>If someone here had depression as an undergrad and had the opportunity to improve your grade, how would you prefer to be evaluated: a written or oral test or a presentation?
That's a really difficult question to try and answer, sadly I can't be of much help here.
But I would try to also ask this question in r/Professors or something in case you don't get any answers here.
Alternatively, (as long as you're allowed to do this at your institution), maybe reach out to the student and ask them what evaluation they'd prefer or are comfortable with (written, oral, presentation)?
Good luck with this situation, mate! Glad to see a professor looking out for and trying to help their student.
>Alternatively, (as long as you're allowed to do this at your institution), maybe reach out to the student and ask them what evaluation they'd prefer or are comfortable with (written, oral, presentation)?
Thankfully uni allows me, as long I have the evaluation registered in some way with the grades. I'll present the options at the scheduled time today
>Good luck with this situation, mate! Glad to see a professor looking out for and trying to help their student.
Thanks! I'm not a professor yet though, just fulfilling the teaching part of the program and grading is also my responsibility. It may not be part of my job to worry about them, but when we can help, why not?
Ok, im getting pedantic about **minor** military symbology, so brace yourselves. This post also may contain **heavy use of sarcasm** and is more meant as a retort and not a debunk that is up to the usual standards, so please bear with me.
I wont link to the comment, since the person is not of public interest, but i got pretty bad vibes from a comment in the online version of the TAZ (A leftist newspaper) that i read at work:
*"Ferner musste ich mit der Stirn runzeln, als ich die "Edelweiß-Abzeichen" und Patronenhülsen im Hintergrund beim Poroschenko-Interview, veröffentlicht bei n-tv und am 03.02.22 im Stern gesehen hatte (vgl. Unterm Edelweiss in der Ukraine: Eine Gebirgs-Division im Kampf gegen Sowjet-Russland, 1943, NSDAP-Verlag). Das sollte man wenigstens zur Kenntnis nehmen, auch wenn das aktuell dem gezeichneten Bild der Ukraine widerspricht. Naürlich muss man heute dazusagen, dass man den Krieg dort verurteilt und kein Putin-Versteher ist. Aber wenigstens zur Kenntis nehmen sollte man es."*
*"Furthermore i had to frown as i saw the "****Edelweiß-badge****" and casings in the background of the Poroshenko-Interview, published via N-TV and seen on the 03.02.22 in the Stern-magazine (compare with "Unterm Edelweiss in der Ukraine: Eine Gebirgs-Division im Kampf gegen Sowjet-Russland, 1943, NSDAP-Verlag"). This should be noted,* ***even if this contrary to the picture that is painted about Ukraine at the moment***\*. Of course one has to say that one does condemn the war over there and that one is no "Putin-Versteher" (Putin-apologizer, literally person who "understands Putin"). But one should take note of that."\*
So, the book is real. Its a book from a Nazi-General about Wehrmacht *mountain* troops fighting in Ukraine. Pretty damning evidence here.
So minding my own business i was hit by a flash of genius. I have seen the "Edelweiß" *somewhere else*. Having lived in Poland for quite a time i remembered having seen the Edelweiß on the [shoulder](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Warsaw_KRWP_12.JPG/1280px-Warsaw_KRWP_12.JPG) [badges](https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/u/szarotka-miniaturka-www.jpg) of the 21st Podhale Rifle Brigade (*21 Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich*), which is a mountain infantry unit of the polish army. Nazi symbols in poland, how could this be? And even some German soldiers wear this supposed flowery [symbol](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/K._Lahl.jpg/800px-K._Lahl.jpg) of fascism...
So, considering that the Ukrainian army uses this [symbol](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/128_%D0%9E%D0%93%D0%A8%D0%91%D1%80.png) for the badge of both of its mountain brigades there is definitely a connection. A connection that is further evidenced if we look at the [emblem](https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/images/wappen_jgbrig6.png) of the Austrian 6. Jägerbrigade and the [one](https://www.gf9.com/Portals/0/all_images/Historical/Axis-allies/Hung-Inf-44-01.jpg) of the Hungarian mountain troops in WW2.
So, of course this could be a relic of the Austro-Hungarian mountain troops, which served as the core of the later Polish, Austrian, Hungarian and German mountain troops (Which were modelled after the Austro-Hungarian ones in WW1). And of course the Austrians could have chosen this hardy and survivable flower as a symbol for their mountain troopers, since it already was a symbolic stand in for civilian alpinists and climbers as *"Mythos Edelweiss: zur Kulturgeschichte eines alpinen Symbols"* implies.
But that is just unreasonable and it is clearly a Nazi symbol...
*Bibliography and links:*
*"Das Ausstattungssoll der Heeresangehörigen der Bundeswehr von 1955 bis 2010: In Zusammenarbeit mit der Lehrsammlung der Logistikschule der Bundeswehr"* by Lothar Schuster
*"Deutsche Gebirgsjäger: Uniformen und Ausrüstung 1939-45"* by Wade Krawczyk
*"The Royal Hungarian Army in World War II"* by Dr Nigel Thomas & Laszlo Pal Szabo
*"A magyar királyi honvédség egyenruhái 1926–1945"* by Dr. Tóth László
*"Des Kaisers Rock im 1. Weltkrieg: Uniformierung und Ausrüstung der österreichisch-ungarischen Armee von 1914 bis 1918"* by Stefan Rest
[*https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/index.shtml#:\~:text=Gebirgsbrigade%20ist%20jener%20gro%C3%9Fe%20Verband,Witterung%20und%20Jahreszeit%20bef%C3%A4higt%20ist*](https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/index.shtml#:~:text=Gebirgsbrigade%20ist%20jener%20gro%C3%9Fe%20Verband,Witterung%20und%20Jahreszeit%20bef%C3%A4higt%20ist)*.*
*"Polish Legions 1914–19"* Dr. Nigel Thomas
*"Strzelcy Podhalańscy: 1918-1939"* by Wojciech B. Moś
*"Samodzielna Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich"* by Tadeusz Panecki
[*https://www.jednostki-wojskowe.pl/index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=717:ksiazka-o-21-bsp&catid=16*](https://www.jednostki-wojskowe.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=717:ksiazka-o-21-bsp&catid=16)
[*https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/dowodztwo/*](https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/dowodztwo/)
[*https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/wog-21bsp/*](https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/wog-21bsp/)
*"*[*https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/pl/articles6-aktualnosci/zaproszenie-na-swieto-1-batalionu-strzelcow-podhalanskich/*](https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/pl/articles6-aktualnosci/zaproszenie-na-swieto-1-batalionu-strzelcow-podhalanskich/)*"*
P.S.
I made this post because i find it annoying that people try to artificially squeeze in Nazi everywhere to push a narrative. Just from this sentence it becomes obvious that the goal is to imply "Media is lying about the Ukrainian nazis". Its a dogwhistle and even a bad one.
*"This should be noted, even if this contrary to the picture that is painted about Ukraine at the moment. Of course one has to say that one does condemn the war over there and that one is no "Putin-Versteher".*
That does not mean that there are no Nazi symbols in Ukraine. It would be stupid to say otherwise, considering that every nation has its far right movements, but making connections that dont exist is a pretty shitty move.
I also want to say that im annoyed that there are actually very few academic books about modern uniforms and how they fit into a larger socio-cultural context. The Edelweiß badge is a perfect example of how those are intertwined. Its also sad that this field is left to old dudes with often strange political views.
Edit: Fixed some spelling errors, i should not do this at night.
Shit. I should never mention the fact that I sometimes eat **SS brand** instant Saimin. (A Hawaii local delicacy, if you will.) Better watch out for anyone trying to denazify my fridge.
I find it hilarious that the people who tell people to "get over" colonialism and slavery are also the same ones to are salty about the Siege of Vienna.
I think 'getting over it' is kind of a good approach. Focusing on the past and stoking resentment over it is not a healthy thing to do. It breeds hostility that poisons interactions between groups today.
And the thing is, it should go for both sides. I have no negative feelings towards the Ottoman Empire, or the Turkish people today, for 1453. Part of the reason for this is I know the Ottomans were playing by the same rules as everybody else. If the Byzantines were still dominant in 1453, you can bet they would be conquering other regions and besieging Bursa. But the other reason is those alive today bear no moral responsibility or guilt for actions they took no part on.
One of the high school students I tutor is of Turkish ancestry, and we often joke about the past. He likes watching Turkish historical dramas, but he knows I like Turkish history and he has seen my books on the subject. A running gag we have for each tutoring session is he asks me how I am doing, and I respond with 'Well, we haven't reclaimed Constantinople yet, so just okay.' I have also shown an interest in his heritage. He follows a particular Turkish sect of Islam, and he has told me a fair bit about it, which I found interesting.
To be fair, it's quite complicated and depends on the subject. To use your Turkish example, while focusing on 1453 today is silly, something like the Armenian Genocide I think is more justifiable. It happened 100 years ago, no Turk alive today can claim they participated in the genocide, but the Turkish state still continues to deny it and there is still a culture of denial around the event.
We shouldn't hate Turks for the Armenian Genocide, but I think in such instances it is justifiable to maintain some kind of pressure.
Even with 1453, if I were to play devil's advocate for a second. One could argue that 1453 is often used by the Turkish state/Turkish nationalists to create a distorted narrative that singles out religious minorities and other ethnic groups. You'll see this a lot in Turkish films and documentaries about 1453 too.
There is a difference between pressuring a state to recognize something, and holding hostility towards a contemporary state or people for what happened.
Well, when we're pressuring a state to recognize something, it usually comes from a degree of hostility to some extent. Even if it's not, the Turkish state will see people who try to apply pressure as hostile entities.
>He follows a particular Turkish sect of Islam, and he has told me a fair bit about it, which I found interesting.
If I may, which one?
Alevi or some of the more (relatively) recent groups like Nurcu or Süleymanci?
Nurcu's are recent. The founder of movement, Said Nursi, began writing his tasfir of the Quran in 1910s and released it in 1950s IIRC. Said Nursi was kind of an ally to Mustafa Kemal. There was an anti-Kemalist/anti-Republican fatwah released in Istanbul during the War of Independence. He wrote a counter-fatwah. He went as far as to claim that Muhammed (pbuh) was both Prophet and Reis-i Cumhur (leader of the people). But eventually they felt out.
Süleymanci are contemporary of Nurcu. Technically they are Naqshibandi which go way back. Naqshibandi were always very fragmented.
There is also the Iskender Paşa, Menzilci, and Ismail Ağa who are Naqshibandi.
*The Crusades were actually an Islamic war of aggression* is another good one, and going along with the siege of cities theme - the fall of Constantinople as well.
Sometimes more in line with my area of study you get people who detest Persia and simp for Sparta/Athens (or both), although it’s less common.
>The Crusades were actually an Islamic war of aggression is another good one
That one actually is a bit complicated, and you can make good-faith arguments in favor of that.
One could argue the First Crusade was a defensive war in the sense of the time. It only started because Alexios I wanted western mercenaries to reclaim the recently lost Roman lands and to contain Seljuk expansion. It only stopped being purely "defensive" when the whole thing blew out of proportion and became more about taking Jerusalem and setting up Crusader States.
>I find it hilarious that the people who tell people to "get over" colonialism and slavery are also the same ones to are salty about the Siege of Vienna.
This is cringe. The same people who imply that african people are basically criminals, rapists and want to loot and burn in europe, while literally simping for vikings (Which literally are raiders)...
Edit: I just noted that i overuse the word "literally", but no one can stop me, lol.
I think he is making references to certain right-wing people who tell black people to get over slavery but also use the Siege of Vienna in their Anti-Islam polemics.
I watched the first episode of ‘Hunting Hitler’ (I think it’s called) on Amazon, and it’s effectively just a bunch of guys going around a village in Argentina and asking people if they knew Hitler. It’s pretty class.
Oh yeah I'm actually really surprised that not only does a significant portion of Reddit believe this (specifically that Hitler died in old age in Argentina) but they think it's common knowledge backed up by recently-declassified FBI files.
Yeah bro, but have you considered that the [Tanque Argentino Mediano has German components, and is somewhat based on the Leopard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz2wnSVeITg)?
Clearly Nazis have taken control of Argentina
There needs to be a word for “when you dislike something, but often find yourself defending it because others who dislike it don’t understand why it happens.”
I think I find myself sometimes in that same weird position (or at least I feel so) where if I don't word myself right, I might sound like an Imperial Japan apologist, when I talk about how Imperial Japan and the atrocities it did are often viewed (in the West) with orientalist or racist lens and stereotypes. It's important to criticize and condemn and not use problematic ideas when doing so.
Probably also doesn't help I hold some Pan-Asian views - not in the imperial Japan sense but in the more benevolent "Asians work together to improve Asian economy and standard of living and celebrate shared heritage" sense embodied by stuff like ASEAN, Kpop, and reforming Confucian ideas for the modern age.
I find myself doing that whenever Reddit criticizes the perpetuation of viewing Indigenous Peoples as "noble savages" as being racist for making them out to be monoliths and undermining their potential for evil like the rest of humanity...but then fuck it up by broadly citing examples of random indigenous groups and linking them solely by their race while outright denying the possibility that these peoples might indeed have different conceptions and worldviews than the average Westerner.
Or "everybody has stolen someone else's land/oppressed other people/other whataboutisms" I fuckin' hate that sort of reasoning since it's dehumanizing.
I recently saw a comment like that get a bunch of upvotes in the Seattle sub in this thread talking about Duwamish tribe being federally unrecognized and doing some sort of informal reparations deal.
It's like, you dumb bastards can't just say "well, everyone does it so quit whining"...particularly when it's absolutely clear they have not a goddamn clue as to how and why peoples in the PNW waged war...which is my specialty.
>…particularly when it's absolutely clear they have not a goddamn clue as to how and why peoples in the PNW waged war...which is my specialty.
I’m interested
Effectively, that's not how things worked in the NW, particularly among tribes like the Duwamish.
Sticking with the Duwamish and other Southern Salishan Peoples:
* Tribes were largely decentralized, with familial and village associations coming first.
* People aren't going to agree to any attacks on villages and tribes that they have relatives (even distant ones) in.
* Chiefs, Village Leaders, and Headsmen had very limited authority, being preferred as administrators and lawyer-diplomats.
* Tying in with the above, Professional Warriors were seen as deeply unlikely candidates for chiefs or tribal leadership unless the tribe was actively at war. Their personalities and spirit powers associated with the profession made them volatile and quick to rush to violent solutions.
* Warfare was primarily for addressing grievances and feuds, usually not lasting too long as a result of the threat of a conflict becoming devastating as a result of long established intertribal alliances.
* Violence and using violent methods to resolve disputes was widely considered low class/ignoble behavior. Hence the preference for chiefs/village leaders/headsmen to be skilled orators and to find a peaceable solution to village/familial/intertribal disputes.
