Russian Revolution

Anything that isn't part of the game or its community goes here. KEEP IT CIVIL!

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby Hrafn » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:00 pm

jamescfm wrote:
Hrafn wrote:Yes. Let's not forget Saint Churchill, who was a white supremacist who deliberately let millions of hindus starve to death, and who considered the irish to be subhuman scum as well (even though they are white...). After WW2, he loudly protested against letting non-whites from the colonies immigrate. When Nick Griffin said that Churchill would have voted for the BNP, his liberal/cuckservative admirers (who think of him as a tolerant anti-racist crusader) went apeshit, but it's probably true. If anything, Churchill might not consider the BNP racist enough.

Not many people in Britain like to criticise Churchill, which I think is wrong, and you're right to some extent that we seem to have canonised him (I'm reminded every time I have to use a five pound note). With that said, it's totally dishonest to equate his views with the Nazi regime and it seems to be reminiscent of the "and you are hanging blacks" argument.

I did not equate his views with nazism. In fact, I explicitely said that their racial theories were completely different. Churchill was a classical run-of-the-mill white supremacist, while Hitler was an occult aryanist (or nordicist really) who wanted to genocide two white sub-racial groups (the slavs and the european jews). I would argue that Hitler as the epitome of evil really took off because he treated groups widely perceived as white as if they were non-white (by that time's ideas about how non-whites were to be treated), then later along the way got mixed up with the whole white guilt complex (colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade, bla bla bla) and Hitler strangely morphed into a symbol of white supremacy, even though he allied with a bunch of non-white groups and mostly genocided other whites.
Last edited by Hrafn on Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hrafn
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: Where the sun does not set

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby SlavaD » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:40 am

Elf wrote:Well, Imperial Germany wanted to make (Congress) Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states their own countries. Back during those days, most of the Masurians (Slavic minority) in Eastern Prussia voted to stay in Germany after WW1. So they weren't simply ethnic nationalists.

Although, to be fair - every country during those days where chauvinists and colonialists to an extent. Sweden invented "skull measuring" around that time. Had an eugenics programme going on, with forced sterilisations, all the way to 1975.


No it didn't. It wanted to deport millions of Poles into a minor, disarmed, deliberately impoverished, and landlocked "Poland" that would have been ruled by a German King and been totally subservient to German interests. The same was true of the planned United Baltic Duchy, which was meant to be a puppet state of Germany ruled by the German Baltic nobility, and Ukraine - massive parts of which (such as Crimea) were slated for German colonization. They were absolutely ethnic nationalists.

Hitler was not some aberration. He was the continuation of long standing German policy of eastward colonization, with a somewhat radicalized cadre willing to support genocide to achieve their immediate goals. Over a century of dehumanizing Slavs and emphasizing them as a threat to German integrity didn't come from Hitler - it was ready made for him by the "Prussians" you venerate so much.
SlavaD
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:02 am

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby Elf » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:41 am

Hrafn wrote:Yes. Let's not forget Saint Churchill, who was a white supremacist who deliberately let millions of hindus starve to death, and who considered the irish to be subhuman scum as well (even though they are white...). After WW2, he loudly protested against letting non-whites from the colonies immigrate. When Nick Griffin said that Churchill would have voted for the BNP, his liberal/cuckservative admirers (who think of him as a tolerant anti-racist crusader) went apeshit, but it's probably true. If anything, Churchill might not consider the BNP racist enough.
Hmm... I dunno. Even if Churchill was racist in a way that was commonly accepted at his time, and even if he opposed immigration form the colonies, did he share BNP ideas about racial purity? Was he motivated by a desire to keep the British race "clean", or did he simply see the colonial subjects as backwards?

Hrafn wrote:It's kinda funny that people try to link the Alt-Right to Nazism, when the race realism of the alt-right is actually derived from the scientific racism that was strong in Britain and America and which Winston Churchill as far as we know never denounced. Hardly anyone takes the National Socialist's occult Aryan theories seriously. They were outdated even back in 1933, as racial biologists in countries other than Germany pointed out.

The Nazi's hatred of slavs is also pretty weird even in the context of their own ideology. Slavs actually have higher rates of blue eyes and blonde hair than germans have, so WW2 was basically swarthy germans butchering aryan slavs in the name of aryan supremacy. Pretty amusing in a morbid way. Nordic and finnish SS-volunteers were often disappointed about taking orders from swarthy, chubby german commanders who were a head shorter than them, and referred to them as "Nachgedunkelte Schrumpfgermanen" :mrgreen:
Honestly, the term "alt-right" has been used by so many groups nowadays, including people who are pretty much outright neo-nazis, that I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Back in 2016 you had people championing classical liberal issues like Milo (who isn't a perfect human being, sure) associated with that term, but it seems to have been completely taken over by identitarians and "stormies". If there's anything I associate the term with here in Sweden its a bunch of unemphatic autistic meme makers making "jokes" about the holocaust etc.

