he was relatively strong in the capital (which is why he was feared as he had the ability to cause trouble in the capital). The two parties together enjoyed support, but it was far from overwhelming, not even in the capital. Anyway Kun managed to merge the two parties, dominate the united party, and introduce a dictatorship.

Kun’s government fell apart a few months later when he tried to trade territory for international recognition. (He ended up with neither…)

And you answered the Latvian vote yourself. They were promised freedom and power by the Bolsheviks.

Russians were promised lots of things, too.

Cowardly bullies know which dog is safe to kick. Vilification of Latvians is risk free.

Totally agree with this comment, AK isn’t man enough to talk about the real threat. The personal cost would be devastating.

The Russians took similar beatings from the Swedes who were always at a 2-1 disadvantage or more.

Till battle of Poltava, Sweden had the best and most disciplined army in all of Europe, again and again numerically superior German and Polish foes got beaten by Sweden in the 17th century, it could be said that they were the Sparta or Prussia of the 17th century.

I don’t know much about battles between Poles and Russians in the 17th century, but Poles had access to excellent German mercenary troops, and PLC had about as big population as Russia had in those times, but with one big difference, Poland was much more densely populated, and her climate was milder, therefore it’s not strange if PLC was economically more developed and agriculturally more bountiful land than Russia.

Are you this Caspar von Everec?

[MORE]

Based on the structure of your arguments I assume you are.

Latvians paid a price for their involvement in the Russian revolution

And Russia paid a price for conquering Latvia in the first place. Even the jewish population of Russia was acquired through the russian conquest of most of the polish-lithuanian commonwealth. Diversity and hatred are the price of empire. Latvians had no duty of loyalty to their occupier, especially given how much Russia favored the baltic german elites which were lording over latvians since the medieval baltic crusades.

Poland’s “Sarmatian” nobility (Slavs LARPing as Turks)

I have long thought that it was a form of larping, but oddly the Polish nobility of Eastern borderlands or the Kresy, often had very Turkic or Altaic looking symbols in their coat of arms, or their arms often resemble Altaic Tamgas. Tamgas were like coat of arms of nomadic peoples of the steppes. So it’s possible that some Polish noble houses had distant and remote nomadic origins.

Russia wasn’t doing well against Germany during 1914-16, but then again, neither was anyone in military terms. It was however gaining on both A-H and Turkey.

If Russia were at war versus a strictly A-H and Ottoman alliance, it would have had a crushing victory against those two Great Powers.

Truly a great man, even had a black friend and mentor!

[MORE]

Military historians often debate between Suvorov and Napoleon as to who was the superior commander. I think this settles it.

Few dare name the Latvian.

The consequences are severe.

Till battle of Poltava, Sweden had the best and most disciplined army in all of Europe

Swedes were outnumbered about 2.5 to 1 at Poltava.

Polish foes got beaten by Sweden in the 17th century

Their early 17th century war ended in a draw:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_War_(1600%E2%80%931611)

Although PLC had about ten times the population of Sweden, efficient Swedish conscription meant that the militaries were of approximately equal size.

I’ve had the unfortunate experience of meeting Poles in Dalian — who are doubtless of common folk stock. I do not blame their nobles for finding them repellent. Importing Jews and giving them rights however is 1000x times worse.

This is not correct. I suggest you read about NEP, Torgsin and British Soviet Trade Agreement of 1921. In general, the early Soviet international trade is a fascinating topic You might start by reading about the activities of Leonid Krasin and unwind the threads from there.

High levels of Bolshevik party were very well integrated into the global economy of that time and had access to everything any wealthy bourgeois in London, Paris or New York might have had access to. Cynically speaking, at the time it was way more profitable to be politically well connected in Moscow than in Baltic States which were an economic backwater. Latvian Bolsheviks working in Soviet Russia were extremely well connected and profited economically from their networks of influence.

Some of them were of Tatar descent.

You realize that the Civil War in Russia was a very violent and bloody affair that made millions of victims?

If Russians were so enthusiastic about Bolshevism, then who was doing the fighting against the Red Army?

BTW, no need to answer these two rhetorical questions. I do not waste my time discussing with obvious trolls and what you wrote was too idiotic to be anything else than a very crude form of trolling.

Sarmatians were Iranians, idiot. The Slavs do have ancestry from the Sarmatian people and there are even minor Iranian influences in the Slavic languages. The Sarmatians also directly descended from the same ancestors (Baltic Corded Ware) as Slavs.

I thought it was the conspiracy of the Koreans in Russia which led to the October revolution?

You can argue that England and France were doing OK to well in the West, considering what happened in 1871, and and how Germany’s economy was arguably more efficient and had a more solid industrial base than UK and France in 1914, its society was also more militarized than the UK. And arguably militarizing the German civilian economy was easier than doing the same for the British and French economy.

Szlachta weren’t from a different race than their peasants for the most part, they just pretended to be. (or rather, thought they were). Russian nobility was far more foreign relative to those they ruled than were the Polish szlachta.

Which would put you at a greater risk of being cancelled in Russia, or the West for that matter, criticizing Latvians or Jews? You still do not want to end up like Kevin MacDonald or Giraldi? I mean criticizing Jews or Zionism carries more reputational risk than bloviating about transhumanism, malthusian whatever, or about scheming Baltics? Maybe someone should check up on what those Yakuts are doing in Siberia prior to 1917?

Who made up an overwhelming bulk of the conscripts of the Red Army in the Russian civil war? Probably Russians and other Slavs as well?

I mean compare Baltic Germans to Jews, they also made as much contributions, while causing only a fraction of the political problems in Russia that Jews did. I mean the Russian Empire would rather have Baltic Germans as an elite rather than Jews, maybe all things considering.

What are the list of things that would get you cancelled in Russia? As an aside, what percentage of Sweden’s male fighting age population was mobilized at any one time in the year 1700? in the 80s the Swedish had plans to mobilize 10 percent of its population in wartime.

Here is a Prager graphic that is an effective counter.

PEACE 😇

Sarmatians were Iranians

You are correct, but in the 16th to early 17th century it was widely and erroneously believed that Sarmatians had been a Turkic people. At the time, the Ottoman Empire was probably the most powerful state in Europe and the Polish Sarmatians, by claiming to be a type of Turks themselves, placed themselves on the same level as the mighty Ottomans and above other peoples. Moreover, the Sarmatians felt that their Christianity made them “good” Turks in comparison to the unredeemed Ottoman Turks.

Sarmatism was taken for granted by other peoples in the PLC. Cossacks claimed to be Turkic Khazars (thus, as fellow Turks, equal to the Szlachta).

Versus Japs
Russo-Japanese War— more of a draw on land. Both got exhausted and wanted to settle. Baltic Fleet did get waxed by Heihachiro at Tsushima Strait but Japs had home field advantage.

Nomonhan Incident— outclassed cream de la cream of IJA. (The same Jap tactical planner, Masanobu Tsuji, planned Tomoyuki Yamashita’s capture of Singapore, what Churchill called worst disaster in British military history)

Soviet strength was, however, composite, depending on the combined arms mass and not the single unit.

While a Japanese squad might charge headlong into a Soviet infantry platoon with a good chance for success, the same squad would be shot to pieces if they tried to rush Soviet tanks.

Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat,· 1939
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a322749.pdf

If I understand correctly, Nomonhan was first crack by Zhukov at what should be considered the most successful doctrine in WWII, more so than Blitzkrieg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
Managing combined arms ops on a massive scale at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk. And managing maskirovka on a continental sized theatre at Bagration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception#Operation_Bagration,_1944

Manchurian Operation— Soviet build up to a similar size as Kursk. Textbook execution on 3 pincers against an IJA that had plenty of teeth left per casualty ratios at Okinawa.

Yes, how could you tell?

Disagree on all three for tradwives.

The Swedes were something else, something weird. Well, Swedes are weird anyway, but Swedish weirdness hit a glorious peak in the 17th century, when the Swedish “zombie” troops marched across Germany and the Baltics.

Not the Swedes, though. They just scowled their way forward,

http://exiledonline.com/wn-33-the-battle-of-breitenfeld/

The Russian victory over Japan in 1945 was a masterful operation. Three pincers acting over a territory as large as Western Europe. Japan’s Kuwatung army was stripped of good divisions a well, and the Japanese army always lacked good tanks, motorization and automatic weapons. Their artillery was ww1-tier.

The Russians did win at Khalkin Gol at 1945 but despite heavy numerical and air superiority, they still lost more troops

Awesome battle

1) Many European countries did. France was defeated in the field when in entered the 30 years war and even Paris was threatened by Spanish forces.

The British defeated the French at Blenheim, wiped them out in North America and many other places.

The Prussians humiliated them at Rosbach, so much so that Napoleon talked about Rossbach being avenged 50 years later.

France was no Germany during this time. It had the largest army and was well trained, but it was hardly invincible, regularly losing to other European powers, sometimes even despite outnumbering enemies.

I think you are conflating France from 1793-1815 with that of the Ancien regime.

2) Poland was sandwiched and depopulated by Sweden and Russia in the Deluge, and the Ukrainian rebellion. Yet, she defeated and expelled the Swedes, expelled some German states, expelled tatars and finally defeated the Russians despite being exhausted and outnumbered 2-1.

The Russians generally lost pitched battles when they fought against Poles. Granted they ultimately came out on top over Sweden and Poland but both were fighting wars on every fronts and exhausted by them. Plus the Russian 2-1 or 3-1 advantage over them.

3) Somewhat true, but the British and French fought almost comparably. Inflicting roughly equal casualties at Somme, Verdun and Ypres.

4) Poland can hardly be considered at this time due to their lack of a tank or air force. But I don’t hold bad Russian performance against Germany in 1941-42. The Red army had been crippled by the purges and commissars stiffled any initiative on the part of officers. Stalin’s direct blunders played a great part as well.

However, Russia did perform significantly worse that the western allies in 1943-45 when they did have air superiority and huge material and numerical superiority.

What made you think I was talking about you?

Did I name anyone here?

Had WW I started in 1916, Russia would’ve done much better against Germany. Following the troubles of 1905, Russia was making great strides without Lenin

Germany would have certainly done much better against Germany in 1916, but probably wouldn’t have been able to win until 1930 or so.

And I just noted that saying bad things about Jews , Israel, or Zionism will put you in a lot more trouble than saying bad things about Latvians, especially for the latter two after 2001, which is not at all incorrect. I mean I remember when demanding that Israel go back the the 1967 border was somewhat in the mainstream among liberals before 2001. I mean I still remember people with such views getting lots of airtime on CNN during the late 90s.

If it is thought of as advice, doesn’t point number one make it a tautology? The issue is not that poor people are not choosing full-time jobs, but it is that all that is open to them is part-time jobs.

I also dislike points two and three.

Point two makes it seem like we should ensure that everyone graduates high school. (some years ago, the founder of Wendy’s attained his GED at about age 62, and people were applauding him – seemed silly to me) Anyway, it is obvious that education does not make people smarter. And I think a lot people don’t benefit by going past the 8th grade. I would even extend this to smart people, where if it were possible for them to have a job that used their brains and gave them experience, that might be better.

As regards point three, I think most people should not marry that young, but that does not mean that it would be bad for society in every case. Ideally, one would want people of high intelligence and the right personality traits to get married as soon as possible, so that they could have as many children as possible, to help make for a better demographic situation.

However, Russia did perform significantly worse that the western allies in 1943-45 when they did have air superiority and huge material and numerical superiority.

First problem with this statement is that Allies were only facing a Wehrmacht Corp, i.e. Afrika Korps, plus the Italians, up until Normandy. Soviets were dealing with 3 Army Groups.

The Russians did win at Khalkin Gol at 1945 but despite heavy numerical and air superiority, they still lost more troops

That’s not the point. The point is that even when Panzergruppe Guderian and Hoth were closing in on Kremlin, Japan thought was more risky to make a move on Russia Far East than to attack US/UK/Dutch simultaneously.

Fader vår som som är i himmelen helgat varde ditt namn
Tillkomme ditt rike ske din vilja
Såsom i himmelen så ock uppå jorden ge oss bröd ock idag
Och förlåt oss våran skuld

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/kremlins-not-falling/#comment-4429955

Are young people in part-time jobs because that is all there is?
Or, because they lack the personal capacity to handle a full time job?

In non-US locations with a commitment vocational education, swapping to an apprentice track leads to an improvement in outcome. In the U.S. if you do not have a HS Diploma or GED, your resume/application is likely to be screened out. While it is possible to succeed, missing the credential is an obstacle.

Your commentary on overall species genetics may be true. Also, the existence of exceptional cases exist is unsurprising. However, at the individual level — Statistics show that individuals who have children young, especially unwed mothers under 18, have worse outcomes.

PEACE 😇

I won’t bring up Soviet failures in 1941 because Stalin’s idiocy hemooraged the army.

Someone isn’t familiar with how the Germans crushed or put to headlong flight fully mobilized & alerted Western allied armies numbering ~3.5m in six weeks in 1940. Germans lost 27k killed doing that.

The 1.7m Soviet troops in the immediate border zone killed 83k German troops, plus thousands more of German minor allies, in the first 7 weeks of Op. Barbarossa.

AFAIK, parts of the Russian nobility have roots in the Germanic vikings of the Rus that settled Russia. But that was all the way back in 9th century, its likely that they simply melded into the Russian identity over time.

That said, the Russian nobility did have many Baltic Germans in their ranks.

As for the Szlachta, weren’t the Sarmatians an Iranic/Aryan tribe of the steppes? Genetically they should’ve been pretty close to the Polish peasantry.

True, the French got outfoxed by the Germans. But the Soviets had much more territory to fall back on. Plus, they had 20,000 tanks, 50,000 guns and mortars and a total standing military of 5.3 million. Granted 2.6 million were initial in the West, but more streamed in, and these units were saved from the initial shock.

Russian formations were badly managed that they ran out of fuel and ammo on their own territory. The Soviet air force lost 2000 aircraft in one day. The Soviets kept suffering catastrophic defeats after defeats even after the Germans had overextended their supply lines deep into soviet territory and were tired from months of combat.

At Kiev, they lost 700,000 troops, an entire army group. At Vyazma, in front of Moscow, they lost 665,000 troops, mostly captured. The Soviets lost 5 million men in the first 6 months of the war.

3,300,000 captured, 1,000,000 dead and 3 million wounded(I’ll assume only a third of these were irredeemable losses). In contrast, the entire German force invading Russia was only 3,3 million to begin with.

True. The Japanese army was qualitatively superior to the Soviets and perhaps even the Americans. They were very well led and incredibly fanatical and professional. But they lacked heavy equipment. No Japanese tank or artillery could put a dent in the T-34s and their ww1-era guns stood no chance before 105 mm soviet guns

Credentialism is the bane of civilization – why SK’s TFR is currently sitting at about 1.1.