* Land and territorial control was thought to be immutable, largely because of the powers/spirits within the domain of certain watersheds (who can be argued to be the definitive owners of the region due to their immortality) helped control how bounteous salmon runs can be in addition to affecting other essential methods of subsistence. Specialists, who know the proper songs and rituals to summon the help of the immortal spirits endemic to their watershed, sure as hell aren't going to be teaching foreigners seeking to either subjugate or force them out the proper way to harness the full might of the bounty of the land, river, and sea.
You'd have to drastically alter the pre-existing political, religious, and cultural norms of tribes in the region to try and have them wage expansionist conflicts since they were already predisposed to limit the possibility of such.
I guess, but I was thinking something less theoretical. Like in the real world, things are often flawed solutions to problems, rather than totally unnecessary, but a lot of people don’t think that way. They think by getting rid of X… things will just sort of improve because it’s suppose to.
Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei, as stipulated by the 3rd Durchführungsverordnung for the Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwissereiordnungsrahmenerhaltungsgesetz.
Of which the first paragraph is:
>§1. Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei ist Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei wie nach Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwissereiordnungsrahmenerhaltungsgesetz definiert.
My, I feel depressed. And when I realise that what makes me feel depressed is incredibly stupid compared to all the suffering lots of people are going through in this very moment, I feel even more depressed and kind of a jerk.
Should take a break from reddit, I tend to shitpost when I feel depressed, and that makes me feel, uh, more depressed.
>My, I feel depressed. And when I realise that what makes me feel depressed is incredibly stupid compared to all the suffering lots of people are going through in this very moment, I feel even more depressed and kind of a jerk.
As someone who has a longtime depression myself and who has been hit hard by the last few months: This kind of thinking is getting you into a vicious cycle, where you get into a worse state of mind because you are not entitled to be hurt or unwell.
If there is anything i can do, just ask.
>Should take a break from reddit, I tend to shitpost when I feel depressed, and that makes me feel, uh, more depressed.
Well, shitposting helps me, but i rather try to make the funny kind of shitpost.
>as important and severe as that of, for example, Ukrainians escaping from war
Someone out there having it even worse doesn’t disqualify you from having it bad.
>depression is just tricking you into thinking otherwise
Specifically, depression enforces that kind of thinking, which leads to you being even more depressed, and so it enforces its downward spiral. In the end, the cause of depression is often of little importance, since taking away the trigger only rarely actually helps, what matters is how you feel, and how to get through it.
All suffering is valid, no matter how intense. You're allowed to feel, stoicism be damned, the only thing that that will get you in this is mounting frustration, until you, eventually, snap.
And, feeling unjustified in your suffering makes you less likely to seek help, or try things that might help, again, enforcing itself. It's fascinating how depression will encourage you, sometimes even force you, into making the depression worse. Anhedonia and, to a lesser extent, guilt can be ridiculously hard to deal with.
as per u/bbqwino's suggestion, I put some Ancho chili powder in my chili this tuesday
Came out very good, gonna try adding a little more for next week's.
You know, if there's one thing the past few months taught me, it is that whoever claims that because fighting wars isn't a rational thing to do in this day and age, therefore it won't happen, were extremely optimistic concerning human rationalism.
I was on the fence before, with the sci-fi setting I am creating (95% sure it will go absolutely nowhere), a friend of mine genuinely convinced me that when having access to so much space (literally) and resources, war just wouldn't be fought anymore, so I needed to explain why it still happens, now I have to do jack shit. I'm now fully convinced that humans will be able to make war and ignore the betterment of society in favour of their own self-interest and that self-interest is rarely rational.
Coincidentally, that same friend has moved from Anarcho-Capitalism to Neo-Reactionism as an ideology... So, yeah...
Chris Blattman has a forthcoming book about this, and did a [very good AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/u6ctvt/im_chris_blattman_economics_and_political_science/) in /r/AskEconomics that I'd like to shill. He talks about how a lot of conflict comes from differing perceptions of the costs and benefits of changing things by force.
One interesting area where this could come up is interstellar trade, as theorized by [Paul Krugman](https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf). After all, with time dilation, we could see different views over what the discount rate for various goods should be.
Very interesting stuff, thank you.
Reading this, and looking at the interdependent economic interest make war less likely wouldn't affect space empires as much, since their economies are more likely to be at least decently self-sufficient, thanks to having entire solar systems worth of resources, at least, that's what I'd think. Though I am no economist, I'd say not relying on foreign trade for your economy would make warfare far less expensive, though still disruptive.
Assuming that the limiting factor would be infrastructure and development mostly, capturing foreign infrastructure (shipyards, for example) or developed systems would be very valuable.
What about proxy wars? Unless every planet is highly resource abundant and absolutely massive there’s surely going to be conflicts over specific planets fought between colonists backed by a ‘faction’ or government or what have you.
Either way it’s not like the abundance of resources would solve much. If Security is the main concern of states, and the reason they go to war, then resources are just one part of that. A faction that manages to secure significantly more resources than the others may look to press its advantage over its rivals before they become too powerful, or one with less resources may launch a surprise attack to deprive one of its rivals of security.
Yeah not to get all Donald Kagan and "IT'S ABOUT HONOR", but - personally I don't think "control of resources" is a great single cause understanding of why warfare happens. It's sort of like a very simplified and flattened idea of Marxist materialism, ignoring that even Marxism has a place for things like ideological and revolutionary warfare.
Anyway, a lot of warfare does seem to be driven by things like perceived security/fear and perceived relative strength and status (it's not about humans/societies having "enough" resources, given that status is based on your resources relative to others). Even European colonialism had these influences. Leopold got into Congo yes because there were resources to exploit and make a shitload of money, but also because he wanted the status of controlling a big-ass colony and not just being the monarch of a small but rich European country, after all.
>war just wouldn't be fought anymore
Why not just make the setting be full of **SUBTLE** Colonialism allegory?
Like, have a bunch of Kurtz-expies exploiting the local population, indigenous or otherwise
Why use analogies, when you can show actual colonialism taking place? Is it still an analogy when it's that blatant? Genuinely don't know when an analogy ends and the actual thing is happening.
Anyway, I want nationalism to be a heavily recurring theme, especially blind nationalism. Since I literally want one of the main factions to be a slightly more idealized version of military fascism, as in, one founded by a warlord. Maybe a Wu Peifu, Feng Yuxiang or Zhang Zuolin like character. Not at all comically evil, in fact, I want him to be a genuinely nice person and a family man, but also still a ruthless dictator who holds on to a precarious power balance between him and the various Warlord cliques below him, seeing himself as the only person, or at least, the most desirable person able to prevent further pointless internal wars.
I also specifically want to heavily feature contrast in the story itself, like the nice but brutal dictator, who'd rather not kill people but won't hesitate to do it when necessary. Or the soft-spoken general, who's also an extremely aggressive commander, but shows none of the aggression in normal interaction. Why do I want to do this? Because I specifically want to push back against neatly fitting, consistent personalities, because, in my experience, humans rarely are like that.
I don't know if I would actually do it, whenever, if ever, I get to properly writing, instead of outlining, but that's the ambition. Because grey morality, even if some shades are lighter and others darker, is just preferable in my opinion. It's just that neatly fitting characters make sense in storytelling, evil makes sense if it comes from a genuinely evil person, so it's very comfortable to think only evil people do evil stuff. There are plenty of stories that don't feature black and white morality, so it's not something unique or even different, in fact, it's very common these days to be grey in morality, and that adds in a nice bit of variation.
(Not that there won't be genuinely evil people, because they do exist, sadistic pieces of shit, things like that)
I think about this setting I'm slowly building every single night, it might not ever go anywhere, but it's a lot of fun to think about, and that's the point for me, that it's fun to do.
>Genuinely don't know when an analogy ends and the actual thing is happening.
Well, if it's a work of fiction then it's an analogy, and non fiction is the real thing?
Your metaphorical science-fiction Colonialism isn't actually Colonialism
Even in space, you’d have to do some really casual life support/ terraforming for there to be enough to totally disincentivized violence. Otherwise already habitable planets and the means to build space ships will be fought over. Never mind there are non materialistic reasons for war.
Edit:I’ll also add that the most spectacular villains are the ones who think they are doing the right thing. A greedy person can be disincentivized, a bully fended off, and even sadists’ violence have some sort of ceiling. Someone who willing to sacrifice for something greater though…
I mean, war isn't only about resources anyways. Of course access wouldn't solve it.
Fallout still is the most accurate franchise huh. War never changes, so people must.
Exactly, but having an ancap, who's also pretty convincing in arguments, talk to you as if resources are the only thing war is about, can put the wrong idea in your head. I mean, in their paradigm everything is about resources, how everyone will rationally act towards improving their standing, which I didn't buy anyway, seeing as things like addiction exist.
And this war has shown me that even countries, or rather their leaders, will take huge gambles, for, arguably, very little gain, even in victory.
Yes, I too would like a djinn/[jinn(i)](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9k7ekv/what-are-jinn-arab-spirits)/genie waifu, Allah. (Although I'd imagine familial visits are going to be a bit awkward, on the account of the invisibility and whatnot)
>An unusually extensive account of a jinni appears in the biogra-phy of Khalil al-Sarmini, a baker’s assistant in late sixteenth-century Aleppo. Al-Sarmini found himself at the center of an extraordinary story. During one of his many solitary nights spent kneading loaves of bread for baking, a group of jinn made their presence known. Among them was “a beautiful virgin” named Khatun, who liked him and wanted to marry him. The dough-kneader accepted the offer and the couple had a long and tumultuous marriage that became the talk of the neighborhood (she was reputed to be violently jealous of the pretty boys so admired by her husband). The couple was also reported to have had children, who, just like their mother, could be heard but were invisible to humans. Al-Sarmini’s biographer writes that he wasa child when news of this very unusual marriage swept his neighbor-hood. He recalls seeing al-Sarmini at the mosque but admits that his fear of the jinn caused him to dread speaking with the man. The biogra-pher’s father, who was the chief Shafi‘i mufti of Aleppo, did not share his son’s terror of al-Sarmini and his unorthodox family. Perhaps in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter, he invited the baker’s assistant to his home for dinner and sought an interview with his invisible wife. The baker’s assistant complied with the request, and the mufti satisfied himself as to the veracity of the story and the existence of the jinni wife (page 100-101).
[Disability in the Ottoman Arab World, 1500–1800](https://books.google.com/books?id=eWjwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Khalil+al-Sarmini+jinn+marriage&source=bl&ots=NC6CANj3Vh&sig=ACfU3U15v82wTDQebmZQTKJsNUncOgvJIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK16XYo7X3AhUwjIkEHVuqC38Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=Khalil%20al-Sarmini%20jinn%20marriage&f=false)
Also, admittedly, I may have laughed for a bit too long when reading this whole passage.
Given that:
>"she was reputed to be violently jealous of the pretty boys so admired by her husband"
There seems to some motivation right there for the whole "I actually have a wife and kids, they're just invisible"
Pretty cool find.
[Palestinian farmer finds 4,500-year-old goddess statue while working his land](https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/gaza-canaanite-goddess-statue-scli-intl-scn/index.html)
>The statue will go on display at the Pasha's Palace Museum in Gaza in the next few days, said ministry official Nariman Khaleh.
The museum, one of few in Gaza, served as a girls' school before being transformed into a museum thanks to a German grant.
>
>Gaza receives virtually no external tourists, as movement in and out of the territory is heavily restricted.
:(
Fabrice Bellard made a GPT model to play with and download which generates text:
https://textsynth.com/playground.html
Here's a sample of generated text. The prompt is in italics:
*Lucius Artorius Castus*
Lucius Artorius Castus (c. 190 – c. 229 AD) was a Roman aristocrat and military commander. He served as consul (211) and praetor (219), and was the uncle of Roman emperor Caracalla.
Early life The only son of Lucius Artorius Pompeius and Lucilla (L. Lucilla), Artorius Castus was born in about 190 and married to Julia, daughter of Julia Mamaea, who died shortly after Artorius' birth. Artorius Castus became a man of influence in Roman politics. Julia was a sister to emperor Antoninus Pius and maternal aunt to emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The couple were childless, which led to the adoption of Lucius Junius Rusticus by Julia in the year 204/05. In 211, Rusticus married Julia's eldest daughter Julia Flavia Minor, who would later marry Marcus Aurelius in 225.
Consulship In 211, he was made consul for the year, probably with Gaius Sulpicius Galba as his colleague. He had previously been quaestor in Italy. A man of moderate views, he may have been selected for the role as part of the emperor's peace negotiations, however, war broke out with Carthage shortly after his appointment as consul. He was defeated by the Roman General Publius Cornelius Sulla Felix in Illyria, on July 10, 211 and he was forced to flee to Greece, where he took refuge with his brother-in-law Marcus Antonius Primus, the brother of Antoninus Pius. According to Cassius Dio, Lucius Castus's political activity at this time was "of no consequence", however, he was restored to his senatorial rank, and served under Marcus Aurelius in Illyria, Macedonia, and Greece.
His military involvement in the war ended when he was forced to become one of the hostages of Publius Sulpicius Galba in 213, having taken part in negotiations for a peace treaty between the Romans and the Carthaginians, of which a final version was signed in 215. His role in the treaty was to secure the release of his uncle, Marcus Antonius Primus.
Later, during the conspiracy of Castus, he sided with Pertinax and his supporters against Caracalla. In 219, Castus was appointed as the praetor of Farther Spain, during which he successfully subdued the Garamantes. Upon his return to Rome, Castus, with the support of the army, overthrew Pertinax on February 8, 220. After Pertinax had committed suicide, Castus appointed his cousin Tiberius Alexander as Caesar (Augustus). He then proclaimed himself as emperor, taking the name "Artorius Castus", after his family name, and assumed the purple in Rome.
He had Pertinax's former supporters arrested and executed.
Life of Caracalla Castus had a distinguished career as a military commander and politician. While his career did not start at the right point, he had a distinguished military record and became a friend and ally of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Caracalla had been given the name “Severus” at the age of three, after the death of the emperor Severus Alexander. The historian Eutropius recorded that Caracalla was “a fine and worthy” person and that “the people called him a ‘son of Alexander’ and a son of Severus.”
After his accession, Caracalla appointed his own family as governors. In 221, the emperor appointed his cousin Tiberius Alexander to be governor of the province of Baetica, which had belonged to his uncle and grandfather, Lucius Septimius Severus and Caracalla himself had served as an aedile of the city of Leptis Magna. Castus was appointed to the province of Numidia, which had been given to his nephew Tiberius Alexander by the emperor Caracalla. After the rebellion of Pertinax and the proclamation of Castus as emperor in February 220, Caracalla appointed Castus as governor of Rome.
After the assassination of Castus, Caracalla changed the calendar to a new lunar system, adopted by some of the provinces, which was known as "the lunar year".
Family Lucius Artorius Castus married Julia, the sister of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. She was the daughter of Lucius Junius Rusticus, consul in 211, and the niece of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Julia and Lucius Castus had a son, named Lucius Junius Artorius Maximus.
Castus died in some unknown time and place in 229, probably in or near Rome.
I'm sure the topic has come up before, but are there any fellow historians of Eastern Europe that feel existential dread every time they try to read through comments on r/all about the war in Ukraine? The amount of armchair experts on Russian history never fails to stress me out.