SlavaD wrote:No it didn't. It wanted to deport millions of Poles into a minor, disarmed, deliberately impoverished, and landlocked "Poland" that would have been ruled by a German King and been totally subservient to German interests. The same was true of the planned United Baltic Duchy, which was meant to be a puppet state of Germany ruled by the German Baltic nobility, and Ukraine - massive parts of which (such as Crimea) were slated for German colonization. They were absolutely ethnic nationalists.

Hitler was not some aberration. He was the continuation of long standing German policy of eastward colonization, with a somewhat radicalized cadre willing to support genocide to achieve their immediate goals. Over a century of dehumanizing Slavs and emphasizing them as a threat to German integrity didn't come from Hitler - it was ready made for him by the "Prussians" you venerate so much.
AFAIK the plan you are referring to was made up by some overzealous German generals without the Emperor's support, and was discarded when they reestablished Poland instead. It would have taken a strip of Polish land at the border and settled it with Germans to make the border "stable". Terrible and unjust idea - sure - but hardly comparable to anything the Nazis did. Germany was well underway to become a democracy at the time and appointed an all-Polish Regency Council (including the archbishop of Warsaw) to rule Poland, so even if some German or Austrian Prince might have become king in the end, had the Central powers prevailed, their plan was quite clearly a functioning Polish state.

I agree that the Congress Poland borders were hardly right and for Germany, having Posen as a province was quite unjustified, but afaik poles fared a lot better there than in Russian "Vistula Province" as they called the core of Poland they controlled (Prussia even recognised it as a part of Poland they controlled in the province's coat of arms!). Regarding sea access, looking at where poles lived at the time, that would have been the result, yes. As we saw from post WW1, the corridor thing was hardly optimal and gave Hitler an excuse to attack Poland in the end. Maybe Poland could have gained sea access by reestablishing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth instead like Pilsudski wanted to (could also have avoided sad things like the conflict regarding Vilnius)?

However, apart from Posen, the idea that Germans had been somehow preying on Polish lands, driven by some kind of master race complex for centuries, is hardly justified by history. Most of those lands that Poland took post-WW2 had been German since the middle ages, largely as a result of the Polish king inviting the Teutonic knights to Christianise those lands. In regards to Russia, that accusation would probably be more justified, however.
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
User avatar
Elf
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:01 am
Location: Kali Yuga

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby Hrafn » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:37 pm

Elf wrote:Honestly, the term "alt-right" has been used by so many groups nowadays, including people who are pretty much outright neo-nazis, that I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Back in 2016 you had people championing classical liberal issues like Milo (who isn't a perfect human being, sure) associated with that term, but it seems to have been completely taken over by identitarians and "stormies". If there's anything I associate the term with here in Sweden its a bunch of unemphatic autistic meme makers making "jokes" about the holocaust etc.

Okay, we're derailing the thread now, but I'm going to respond to this.
Milo Yiannopolous never called himself Alt-Right and the Alt-Right never saw him as one of theirs, that was a ridiculous claim by the inbred mainstream media who can't tell the difference between an actual nationalist and a white liberal who isn't self-flagellating.
The very term Alt-Right was coined by Richard Spencer AFAIK and identitarianism was the very core of it from the start. Saying that the Alt-Right has been "taken over" by identitarians is thus like saying that Marxism has been taken over by socialists. The Alt-Right is identitarianism. More specifically it is an American identitarian movement focused on metapolitics, directly inspired by european identitarians like Guillaume Faye and Alain de Benoist.

Around the start of the Trump campaign, some Alt-Rightists started having discussions with libertarians and anti-SJW trolls (for the most part just agreeing to disagree on the things that seperated them) and they started using similar memes from 4chan culture (Pepe and Kek mostly). The only common ground was that they hated SJWs and thought that Trump could be a refreshing president (or at least a stepping stone to something else). That's were the similarities stop. They're even less similar now that they have moved on to new memes and Trump has been elected (and turned out rather lacklustre).

As an aside, I don't care much for Youtube drama, but the recent battle between Richard Spencer and Sargon of Akkad and the meltdown of Kraut and Tea at the hands of Ryan Faulk has been very amusing.
User avatar
Hrafn
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: Where the sun does not set

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby SlavaD » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:20 pm

Elf wrote: AFAIK the plan you are referring to was made up by some overzealous German generals without the Emperor's support, and was discarded when they reestablished Poland instead. It would have taken a strip of Polish land at the border and settled it with Germans to make the border "stable". Terrible and unjust idea - sure - but hardly comparable to anything the Nazis did. Germany was well underway to become a democracy at the time and appointed an all-Polish Regency Council (including the archbishop of Warsaw) to rule Poland, so even if some German or Austrian Prince might have become king in the end, had the Central powers prevailed, their plan was quite clearly a functioning Polish state.

I agree that the Congress Poland borders were hardly right and for Germany, having Posen as a province was quite unjustified, but afaik poles fared a lot better there than in Russian "Vistula Province" as they called the core of Poland they controlled (Prussia even recognised it as a part of Poland they controlled in the province's coat of arms!). Regarding sea access, looking at where poles lived at the time, that would have been the result, yes. As we saw from post WW1, the corridor thing was hardly optimal and gave Hitler an excuse to attack Poland in the end. Maybe Poland could have gained sea access by reestablishing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth instead like Pilsudski wanted to (could also have avoided sad things like the conflict regarding Vilnius)?