Any proof of this? Perhaps in 1941 to 1H 1942, but definitely not thereafter, they were only good in defense and digging tunnels and bunkers, basically that was it. But then anyone with more than a basic knowledge of military tactics would with it any to seriously mess up defence, but of course being a clairvoyant and knowing everything that the enemy will do is not possible.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/09/who-was-the-tougher-world-war-ii-enemy-the-germans-or-the-japanese/

I mean anyone who has a decent knowledge of military tactics would find it hard to seriously mess up a defence, attacking is a lot harder.

The Japanese at Guadalcanal seem to not know what the term outflanking maneuver means.

Imagine how ossified and odd you would be if you were solely defined by all of that.

But then imagine how completely f*cking deranged you would be if you defined yourself against it!

What a joke.

What are you taking about? Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of military strategy would choose to attack. You may need a higher force ratio, but, because you have the initiative, you can concentrate your force at the enemy’s weak points. You have betrayed your complete ignorance lol

They don’t understand it in the way of Russia having a parasite, instead (they think) it gives them an in on the (holo)scam. By attaching themselves to the supposed victim they themselves can become one. It’s almost like they can’t learn – after it backfired on Poland and Russia now being subjected to the daily 10 minutes of hate.

I mean anyone who has a decent knowledge of military tactics would find it hard to seriously mess up a defence

Is this really true?

MacArthur’s father was an army captain. Douglas was valedictorian of a military institute, and graduated first in his class at Westpoint, having the 3rd highest score ever, at that time.

And there are many more instances like that.

I once (only; I swear) negatively commented on the re-print of your article on now defunct Russia Insider.

I hope that’s OK.

On the other hand, Soviet defensive troop density per km of front on 22 June ‘41 was a fraction of what the Anglo-French enjoyed in May ‘40, so in ‘41 the Germans could pick & mass on weak points with ease.

What all these tales of woe miss is that the Red Army inflicted casualties the likes of which exceeded the experience of the Germans in the entire war to that point. Casualties that exceeded the German capacity to replace them. Then there’s how the Red Army kept invalidating the assumptions at the foundations of Op. Barbarossa. The Germans expected a merry 12-16 week jaunt to the A-A line, with 4-6 weeks of messy business destroying all battleworthy elements of the Red Army (180 divisions, they figured) before they could withdraw beyond the Dnepr, followed by collapse of Soviet resistance, & exploitation to the A-A line.

What they got was something entirely different, including a butcher’s bill that would see the infantry companies of AG Center reduced to a strength of 50-60 by November ‘41.

Credentialism is the bane of civilization

Credentialism is a symptom of larger problems.

That being said, the best move for individuals in today’s society is obtaining a basic credential. Unemployed, starving, 18-20 year olds are not in a position to look at the larger issues of a civilization in distress.

PEACE 😇

MacArthur and Percival had raw troops, vs. veteran Japs, MacArthur did quite well in Bataan later on, , where the terrain favored him, and the retreat from Lingayen and Lamon Bay, past Manila, to Bataan, was generally well carried out. As for Singapore, Percival choosing the Northeast quadrant as the likely and logical place of attack and the main axis of expected advance was quite reasonable, since it had the most favorable terrain for an attacking force, and an advance there would carry an attacking force straight into Singapore. And the British C and C system was not that good all throughout the campaign. Plus Percival did not have enough men to cover all possible axes of advance, since a large part of his forces in Singapore were rear area troops. And the British lost control of the air by that time.

A lot of this is really down to a commander’s gut feel rather than logic or intelligence, and for all that the French did well at Gembloux where they were expecting the main German effort. If the French had just gotten a little bit sooner at Bulson ridge then they could have taken the German bridgehead at the rear in Sedan.

I don’t see anyone starving, do you?

OK maybe people should look at the Egyptian’s role in European history.

First mistake by French was giving Germans strategic initiative.

Mansteinplan was high risk high reward. The execution of Guderian, Rommel, et al was even riskier as after Ardennes breakthrough, their spearhead could have easily been cut off.

Better lucky than good. The French also had internal dissension between right wing and commies.

But Germans luck ran out in Russia first by delaying Barbarossa to bail out the Italians in Balkans. Then running into autumn mud season, then Stalins best generals January and February without winter gear.

In second part of Ostfront, Soviet generals really stepped up their game. It was not a foregone conclusion that Wehrmacht would get totally rolled back. After 3rd Battle of Kharkov they never again made the mistake of over-extending.

K/D faggotry not even once

Vilification of Latvians is hilarious

Neo-Nazis and Alt Rightoids are just obsessed with jooz

Since about 2002 this term has been used exclusively by neocons & Boomer American conservatards. I thought commenter A123 would be the only one to ever use it at this blog.

Weygand instead of Gamelin taking charge would have helped much. Or having the category A units west of Sedan be better positioned, for have the French DCR arrive at Bulson a few minutes earlier.

… Ske din vilja, såsom i himmelen så ock på jorden
Vårt dagliga bröd giv oss idag
Och förlåt oss våra skulder
Såsom ock vi förlåta dem oss skyldiga äro.
Och inled oss icke i frestelse, utan fräls oss ifrån ondo.
Ty riket är ditt, och makten, och härligheten, i evighet.
Amen.

(The modern version is lame, btw.)

“Neo-Nazis and Alt Rightoids”

just wondering if you are aware of your own horseshoe with CRT…

It is a theory of mine that these horrific losses were caused by the jewish commissars that were willing to throw the unarmed (and untrained) muzhiks against the Germans even (or maybe especially) in hopeless situations when a tactical retreat may have been better. They were always good at sacrificing – to the last of the goyim; and still at it today.

The other side of the coin may have been the lack of motivation on the side of the muzhiks (why fight for the parasite, right?). This would be very similar to what’s happening today in the “Western” armies. Unz just republished Striker’s article on the very subject.

Too bad that Russia pounced on this as a chance to establish its own founding myth of victimhood. It is a bundle of lies that will have to be untangled first. You can’t be a moral authority with a background like that.

Germany would have certainly done much better against Germany in 1916, but probably wouldn’t have been able to win until 1930 or so.

Maybe-maybe not.

Russia had sheer numbers in population and natural resources, including horsepower. A major Russian military mistake in 1914 had to do with its early strike into Germany. This was done to save Paris.

It has been reasonably deduced that Stalin’s initial reluctance to militarily confront Germany was on account of what happened in 1914.

WW I starting in 1916 would’ve been more beneficial to Russia than Germany. Such an occurrence wouldn’t have led to as much destruction for Russia, thus decreasing the likelihood of the Bolshevik takeover.

On the eve of WW I, Russia was seen as a major power on the rise for even greater prowess.

I once (only; I swear) negatively commented on the re-print of your article on now defunct Russia Insider.

It’s not defunct. Decreased status yes.

When the Japs were landing, they came under fire from one machine gun, until it jammed. Their landing was practically unopposed, even though it was fairly predictable where they would try to land.

MacArthur allowed the planes at Clarke Air Base to be clustered together, against the threat of sabotage.

MacArthur did quite well in Bataan later on

He didn’t lay in the supplies, even though he had ample opportunity and was advised to do so.

where the terrain favored him

Bataan was kind of malarial. I’m not sure that it made sense to bring in as many troops as he did, especially when he didn’t lay in supplies.

Fighting it out in Bataan is better than a Stalingrad in Manila with the same result.

And General Marshall did promise to reinforce Bataan to MacArthur.

The modern version is lame

The Germanization of heavy metal Christianity.

I agree that Russia was improving, but in 1914 it was not only two years way from being able to defeat Germany.

Very well said.

AFAIK, parts of the Russian nobility have roots in the Germanic vikings of the Rus that settled Russia.

Rurik was a Norseman, many of his entourage were Wends.

According to Russian historian Vernadsky, a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century revealed: 229 of Western European (including German) origin, 223 of Polish and Lithuanian origin (this number included Ruthenian nobility), 156 of Tatar and other Oriental origins, 168 families belonged to the House of Rurik and 42 were of unspecified “Russian” origin.

Source: Vernadsky, George. (1970). The Mongols and Russia. A History of Russia, Vol. III. New Haven: Yale University Press

To this can be added a bunch of Baltic German noble families after the Baltics were annexed in the 18th century.

These people were all pretty much Russified, and some of the alleged Western European origins may have been apocryphal. But still, the Russian nobility were largely non-Russian by descent, but who thought of themselves as Russians.

In contrast, the Polish nobility really were mostly Poles by descent, but they pretended they weren’t, they pretended to be Sarmatians.

The Russian Revolution swept away the elites who were of largely ancient Lithuanian, Norse, German, Tatar origin and replaced them with a new but also largely non-Russian elite – of Caucasian, Jewish, Latvian origins. This new batch of non-Slavs ruling over the Russians was a lot worse than the previous one.

How about having a market dominant minority that is also interested in participating in politics in not a very good thing? I mean the Chinese in South East Asia, traditionally concentrate only on making money, but stay out of politics, because they think it is a very dirty business they do not want to engage in, plus they do not want to draw more attention to themselves by being prominent in politics, instead they just try to befriend friendly politicians, instead of taking sides in political questions. And politicians in South East Asia, like Suharto and Hun Sen, tends to be friendly to anyone who is willing to support them with funds. And overseas Chinese tend to be not deficient in verbal IQ if the competition are native South East Asians.

It was, but it was still only 20% in Russia voting for the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks won about 10% of the vote in Ukraine. Bolsheviks violently seized Russia and then used Russia as their vehicle to take over Ukraine also. Russians (and non-Galician Ukrainians) can at worst be blamed for being too passive in the face of the Bolshevik takeover because not enough of them fought against the Bolsheviks, particularly in the beginning. Of course they couldn’t have known the horrors that waited for them. As with the people on the hijacked planes on 9-11, who had they known of their fate would probably have desperately overpowered the terrorists.

There’s a modern version? Just changed words, or changed meanings?

I agree that Russia was improving, but in 1914 it was not only two years way from being able to defeat Germany.

Two years away from not having a situation develop into a Bolshe seizure. Germany lost WW I with a 1914 start. A 1916 start wouldn’t have helped it anymore, while being beneficial to Russia, thereby leading to the conclusion of a victorious Russia.

Yes Bolsheviks won there. Thats the whole point.

Why are you going so easily on them? Seriously, they brought those demons here. Lenin whips them into a frenzy and they go off to invade places they arent invited to.

I think years spent on this forum has made you soft on the Russians, You are forgiving roughly 10 mil(oh nooo all the gorillions) Ukrainians slain by these Russians and their various lackeys between 1917 and 1947. And yes im pinning ww2 casualties by Germans on Ukr soil on the Russians too because USSR jointly started the war.

what kind of cuckery is this? They trashed this country possibly permanently and you’re like “oh no russki they dindu nuffin they be good bois”

kikes dont let one..ONE victim go unpunished and instead seek to avenge them

Ill be honest with you you’re a bigger traitor than those Russians… I mean I can understand them..they will never change…the Russian creature will remain a parasite on a Ukrainian land..but you? Snap out of it man.

Why are you going so easily on them? Seriously, they brought those demons here. Lenin whips them into a frenzy and they go off to invade places they arent invited to.

I think years spent on this forum has made you soft on the Russians, You are forgiving roughly 10 mil(oh nooo all the gorillions) Ukrainians slain by these Russians and their various lackeys between 1917 and 1947. And yes im pinning ww2 casualties by Germans on Ukr soil on the Russians too because USSR jointly started the war.

what kind of cuckery is this? They trashed this country possibly permanently and you’re like “oh no russki they dindu nuffin they be good bois”

kikes dont let one..ONE victim go unpunished and instead seek to avenge them

Ill be honest with you you’re a bigger traitor than those Russians… I mean I can understand them..they will never change…the Russian creature will remain a parasite on a Ukrainian land..but you? Snap out of it man.

LOL my comments got shadowbanned

Karlin cant handle it so he had to cancel my ability to post

oh nooo Russians dindu nuffin they definitely didnt fight in the Red Army in the millions to support Bolshevism

Ironically, communism failed to gain ground in industrial societies as Marx had predicted and instead succeeded in agrarian/feudal societies.

It appears that communism is most popular in “post-industrial” societies. Its fusion with technocracy and urbanity has brought it back from the dead in the West.

These two factors explain in large part why far-right nationalists have largely failed in winning power after the populist triumphs in 2016.

The Irish Home Rule bill in 1914 nearly caused a civil war in the UK, which was punted away by the entry into the Great War.

Assuming the war happens later, the UK is unable to enter while dealing with the struggle in Ireland.

The Germans had also secretly concluded that they could not win the naval arms race, and increased the army budget instead, but did not publicly acknowledge the slowdown in naval construction.

Perhaps the MP18 emerges earlier in the alt-war.

Most of the political parties in Ukraine during the revolutionary war period were socialist in orientation. Because the Bolsheviks were one of the many socialist parties, perhaps they didn’t attract as much aversion as they should have by the masses? As you point out ” they couldn’t have known the horrors that waited for them”.

On the eve of WW I, Russia was seen as a major power on the rise for even greater prowess.

Defeat by Japan? 1st revolution? Jews with power in the western press, endlessly moaning about the Pogroms? No control of Africa, or the gulf meaning the west could compete with Russia in ownership of natural resources – but different to Russia they could keep the millions of people living on those lands impoverished and not get effected by it because these lands are separate from their lands .

In Russian Empire every part, every citizen was treated as important/relatively equal -placing Russia ( in global power terms) at a severe disadvantage because it’s a population at the time 3 times bigger than France, Japan or UK, bigger than US, Germany.

Can you imagine if UK had to subsidise and fund Nigeria and help develop the native into equals, like Russia did Gruzia or Azerbaijan ?( well, OK , Anglo’s were important in Azerbaijan, but that is a separate issue)…….UK would have killed itself as a power.

On eve of WW1, Russia was of course a great power, as at any time in the last 400 years – but “on the rise for even greater prowess” is highly debatable.If it had the gift of having the geographic location of the US in 1914 – then maybe.

Yes Bolsheviks won there. Thats the whole point.

I place blame on will, not who won. Only about 1/5 of the Russian people supported the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks had to kill a lot of Russians to seize power.

Why are you going so easily on them? Seriously, they brought those demons here. Lenin whips them into a frenzy and they go off to invade places they arent invited to.

Lenin whipped into a frenzy a minority of Russians.

You are forgiving roughly 10 mil(oh nooo all the gorillions) Ukrainians slain by these Russians and their various lackeys between 1917 and 1947.

I don’t forgive anyone responsible for the ones murdered. Nor do I blame those not responsible.