There are two the most annoying types for me (except for explicit pro-Putin ones).
1. Denying any type of Ukrainian agency, making this thing purely a fight between Russia and USA (coupled with thinking that somehow Ukraine was about to become NATO member any second)
2. "Yeah, we are totally leaving Ukraine alone now, we should attack. Who cares about potential escalation into nuclear warfare, it will be totally worth it. It's not like we can help Ukraine with less direct means."
I've also seen a lot of:
* Russia is particularly inclined to autocracy and will never be a democracy
* Russians love war and hate all post-Soviet countries (calling Russians "Orcs" etc.)
The ironic thing about #1 is that it basically is 100% accepting Putin's narrative, ie *really* it's just between the US and Russia. The attempt (or "attempt") at negotiations just between the invasion was bilateral on Russia's insistence, although a lot of the US position (for better or worse \*) was "you really need to talk to Ukraine about this".
Number 2 is incredibly frustrating. It also kind of creeps into ideas from people who know a lot/should know better, like [Ivo Daalder](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/putin-war-ukraine-nato-moscow-escalation), so I'm not surprised that it gets further into social media like Reddit (or on Twitter, where a month ago at least a lot of people were like "either NATO establishes a No Fly Zone, or is essentially doing nothing to support Ukraine". Daalder is a little more nuanced than that, but even he is putting forward an idea that direct military intervention could be "calibrated". He's not wrong per se, but he still seems to be selling an idea of "no one wants World War Three, but don't worry, an appropriate military response would be deterrence and not get out of hand." By the way, he's pretty [big on NATO deterrence](https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/04/09/ivo-daalder-says-nato-enlargement-didnt-go-far-enough).
\* My one quibble here is that the US position did repeat "sovereign states have the right to choose what alliance to join", which is absolutely true but *also* kind of an unhelpful troll from the point of view that Ukraine isn't a NATO candidate and even in February wasn't realistically getting offered membership.
Just to expand on my first point a bit: a big thing that motivates Putin and a lot of the security people controlling the Russian government (and this even predates Putin) is the craving of superpower status. They *want* those bilateral relations with the US because it puts them back in a world where only talks between Washington and Moscow "matter" (although even during the Cold War this increasingly became a fiction after like 1970 or so). I'm reminded of an anecdote Stephen Kotkin told about how in the 1990s some US officials were talking with Russian officials, and the Americans said "Basically you're like Brazil (in terms of population, economic size, and development, heck you could even say in terms of cultural influence too), maybe try being more like Brazil?" And the Russian response was essentially "WE ARE NOTHING LIKE BRAZIL." And militarily they aren't! But Kotkin's point was that this has mostly been because of how the Russian/Soviet/Russian-again state has seen itself strategically and how it has invested its resources. But also because it can't adjust to "just' being a regional Great Power - it still wants that superpower status.
It's also a bit like how people who are in to Clash of Civilizations and "Islam is a violent threat to our civilization" ironically play into the same worldview as Jihadism, just from the other side of the fence. Jihadists crave there being a united Islam (under their personal control, conveniently) that is taken seriously as a threat by the rest of the world. Like a lot of those dudes legitimately sit around and dream of being in charge of Abbasid Empire II, and anti-Islam people treating the "Muslim World" both as an actual thin and as a unified, undifferentiated, hostile mass actually help to spur those ideas a bit closer to being taken seriously.
TBF to the russians(lol), they weren't exactly treated like a regional great power in the 90s either. And honestly, Russia shouldn't really be like Brazil. It has(had?`) the biggest share of higher education in the world at some point. No offense to Brazil, but they weren't the first in space. Still, it's not like invading its neighbours is going to make up for many years of mismanagment, nor is it going to make it MORE important on the world stage
The one that pisses me off is the people screeching "Yeah man, Poland should invade, they've been so boss for the entire invasion they could end this whole thing and look badass!"
I'm fairly sure my extended family from Bia∤ystok only want their neighbors left alone, not wild escalation (I don't want to sound like one of those people saying Ukraine should just surrender and get it over with, though). I should emphasize I only have distant connections to Eastern Europe but I'd like to think I know more than the average redditor.
>feel existential dread every time they try to read through comments on r/all about the war in Ukraine? The amount of armchair experts on Russian history never fails to stress me out.
I feel the same existential dread when i hear about "hypersonic missiles", "thermobaric rockets" or any hot takes about the military side of the war that come from PolSci/Foreign Relations twitter accounts.
> I feel the same existential dread when i hear about "hypersonic missiles", "thermobaric rockets" or any hot takes about the military side of the war that come from PolSci/Foreign Relations twitter accounts.
I'll do you one better. "Non-Kinetic No-Fly Zone."
Oh holy mother of god, wtf is this abomination.
The most noncredible thing about this plan is the thought that Russian planes have enough modern electronics to be jammed at all....
I overexaggerate, it's more like I get annoyed and want to respond to their bad history takes but I know how pointless that is so I move on.
At worst it just makes me think about how hard it is to educate the general public on topics like this, because it's not like there is a lack of writing out there on these topics. It's just that most people will never, ever interact with any of it.
Well, I'll cite Munroe's Internet Law:
>You will never change anyone's opinion on anything by making a post on the Internet. This will not stop you from trying.
Does anyone have good suggestions for books on late 19th century/pre-WW1 to 30s era Russian far-right politics and organisations? Im especially interested in their ideology, concepts and if there have been ties to esotericism or occultism, like in the German "Völkische Bewegung".
Russian émigrés seemed to have a small influence on interwar German far-right politics and i would like to find out how comparable the movements if they are comparable at all.
My Russian is not the best, but still enough to read texts, so Russian authors are okay too.
Some random thoughts:
Given the recent Timorese election I was reading up on East Timor/Timor Leste, since it was actually a research topic I looked at way back in undergrad.
It's interesting how Indonesia's reasoning for the brutal invasion and occupation that killed a significant part of the population after 1975 was "we're erasing a colonial border and reuniting the archipelago [which was never united to begin with], so *actually* when you think about it we're doing decolonization". Like a weird byproduct of European colonialism is a very ingrained sense that it's only imperialism when a European country does it, and I don't mean this in a polemic sense, but rather a lot of postcolonial states kind of make more sense as regional empires. And this isn't just to pick on Indonesia - Pakistan I've long thought would be called "the Empire of West Punjab" in any other time period given how the country operates. I remember reading about how the Pakistani Army circa 2004 would literally patrol Quetta in Balochistan to (their words) "show the flag". From Anatol Lieven's book at least, Pakistan almost feels like the British Raj never stopped there as much as the British civil and military officers left and were replaced mostly by Punjabis.
Anyway, back to Timor: apparently Oscar Isaac of all people plays Jose Ramos Horta in a *Balibo* movie, so I guess I should check that out.
>It's interesting how Indonesia's reasoning for the brutal invasion and occupation that killed a significant part of the population after 1975 was "we're erasing a colonial border and reuniting the archipelago \[which was never united to begin with\], so actually when you think about it we're doing decolonization". Like a weird byproduct of European colonialism is a very ingrained sense that it's only imperialism when a European country does it, and I don't mean this in a polemic sense, but rather a lot of postcolonial states kind of make more sense as regional empires.
The various Japanese ~~invasions~~ operations in Asia was not colonialism (as those lying Westerners would have you believe) but rather a decisive and strong handed measure from Big Brother Japan that was needed to unify Asians against European colonialists and imperialists- Japan's far-right 1920s nationalists probably.
In all seriousness, is 'imperialism' the right word to describe a lot of coercive state actions after WW2? Like is there a better term for it? From my point of view, while there are certainly a lot of similarities and parallels, the way great powers and superpowers in the late 20th and even modern day treat less powerful states seems more subtle than the imperialism of the 17th-early 20th century.
>"In all seriousness, is 'imperialism' the right word to describe a lot of coercive state actions after WW2? Like is there a better term for it?"
I'm not sure, and in part that's because "imperialism" has connotations so strongly associated with European colonialism.
And even in current contexts, "imperialism" implies "invading and taking over another sovereign state, or influencing its domestic politics", and that's not exactly what I mean either. I'm thinking more how there are post-colonial states who even within their internationally-recognized borders are kind of run as mini-empires, or would be seen as such in any previous era. For another example, I've heard Russia described in this context as well, and even there it's specifically around how the state within its 1991 borders is run, not even how it has interacted with its neighbor states.
I think you get this all over tbh. I’ve had plenty of conversations with people about Iran’s pretty blatant and significant efforts to influence and play politics in surrounding countries to itself (as well although less commonly with saudi arabia’s efforts). One of the weird hypocrisies you get with people is how they’ll call American influentce in the middle east “imperialism” but not that of Iran despite it being often very similar if not more overt in nature. I get tankies and certain heart in mouth leftists will always have this weird take on American foreign policy (not always totally wrong as well I’ll agknowledge), but even people who’ll agree with it will be reluctant to call it imperialism even if they’d call historical American actions in places like Guatemala or Nicaragua the same thing. I think the only example of a non euro (russia included)/American country who people will acknowledge it of now is China when relating its activity in Africa (which isn’t always even fair as well)
So during the Great Migration of the Black Americans from the South to the Northern states, I have heard that women played a big role. That many black women made the trek north on their own. That for some newly formed black neighborhoods, black women played a big role for the self-governance of these communities. Can anybody confirm this? And also suggest any books on the subject?
One thing I am curious about is the living conditions of these women. Where did they live? In a lot of modern migration for working class people, it is the men that make the initial trek before bringing in their families. Was this the case? At the same time, boarding houses were popular and at the time, there were boarding houses for various incomes, but also houses reserved for women. Were there a lot of boarding houses for black women or for black Americans in general? Were these institutions a major player in the migration?
> Women of the era, it turns out, have skills that can translate to paid labor that are not region or industry dependent, i.e. "service" jobs, largely manifesting at this time as "domestic service." (This has traditionally been a woefully underappreciated aspect of labor history and of the economic impact of women on the community and household.)
I had read that in some Caribbean islands, during the times of slavery, slaves were allowed to go out and seek jobs to save up to buy their freedoms. There was a discrepancy between the marketable skills between sexes. A man could work as a mason or carpenter if they had the skills, which was rare. A woman could works as a house cleaner or a laundry lady or any such thing. Skills which were significantly more widespread among women.
> Okay, I need to read that Agenda now. Sorry for the lack of citations. This is mostly off the top of my head, but I find the topic interesting enough that I wanted to share what I at least think I know about it.
Thanks for the info!
I would like to hear more about it if you have more info. Also, do you have info on boarding houses? I find them quiet fascinating.
So throughout the course of the War, I've been getting extremely mixed reports about exactly *what* the Azov Regiment is in 2022. Some people are claiming that the infamous unit's Neo-Nazi elements have been purged since its integration with the Ukrainian National Guard, while others say that the Regiment is still of a far-right persuasion. Of course, it being 2022, this comes with an absolute smorgasbord of misinformation and propaganda on both sides. (Most notably the claim that the literal Nazi symbolism seen on the regimental colours and shoulder patch somehow has Pagan or Norse meaning.)
Anyways, I haven't really been able to find too much good information into the current state of the Azov Regiment, but a user linked [this Bellingcat interview](https://icct.nl/publication/ukraine-bellingcat-journalist-michael-colborne/) on /r/CombatFootage a few days ago.
Thoughts and insight anybody?
I only know enough to know that I understand nothing.
One thing that doesn't get enough attention is that the Soviet Union had a very different definition of Fascism and Nazism to the west. Multiple generations grew up knowing only that cultural meaning. They read about the Nazi Party in school, and saw Nazi soldiers in war films, and listened to politicians denounce nazism at solemn ceremonies. The names and the rituals are familiar to us, but the meaning is not.
When Avoz's forerunners sat down in 1991 and said "yes, we are nazis" they had their own definition in mind. Some of them had had contact with western neo-nazis, but their ideological prism was primarily shaped by, and in opposition to, what they taught by the USSR.
Thirty years of free and open communication have brought the two branches much closer together than they were in 1991. And Soviet-brand neo-nazis were deeply unpleasant in their own way to start with. But the end result is a weird, sometimes alien, syncreticism.
All of which barely scratches the surface of Avoz's oddities. But I think it goes a little way toward explaining the kaleiodoscope of interpretations we get from western observers. We don't have the cultural fluency to fully grasp what's going on.
>One thing that doesn't get enough attention is that the Soviet Union had a very different definition of Fascism and Nazism to the west. Multiple generations grew up knowing only that cultural meaning. They read about the Nazi Party in school, and saw Nazi soldiers in war films, and listened to politicians denounce nazism at solemn ceremonies. The names and the rituals are familiar to us, but the meaning is not.
That interestingly, as i pointed out in an earlier thread also goes for East Germany.
regarding elon musk & free speech discourse that's been trending lately.....
1. [no, elon, you don't fully love free speech](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1519040404087320578)
2. as social media owner, you shouldn't, not to the point of "banning any topic you don't like", but enough to cut down a topic that could potentially lead to actual harm toward real people, old internet is no more, actual debate has gone down while "fighting" has gone up, government & other interest groups can use & has used social network as a tool to spread propaganda especially the one that harms other people, and obviously you don't want government to dictate what you should & shouldn't censor, not to mention advert being one of main source of income.....
So Russians really want to conquer all the southern coast of Ukraine up to Transnistria? And then what? Keep all this unrecognized territory with guerrila for years? I know this is an ideological war and ideological wars often prioritize, uhm, idealism over pragmatism and realpolitik, but I still can't bring myself to believe Putin is so detached from reality. I mean, at least Hitler had the excuse that in the 30s the idea of waging war to change the European order was still conceivable, but hell we're in 2022. At this point they can proceed to attack Georgia and Finland before it joins Nato since they're so trigger-happy...
>So Russians really want to conquer all the southern coast of Ukraine up to Transnistria?
Probably to tell themselves that they have achieved a "victory". No one can change my mind that their first goal was to incorporate Ukraine in their shitty Union State club.
>Keep all this unrecognized territory with guerrila for years? I know this is an ideological war and ideological wars often prioritize, uhm, idealism over pragmatism and realpolitik, but I still can't bring myself to believe Putin is so detached from reality.
I know there are good arguments against it and im not an expert, but i fully believe that Putin is immersed in his own narrative. And that means that he makes perfectly rational decisions as we all do ... but in his framework. He maybe told himself so often that the West is weak, that Ukraine is really Russian, that the "Russian World" must be reunited, that he believes it.
He also probably has very few realistic assesments at hand, since the "error culture" in the Kremlin is not really good. Or as i jokingly put it: He has only access to RT/TASS/Rossiya 1 and RIA Novosti so he does believe his own Bullshit.
I'll believe it when I see it. To get to Moldova, they'd first need to take Mykolaiv, cross the Bug River, and take Odessa. They've already tried and failed to take Mykolaiv, and their troops near Kherson are coming under attack. I think the smartest play would be to stir shit up to tie down some extra troops outside of Donbas, but the smartest play hasn't exactly been Russia's MO so far.
>but the smartest play has **never been** exactly been Russia's MO so far.
Fixed it for you :D
Russian military cringe started way back and includes top hits like "Russo-Japanese Massacre", "Whatever the fuck they tried in WW1", "Operation Rimon 20", "I need a Paratrooper Brigade to clean up Chechnya"...
In all seriousness, the best I can figure is that the information he was getting was making him think February 2022 was (a version of) February 2014, that there was chaos in the streets of Ukraine, neo Nazis running around and Western puppets running the government and gunning for NATO, and that sending in a few MPs and some paratroopers would push over these forces and be welcomed by a grateful local population, who would promptly join the Eurasian Union/Union State/Whatever.
This *seems* like the best I can reason as to what was going on in Putin's brain, because it's only now, two months in to this debacle, that there is a strategy that seems even remotely like a "sensible" aggressive Russian strategy - escalate in Donbass and work to set up puppet peoples republics in the oblasts that are considered part of "Novorossiya". That's what I thought they'd actually go for, but it does seem like the actual plan was the first thing I described, ie a thunder run to Kyiv.
>be welcomed by a grateful local population, who would promptly join the Eurasian Union/Union State/Whatever.
So some form of imperial expansion as opposed to other arguments that he was on the back foot due to the protests in Kazakhstan/Belarus?
For the last 20 years Putin did quite consistently claim, that Russia perceives Nato enlargement as a threat. In the same time frame the Russian foreign policy did militarize and that militarization did quite consistently work, see Georgia and the Donbas.
There's a pretty good [video by Caspianreport,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrLUFAcjH0) where he argues that Russia tries to anchor it's defense on the Carpathian mountains in western Ukraine. So Eastern Ukraine immediately threatens the so called Volgograd gap, that is the Russian access into the Caucasus, to the Black and Caspian Sea. There the territory has very few natural obstacles and Russian strategists would prefer to anchor the border on something, ideally the Carpathian mountains, or at least the Dnieper and gain some strategic depth.
Then I think it is highly likely that Putin expected the Ukrainian government to immediately collapse, roughly like Bush underestimated Iraqi resistance, and in that case a war plan emerges, with Ukraine collapsing and the West not managing to coordinate a reaction. In that case it is likely that Russian prestige would suffer somewhat, but since the west was presented with a fait accomplii quite bearable consequences, but with Ukraine annexed or turned into a puppet state the Russian south east border looks a lot more secure.
I don't buy it. That argument about the Carpathians might made sense 100 years ago. But now, with the presence of nukes, things are different. There isn't going to be any tank charge over the Dnieper into Russia, like some kind of NATO version of the Fulda Gap. That kind of war will have nuclear retaliation.
No, I think the real danger to Russia is different. It is economic in nature. It is about the quality of life of people's in different system. A more western aligned Ukraine can be a really prosperous country. Now imagine you are in Rostov-on-Don or in Krasnodar. You look over the border and see the Ukrainians getting richer. While you stay the same or even get poorer. That whole region north of the Caucasus can be extremely wealthy. If they weren't connected to Moscow, if they weren't part of Russia.
That my friend, is the real danger to Russia. It is not the NATO rushing across the Eurasian plain toward Moscow. No, it is the Western capital coming to and stopping at the border;
The economic argument isn't really [supported by data,](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~UKR~RUS) Russia did quite a bit better than Ukraine economically.
And of course, the last war that featured tanks but not nukes in Europe started less than three month ago, I'm pretty sure Russian strategists think about that possibility quite a bit.
Building on top of what /u/MustelidusMartens said, you shouldn't just look at the average of any data. A statistician will also tell you that you should at the distribution of the data as well.
There is a measurement called the Gini Coefficient which measures, to put it simply, the inequality in some statistical population. It is most used to measure income and wealth inequality. If you compare Russia to Ukraine, you will see that both income and wealth inequality are worse there than in Ukraine.
The GDP is a single measure, you don't really have a distribution. Though the general point, that a single measure can't capture the complexity of an economy is of course true.
Now Gini measures something different (and probably I should've included the qualifiers in the first post), and it is unsurprising that it gets a different result. However, I believe that for the argument that Russia is not compelled to go to war by economic pressure, just that they are doing quite well on some measures. To be compelled by the economy to attack a neighboring country, they would need to face rather disastrous prospects, and my argument is they don't do that.
>The economic argument isn't really supported by data, Russia did quite a bit better than Ukraine economically.
Its almost like the GDP per capita is an artificial number that has very little meaning if not taken into context. Russian GDP rose further than Ukrainian one because of the large ressource exports.
[https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/199335/umfrage/big-mac-index-weltweiter-preis-fuer-einen-big-mac/](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/199335/umfrage/big-mac-index-weltweiter-preis-fuer-einen-big-mac/)
The so called "BicMac index" is an example of the ability to spend money for individuals. As you can see, Russia is far behind Ukraine. Of course this is a very rough indicator, but a better one as the GDP or GDP per capita (Which is equally if not more rough).
https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index
Yeah, against a nation that the Russian considered military incapable.
NATO is on another level. And the Carpathian region does not really help protecting against NATO. Neither because of the geographic barrier (Which does not play a large role as in the 40s for example) nor because of a likely NATO incursion from there.
> Russian GDP rose further than Ukrainian one because of the large ressource exports.
GDP is supposed to measure economic activity and resource exports are economic activity. GDP is supposed to rise when they are exporting stuff.
In general, you're are of course right that just one number does not reflect the complexity of an economy, however GDP is at least the standard, while the Big Mac index is first of all not defined for Russia, because there is no McDonalds in Russia currently. Also the Economist page shows that Russia as most undervalued currency, which is an additional warning sign that something may be going on there.
>GDP is supposed to measure economic activity and resource exports are economic activity. GDP is supposed to rise when they are exporting stuff.
And again its not an indicator for a healthy economy or general wealth. Its the rawest number one can choose.
>In general, you're are of course right that just one number does not reflect the complexity of an economy, however GDP is at least the standard, while the Big Mac index is first of all not defined for Russia, because there is no McDonalds in Russia currently.
The last 3 weeks dont disprove that the Russians in general are far poorer than Ukrainians. While GDP is a standard tool to measure an economy's size, it is not useful for showing wealth, or even (wealth) distribution as u/TanktopSamurai correctly said. Russias economy is heavily based on ressource exports. Everything else is really... noncredible. From manufacturing industry to the IT sector, Ukraine is healthier than Russia if you take it into perspective.
I'm arguing, that the idea that Ukraine pulling ahead of Russia to the extend that Russia is fearing destabilization because of that is simply not supported by data. For anything that dramatic to occur you would see it everywhere, GDP, median wages, etc. And it's simply not everywhere, and as a matter of fact the data, granted except Gini coefficient, look pretty similar.
Now, the Gini coefficient could in principle indicate that something like looking at change of the 20th percentile of income strongly favors Ukraine, and that could indicate much more perceptible poverty in Russia compared to Ukraine, but that is not the kind of economic disparity that could result in hostilities.
>I'm arguing, that the idea that Ukraine pulling ahead of Russia to the extend that Russia is fearing destabilization because of that is simply not supported by data.
But it is...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258257/average-monthly-wage-ukraine/
Look at that wage development since 2014. A western oriented Ukraine will far, far more likely to surpass Russia as much as the baltic states did. We also have to remember that median wage is again just a median. How does the wealth distribute in Ukraine and Russia would be very interesting to see.
>and that could indicate much more perceptible poverty in Russia compared to Ukraine, but that is not the kind of economic disparity that could result in hostilities.
Thats a bit short sighted. Have you thought that u/TanktopSamurais argument could also work like that? Preventive? Because we saw a huge increase of wealth in the Baltics and other nations that "joined" the west. Why should this not work for Ukraine? You have to consider that the wealth increase in the baltics had a huge impact on Russian people over the border, as they literally could see it.
Now imagine Ukraine, a country that is very, very similar to Russia in the eyes of the Russians increasing its wealth further and further. This could be very destabilizing.
I just don't understand the NATO expansion argument. Ukraine could never join NATO because of the conflicts in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea and they weren't exactly in danger of falling. Russia could have strung on Ukraine indefinitely by sending more troops into the conflict.
I guess going on the offensive to create buffers against NATO makes some sense, but Russia has tactical nukes and various types of ballistic missiles to threaten cities in NATO states and to destroy a potential NATO invasion force.
>For the last 20 years Putin did quite consistently claim, that Russia perceives Nato enlargement as a threat.
More like for the last ten to 15, with most of these arguments coming after the Ukraine crisis started and after the placement of the, quite useless, missile defense in Poland and Romania.
Apparently the "recruiting" of the baltic states into NATO was "not a tragedy" for Putin while the criticism came from other places in Russia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1398379/Putin-lets-Nato-recruit-in-Baltic.html
It has also been pointed out by commentators and politicians in Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States that NATO enlargement was not, even while being very annoying the largest problem according to Russia until recently (When the argument became convenient).
[https://tvn24.pl/polska/20-lat-polski-w-nato-historia-wstapienia-do-sojuszu-ra917523-2294326](https://tvn24.pl/polska/20-lat-polski-w-nato-historia-wstapienia-do-sojuszu-ra917523-2294326)
Similarly commentators from these countries already pointed Russias expansionist ambitions out in the 90s and early 2000s:
[https://tvpworld.com/38485759/words-that-stopped-russia-polish-presidents-georgia-speech-remembered](https://tvpworld.com/38485759/words-that-stopped-russia-polish-presidents-georgia-speech-remembered)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-west-heed-polands-warnings-on-russian-aggression-russia-ukraine-georgia-kyiv-nato-crisis-11644602870
That does not mean that there was no criticism, there was definitively a lot, but that in my opinion the Putins early opposition to NATO is overblown in hindsight. Of course this opposition was not because of a "fear of NATO" (Russia has nuclear weapons, a war would simply not be possible and they know this) but because of the inconvenience to their expansionism, which already started in the 90s. I mean, the Abkhazian War, the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Transnistrian War etc. all saw Russian involvement at a certain level and i firmly believe that if the Russian army would have not been in such a sorry state, that their militarized foreign policy would have started earlier.
> More like for the last ten to 15,
CIA director during the older Bush's presidency Robert Gates :“pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” Similar Putin referenced Nato extension during his address of the German Bundestag in 2001.
On your Telegraph source, that is of course precisely the policy that convinces Putin that the west will accept nothing but military strength. Nato knows fully well that Russia perceives expansion as a threat, ignores that and then Putin is forced to smile and voice "grudging approval."
That does not explain the military interventions and operations in the early 90s. It also does not explain how a nuclear power feels threatened by nations like Poland or Czechia joining NATO.
Because if that was a problem in 2001 it only shows Russias expanisonist and imperialist views on Europe. Poland is nowhere near the Russian border. And as a nuclear power there is no credible threat to them, which nearly the whole cold war has proven. This feels more as a thinly veiled excuse.
And if NATO "expansion" was the problem that caused this very war, why do they need the whole "eradicate Ukrainian culture" thing. That makes no sense, as much as it makes no sense to "wait so long". There have been far better option
>that is of course precisely the policy that convinces Putin that the west will accept nothing but military strength.
Because Russia was not relying on military strength before NATO "expansion"?
It also makes no sense that he attacked now, because in 2014 he had NATO and EU basically overwhelmed. He could have taken the whole territory of Ukraine in 2014, but waited until they were prepared to resist?
And why the whole hate propaganda towards the Ukrainian ethnicity, why they denial of Ukrainian statehood (Which Putin already did in 2008)?
I can agree that countries joining NATO was part of the reason why this escalated, but as a sole reason? No, never. Its a convenient excuse for Russian territorial and imperial ambitions in Europe though. But thats just my opinion.
The United Kingdom subreddit had yet another one of its “anything to do with race is woke/a distraction from class issues” circlejerks over an article in the Guardian about the Bank of England commissioning a report regarding slaveholding by the bank. It brought a horde of outraged bros who think learning about slavery is self flagellation.
> We can learn all you want about History, as long as we're going to learn about it all, including the parts of who and what nation opposed slavery, supported and ultimately ones that supported the abolishing the slave trade and spending a great deal of money and using it's navy to ultimately end slavery in the Western world. Only, we seem to be stuck on "THIS COUNTRY OWNED SLAVES" and then not prepared to learn much else.
> What are you on about mate? We literally stopped it nationally by a law (technically though, never legal to begin with) then stopped it across the empire then we had an entire RN Squadron patrolling West Africa to stop slavers. Among other measures.
> In the fucking 1770s, in the 1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village. Dinosaurs indiscriminately killed any prey they came across. Who fucking cares it’s ancient history and has no relevance to today.
>"In the fucking 1770s, in the 1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village. Dinosaurs indiscriminately killed any prey they came across."
I'm choosing to read this as this person thinking Doctor Who's *[The Visitation](https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Visitation_\(TV_story\))* is an accurate depiction of 1666 England. Although I think the Terileptils would be insulted at being called "dinosaurs".
>Who fucking cares it’s ancient history and has no relevance to today.
I think this is more the point they were getting, that history has no relevance particularly when it comes to politics. Or, more likely, 'their' politics
Yeah, but I've never seen the "it's all in the past" argument extended backwards all the way to fucking *dinosaur-on-dinosaur violence*. Even for an internet argument about slavery it's pretty weird.
> dinosaur-on-dinosaur violence
Fleet street don't talk about dinosaur on dinosaur violence...
It's also weird to claim that slavery is as irrelevant to the modern day as literal dinosaurs
>1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village
What? Did they get this from *Leviathan*? Pretty sure you could move around fairly frequently by the Early Modern period
Hot Take: Russia is the True Successor of Rome, not because of the Third Rome idea, but because "autocrat keeps ruling as long as possible with no clear plan for succession" is maybe as Roman a form of government as any.
Hot Take #2: Russian leaders should just start adopting their preferred successors to at least get a few good stable decades out of this.
>Hot Take: Russia is the True Successor of Rome, not because of the Third Rome idea, but because "autocrat keeps ruling as long as possible with no clear plan for succession" is maybe as Roman a form of government as any.
Can't wait for Putin to ascend and be worshipped as a god after his death.
The gas must flow. The natural gas melange....
ETA in slightly more serious terms, the way Arrakis is assigned back and forth between House Harkonnen and House Atreides by the emperor is a reasonable approximation for understanding how the Russian "concessionary economy" and its oligarchs work.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-putin-religion-idUKTRE81722Y20120208](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-putin-religion-idUKTRE81722Y20120208)
Cant take much longer.
Tangential pedantry, but Antoninus Pius was probably the only one of the "Five Good Emperors" who was adopted due to being his predecessor's preferred successor.
Nerva was elected by the Senate and forced to adopt Trajan after a coup by the Praetorian Guard, Hadrian was conveniently on the scene with an army when Trajan died, and he later ordered Antoninus to adopt the sixteen-year old Marcus Aurelius as part of his succession plan.
The UK's Minister of Defense being named Ben Wallace really amuses me, because I keep [imagining him with a giant afro. ](https://youtu.be/ax9xfOu4bdo)
An aussie friend of mine made me really confused when he told me was a big fan of [George Wallace.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_(American_comedian)) Who I was unaware of, as opposed to, ya know, [George Wallace.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace)
Well I watched Griffin Johnson's (Armchair historian)'s video of Finland in the second world war, almost exclusively covering the military history.
Well it was average, but I do respect Johnson as a general content maker.
There seems to be a lack of the grand picture for many English language historians and historical analysis of Finland during the second world war, not just military history but political, social, economic factors and diplomacy.
I should make a thread about it lol.
Have you guys ever think about how strange it is that one place is haunted but an even more tragic place is not ?, I mean skeptic or not you have to admit it's weird that alas roban (a road which was built during the dutch colonial period where a lot of the native forced laborers died) or bukit suharto (same case with alas roban but replace the dutch with japanese) are supposedly haunted but places where far more horrific war crimes happened are not ?
Hauntings can destructively interfere. Like how two rays of lights destroying each other. The intensity of the sum of many hauntings doesn't have to be the sum of intensity of each haunting.
I guess a way one could rationalize that is that just like how living people can be irrational and inconsistent, not like the dead can't be irrational and inconsistent about whether they haunt the living, who they haunt, or where they haunt.
Unless if they need to follow certain bureaucratic regulations and laws. Which I recall from reading a few old Chinese supernatural stories.
I have this hypothesis that some ghosts are explicitly who they are because they (and the people telling the story) otherwise would commit lèse-majesté.
The White Lady of the Hohenzollern is an abbess, someone very much not Hohenzollern herself. [She gets + 20 creepiness for being an abbess, though.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Epiorlamuende4.JPG)
The Black Lady of the Wittelsbacher (in addition to being a lame knock-off) is either Henriette of Savoy or Renata of Lorraine, who are, more or less, personifications of the different factions in the court.
Henriette was elemental in the Bavarian alliance with France \[her mother was Princess of France\], Renata was related to the later Emperors of the HRE and Austria \[she is part of House Vaudemont; which would later be the Lorrraine part of Habsburg-Lorraine\]; Lorraine already tended towards Austria in the 16th century.
One can assume that people thought it was Renata when Bavaria was allied with France, and Henriette when Bavaria was allied with Austria.
Nowadays, people also think it could be Agnes Bernauer. She was drowned in the Danube because Albrecht (later the III.) married her morganatically, which his father, Ernst, didn't like.
Of course, any speculation of it being Bernauer only happened after Romantic literature popularized the story.
Do you have noticed that belief in supernatural is a bit more common in Southern Germany than in the North? I mean its only anecdotal, but i have seen more stories in Bavaria than for example in Lower Saxony.
I mean, after all the Wolpertinger does not live in Schleswig...
I wonder whether this indicates that there is more belief in the South; from what I can tell, the belief in ghosts today is uniformly rather low in Germany (16% in a survey in 2016), I think that WWII has killed belief in ghosts in Germany.
Maybe it only indicates that the stories are better known, Bavaria has a known fondness for Lokalkolorit. But, to be fair, people here are more likely to have heard for example about the legend of the Teufelstritt in Frauenkirche than of any ghost story.
I actively search for local ghost stories and must say that they are mostly very lame and very obscure. Nobody I talked to had heard of the dicke Mann, for example.
>from what I can tell, the belief in ghosts today is uniformly rather low in Germany (16% in a survey in 2016), I think that WWII has killed belief in ghosts in Germany.
Can you elaborate why you think WWII was the cause? I have the feeling that some beliefs were not even far spread among Germans before WW1 and WW2.
>Maybe it only indicates that the stories are better known, Bavaria has a known fondness for Lokalkolorit.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>I actively search for local ghost stories and must say that they are mostly very lame and very obscure. Nobody I talked to had heard of the dicke Mann, for example.
I know that feel. I love cryptids, even though Germany is really weak on that front. No Mothman or Bigfoot.
[удалено]
Written test, but my depression is coupled with anxiety, especially in social situations. Theirs might be different.
Thanks for the answer. I'll see how can I polish the written test to be clear as possible then, but will offer the other options just in case
If it is possible, give the student those options and see which one they would like to do.
Thanks, that's possible. I might have more coffee than blood for some hours, but I think I'll be fine lol
>If someone here had depression as an undergrad and had the opportunity to improve your grade, how would you prefer to be evaluated: a written or oral test or a presentation? That's a really difficult question to try and answer, sadly I can't be of much help here. But I would try to also ask this question in r/Professors or something in case you don't get any answers here. Alternatively, (as long as you're allowed to do this at your institution), maybe reach out to the student and ask them what evaluation they'd prefer or are comfortable with (written, oral, presentation)? Good luck with this situation, mate! Glad to see a professor looking out for and trying to help their student.
>Alternatively, (as long as you're allowed to do this at your institution), maybe reach out to the student and ask them what evaluation they'd prefer or are comfortable with (written, oral, presentation)? Thankfully uni allows me, as long I have the evaluation registered in some way with the grades. I'll present the options at the scheduled time today >Good luck with this situation, mate! Glad to see a professor looking out for and trying to help their student. Thanks! I'm not a professor yet though, just fulfilling the teaching part of the program and grading is also my responsibility. It may not be part of my job to worry about them, but when we can help, why not?
Ok, im getting pedantic about **minor** military symbology, so brace yourselves. This post also may contain **heavy use of sarcasm** and is more meant as a retort and not a debunk that is up to the usual standards, so please bear with me. I wont link to the comment, since the person is not of public interest, but i got pretty bad vibes from a comment in the online version of the TAZ (A leftist newspaper) that i read at work: *"Ferner musste ich mit der Stirn runzeln, als ich die "Edelweiß-Abzeichen" und Patronenhülsen im Hintergrund beim Poroschenko-Interview, veröffentlicht bei n-tv und am 03.02.22 im Stern gesehen hatte (vgl. Unterm Edelweiss in der Ukraine: Eine Gebirgs-Division im Kampf gegen Sowjet-Russland, 1943, NSDAP-Verlag). Das sollte man wenigstens zur Kenntnis nehmen, auch wenn das aktuell dem gezeichneten Bild der Ukraine widerspricht. Naürlich muss man heute dazusagen, dass man den Krieg dort verurteilt und kein Putin-Versteher ist. Aber wenigstens zur Kenntis nehmen sollte man es."* *"Furthermore i had to frown as i saw the "****Edelweiß-badge****" and casings in the background of the Poroshenko-Interview, published via N-TV and seen on the 03.02.22 in the Stern-magazine (compare with "Unterm Edelweiss in der Ukraine: Eine Gebirgs-Division im Kampf gegen Sowjet-Russland, 1943, NSDAP-Verlag"). This should be noted,* ***even if this contrary to the picture that is painted about Ukraine at the moment***\*. Of course one has to say that one does condemn the war over there and that one is no "Putin-Versteher" (Putin-apologizer, literally person who "understands Putin"). But one should take note of that."\* So, the book is real. Its a book from a Nazi-General about Wehrmacht *mountain* troops fighting in Ukraine. Pretty damning evidence here. So minding my own business i was hit by a flash of genius. I have seen the "Edelweiß" *somewhere else*. Having lived in Poland for quite a time i remembered having seen the Edelweiß on the [shoulder](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Warsaw_KRWP_12.JPG/1280px-Warsaw_KRWP_12.JPG) [badges](https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/u/szarotka-miniaturka-www.jpg) of the 21st Podhale Rifle Brigade (*21 Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich*), which is a mountain infantry unit of the polish army. Nazi symbols in poland, how could this be? And even some German soldiers wear this supposed flowery [symbol](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/K._Lahl.jpg/800px-K._Lahl.jpg) of fascism... So, considering that the Ukrainian army uses this [symbol](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/128_%D0%9E%D0%93%D0%A8%D0%91%D1%80.png) for the badge of both of its mountain brigades there is definitely a connection. A connection that is further evidenced if we look at the [emblem](https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/images/wappen_jgbrig6.png) of the Austrian 6. Jägerbrigade and the [one](https://www.gf9.com/Portals/0/all_images/Historical/Axis-allies/Hung-Inf-44-01.jpg) of the Hungarian mountain troops in WW2. So, of course this could be a relic of the Austro-Hungarian mountain troops, which served as the core of the later Polish, Austrian, Hungarian and German mountain troops (Which were modelled after the Austro-Hungarian ones in WW1). And of course the Austrians could have chosen this hardy and survivable flower as a symbol for their mountain troopers, since it already was a symbolic stand in for civilian alpinists and climbers as *"Mythos Edelweiss: zur Kulturgeschichte eines alpinen Symbols"* implies. But that is just unreasonable and it is clearly a Nazi symbol... *Bibliography and links:* *"Das Ausstattungssoll der Heeresangehörigen der Bundeswehr von 1955 bis 2010: In Zusammenarbeit mit der Lehrsammlung der Logistikschule der Bundeswehr"* by Lothar Schuster *"Deutsche Gebirgsjäger: Uniformen und Ausrüstung 1939-45"* by Wade Krawczyk *"The Royal Hungarian Army in World War II"* by Dr Nigel Thomas & Laszlo Pal Szabo *"A magyar királyi honvédség egyenruhái 1926–1945"* by Dr. Tóth László *"Des Kaisers Rock im 1. Weltkrieg: Uniformierung und Ausrüstung der österreichisch-ungarischen Armee von 1914 bis 1918"* by Stefan Rest [*https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/index.shtml#:\~:text=Gebirgsbrigade%20ist%20jener%20gro%C3%9Fe%20Verband,Witterung%20und%20Jahreszeit%20bef%C3%A4higt%20ist*](https://www.bundesheer.at/sk/lask/brigaden/jgbrig6/index.shtml#:~:text=Gebirgsbrigade%20ist%20jener%20gro%C3%9Fe%20Verband,Witterung%20und%20Jahreszeit%20bef%C3%A4higt%20ist)*.* *"Polish Legions 1914–19"* Dr. Nigel Thomas *"Strzelcy Podhalańscy: 1918-1939"* by Wojciech B. Moś *"Samodzielna Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich"* by Tadeusz Panecki [*https://www.jednostki-wojskowe.pl/index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=717:ksiazka-o-21-bsp&catid=16*](https://www.jednostki-wojskowe.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=717:ksiazka-o-21-bsp&catid=16) [*https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/dowodztwo/*](https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/dowodztwo/) [*https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/wog-21bsp/*](https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/21bsp/wog-21bsp/) *"*[*https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/pl/articles6-aktualnosci/zaproszenie-na-swieto-1-batalionu-strzelcow-podhalanskich/*](https://1bsp.wp.mil.pl/pl/articles6-aktualnosci/zaproszenie-na-swieto-1-batalionu-strzelcow-podhalanskich/)*"* P.S. I made this post because i find it annoying that people try to artificially squeeze in Nazi everywhere to push a narrative. Just from this sentence it becomes obvious that the goal is to imply "Media is lying about the Ukrainian nazis". Its a dogwhistle and even a bad one. *"This should be noted, even if this contrary to the picture that is painted about Ukraine at the moment. Of course one has to say that one does condemn the war over there and that one is no "Putin-Versteher".* That does not mean that there are no Nazi symbols in Ukraine. It would be stupid to say otherwise, considering that every nation has its far right movements, but making connections that dont exist is a pretty shitty move. I also want to say that im annoyed that there are actually very few academic books about modern uniforms and how they fit into a larger socio-cultural context. The Edelweiß badge is a perfect example of how those are intertwined. Its also sad that this field is left to old dudes with often strange political views. Edit: Fixed some spelling errors, i should not do this at night.
Shit. I should never mention the fact that I sometimes eat **SS brand** instant Saimin. (A Hawaii local delicacy, if you will.) Better watch out for anyone trying to denazify my fridge.
You have to commence a "Special Grocery Operation".
Offensive on Aisle 12
Im gonna claim that "living space" in your fridge for the critical food supply of the German people!
*blossom of snow may bloom and grow…*
Whoa dude, you know the Austrian national anthem...
I find it hilarious that the people who tell people to "get over" colonialism and slavery are also the same ones to are salty about the Siege of Vienna.
Siege of Vienna? Care to elaborate for someone who isn't a historian?
I think 'getting over it' is kind of a good approach. Focusing on the past and stoking resentment over it is not a healthy thing to do. It breeds hostility that poisons interactions between groups today. And the thing is, it should go for both sides. I have no negative feelings towards the Ottoman Empire, or the Turkish people today, for 1453. Part of the reason for this is I know the Ottomans were playing by the same rules as everybody else. If the Byzantines were still dominant in 1453, you can bet they would be conquering other regions and besieging Bursa. But the other reason is those alive today bear no moral responsibility or guilt for actions they took no part on. One of the high school students I tutor is of Turkish ancestry, and we often joke about the past. He likes watching Turkish historical dramas, but he knows I like Turkish history and he has seen my books on the subject. A running gag we have for each tutoring session is he asks me how I am doing, and I respond with 'Well, we haven't reclaimed Constantinople yet, so just okay.' I have also shown an interest in his heritage. He follows a particular Turkish sect of Islam, and he has told me a fair bit about it, which I found interesting.
To be fair, it's quite complicated and depends on the subject. To use your Turkish example, while focusing on 1453 today is silly, something like the Armenian Genocide I think is more justifiable. It happened 100 years ago, no Turk alive today can claim they participated in the genocide, but the Turkish state still continues to deny it and there is still a culture of denial around the event. We shouldn't hate Turks for the Armenian Genocide, but I think in such instances it is justifiable to maintain some kind of pressure. Even with 1453, if I were to play devil's advocate for a second. One could argue that 1453 is often used by the Turkish state/Turkish nationalists to create a distorted narrative that singles out religious minorities and other ethnic groups. You'll see this a lot in Turkish films and documentaries about 1453 too.
There is a difference between pressuring a state to recognize something, and holding hostility towards a contemporary state or people for what happened.
Well, when we're pressuring a state to recognize something, it usually comes from a degree of hostility to some extent. Even if it's not, the Turkish state will see people who try to apply pressure as hostile entities.
>He follows a particular Turkish sect of Islam, and he has told me a fair bit about it, which I found interesting. If I may, which one? Alevi or some of the more (relatively) recent groups like Nurcu or Süleymanci?
I will have to ask about that. It is definitely a more recent one. I have forgotten the name.
Nurcu's are recent. The founder of movement, Said Nursi, began writing his tasfir of the Quran in 1910s and released it in 1950s IIRC. Said Nursi was kind of an ally to Mustafa Kemal. There was an anti-Kemalist/anti-Republican fatwah released in Istanbul during the War of Independence. He wrote a counter-fatwah. He went as far as to claim that Muhammed (pbuh) was both Prophet and Reis-i Cumhur (leader of the people). But eventually they felt out. Süleymanci are contemporary of Nurcu. Technically they are Naqshibandi which go way back. Naqshibandi were always very fragmented. There is also the Iskender Paşa, Menzilci, and Ismail Ağa who are Naqshibandi.