However, apart from Posen, the idea that Germans had been somehow preying on Polish lands, driven by some kind of master race complex for centuries, is hardly justified by history. Most of those lands that Poland took post-WW2 had been German since the middle ages, largely as a result of the Polish king inviting the Teutonic knights to Christianise those lands. In regards to Russia, that accusation would probably be more justified, however.


Since when was the German High Command led by Ludendorff some "overzealous German generals"? The border strip plan was widely debated and supported among most echelons of the wartime government, and would have involved deporting several million people. Its no mistake that this same plan was recycled by Nazi Germany, when it did in fact annex all the territory that the German Empire intended to annex and had the rest become the General Government. Certainly there is no direct comparison to be made here, but the argument that the German Empire was some fuzzy older brother looking out for Poles and intending on establishing a viable Polish state is nonsense. Appointing an all-Polish Regency Council is meaningless, especially when they had approximately zero real power and the reconquered portions of the country remained under German military occupation. Germany would have never allowed for a functioning Polish state: see German reaction after an actual functioning Polish state won its independence in the aftermath of WW1.

Poles did not have a better time in Prussia. Both Prussia and Russia were vicious occupiers, engaging for over a century in their best attempt at cultural genocide and the Germanization and Russification of their parts of Poland. The only people that can claim to have treated Poles somewhat fairly is the Austrians who, having a multi-ethnic empire as it was, had only occupied Poland in the first place to maintain the balance of power between them and the two remaining occupiers. Slapping the Polish eagle onto the coat of arms of the Province of Poznan means nothing - they still took the first opportunity available to disestablish the Grand Duchy that was agreed on to provide Poles autonomy and began Germanization in earnest.

Germans have been preying on Polish lands, and Slavic lands specifically, for centuries. And it doesn't need to be justified by history - it is history. And even you seem to acknowledge this, because you say that most of the lands were "German since the middle ages." All of present-day Eastern Germany used to be Slavic lands - the name "Berlin" comes from West Slavic Polobians for god's sake! Ostsiedlung is not some myth concocted by angry Polish nationalists, but a verifiable historical process where over centuries Germans came to dominate lands which were not originally theirs. By the 1800s this became official Prussian and then German state policy (see the Prussian Settlement Commission), and people like Bismarck privately thought that only a complete extermination of Poles would resolve the "Polish question" in Germany's favor. The history speaks for itself - no, the German Empire was not as bad as Nazi Germany, but a direct line can be drawn from centuries of policies, personalities, and events to the planned extermination of Poles and all Slavs advocated by Hitler, in the same way you can draw a straight line from centuries of antisemitism to the gas chambers in German death camps.
SlavaD
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:02 am

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby Hrafn » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:28 am

SlavaD wrote:Germans have been preying on Polish lands, and Slavic lands specifically, for centuries. And it doesn't need to be justified by history - it is history. And even you seem to acknowledge this, because you say that most of the lands were "German since the middle ages." All of present-day Eastern Germany used to be Slavic lands - the name "Berlin" comes from West Slavic Polobians for god's sake! Ostsiedlung is not some myth concocted by angry Polish nationalists, but a verifiable historical process where over centuries Germans came to dominate lands which were not originally theirs.

If you go a bit further back those lands were actually inhabited by Germanic tribes before they migrated westward fleeing from the Huns. And before the Germanics there were probably Finno-Ugric people or something.
Let's settle this ancient dispute once and for all by giving Poland to Greater Finland!
User avatar
Hrafn
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: Where the sun does not set

Re: Russian Revolution

Postby SlavaD » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:06 am

Absolutely - the migration saw Germanic tribes leave the area. But there is a difference between long-term colonization and conquest, and settling essentially empty land because everyone has left. I did not mention it to lay any sort of claim to Eastern Germany on behalf of Poles or Slavs - that would be nonsensical. I was merely illustrating how nonsensical it is to claim that there was no concentrated movement or that German attempts to steal Polish land were a comparatively modern (post 1750) phenomenon. It had already occurred by then in various malicious and non malicious forms (indeed many of the Polobian principalities had been assimilated simply over time) and only accelerated with German nationalism. This acceleration is not necessarily unique to Germany (look no further than France). In any case, claiming that the German Empire was not driven by an ethno-nationalist (and essentially far-right from a contemporary standpoint) vision is ludicrous and some major revision in favor of making the Prussians appear more fuzzy.

On the subject of the original thread though - the Russian Revolution was a momentous opportunity for human liberation and freedom. The resulting system and its abuses were far more a product of the civil war that ensued and subsequent socio-economic tensions rather than any single party, ideology, or man. Certainly everyone should be glad that the brutal regime it spawned is now gone. Its probably a good reflection of how things can go wrong, and how people can rapidly pivot from trying to liberate others to suppressing them when they think they're doing things "for the greater good."
SlavaD
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:02 am

Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests