"Man, give her the fucking overhead clause!"

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Well Balze is a revisionist.

Oh no no no, don't do that. You guys want to nitpick over the word "obscure" rather than see the point that was being made, that's your problem. But in the context of starting a World War, yes, referring to the killing of an archduke, the inspector general of the Austro-Hungarian army, as basically the geopolitical equivalent of a brush fire is not inaccurate. What should've been nothing but a small conflict between Austria and Serbia--some troublesome Balkan country--quickly exploded into an all out firestorm.

I'm comparing that, an obscure assassin killing an archduke, to the assassination of a major head of state, egged on by a powerful government official of the world's largest superpower.

So please, if you want to quibble over the word obscure, fine, but don't call me a revisionist of history.

quote:

quickly exploded into an all out firestorm.

Well, you kinda are, though. WWI spun up as fast as it did because of a network of mutual-defense treaties and the universally-accepted doctrine in Europe at the time that "he who mobilizes and deploys the quickest wins".

The last Austrian archduke who briefly came to worldwide notice before Franz Ferdinand did so because he wound up getting himself executed by a Mexican firing squad in front of some adobe in the middle of nowhere, and I'll bet most people here can't remember his name off of the tops of their heads. That's pretty obscure.

Balze,

I’m sure you knows that Archduke Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Even today, if say the IRA or the Taliban took out Prince Charles, I imagine the British would respond rather harshly. Further inflaming the tinderbox was the Russian support for the Serbs. Nationalism and treaties then drew the rest of Europe and ultimately the US into the war. I’ve always thought a good analogy is “for want of a horseshoe nail…”

I’ll concede that the results of the Franco-Prussian War didn’t help matters which many scholars argue was a causal factor to WW1, whose harsh treaties helped Hitler come to power and then WW2, and then Cold War. The results there leads us to where we are today. However, you have to have something to get the ball rolling. It may be a pretext of sorts but it has to be there.

Maybe we could all agree that Ferdinand was an important, internationally-known political figure, and his assassination was the immediate trigger of hostilities for WWI, but also that the idea that his assassination was the actual REASON for WWI is absurd?

Emperor Maximillian, executed 1867.
Very familiar with Manet’s painting and somewhat its background.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

quickly exploded into an all out firestorm.

Well, you kinda are, though. WWI spun up as fast as it did because of a network of mutual-defense treaties and the universally-accepted doctrine in Europe at the time that "he who mobilizes and deploys the quickest wins".

The last Austrian archduke who briefly came to worldwide notice before Franz Ferdinand did so because he wound up getting himself executed by a Mexican firing squad in front of some adobe in the middle of nowhere, and I'll bet most people here can't remember his name off of the tops of their heads. That's pretty obscure.

quote:

Originally posted by BillyBonesNY:
Emperor Maximillian, executed 1867.
Very familiar with Manet’s painting and somewhat its background.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

quickly exploded into an all out firestorm.

Well, you kinda are, though. WWI spun up as fast as it did because of a network of mutual-defense treaties and the universally-accepted doctrine in Europe at the time that "he who mobilizes and deploys the quickest wins".

The last Austrian archduke who briefly came to worldwide notice before Franz Ferdinand did so because he wound up getting himself executed by a Mexican firing squad in front of some adobe in the middle of nowhere, and I'll bet most people here can't remember his name off of the tops of their heads. That's pretty obscure.

Maximilian IIRC. Now I'll go do the Google.

Maximilian it is.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I have a couple thoughts of my own but I'm curious; do you have any thoughts or insights as to the reasons for Soviet/ Russian institutionalized paranoia?

I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but I agree with Lefty Sig (except I’d say such memories do die hard.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Russia was invaded by Napolean and by Germany and suffered massive losses.

Other factors were such things as Patton’s (characterization omitted) comment that we should have continued the war in Europe against the USSR, plus our development of the atom bomb with the intention of keeping the technology secret. Earlier was the incursion by the US into far eastern USSR after the Soviet revolution. I also contend that people like the Soviets had no trouble believing that our resistance to their aggressive actions in attempting to spread the secular religion of Communism as far and as wide as possible was somehow aggression on our part and a threat to them in itself: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” and “not with us” means you’re scheming to destroy us.

I further suspect that the “They’re plotting our destruction” belief was aided and abetted by the Soviet and Russian Federation military leaders. They enjoyed a lot of perks that most citizens there didn’t, and what better way to keep them near the top of the nomenklatura heap than to keep reminding everyone of the wolf at the door? Considering how successful Soviet espionage and fostering of popular support for the regime in the West was, I believe that was a factor that is underappreciated today.

Outstanding analysis! Thank you. The invasions of Russia by Napoleon and Hitler were the first explanations for their paranoia that came to my mind, and while I was aware of Patton's comment, I never considered how that might affect the Soviet/ Russian mentality.

The rest of the reasons you list make perfect sense to me, as well.

quote:

Earlier was the incursion by the US into far eastern USSR after the Soviet revolution.

Embarrassingly, while I was aware of the Russian revolution, Wilsonianism and the League of Nations, your comment has exposed one of the many gaps in my knowledge of history.

Thanks to your comment and a quick run to Wikipedia, I now know that the U.S. once had military forces fighting on Russian soil.

I've been on a Crimean War kick (among others) since last Spring, but now you've given me a new rabbit hole to go down. I can see now that I need to learn more about the Russian revolution and that time period in history.