The Russians can be blamed for passivity. So can non-Galician Ukrainians. All of my Galician relatives of fighting age fought within the UGA after World War I (except for one, who fought for Petliura). None of my central Ukrainian relatives did. My great-grandfather from central Ukraine deserted from the Tsarist army when it disintegrated, came home and watched over his family and homestead. In the 1930s he was dragged our of his home by Communists and shot in a mass grave. It’s the story millions of Ukrainians and Russians. In 1917-1921 only about 250,000 or so of the 25 million Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought in military formations (Petliura, Makhno, Hryhoriv, etc.). In contrast, 2.5 million Galician Ukrainians produced 100,000 soldiers. Little Estonia produced 86,000 soldiers. If Ukrainians from formerly Russian-ruled Ukraine had behaved like Galicians, they would have had about 1 million troops. Bolsheviks maybe would not have taken Ukraine in that case and millions of lives would have been spared. BTW, the total strength of the Polish army that defeated the Bolsheviks was about 1 million.

Passivity in the face of the Bolsheviks was bad, but it is not the same as support for Bolsheviks. It was stupidity/ignorance and perhaps cowardice, not evil.

I was speaking of Russian vs German power. Russia probably would have been able to defeat Germany by 1930, given the trajectory in population and industrial growth and military/transportation improvements. Certainly not in 1916.

You are mentioning other factors. As someone else posted, in 1916 Britain might not have entered the war. And just as Russia was catching up to Germany, so Germany was pulling further ahead of France. Without Britain, Germany likely would have swiftly dispatched France and then turned all of its focus onto Russia. Russia would not have defeated Germany in 1916 in such a contest.

Of course, in terms of world war outcomes and other countries, who knows what would have happened in 1930. Spooked by a powerful and growing Russian juggernaut which would inevitably threaten its interests in Asia, Britain might have shifted to a German alliance in order to maintain a balance of power.

It’s probably just a technical problem.

I tolerate intelligent trolling, and I tolerate funny trolling, but not both.

This reads like you don’t tolerate trolling that is both intelligence and funny. Don’t you mean trolling that is neither funny nor intelligent?

I was speaking of Russian vs German power. Russia probably would have been able to defeat Germany by 1930, given the trajectory in population and industrial growth and military/transportation improvements. Certainly not in 1916.

In 1q16, horse power was of greater worth. Napoleon lost in part because of the difficulty in conquering a vast land. As you know, Napoleon had numerous non-French forces as well. In terms of overall quality, Germany had the best forces in WW II. It still lost on account of trying to bite off more than they could chew. Some similarities with WW I.

BTW, the WW I Western Entente didn’t in overall terms face the Habsburg, German and Ottoman forces in the same way as Russia. The US wasn’t in at the start. Westerncentric and sovok slants have downplayed the Russian role in WW I.

Of course, in terms of world war outcomes and other countries, who knows what would have happened in 1930. Spooked by a powerful and growing Russian juggernaut which would inevitably threaten its interests in Asia, Britain might have shifted to a German alliance in order to maintain a balance of power.

Agree seeing how the Brits behaved in 1905 and in 1938.

You are mentioning other factors. As someone else posted, in 1916 Britain might not have entered the war. And just as Russia was catching up to Germany, so Germany was pulling further ahead of France. Without Britain, Germany likely would have swiftly dispatched France and then turned all of its focus onto Russia. Russia would not have defeated Germany in 1916 in such a contest.

Reminded of the saying never say if in history. Nonetheless, it’s still interesting to hypothesize. In 1916, Britain might’ve carried on in the same way.

yes im in US I never denied it

look at my older posts i was quite honest that i do live in the US and plan to repatriate in the future,

but im no amerimutt(not that there’s anything wrong with that i guess…) even if i was dipped into headfirst into degeneracy i have still retained my ethnicity

most ukrainans cant really speak English (which i guess protects ..for now)

in an ironic twist of fate my russian is better than my ukrainian ( thats what happens when kremenchug has russian everywhere, i can speak flawless russian but ukrainian not so much)

it was funny seeing how riled up Karlin wass…and yes i had that where “your post is awaiting moderation” like when you first join here.. ohh the truth hurts i know

что ты топишь за них и прощаешь?

русские всегда всегда предадут и убют

из за таких как ты которые всегда прощают эти орки и и сумели захватить донбасс

да ничет так убили 9-10 лямов …ну это бывает в других странах ну ничего зато школу вот украинскую русские построили

чтоб к тебе в дом врвались эти орки котроым ты прощаешь и посадлили твойх родичей по подвалам

Whether the red riflemen played a decisive role is hard to tell, “decisive” is a high bar. But they may have played a critical role in some instances such as when Denikin was approaching Moscow in 1919. But they were not alone, there were redguards, red Cossacks. Don’t forget the wild Navy guys running around (matrosi).

Latvians fought on both sides in the Civil War. There were more on the red side (mercenaries but also a few ideological ones who had been persecuted after the revolution of 1905) but higher quality guys (officers) fought with the Whites.

One of Latvia’s national heroes, Colonel Fridrih Briedis, an amazing leader and a light hearted and pure human being, decorated with the Order of St George & Order of Vladimir, fought in Prussia & Latvia and later joined an anti-bolshevik org in Russia. He was taken to Butyrki and executed by Latvian chekists. This is how it happens in empires and in civil wars.

“Colonel Briedis, you keep on living even after your death. And next to the ancient heroes you now stand.”

Nope, just tried posting twice again and still shadowbanned

thats that part where you how you know you riled up the blog owner

if anyone doesnt believe me

AK: Looks like the anti-spam (which I don’t control) was activated. Smart bot. But I’ll let the circus perform.

The main reasons for why the Baltic provinces voted for the socialist: confiscation of German owned manors (not pretty), distribution of land, 8 hour work day, end the savage war (men and boys were literally being poisoned with gas).

Despite the Russification policies that started in the late 19th century in the Baltics (and Finland) and despite the ongoing nation building, there was no ambition for independence yet but for autonomy. The slogan back then was “For a free Latvia within a free Russia” (whatever that means, lol). Later when the right leaning parties saw what Bolshevism means they moved towards independence. The Baltic people built their states based on values that were opposite to Bolshevik. The Independence war was fought against the Bolsheviks in 1918-1920, as they returned and had to be pushed out.

Btw… the Tsar had a long time Latvian servant who was murdered together with the royal family in the Ipatiev house. He was a tall, blonde guy who got noticed by one of Tsar’s female relatives when he served in the imperial guard. He could have left and fled like so many others did in the royal circles. The royals were saying to their servants “You’re free to go” but he didn’t abandon his duty.

Given the number of martyrs in the Ipatiev house… how’s that for overrepresented?

You are implying the Americans are „qualitatively superior“ to Soviets. How exactly? Elite unit vs elite, average vs average?

The casualty ratios at Battle of Bulge/Italian Front/Operation Bagration are comparable. There was a world of difference between Red Army of 1941 vs 44 who had learned lessons from Barbarossa, Winter War, Polish-Soviet War etc.

You know Ukraine started like that too

we had four Universals ( official proclamation or legal acts in Poland/Ukr)

the First and up to Third Universal it was all about autonomy within Russia but with our own rights. Like for
a “free Ukraine within Russia”

and then finally the Fourth Universal issued in Jan 9 1918 was to break away from Russia and have our own state. Unfortunately that freedom only lasted up until 1921 as the Bolsheviks had reinvaded multiple time and eventually and won

at least you guys managed to escape the USSR of 20th and 30s and avoid the parts where hell itself opened beneath people’s feet.

FFS, with this spamming garbage.

No point wasting much time other than to repeat:

Later when the right leaning parties saw what Bolshevism means they moved towards independence

……and made themselves irrelevant as Latvia, as the other Baltics, became dictatorships by the 1930’s- effectively dissolving all institutions – that then created the perfect legal basis to say that Latvia asked to join the USSR.

It is interesting that Soviets surrendered in droves to the Germans until the US entered the war. After that no more mass surrenders. Most Russians loathed the Stalin regime n did not want to defend it. But once the US entered Russians saw that Stalin could not lose n began fighting to the death, with the commissars back in control threatening the families of any who gave up. A flood of Ford trucks n American boots helped.

Or perhaps simply because no oil to be had in Siberia. OTOH, the Soviet spy Sorge had influence in Tokyo n certainly pushed for attacking anyone but Russia. Funny how it all worked out for Stalin in the long run with the US, Britain, n even Japan making moves that benefited no one but him.

This was a symptom of a larger disease, like the Maginot line or the failure to push their invasion of Germany in September 1939. As Petain said France was defeated not by the Germans but by the “rot of Marxism.” Russia experienced it. Now the US too has this to look forward to.

btw that 20th should say 20s like 1920s…if admin can edit that and delete this post…

I think that sandwiched between you and Mr, Svidomyatheart, AP has presented a pretty credible and objective story. You rarely are able to present anything nearly as balanced, mostly crazy nonsense. It’s really a shame, because honestly, I do see some intelligence there somewhere? Why cover it up with all of your vitriolic nonsense? 🙁

Ukraine started like that, too

Yes, our nations have a lot in common, some of the historic parallels are uncannily similar. Our history is not simple, but Ukraine’s is even more complex.
And, yes, it would’ve been great to have had a similar free republic in Ukraine as we had.

avoid the parts where hell itself opened beneath people’s feet

The suffering and sacrifices of your people have been otherworldly. I have often thought of how Latvians were doing well in the 1930s, enjoying the fruits of their labor, while your people were going through the horrors of Holodomor. It’s hard to imagine anything more excruciating than seeing one’s child suffer and wither away day by day..

I want to be honest & open with you. Latvians were present in Ukraine during the Civil War. Some fought for Ukraine’s freedom. But others led the suppression of anti-Bolshevik uprisings. Their actions, no matter the motivation, were vile and offensive.

One episode of that time that I often think about is the Battle of Kruty. I’m sure you know, there are many documentaries about it. Young cadets from a school where they were taught in Ukrainian for the first time tried to repel a Bolshevik attack. This attack was led by three men, two Russian and one Latvian. The young cadets were outnumbered but they kept standing and kept fighting. I wish somebody had made sure that this Latvian officer had not been there.

You cannot underestimate two things that motivated Hokushin-ron,
Japan’s fear of Bolshevist takeover— the whole China war escalation was mainly to prevent mainland E. Asia from turning into Soviet client. (Eventually China turned commie but not Soviet client)

The geopolitical importance of Manchuria and the means that Japs were willing to go to defend. In the last days of the war before Soviet entry, they always thought they can hold out on the home islands and Manchuria. As so it happens, 3 years after, Manchuria would be staging ground for CCP commies in their decisive Liaoshen Campaign.

Also Germans walked over them by not giving heads up for Molotov-Ribbentrop and Barbarossa. That discouraged further cooperation. They remember Bismarck’s pro-Russian attitude that helped secure flank for Russian eastward expansion, eventually leading to Russo-Japanese War.

Changed words, mainly, though I think the meaning has drifted somewhat. And then there is the lameness.

Vår Fader, du som är i himlen.
Låt ditt namn bli helgat.
Låt ditt rike komma.
Låt din vilja ske, på jorden så som i himlen.
Ge oss idag det bröd vi behöver.
Och förlåt oss våra skulder,
liksom vi har förlåtit dem som står i skuld till oss.
Och utsätt oss inte för prövning,
utan rädda oss från det onda.
Ditt är riket,
din är makten och äran,
i evighet.
Amen.

Trotsky led the way.

Facing military defeats in mid-1918, Trotsky introduced increasingly severe penalties for desertion, insubordination, and retreat. He organized the formation of the infamous “blocking units”, special squads stationed behind the front-line troops, whose role it was to summarily gun down all soldiers suspected of desertion and unauthorized retreat.[12] As he later wrote in his autobiography [13]:

An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements — the animals that we call men — will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear.

These reprisals included the death penalty for deserters and “traitors”, as well as using former officers’ families as hostages against possible defections[14]:

[…] commissars are obligated to keep track of [former] officers’ families and appoint them to positions of responsibility when it is possible the seize their families in case of treason.

[…]I ordered you to establish the family status of former officers among command personnel and to inform each of them by signed receipt that treachery or treason will cause the arrest of their families and that, therefore, they are each taking upon themselves responsibility for their families. That order is still in force. Since then there have been a number of cases of treason by former officers, yet not in a single case, as far as I know, has the family of the traitor been arrested, as the registration of former officers has evidently not been carried out at all. Such a negligent approach to so important a matter is totally impermissible.[15]

Trotsky also threatened to execute unit commanders and commissars whose units either deserted or retreated without permission. (Trotsky later argued that these threats were either taken out of context or were used to scare his subordinates into action and were not necessarily meant to be carried out.) Since Red Army commissars were often prominent Bolsheviks, it sometimes led to clashes between them and Trotsky.

Though he and Trotsky were later to become mortal enemies, Stalin was influenced by Trotsky’s use of disciplinary measures, and expanded the use of blocking units well into World War II.[16]

Apparently it was difficult to make the tailless apes fight for the cause.

https://archive.is/q7scA

русские всегда всегда предадут и убют

Чувак, не мы такие, жизнь такая. А жизнь такая потому что мир такой. Я в натуре говорю, бывают ситуации и похуже Донбасса.

В общем всё будет хорошо дружок.

Главное верить в любовь…

🙂

Of course your people were not the epitome of pure evil. Those were tough times for everyone involved. May they all rest in peace and forgive each other.

The Russians can be blamed for passivity. So can non-Galician Ukrainians. All of my Galician relatives of fighting age fought within the UGA after World War I (except for one, who fought for Petliura). None of my central Ukrainian relatives did. My great-grandfather from central Ukraine deserted from the Tsarist army when it disintegrated, came home and watched over his family and homestead. In the 1930s he was dragged our of his home by Communists and shot in a mass grave. It’s the story millions of Ukrainians and Russians. In 1917-1921 only about 250,000 or so of the 25 million Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fought in military formations (Petliura, Makhno, Hryhoriv, etc.). In contrast, 2.5 million Galician Ukrainians produced 100,000 soldiers. Little Estonia produced 86,000 soldiers. If Ukrainians from formerly Russian-ruled Ukraine had behaved like Galicians, they would have had about 1 million troops. Bolsheviks maybe would not have taken Ukraine in that case and millions of lives would have been spared. BTW, the total strength of the Polish army that defeated the Bolsheviks was about 1 million.

Passivity in the face of the Bolsheviks was bad, but it is not the same as support for Bolsheviks. It was stupidity/ignorance and perhaps cowardice, not evil.

Perhaps more like 60,000-75,000 active regular fighters among the Gaaican Ukrainians, whose army came under the command of the Whites after getting word of Petliura agreeing that all of Galicia should go to Poland. Petliura did this on account of his limited support in Ukraine.