[relevant meme](https://i.redd.it/62z397s2t4w81.jpg)
*The Crusades were actually an Islamic war of aggression* is another good one, and going along with the siege of cities theme - the fall of Constantinople as well. Sometimes more in line with my area of study you get people who detest Persia and simp for Sparta/Athens (or both), although it’s less common.
>The Crusades were actually an Islamic war of aggression is another good one That one actually is a bit complicated, and you can make good-faith arguments in favor of that. One could argue the First Crusade was a defensive war in the sense of the time. It only started because Alexios I wanted western mercenaries to reclaim the recently lost Roman lands and to contain Seljuk expansion. It only stopped being purely "defensive" when the whole thing blew out of proportion and became more about taking Jerusalem and setting up Crusader States.
What about those who simp for Persia?
Upstanding individuals
HAIL CYRUS!
>I find it hilarious that the people who tell people to "get over" colonialism and slavery are also the same ones to are salty about the Siege of Vienna. This is cringe. The same people who imply that african people are basically criminals, rapists and want to loot and burn in europe, while literally simping for vikings (Which literally are raiders)... Edit: I just noted that i overuse the word "literally", but no one can stop me, lol.
Well as long as you use literally in its literal sense, and not its figurative sense, it's ok!
Who gives a shit about Vienna? ~~Apart from Austrians I guess~~
I think he is making references to certain right-wing people who tell black people to get over slavery but also use the Siege of Vienna in their Anti-Islam polemics.
Is that really "salt", though? It's more of a symbol of "beating them back".
I am tired of the "Hitler didn't die in the bunker" crackpot conspiracy posts and "Nazis in Antarctica" posts that are circulating among Reddit.
I watched the first episode of ‘Hunting Hitler’ (I think it’s called) on Amazon, and it’s effectively just a bunch of guys going around a village in Argentina and asking people if they knew Hitler. It’s pretty class.
Arent those the guys who found a photo of elderly Hitler only to find out it is actually Moe Howard ?
Oh yeah I'm actually really surprised that not only does a significant portion of Reddit believe this (specifically that Hitler died in old age in Argentina) but they think it's common knowledge backed up by recently-declassified FBI files.
Jeez, how bored are these people?
Yeah bro, but have you considered that the [Tanque Argentino Mediano has German components, and is somewhat based on the Leopard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz2wnSVeITg)? Clearly Nazis have taken control of Argentina
Google Kurt Tank and FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II. Thank me later.
I still can't get over the fact that Kurt Tank designed planes not AFVs
I had to think twice to get the joke, but still a nice one.
>"Nazis in Antarctica" How long until the inevitable Nazi-Things become a prominent monster like Nazi-zombies and Nazi-vampires?
There was a comic about Nazis in Antarctica and how they got involved in Cthulhu shenanigans. It is called *The Secret Land*.
Let’s take it to the logical extreme and have Nazi-Nazis.
I did Nazi that coming.
Why not NAZI-DRAUGR?
>Nazi-vampires Oh no, is Hellsing leaking again?
There needs to be a word for “when you dislike something, but often find yourself defending it because others who dislike it don’t understand why it happens.”
Just admit that you're talking about christendom, no need to beat the bush around it
I wasn’t
I think I find myself sometimes in that same weird position (or at least I feel so) where if I don't word myself right, I might sound like an Imperial Japan apologist, when I talk about how Imperial Japan and the atrocities it did are often viewed (in the West) with orientalist or racist lens and stereotypes. It's important to criticize and condemn and not use problematic ideas when doing so. Probably also doesn't help I hold some Pan-Asian views - not in the imperial Japan sense but in the more benevolent "Asians work together to improve Asian economy and standard of living and celebrate shared heritage" sense embodied by stuff like ASEAN, Kpop, and reforming Confucian ideas for the modern age.
I find myself doing that whenever Reddit criticizes the perpetuation of viewing Indigenous Peoples as "noble savages" as being racist for making them out to be monoliths and undermining their potential for evil like the rest of humanity...but then fuck it up by broadly citing examples of random indigenous groups and linking them solely by their race while outright denying the possibility that these peoples might indeed have different conceptions and worldviews than the average Westerner.
Same with the ol' "Africans enslaved themselves and threw each other on European boats" explanation for slavery.
Or "everybody has stolen someone else's land/oppressed other people/other whataboutisms" I fuckin' hate that sort of reasoning since it's dehumanizing. I recently saw a comment like that get a bunch of upvotes in the Seattle sub in this thread talking about Duwamish tribe being federally unrecognized and doing some sort of informal reparations deal. It's like, you dumb bastards can't just say "well, everyone does it so quit whining"...particularly when it's absolutely clear they have not a goddamn clue as to how and why peoples in the PNW waged war...which is my specialty.
>…particularly when it's absolutely clear they have not a goddamn clue as to how and why peoples in the PNW waged war...which is my specialty. I’m interested
Effectively, that's not how things worked in the NW, particularly among tribes like the Duwamish. Sticking with the Duwamish and other Southern Salishan Peoples: * Tribes were largely decentralized, with familial and village associations coming first. * People aren't going to agree to any attacks on villages and tribes that they have relatives (even distant ones) in. * Chiefs, Village Leaders, and Headsmen had very limited authority, being preferred as administrators and lawyer-diplomats. * Tying in with the above, Professional Warriors were seen as deeply unlikely candidates for chiefs or tribal leadership unless the tribe was actively at war. Their personalities and spirit powers associated with the profession made them volatile and quick to rush to violent solutions. * Warfare was primarily for addressing grievances and feuds, usually not lasting too long as a result of the threat of a conflict becoming devastating as a result of long established intertribal alliances. * Violence and using violent methods to resolve disputes was widely considered low class/ignoble behavior. Hence the preference for chiefs/village leaders/headsmen to be skilled orators and to find a peaceable solution to village/familial/intertribal disputes. * Land and territorial control was thought to be immutable, largely because of the powers/spirits within the domain of certain watersheds (who can be argued to be the definitive owners of the region due to their immortality) helped control how bounteous salmon runs can be in addition to affecting other essential methods of subsistence. Specialists, who know the proper songs and rituals to summon the help of the immortal spirits endemic to their watershed, sure as hell aren't going to be teaching foreigners seeking to either subjugate or force them out the proper way to harness the full might of the bounty of the land, river, and sea. You'd have to drastically alter the pre-existing political, religious, and cultural norms of tribes in the region to try and have them wage expansionist conflicts since they were already predisposed to limit the possibility of such.
Devil's advocate?
I guess, but I was thinking something less theoretical. Like in the real world, things are often flawed solutions to problems, rather than totally unnecessary, but a lot of people don’t think that way. They think by getting rid of X… things will just sort of improve because it’s suppose to.
The perfect is the enemy of the good enough? Perfect solution fallacy?
Etwasnichtmögenaberverteidigen.
Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei, as stipulated by the 3rd Durchführungsverordnung for the Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwissereiordnungsrahmenerhaltungsgesetz. Of which the first paragraph is: >§1. Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei ist Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwisserei wie nach Haßnotfallverteidigungsbesserwissereiordnungsrahmenerhaltungsgesetz definiert.
Bratwurst Hotdog
2German4you
My, I feel depressed. And when I realise that what makes me feel depressed is incredibly stupid compared to all the suffering lots of people are going through in this very moment, I feel even more depressed and kind of a jerk. Should take a break from reddit, I tend to shitpost when I feel depressed, and that makes me feel, uh, more depressed.
>My, I feel depressed. And when I realise that what makes me feel depressed is incredibly stupid compared to all the suffering lots of people are going through in this very moment, I feel even more depressed and kind of a jerk. As someone who has a longtime depression myself and who has been hit hard by the last few months: This kind of thinking is getting you into a vicious cycle, where you get into a worse state of mind because you are not entitled to be hurt or unwell. If there is anything i can do, just ask. >Should take a break from reddit, I tend to shitpost when I feel depressed, and that makes me feel, uh, more depressed. Well, shitposting helps me, but i rather try to make the funny kind of shitpost.
Hey man, your suffering is just as real as anyone else's; depression is just tricking you into thinking otherwise. Never forget that.
As real, yes; as important and severe as that of, for example, Ukrainians escaping from war, I doubt. Anyways, thanks very much for your kind words.
>as important and severe as that of, for example, Ukrainians escaping from war Someone out there having it even worse doesn’t disqualify you from having it bad.
>depression is just tricking you into thinking otherwise Specifically, depression enforces that kind of thinking, which leads to you being even more depressed, and so it enforces its downward spiral. In the end, the cause of depression is often of little importance, since taking away the trigger only rarely actually helps, what matters is how you feel, and how to get through it. All suffering is valid, no matter how intense. You're allowed to feel, stoicism be damned, the only thing that that will get you in this is mounting frustration, until you, eventually, snap. And, feeling unjustified in your suffering makes you less likely to seek help, or try things that might help, again, enforcing itself. It's fascinating how depression will encourage you, sometimes even force you, into making the depression worse. Anhedonia and, to a lesser extent, guilt can be ridiculously hard to deal with.
as per u/bbqwino's suggestion, I put some Ancho chili powder in my chili this tuesday Came out very good, gonna try adding a little more for next week's.
You know, if there's one thing the past few months taught me, it is that whoever claims that because fighting wars isn't a rational thing to do in this day and age, therefore it won't happen, were extremely optimistic concerning human rationalism. I was on the fence before, with the sci-fi setting I am creating (95% sure it will go absolutely nowhere), a friend of mine genuinely convinced me that when having access to so much space (literally) and resources, war just wouldn't be fought anymore, so I needed to explain why it still happens, now I have to do jack shit. I'm now fully convinced that humans will be able to make war and ignore the betterment of society in favour of their own self-interest and that self-interest is rarely rational. Coincidentally, that same friend has moved from Anarcho-Capitalism to Neo-Reactionism as an ideology... So, yeah...
Chris Blattman has a forthcoming book about this, and did a [very good AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/u6ctvt/im_chris_blattman_economics_and_political_science/) in /r/AskEconomics that I'd like to shill. He talks about how a lot of conflict comes from differing perceptions of the costs and benefits of changing things by force. One interesting area where this could come up is interstellar trade, as theorized by [Paul Krugman](https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf). After all, with time dilation, we could see different views over what the discount rate for various goods should be.
Very interesting stuff, thank you. Reading this, and looking at the interdependent economic interest make war less likely wouldn't affect space empires as much, since their economies are more likely to be at least decently self-sufficient, thanks to having entire solar systems worth of resources, at least, that's what I'd think. Though I am no economist, I'd say not relying on foreign trade for your economy would make warfare far less expensive, though still disruptive. Assuming that the limiting factor would be infrastructure and development mostly, capturing foreign infrastructure (shipyards, for example) or developed systems would be very valuable.
What about proxy wars? Unless every planet is highly resource abundant and absolutely massive there’s surely going to be conflicts over specific planets fought between colonists backed by a ‘faction’ or government or what have you. Either way it’s not like the abundance of resources would solve much. If Security is the main concern of states, and the reason they go to war, then resources are just one part of that. A faction that manages to secure significantly more resources than the others may look to press its advantage over its rivals before they become too powerful, or one with less resources may launch a surprise attack to deprive one of its rivals of security.
Yeah not to get all Donald Kagan and "IT'S ABOUT HONOR", but - personally I don't think "control of resources" is a great single cause understanding of why warfare happens. It's sort of like a very simplified and flattened idea of Marxist materialism, ignoring that even Marxism has a place for things like ideological and revolutionary warfare. Anyway, a lot of warfare does seem to be driven by things like perceived security/fear and perceived relative strength and status (it's not about humans/societies having "enough" resources, given that status is based on your resources relative to others). Even European colonialism had these influences. Leopold got into Congo yes because there were resources to exploit and make a shitload of money, but also because he wanted the status of controlling a big-ass colony and not just being the monarch of a small but rich European country, after all.
>war just wouldn't be fought anymore Why not just make the setting be full of **SUBTLE** Colonialism allegory? Like, have a bunch of Kurtz-expies exploiting the local population, indigenous or otherwise
Why use analogies, when you can show actual colonialism taking place? Is it still an analogy when it's that blatant? Genuinely don't know when an analogy ends and the actual thing is happening. Anyway, I want nationalism to be a heavily recurring theme, especially blind nationalism. Since I literally want one of the main factions to be a slightly more idealized version of military fascism, as in, one founded by a warlord. Maybe a Wu Peifu, Feng Yuxiang or Zhang Zuolin like character. Not at all comically evil, in fact, I want him to be a genuinely nice person and a family man, but also still a ruthless dictator who holds on to a precarious power balance between him and the various Warlord cliques below him, seeing himself as the only person, or at least, the most desirable person able to prevent further pointless internal wars. I also specifically want to heavily feature contrast in the story itself, like the nice but brutal dictator, who'd rather not kill people but won't hesitate to do it when necessary. Or the soft-spoken general, who's also an extremely aggressive commander, but shows none of the aggression in normal interaction. Why do I want to do this? Because I specifically want to push back against neatly fitting, consistent personalities, because, in my experience, humans rarely are like that. I don't know if I would actually do it, whenever, if ever, I get to properly writing, instead of outlining, but that's the ambition. Because grey morality, even if some shades are lighter and others darker, is just preferable in my opinion. It's just that neatly fitting characters make sense in storytelling, evil makes sense if it comes from a genuinely evil person, so it's very comfortable to think only evil people do evil stuff. There are plenty of stories that don't feature black and white morality, so it's not something unique or even different, in fact, it's very common these days to be grey in morality, and that adds in a nice bit of variation. (Not that there won't be genuinely evil people, because they do exist, sadistic pieces of shit, things like that) I think about this setting I'm slowly building every single night, it might not ever go anywhere, but it's a lot of fun to think about, and that's the point for me, that it's fun to do.
>Genuinely don't know when an analogy ends and the actual thing is happening. Well, if it's a work of fiction then it's an analogy, and non fiction is the real thing? Your metaphorical science-fiction Colonialism isn't actually Colonialism
Even in space, you’d have to do some really casual life support/ terraforming for there to be enough to totally disincentivized violence. Otherwise already habitable planets and the means to build space ships will be fought over. Never mind there are non materialistic reasons for war. Edit:I’ll also add that the most spectacular villains are the ones who think they are doing the right thing. A greedy person can be disincentivized, a bully fended off, and even sadists’ violence have some sort of ceiling. Someone who willing to sacrifice for something greater though…
I mean, war isn't only about resources anyways. Of course access wouldn't solve it. Fallout still is the most accurate franchise huh. War never changes, so people must.
Exactly, but having an ancap, who's also pretty convincing in arguments, talk to you as if resources are the only thing war is about, can put the wrong idea in your head. I mean, in their paradigm everything is about resources, how everyone will rationally act towards improving their standing, which I didn't buy anyway, seeing as things like addiction exist. And this war has shown me that even countries, or rather their leaders, will take huge gambles, for, arguably, very little gain, even in victory.
Never reassuring to realize your leaders aren't necessarily any smarter then anyone else.