What Lindsey Graham is referring to is not an outside government or individual doing in Putin.
He's talking about something like the July 20'th plot to kill Hitler by insiders, people already in leadership positions that probably would have taken over had they been successful.
Without starting another debate about what faction would have been successful in Germany, the point is that they did this when they realized Hitlers plans and execution of strategy was taking all of them and their country down with him.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
Maybe we could all agree that Ferdinand was an important, internationally-known political figure, and his assassination was the immediate trigger of hostilities for WWI, but also that the idea that his assassination was the actual REASON for WWI is absurd?

Well yes, I would agree with that. And really, that's all I was trying to say. Perhaps another word other than "obscure" would've been better suited.

Take it a step further. The U.S. developed nuclear weapons first, used them against Japan in WWII, and then deployed them to forward SAC bases in NATO countries. The Soviets were behind, and only though espionage did they get the technology. The communist sympathizers in the US that stole the technology and turned it over changed the world.

For the entire cold war the Soviets were trying to keep up with U.S. military technology, and spent themselves into bankruptcy. For a brief time they were ahead in the space race, and that put the U.S. into high gear. The reason is that their captured Nazi Rocket Scientists outpaced our captured Nazi Rocket Scientists in the 1950's. But in the 60's the U.S. pulled far far ahead.

Regan's "Star Wars" is now understood to be mostly a bluff, but the Soviets took it seriously.

So, to the Russians, why would the U.S. build up such an arsenal and keep making it bigger and better if there is no intention to use it? That does not compute. They feared a technological development by the U.S. that would allow a massive first strike that would take out Russian defenses so fast they could not retaliate.

And, I'm sure there are those in the U.S. that advocated such a thing, and the Russians probably knew that via intelligence. Our continued push to improve capabilities certainly makes it look like WE are paranoid, right?

It's all about perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Thanks to your comment ....

You are welcome. Although I can’t remember the names and faces of people I worked with six months ago, for some reason my mind sponges up at least the broad facts of history—probably because I’m more interested in history than the people I work with.

One thing I’ll add about paranoia for the people who may be a little uncertain about its definition as it gets corrupted in popular usage:
Paranoia is an irrational fear of something. It’s not paranoia for me to fear being attacked by a loose dog during my walks because that sort of thing happens frequently here and elsewhere. Fear of being attacked by a mountain lion is less valid because of its extreme rarity, but that too happens on occasion, and it’s not paranoia if I carry a gun partly for that reason as long as I still take walks in the woods.

What is paranoia is fear of being attacked by a yeti, and especially if that fear keeps me from taking walks in the woods. Not only is the fear irrational and not supported by any valid evidence, it also affects my life. Fear of being attacked by a Sasquatch might be a little more valid because they supposedly exist on the same continent as I, but it’s still irrational.

The Russians have had valid reasons to be afraid of certain things throughout their history, and should have been afraid of others such as being attacked by Nazi Germany, but being actually afraid of being attacked by modern day Germany or Japan, for example, is paranoia.

And although conceptionally slightly more likely, I consider it to be paranoia for them to fear a first nuclear strike attack by the US, if for no other reason than what that would do to the planet. On the other hand, much of the Soviet leadership during the Cold War evidently thought that a nuclear war would be winnable by them, and therefore it was not paranoia for the US to act to deter their irrational acts.

Added: Not to dispute any of the additional observations by Lefty Sig, but I would dispute the somewhat common belief/leftist doctrine that the post-WWII arms race and its escalation of tensions and what would have been the consequences of a WWIII were the fault of the US and the rest of the West. To allude to something I mentioned earlier, it’s somewhat of a playground excuse, but in fact the Soviets did start it with their aggressions after WWII. They were not deterred by the “Don’t start any …” adage and once they started the race the results were not unsurprising, just as the outcomes of the races started by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were not unsurprising—if not necessarily preordained.

" Its Only Paranoia If They're Not Really After You"

MAD
This pretty much explains the idea. Watch to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVunlJOyfB0

I don't really think there's anything we can do to save Ukraine at this point. The geography and strategic situation are too tilted against being able to do that.

But do we need to see this as the opening shot in a larger war, and start getting on a war footing to fight it? If Russia is successful in Ukraine, which looks somewhat likely, will Putin try to then push into Poland and Romania? Is this 1939 all over again.

Should we start to ramp up (impose a draft, expand weapons production, stockpile strategic supplies, etc.)?

A little levity here. Reagan tells Soviet jokes.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I don't really think there's anything we can do to save Ukraine at this point. The geography and strategic situation are too tilted against being able to do that.

But do we need to see this as the opening shot in a larger war, and start getting on a war footing to fight it? If Russia is successful in Ukraine, which looks somewhat likely, will Putin try to then push into Poland and Romania? Is this 1939 all over again.

Should we start to ramp up (impose a draft, expand weapons production, stockpile strategic supplies, etc.)?

Yeah I agree. Ukraine is likely lost until Putin is out or after ten years of insurgency leaves a bad taste in mother Russia's mouth.

We can keep arming the Ukrainians but at some point we need to think about fortress NATO. We need to arm the Georgians, Estonians, Lithuanians, and Romanians to the hilt and avoid the Biden mistakes of slow inactivity. The new cold war has arrived.

^^^^^ And the Latvians?

flashguy

And the Polish?
And the Slovakians?
And the Hungarians?
And the Norwegians?

While Oprah is arming everyone, I'd like to get some deliveries to my ZIP + 4...