Following the Russian Civil War, many Petliura supporters ended up in Polish ruled Galicia. Conversely, many Galician Ukrainian Army personnel ended up staying in the newly created USSR. These facets partly explain how pro-Russian sentiment in Galicia declined.

Hrushevsky and Vinnichenko went to the Soviet side. Vinnichenko later recanted. Out of curiosity, do you give him a pass? Hrushevsky died in the mid-1920s. Svidos say he was having second thoughts.

It appears that communism is most popular in “post-industrial” societies. Its fusion with technocracy and urbanity has brought it back from the dead in the West.

In what “post-industrial” societies is actual communism popular today? Are we seeing people taking to the street demanding the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are we seeing people taking to the street demanding the nationalisation of the banks? Are we seeing people taking to the street demanding the confiscation of the wealth of billionaires? Or demonstrating in favour of the collectivisation of agriculture? Are we seeing demonstrations in favour of land reform?

So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements — the animals that we call men

You have to love uncle Leyba’s realism. Of course this realism did not save him in the end.

Yes, very tough & chaotic. Thank you for your kindness.

And thank you for standing up for our ancestral faith on another thread – you did it very intelligently, gracefully but ardently at the same time.

Yeah they’d cordon off villages and not let you leave them but you are well aware of that.

And I am glad you guys are doing better and better and that Bolshevism didnt reach you until the 40s and wasnt able to do as much permanent damage as here. The Eastern parts here are probably permanently “corrupted”.

They didnt just target Ukraine itself they targeted Kuban too which was full of ethnic Ukrainians, but not anymore though they are forever lost, the Ukrainians there have all but been destroyed in the famines of 20s and 30s,others assimilated, id say half of Ukraine has been physically and culturally destroyed. In less than 90 years Russia has consumed all of them, assimilated into that disgusting writhing mass, to put it in American term they’re “Russian whites” now basically

And, unfortunately, we wont know whenever it was done to target for modernity or to root out Ukrainian nationalism or to make the area a clear slate for the Soviet man unless Russia opens up its archives(which it wont)

In only a few short decades Russians with their Lenin and Stalin destroyed the original 1000 years of culture and latifunda agriculture in Ukraine, . Kind of like Mao also did with his Red Guards as well.
So..take notes anyone, this can happen very swiftly, culture is a very delicate matter especially when its facing something as destructive as a Leninist state, and it was Russians with their grubby hands who have inflicted more damage to Slavdom and Eastern Slavdom in particular more than anyone else in the 20th century.

Funny story about OUN and Ukrainian nationalism, so you had these OUN emissaries infiltrate East Ukraine and other areas that were more affected by Bolshevism and attempt to recruit the Eastern Ukrainians into their ranks..They couldn’t. As in literally. Just one simple decade of Stalinism had completely mindfucked the people there.

if I recall you were the only person Ive known so far that was interested in figures like Yurii Lypa, that guy was quite the radical, kind of like a lot of Finno Ugric nationalist figures ive been reading about on twitter who called for complete removal of Russians from their lands. Yuri Lupa also called for complete removal of Russians from Ukraine. I know Latvians arent Finno Ugric but ill just lump Latvia Estonia and Lithuania because I unfortunately dont know much about Latvia

And funny, since I posted that rantpost and since I actually follow Karlin and went to check twitter ..lo and behold there it was in my feed… and at least one Russian called for my execution..nothing changes for these NKVD/Cheka progeny uhh its like

>Invades your country killing roughly a million in the process by 1922
Hhhey we’re brothers right?
>Confiscates all your stuff and cordons you off where you cant leave at all
Dude we are friends its OK look I just built some schools and installed telephone poles for you (lol)
>Settles in a shitton of minorities consisting of various mystery meat, NKVD spawn, colonists and others, etc
WE chill rite?
>Kills most of your intelligentsia and forcefully deports others to settle and colonize frozen wasteland places like Kazakhstan and Siberia
U Ok bro u seem upset why dont u like me?
>Starts WW2 uses you as fodder
Are you ok m8 we good?
>Starts another famine relatively small tho but to quite literally feed former Axis nations occupied by USSR who just a few years ago were burning people alive and skinning them and all that in Nazi Germany occupied territories(because all these new commie countries must be propped up somehow winning hearts and minds and all that)
Wwwhats wrong m8?
>Massive poverty and not that high a living standard or many opportunities when young but finally the nightmare is over for everyone and we all part our separate ways

>Starts another war, annexes part of your country, loots everything that isnt nailed down and calls you a “fascist”
And then the usual..brother are you ok?

Can someone tell me how to do others coexist with these people???

One of Latvia’s national heroes, Colonel Fridrih Briedis, an amazing leader and a light hearted and pure human being, decorated with the Order of St George & Order of Vladimir, fought in Prussia & Latvia and later joined an anti-bolshevik org in Russia.

btw, “briedis” is the naming of the moose in Lithuanian language. Do the Latvians name moose the same way too?

Living in irrelevant dictatorship surely beats starving to death in relevant dictatorship though 😉

Svidomyatheart,

Yes, they used to literally come into houses and open cupboards, drawers, take everything.

Indeed, the Ukrainian space used to be larger than now, Kuban’, plus Slobodanschina was more Ukrainian. It’s a lesson, unfortunately. It’s kind of like when they deported the most productive Baltic people in their prime and then complained that there’s not enough labor so that they have to send in people from the east.

Yes, I’m interested in Yurii Lipa, his persona and how he was affected by the times. There’s not much material available. I’d have to order his books. I read his Black Sea doctrine online. Combined with the spiritual inheritance of Knyaz Svyatoslav it’s about moving the geopolitical vector towards Ukraine, centering there and creating a North to South axis. It’s hypothetical of course as the whole area is now covered by Russian missile trajectories. I want to find his poems.. Of course, his work is not some incredible height of intellectualism but it’s interesting from the POV of that time and how Ukraine’s place was perceived. Have you read his books? It was horrific what happened to him.

No worries at all about lumping the Baltics together, we’re very similar. Are you one of those Ukrainians who looks down on Finno Ugrics? Lol, just joking. 🙂 Estonians are actually closer to Latvians than Finns, it’s just the language is Finnic.

The “brother are you ok” just shows their aloofness. It’s a sign of a great, expansive nation. They view space differently. How to live with that? Either separate or ignore and be friends. But Ukraine doesn’t have those luxurious options right now. 🙁 the only option is to try to grow stronger. But at least re-Ukrainiazation is happening at least to some extent.

It means elk, stag. 🙂

Living in irrelevant dictatorship surely beats starving to death in relevant dictatorship though

How was Soviet Union a “dictatorship” ? Complete nonsense. It produced the most independently minded, courageous men and women in history. With all the activities it gave to kids in social, cultural and sporting/adventure – to have a childhood in Soviet Union was a million times superior to anywhere else on the planet.

Compare this to the dead, lazy plankton in the US, under a pseudo-2party system being manipulated into what to think all the time ( outside of US gun laws and principle of second amendment, which I admire). Look at their very recent history to Catholics,Blacks and Japanese…but their total inbreeding and ineptitude against the mafia for 50 years

Anyway, what makes you think Lithuanians would have starved in the second half of the 1920’s or 1930’s?

Russia – just as France, India, China,UK, Ireland, Sweden and nearly everywhere in the world has suffered severe famines during the centuries you dummy. After the war, you may have noticed no “starving to death”

As far as I can see the only country or lands to escape this historically have been the Germanic lands.