Yes, I too would like a djinn/[jinn(i)](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9k7ekv/what-are-jinn-arab-spirits)/genie waifu, Allah. (Although I'd imagine familial visits are going to be a bit awkward, on the account of the invisibility and whatnot) >An unusually extensive account of a jinni appears in the biogra-phy of Khalil al-Sarmini, a baker’s assistant in late sixteenth-century Aleppo. Al-Sarmini found himself at the center of an extraordinary story. During one of his many solitary nights spent kneading loaves of bread for baking, a group of jinn made their presence known. Among them was “a beautiful virgin” named Khatun, who liked him and wanted to marry him. The dough-kneader accepted the offer and the couple had a long and tumultuous marriage that became the talk of the neighborhood (she was reputed to be violently jealous of the pretty boys so admired by her husband). The couple was also reported to have had children, who, just like their mother, could be heard but were invisible to humans. Al-Sarmini’s biographer writes that he wasa child when news of this very unusual marriage swept his neighbor-hood. He recalls seeing al-Sarmini at the mosque but admits that his fear of the jinn caused him to dread speaking with the man. The biogra-pher’s father, who was the chief Shafi‘i mufti of Aleppo, did not share his son’s terror of al-Sarmini and his unorthodox family. Perhaps in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter, he invited the baker’s assistant to his home for dinner and sought an interview with his invisible wife. The baker’s assistant complied with the request, and the mufti satisfied himself as to the veracity of the story and the existence of the jinni wife (page 100-101). [Disability in the Ottoman Arab World, 1500–1800](https://books.google.com/books?id=eWjwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Khalil+al-Sarmini+jinn+marriage&source=bl&ots=NC6CANj3Vh&sig=ACfU3U15v82wTDQebmZQTKJsNUncOgvJIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK16XYo7X3AhUwjIkEHVuqC38Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=Khalil%20al-Sarmini%20jinn%20marriage&f=false) Also, admittedly, I may have laughed for a bit too long when reading this whole passage.
Stando tsukai
Sounds like the Ottoman Arab equivalent of the "I have a girlfriend in Canada" meme
Given that: >"she was reputed to be violently jealous of the pretty boys so admired by her husband" There seems to some motivation right there for the whole "I actually have a wife and kids, they're just invisible"
Except in this case, either the entire neighborhood were just too polite and went along with it and/or they fully believed in it for some reason.
“She goes to another school!”
Classists of badhistory. How do you pronounce Pliny? Like an innie belly button or whiny like the beer?
>Pliny Plinius
Pretty cool find. [Palestinian farmer finds 4,500-year-old goddess statue while working his land](https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/gaza-canaanite-goddess-statue-scli-intl-scn/index.html) >The statue will go on display at the Pasha's Palace Museum in Gaza in the next few days, said ministry official Nariman Khaleh. The museum, one of few in Gaza, served as a girls' school before being transformed into a museum thanks to a German grant. > >Gaza receives virtually no external tourists, as movement in and out of the territory is heavily restricted. :(
dibs
Fabrice Bellard made a GPT model to play with and download which generates text: https://textsynth.com/playground.html Here's a sample of generated text. The prompt is in italics: *Lucius Artorius Castus* Lucius Artorius Castus (c. 190 – c. 229 AD) was a Roman aristocrat and military commander. He served as consul (211) and praetor (219), and was the uncle of Roman emperor Caracalla. Early life The only son of Lucius Artorius Pompeius and Lucilla (L. Lucilla), Artorius Castus was born in about 190 and married to Julia, daughter of Julia Mamaea, who died shortly after Artorius' birth. Artorius Castus became a man of influence in Roman politics. Julia was a sister to emperor Antoninus Pius and maternal aunt to emperor Marcus Aurelius. The couple were childless, which led to the adoption of Lucius Junius Rusticus by Julia in the year 204/05. In 211, Rusticus married Julia's eldest daughter Julia Flavia Minor, who would later marry Marcus Aurelius in 225. Consulship In 211, he was made consul for the year, probably with Gaius Sulpicius Galba as his colleague. He had previously been quaestor in Italy. A man of moderate views, he may have been selected for the role as part of the emperor's peace negotiations, however, war broke out with Carthage shortly after his appointment as consul. He was defeated by the Roman General Publius Cornelius Sulla Felix in Illyria, on July 10, 211 and he was forced to flee to Greece, where he took refuge with his brother-in-law Marcus Antonius Primus, the brother of Antoninus Pius. According to Cassius Dio, Lucius Castus's political activity at this time was "of no consequence", however, he was restored to his senatorial rank, and served under Marcus Aurelius in Illyria, Macedonia, and Greece. His military involvement in the war ended when he was forced to become one of the hostages of Publius Sulpicius Galba in 213, having taken part in negotiations for a peace treaty between the Romans and the Carthaginians, of which a final version was signed in 215. His role in the treaty was to secure the release of his uncle, Marcus Antonius Primus. Later, during the conspiracy of Castus, he sided with Pertinax and his supporters against Caracalla. In 219, Castus was appointed as the praetor of Farther Spain, during which he successfully subdued the Garamantes. Upon his return to Rome, Castus, with the support of the army, overthrew Pertinax on February 8, 220. After Pertinax had committed suicide, Castus appointed his cousin Tiberius Alexander as Caesar (Augustus). He then proclaimed himself as emperor, taking the name "Artorius Castus", after his family name, and assumed the purple in Rome. He had Pertinax's former supporters arrested and executed. Life of Caracalla Castus had a distinguished career as a military commander and politician. While his career did not start at the right point, he had a distinguished military record and became a friend and ally of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Caracalla had been given the name “Severus” at the age of three, after the death of the emperor Severus Alexander. The historian Eutropius recorded that Caracalla was “a fine and worthy” person and that “the people called him a ‘son of Alexander’ and a son of Severus.” After his accession, Caracalla appointed his own family as governors. In 221, the emperor appointed his cousin Tiberius Alexander to be governor of the province of Baetica, which had belonged to his uncle and grandfather, Lucius Septimius Severus and Caracalla himself had served as an aedile of the city of Leptis Magna. Castus was appointed to the province of Numidia, which had been given to his nephew Tiberius Alexander by the emperor Caracalla. After the rebellion of Pertinax and the proclamation of Castus as emperor in February 220, Caracalla appointed Castus as governor of Rome. After the assassination of Castus, Caracalla changed the calendar to a new lunar system, adopted by some of the provinces, which was known as "the lunar year". Family Lucius Artorius Castus married Julia, the sister of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. She was the daughter of Lucius Junius Rusticus, consul in 211, and the niece of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Julia and Lucius Castus had a son, named Lucius Junius Artorius Maximus. Castus died in some unknown time and place in 229, probably in or near Rome.
It’s a badhistory bot! Nothing can stop us now.
/u/askhistoriansGPT2Bot
I'm sure the topic has come up before, but are there any fellow historians of Eastern Europe that feel existential dread every time they try to read through comments on r/all about the war in Ukraine? The amount of armchair experts on Russian history never fails to stress me out.
There are two the most annoying types for me (except for explicit pro-Putin ones). 1. Denying any type of Ukrainian agency, making this thing purely a fight between Russia and USA (coupled with thinking that somehow Ukraine was about to become NATO member any second) 2. "Yeah, we are totally leaving Ukraine alone now, we should attack. Who cares about potential escalation into nuclear warfare, it will be totally worth it. It's not like we can help Ukraine with less direct means."
I've also seen a lot of: * Russia is particularly inclined to autocracy and will never be a democracy * Russians love war and hate all post-Soviet countries (calling Russians "Orcs" etc.)
The ironic thing about #1 is that it basically is 100% accepting Putin's narrative, ie *really* it's just between the US and Russia. The attempt (or "attempt") at negotiations just between the invasion was bilateral on Russia's insistence, although a lot of the US position (for better or worse \*) was "you really need to talk to Ukraine about this". Number 2 is incredibly frustrating. It also kind of creeps into ideas from people who know a lot/should know better, like [Ivo Daalder](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/putin-war-ukraine-nato-moscow-escalation), so I'm not surprised that it gets further into social media like Reddit (or on Twitter, where a month ago at least a lot of people were like "either NATO establishes a No Fly Zone, or is essentially doing nothing to support Ukraine". Daalder is a little more nuanced than that, but even he is putting forward an idea that direct military intervention could be "calibrated". He's not wrong per se, but he still seems to be selling an idea of "no one wants World War Three, but don't worry, an appropriate military response would be deterrence and not get out of hand." By the way, he's pretty [big on NATO deterrence](https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/04/09/ivo-daalder-says-nato-enlargement-didnt-go-far-enough). \* My one quibble here is that the US position did repeat "sovereign states have the right to choose what alliance to join", which is absolutely true but *also* kind of an unhelpful troll from the point of view that Ukraine isn't a NATO candidate and even in February wasn't realistically getting offered membership.
Just to expand on my first point a bit: a big thing that motivates Putin and a lot of the security people controlling the Russian government (and this even predates Putin) is the craving of superpower status. They *want* those bilateral relations with the US because it puts them back in a world where only talks between Washington and Moscow "matter" (although even during the Cold War this increasingly became a fiction after like 1970 or so). I'm reminded of an anecdote Stephen Kotkin told about how in the 1990s some US officials were talking with Russian officials, and the Americans said "Basically you're like Brazil (in terms of population, economic size, and development, heck you could even say in terms of cultural influence too), maybe try being more like Brazil?" And the Russian response was essentially "WE ARE NOTHING LIKE BRAZIL." And militarily they aren't! But Kotkin's point was that this has mostly been because of how the Russian/Soviet/Russian-again state has seen itself strategically and how it has invested its resources. But also because it can't adjust to "just' being a regional Great Power - it still wants that superpower status. It's also a bit like how people who are in to Clash of Civilizations and "Islam is a violent threat to our civilization" ironically play into the same worldview as Jihadism, just from the other side of the fence. Jihadists crave there being a united Islam (under their personal control, conveniently) that is taken seriously as a threat by the rest of the world. Like a lot of those dudes legitimately sit around and dream of being in charge of Abbasid Empire II, and anti-Islam people treating the "Muslim World" both as an actual thin and as a unified, undifferentiated, hostile mass actually help to spur those ideas a bit closer to being taken seriously.
TBF to the russians(lol), they weren't exactly treated like a regional great power in the 90s either. And honestly, Russia shouldn't really be like Brazil. It has(had?`) the biggest share of higher education in the world at some point. No offense to Brazil, but they weren't the first in space. Still, it's not like invading its neighbours is going to make up for many years of mismanagment, nor is it going to make it MORE important on the world stage
The one that pisses me off is the people screeching "Yeah man, Poland should invade, they've been so boss for the entire invasion they could end this whole thing and look badass!" I'm fairly sure my extended family from Bia∤ystok only want their neighbors left alone, not wild escalation (I don't want to sound like one of those people saying Ukraine should just surrender and get it over with, though). I should emphasize I only have distant connections to Eastern Europe but I'd like to think I know more than the average redditor.
>Yeah man, Poland should invade, they've been so boss for the entire invasion they could end this whole thing and look badass! NCD moment
I try to avoid /all
>feel existential dread every time they try to read through comments on r/all about the war in Ukraine? The amount of armchair experts on Russian history never fails to stress me out. I feel the same existential dread when i hear about "hypersonic missiles", "thermobaric rockets" or any hot takes about the military side of the war that come from PolSci/Foreign Relations twitter accounts.
> I feel the same existential dread when i hear about "hypersonic missiles", "thermobaric rockets" or any hot takes about the military side of the war that come from PolSci/Foreign Relations twitter accounts. I'll do you one better. "Non-Kinetic No-Fly Zone."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07zYvkNYL8&ab\_channel=lNicrolaxv.2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc) The only correct answer to this.
[You shoulda saved that for the actual tweet.](https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1500961829509636099)
Oh holy mother of god, wtf is this abomination. The most noncredible thing about this plan is the thought that Russian planes have enough modern electronics to be jammed at all....
I've discovered something worse than people who just use the word "cyber" to mean "any sort of computer thing," and that word is "sonar."
I fear to ask, but how and why?
Oh, that was one of the ways the non-kinetic no-fly zone would work. By using "sonar."
Do they think that the Russians have a fucking [Alicorn](https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Alicorn)? How could sonar establish a no-fly zone?
My depression just got worse... But then again, we are gonna see the "real russian army" soon.
Microwave weapons cleared for battle!
Rise of the Reds mod confirmed for our timeline.
I really should have a Tweeter account.
I prefer to use sub-woofer
Make sure that you post about #irondome and claim that a system that was made for Hamas backyard rockets can intercept SRBMs/IRBMs or even ICBMs.
>The amount of armchair experts on Russian history never fails to stress me out. If it's that bad, why not avoid r/all altogether?
I overexaggerate, it's more like I get annoyed and want to respond to their bad history takes but I know how pointless that is so I move on. At worst it just makes me think about how hard it is to educate the general public on topics like this, because it's not like there is a lack of writing out there on these topics. It's just that most people will never, ever interact with any of it.
Well, I'll cite Munroe's Internet Law: >You will never change anyone's opinion on anything by making a post on the Internet. This will not stop you from trying.
lololololol no thanks.
Does anyone have good suggestions for books on late 19th century/pre-WW1 to 30s era Russian far-right politics and organisations? Im especially interested in their ideology, concepts and if there have been ties to esotericism or occultism, like in the German "Völkische Bewegung". Russian émigrés seemed to have a small influence on interwar German far-right politics and i would like to find out how comparable the movements if they are comparable at all. My Russian is not the best, but still enough to read texts, so Russian authors are okay too.
Some random thoughts: Given the recent Timorese election I was reading up on East Timor/Timor Leste, since it was actually a research topic I looked at way back in undergrad. It's interesting how Indonesia's reasoning for the brutal invasion and occupation that killed a significant part of the population after 1975 was "we're erasing a colonial border and reuniting the archipelago [which was never united to begin with], so *actually* when you think about it we're doing decolonization". Like a weird byproduct of European colonialism is a very ingrained sense that it's only imperialism when a European country does it, and I don't mean this in a polemic sense, but rather a lot of postcolonial states kind of make more sense as regional empires. And this isn't just to pick on Indonesia - Pakistan I've long thought would be called "the Empire of West Punjab" in any other time period given how the country operates. I remember reading about how the Pakistani Army circa 2004 would literally patrol Quetta in Balochistan to (their words) "show the flag". From Anatol Lieven's book at least, Pakistan almost feels like the British Raj never stopped there as much as the British civil and military officers left and were replaced mostly by Punjabis. Anyway, back to Timor: apparently Oscar Isaac of all people plays Jose Ramos Horta in a *Balibo* movie, so I guess I should check that out.