Soviet Union was the genesis of much of the concept of “Human rights” anyway..

The truth is ( which Karlin is too foolish or too blind to see) is that there is no such thing as anti-Sovietism outside of some good Tsarists.it’s just anti-Russianism from all these loser countries jealous of Russia overpowering them and being a civilisational success along time before the USSR existed.

Alot of the anti-Soviet BS is just Soros propaganda – as evidenced by the World Series, Coca-cola, William Randolph Hearst production called the ‘Golodmor” – quite literally promoted by Banderite excrement and western Ukrainians who have absolutely no connection to that event.

It is interesting that Soviets surrendered in droves to the Germans until the US entered the war. After that no more mass surrenders.

That’s because the offensive power of the German Army had been wrecked in ’41, by the horrific infantry casualties the Red Army had inflicted.

In his war diary entry for 19 July 1941, Colonel-General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff, noted a captured Soviet order to make attacks splitting German armor from German infantry. That wasn’t working at that point, but as German infantry casualties mounted, the ability of the infantry to seal off cauldrons created by the Panzers declined to nothing.

Of the 3.3 million German troops committed to Barbarossa, only about a million were infantry. The German Army was a modern army. It generated and precisely controlled prodigious combat power. Its radio nets were dense, allowing the small unit leaders of that million infantrymen to direct powerful supporting fires. This was because Germany had had a globe-leading Wireless industry for a couple generations. The Russians/Soviets, not so much.

But as casualties mounted, the German ability to take ground diminished. So when Halder notes on 30 August ’41 that his troops had suffered 390k mostly infantry casualties, that’s only 11% of the force, but it might be 25-30% of the infantry. And it only got worse from there.

So when Halder was surveying the state of his forces in the East in early May ’42, he can see he’s short 625k riflemen. The infantry divisions of AG South aren’t too badly off, but AG Center is down to about 15% infantry strength, and AG North is down to about 35%. This is why the Germans only did 1 big offensive in ’42, because the available infantry replacements could bring only AG South to a state fit for renewed offensive operations.

The rest of the German infantry branch was wrecked.

So the German infantry branch limped on for the rest of the war, a sad, tattered shadow of what it had been on 22 June 1941. And that’s what the US & British armies met and still had a lot of trouble with.

He’s kind of like the second bookend to Gerard here and helps to balance things out, kind of. 🙂

Parts of his story need to be told…

Perhaps more like 60,000-75,000 active regular fighters among the Gaaican Ukrainians, whose army came under the command of the Whites after getting word of Petliura agreeing that all of Galicia should go to Poland

It mobilised 100,000 men, at one time it had a strength of 70,000-75,000.

The shattered remnants, suffering from typhus (perhaps 10,000, I could be wrong) under their commander Tarnavsky accepted Denikin’s command which provided them with much-needed medicine from the Entente.

Following the Russian Civil War, many Petliura supporters ended up in Polish ruled Galicia

No. They moved to Volhynia where they had a patron in the Polish governor Jozewski:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_J%C3%B3zewski

Jozewski was an ethnic Pole born in Kiev and had been in Petliura’s government. When he governed Volhynia he attempted to foster a pro-Polish Petliurist nationalist project, a counterpoint to anti-Polish Galicia. It backfired. Banderists from Galicia infiltrated Volhynia and here they struggled with the Petliurists.

When Warsaw got a more anti-Ukrainian government, Jozewski and the Petliurists were replaced by a brutal persecutory anti-Ukrainian administration. The Volhynians, who thanks in part to Jozewski and Petliurist’s efforts were now fairly nationalist (and had some Banderist influence), reacted to Polish persecution by becoming murderous. They would slaughter much of the local Polish population in 1943-1944.

Conversely, many Galician Ukrainian Army personnel ended up staying in the newly created USSR

False. Very few did. A total of 5,000 joined the Bolsheviks under duress, most of these deserted and returned to Galicia:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CE%5CRedUkrainianGalicianArmy.htm

Ironically of the commanders who joined the Reds, Alfred Bizanz, would escape to the West and later help lead the 14th Waffen SS Division.

Most veterans of the Ukrainian Galician Army returned to Galicia. Some of them formed the UVO which became the OUN. Some entered legitimate politics. The ones who went into exile mostly went to Prague, Vienna or Berlin, not the USSR. A rare exception was Petro Franko, son of the writer Ivan Franko. He moved to Kharkiv.

just chutzpah

From what I read about the topic many years ago, I derived the impression that the Latvian riflemen were seen as ruthlessly effective, very process driven, and emotionally cold.

Of course they were self-serving, but not like the Bolshevik Jews, there was no emotional component to the Latvian mercenary involvement in the Revolution and Civil War. No desire of vengeance, no gloating about the demise of Tsarist Russia. Perhaps they exhibited more emotional involvement when they liquidated the Baltic German landlords back home ?

I don’t think we might call this “chutzpah “, more like a form of social autism perhaps. Perhaps an example of the HBD impacts.

Interestingly, on the opposite extrême of the political divide, the White Czech probably behaved in a similar manner.

Just my 2 cents.

Indeed, Baltics in general are good at the “dindu nuffin” attitude when it comes to the atrocities commited by their ethnic groups in the last century.

They are also likely to play the victim role when it serves their goals, but without much pompe and fanfare.

Again, they do it in a calm, cold and focused manner : no screeching one would expect from a Stalinist or a Svidomite. Quite self-serving, but in a less boisterous and more logical manner than some eastern-southern ethnic groups (Jews / Arabs / Indians etc. ).

In general I find that Baltics have an interesting psychotype and an interesting distribution of this attitude, where Estonians are probably the most marked case, Lithuanians the least marked and Latvians somewhere in between. I have also felt something similar a couple of times in Helsinki.

Interestingly, northern Russians also display this type of more cold and logical, less emotional self-centered behavior, which makes them somewhat different from the southern Russians and Ukrainians who are always quite emotional about their self-serving aims. Perhaps the ancestry of Ugric Y haplogroup N people manifests itself that way.

Sobyanin comes to mind: the “ruthless Ugric cool”…

Of course I am being only half serious when I write all this, but it might be interesting to do some genomic HBD analysis along these lines. In case we optimize for a “хладнокровный космический хуторянин” psychotype in the future, to live somewhere the Oort Cloud.

🙂

13 still do 50. Biology, genetics and race are real. IQ is real. Rushton was right. So was Putnam’s research – if not his strained interpretations.

Pretending Blacks and Whites are just varicolored blank slate meat puppets isn’t real.

80IQ Slav barbarians want to go back to the “good old days” of being illiterate turnip farmers. This is true of someone like Karlin (ignore the transhumanist horseshit, this bloke is only capable of using a pitchfork and wheelbarrow) and other Slav crypto-fascists.

I am more talking about the gumption of modern Latvians portraying themselves as historical victims and demanding reparations from Russia, having voted 70% for the Bolsheviks (Russian Empire average: 24%), having brutally put down ethnic Russian resistance to Bolshevism in the Russian heartlands in 1918

Agreed that these factors ought to disqualify reparations to Latvia. Though, given the fact that Bolshevism didn’t come to Russia through the will of the people as reflected in something like elections, reparations by the Russian people would be unjust in any case. Communist Party and its remaining assets might be another story…

Even though back then, there was the occasional Jewish hero (e.g. Leonid Kannegisser), can one name any comparable Latvian equivalents?

LatW mentioned this guy, who heroically refused to abandon the Romanovs and was martyred alongside them:

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