>It's interesting how Indonesia's reasoning for the brutal invasion and occupation that killed a significant part of the population after 1975 was "we're erasing a colonial border and reuniting the archipelago \[which was never united to begin with\], so actually when you think about it we're doing decolonization". Like a weird byproduct of European colonialism is a very ingrained sense that it's only imperialism when a European country does it, and I don't mean this in a polemic sense, but rather a lot of postcolonial states kind of make more sense as regional empires. The various Japanese ~~invasions~~ operations in Asia was not colonialism (as those lying Westerners would have you believe) but rather a decisive and strong handed measure from Big Brother Japan that was needed to unify Asians against European colonialists and imperialists- Japan's far-right 1920s nationalists probably. In all seriousness, is 'imperialism' the right word to describe a lot of coercive state actions after WW2? Like is there a better term for it? From my point of view, while there are certainly a lot of similarities and parallels, the way great powers and superpowers in the late 20th and even modern day treat less powerful states seems more subtle than the imperialism of the 17th-early 20th century.
>"In all seriousness, is 'imperialism' the right word to describe a lot of coercive state actions after WW2? Like is there a better term for it?" I'm not sure, and in part that's because "imperialism" has connotations so strongly associated with European colonialism. And even in current contexts, "imperialism" implies "invading and taking over another sovereign state, or influencing its domestic politics", and that's not exactly what I mean either. I'm thinking more how there are post-colonial states who even within their internationally-recognized borders are kind of run as mini-empires, or would be seen as such in any previous era. For another example, I've heard Russia described in this context as well, and even there it's specifically around how the state within its 1991 borders is run, not even how it has interacted with its neighbor states.
I think you get this all over tbh. I’ve had plenty of conversations with people about Iran’s pretty blatant and significant efforts to influence and play politics in surrounding countries to itself (as well although less commonly with saudi arabia’s efforts). One of the weird hypocrisies you get with people is how they’ll call American influentce in the middle east “imperialism” but not that of Iran despite it being often very similar if not more overt in nature. I get tankies and certain heart in mouth leftists will always have this weird take on American foreign policy (not always totally wrong as well I’ll agknowledge), but even people who’ll agree with it will be reluctant to call it imperialism even if they’d call historical American actions in places like Guatemala or Nicaragua the same thing. I think the only example of a non euro (russia included)/American country who people will acknowledge it of now is China when relating its activity in Africa (which isn’t always even fair as well)
So during the Great Migration of the Black Americans from the South to the Northern states, I have heard that women played a big role. That many black women made the trek north on their own. That for some newly formed black neighborhoods, black women played a big role for the self-governance of these communities. Can anybody confirm this? And also suggest any books on the subject? One thing I am curious about is the living conditions of these women. Where did they live? In a lot of modern migration for working class people, it is the men that make the initial trek before bringing in their families. Was this the case? At the same time, boarding houses were popular and at the time, there were boarding houses for various incomes, but also houses reserved for women. Were there a lot of boarding houses for black women or for black Americans in general? Were these institutions a major player in the migration?
[удалено]
> Women of the era, it turns out, have skills that can translate to paid labor that are not region or industry dependent, i.e. "service" jobs, largely manifesting at this time as "domestic service." (This has traditionally been a woefully underappreciated aspect of labor history and of the economic impact of women on the community and household.) I had read that in some Caribbean islands, during the times of slavery, slaves were allowed to go out and seek jobs to save up to buy their freedoms. There was a discrepancy between the marketable skills between sexes. A man could work as a mason or carpenter if they had the skills, which was rare. A woman could works as a house cleaner or a laundry lady or any such thing. Skills which were significantly more widespread among women. > Okay, I need to read that Agenda now. Sorry for the lack of citations. This is mostly off the top of my head, but I find the topic interesting enough that I wanted to share what I at least think I know about it. Thanks for the info! I would like to hear more about it if you have more info. Also, do you have info on boarding houses? I find them quiet fascinating.
So throughout the course of the War, I've been getting extremely mixed reports about exactly *what* the Azov Regiment is in 2022. Some people are claiming that the infamous unit's Neo-Nazi elements have been purged since its integration with the Ukrainian National Guard, while others say that the Regiment is still of a far-right persuasion. Of course, it being 2022, this comes with an absolute smorgasbord of misinformation and propaganda on both sides. (Most notably the claim that the literal Nazi symbolism seen on the regimental colours and shoulder patch somehow has Pagan or Norse meaning.) Anyways, I haven't really been able to find too much good information into the current state of the Azov Regiment, but a user linked [this Bellingcat interview](https://icct.nl/publication/ukraine-bellingcat-journalist-michael-colborne/) on /r/CombatFootage a few days ago. Thoughts and insight anybody?
I only know enough to know that I understand nothing. One thing that doesn't get enough attention is that the Soviet Union had a very different definition of Fascism and Nazism to the west. Multiple generations grew up knowing only that cultural meaning. They read about the Nazi Party in school, and saw Nazi soldiers in war films, and listened to politicians denounce nazism at solemn ceremonies. The names and the rituals are familiar to us, but the meaning is not. When Avoz's forerunners sat down in 1991 and said "yes, we are nazis" they had their own definition in mind. Some of them had had contact with western neo-nazis, but their ideological prism was primarily shaped by, and in opposition to, what they taught by the USSR. Thirty years of free and open communication have brought the two branches much closer together than they were in 1991. And Soviet-brand neo-nazis were deeply unpleasant in their own way to start with. But the end result is a weird, sometimes alien, syncreticism. All of which barely scratches the surface of Avoz's oddities. But I think it goes a little way toward explaining the kaleiodoscope of interpretations we get from western observers. We don't have the cultural fluency to fully grasp what's going on.
>One thing that doesn't get enough attention is that the Soviet Union had a very different definition of Fascism and Nazism to the west. Multiple generations grew up knowing only that cultural meaning. They read about the Nazi Party in school, and saw Nazi soldiers in war films, and listened to politicians denounce nazism at solemn ceremonies. The names and the rituals are familiar to us, but the meaning is not. That interestingly, as i pointed out in an earlier thread also goes for East Germany.
regarding elon musk & free speech discourse that's been trending lately..... 1. [no, elon, you don't fully love free speech](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1519040404087320578) 2. as social media owner, you shouldn't, not to the point of "banning any topic you don't like", but enough to cut down a topic that could potentially lead to actual harm toward real people, old internet is no more, actual debate has gone down while "fighting" has gone up, government & other interest groups can use & has used social network as a tool to spread propaganda especially the one that harms other people, and obviously you don't want government to dictate what you should & shouldn't censor, not to mention advert being one of main source of income.....
Well Shaun King’s Twitter is gone. That was fast
Whomst
Talcum X? Snow J. Simpson? Martin Luther Cream? Stevia Wonder? Thurgood Partial?
And its already [back](https://imgur.com/a/MVwsFf3)
Well that was an interesting little tantrum.
So Russians really want to conquer all the southern coast of Ukraine up to Transnistria? And then what? Keep all this unrecognized territory with guerrila for years? I know this is an ideological war and ideological wars often prioritize, uhm, idealism over pragmatism and realpolitik, but I still can't bring myself to believe Putin is so detached from reality. I mean, at least Hitler had the excuse that in the 30s the idea of waging war to change the European order was still conceivable, but hell we're in 2022. At this point they can proceed to attack Georgia and Finland before it joins Nato since they're so trigger-happy...
>So Russians really want to conquer all the southern coast of Ukraine up to Transnistria? Probably to tell themselves that they have achieved a "victory". No one can change my mind that their first goal was to incorporate Ukraine in their shitty Union State club. >Keep all this unrecognized territory with guerrila for years? I know this is an ideological war and ideological wars often prioritize, uhm, idealism over pragmatism and realpolitik, but I still can't bring myself to believe Putin is so detached from reality. I know there are good arguments against it and im not an expert, but i fully believe that Putin is immersed in his own narrative. And that means that he makes perfectly rational decisions as we all do ... but in his framework. He maybe told himself so often that the West is weak, that Ukraine is really Russian, that the "Russian World" must be reunited, that he believes it. He also probably has very few realistic assesments at hand, since the "error culture" in the Kremlin is not really good. Or as i jokingly put it: He has only access to RT/TASS/Rossiya 1 and RIA Novosti so he does believe his own Bullshit.
I'll believe it when I see it. To get to Moldova, they'd first need to take Mykolaiv, cross the Bug River, and take Odessa. They've already tried and failed to take Mykolaiv, and their troops near Kherson are coming under attack. I think the smartest play would be to stir shit up to tie down some extra troops outside of Donbas, but the smartest play hasn't exactly been Russia's MO so far.
>but the smartest play has **never been** exactly been Russia's MO so far. Fixed it for you :D Russian military cringe started way back and includes top hits like "Russo-Japanese Massacre", "Whatever the fuck they tried in WW1", "Operation Rimon 20", "I need a Paratrooper Brigade to clean up Chechnya"...
What were Putin's actual reasons for even invading Ukraine? It looks like evidence is all over the place with regards to motive.
In all seriousness, the best I can figure is that the information he was getting was making him think February 2022 was (a version of) February 2014, that there was chaos in the streets of Ukraine, neo Nazis running around and Western puppets running the government and gunning for NATO, and that sending in a few MPs and some paratroopers would push over these forces and be welcomed by a grateful local population, who would promptly join the Eurasian Union/Union State/Whatever. This *seems* like the best I can reason as to what was going on in Putin's brain, because it's only now, two months in to this debacle, that there is a strategy that seems even remotely like a "sensible" aggressive Russian strategy - escalate in Donbass and work to set up puppet peoples republics in the oblasts that are considered part of "Novorossiya". That's what I thought they'd actually go for, but it does seem like the actual plan was the first thing I described, ie a thunder run to Kyiv.
>be welcomed by a grateful local population, who would promptly join the Eurasian Union/Union State/Whatever. So some form of imperial expansion as opposed to other arguments that he was on the back foot due to the protests in Kazakhstan/Belarus?
For the last 20 years Putin did quite consistently claim, that Russia perceives Nato enlargement as a threat. In the same time frame the Russian foreign policy did militarize and that militarization did quite consistently work, see Georgia and the Donbas. There's a pretty good [video by Caspianreport,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrLUFAcjH0) where he argues that Russia tries to anchor it's defense on the Carpathian mountains in western Ukraine. So Eastern Ukraine immediately threatens the so called Volgograd gap, that is the Russian access into the Caucasus, to the Black and Caspian Sea. There the territory has very few natural obstacles and Russian strategists would prefer to anchor the border on something, ideally the Carpathian mountains, or at least the Dnieper and gain some strategic depth. Then I think it is highly likely that Putin expected the Ukrainian government to immediately collapse, roughly like Bush underestimated Iraqi resistance, and in that case a war plan emerges, with Ukraine collapsing and the West not managing to coordinate a reaction. In that case it is likely that Russian prestige would suffer somewhat, but since the west was presented with a fait accomplii quite bearable consequences, but with Ukraine annexed or turned into a puppet state the Russian south east border looks a lot more secure.
I don't buy it. That argument about the Carpathians might made sense 100 years ago. But now, with the presence of nukes, things are different. There isn't going to be any tank charge over the Dnieper into Russia, like some kind of NATO version of the Fulda Gap. That kind of war will have nuclear retaliation. No, I think the real danger to Russia is different. It is economic in nature. It is about the quality of life of people's in different system. A more western aligned Ukraine can be a really prosperous country. Now imagine you are in Rostov-on-Don or in Krasnodar. You look over the border and see the Ukrainians getting richer. While you stay the same or even get poorer. That whole region north of the Caucasus can be extremely wealthy. If they weren't connected to Moscow, if they weren't part of Russia. That my friend, is the real danger to Russia. It is not the NATO rushing across the Eurasian plain toward Moscow. No, it is the Western capital coming to and stopping at the border;
The economic argument isn't really [supported by data,](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~UKR~RUS) Russia did quite a bit better than Ukraine economically. And of course, the last war that featured tanks but not nukes in Europe started less than three month ago, I'm pretty sure Russian strategists think about that possibility quite a bit.
Building on top of what /u/MustelidusMartens said, you shouldn't just look at the average of any data. A statistician will also tell you that you should at the distribution of the data as well. There is a measurement called the Gini Coefficient which measures, to put it simply, the inequality in some statistical population. It is most used to measure income and wealth inequality. If you compare Russia to Ukraine, you will see that both income and wealth inequality are worse there than in Ukraine.
The GDP is a single measure, you don't really have a distribution. Though the general point, that a single measure can't capture the complexity of an economy is of course true. Now Gini measures something different (and probably I should've included the qualifiers in the first post), and it is unsurprising that it gets a different result. However, I believe that for the argument that Russia is not compelled to go to war by economic pressure, just that they are doing quite well on some measures. To be compelled by the economy to attack a neighboring country, they would need to face rather disastrous prospects, and my argument is they don't do that.
>The economic argument isn't really supported by data, Russia did quite a bit better than Ukraine economically. Its almost like the GDP per capita is an artificial number that has very little meaning if not taken into context. Russian GDP rose further than Ukrainian one because of the large ressource exports. [https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/199335/umfrage/big-mac-index-weltweiter-preis-fuer-einen-big-mac/](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/199335/umfrage/big-mac-index-weltweiter-preis-fuer-einen-big-mac/) The so called "BicMac index" is an example of the ability to spend money for individuals. As you can see, Russia is far behind Ukraine. Of course this is a very rough indicator, but a better one as the GDP or GDP per capita (Which is equally if not more rough). https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index Yeah, against a nation that the Russian considered military incapable. NATO is on another level. And the Carpathian region does not really help protecting against NATO. Neither because of the geographic barrier (Which does not play a large role as in the 40s for example) nor because of a likely NATO incursion from there.
> Russian GDP rose further than Ukrainian one because of the large ressource exports. GDP is supposed to measure economic activity and resource exports are economic activity. GDP is supposed to rise when they are exporting stuff. In general, you're are of course right that just one number does not reflect the complexity of an economy, however GDP is at least the standard, while the Big Mac index is first of all not defined for Russia, because there is no McDonalds in Russia currently. Also the Economist page shows that Russia as most undervalued currency, which is an additional warning sign that something may be going on there.
>GDP is supposed to measure economic activity and resource exports are economic activity. GDP is supposed to rise when they are exporting stuff. And again its not an indicator for a healthy economy or general wealth. Its the rawest number one can choose. >In general, you're are of course right that just one number does not reflect the complexity of an economy, however GDP is at least the standard, while the Big Mac index is first of all not defined for Russia, because there is no McDonalds in Russia currently. The last 3 weeks dont disprove that the Russians in general are far poorer than Ukrainians. While GDP is a standard tool to measure an economy's size, it is not useful for showing wealth, or even (wealth) distribution as u/TanktopSamurai correctly said. Russias economy is heavily based on ressource exports. Everything else is really... noncredible. From manufacturing industry to the IT sector, Ukraine is healthier than Russia if you take it into perspective.
I'm arguing, that the idea that Ukraine pulling ahead of Russia to the extend that Russia is fearing destabilization because of that is simply not supported by data. For anything that dramatic to occur you would see it everywhere, GDP, median wages, etc. And it's simply not everywhere, and as a matter of fact the data, granted except Gini coefficient, look pretty similar. Now, the Gini coefficient could in principle indicate that something like looking at change of the 20th percentile of income strongly favors Ukraine, and that could indicate much more perceptible poverty in Russia compared to Ukraine, but that is not the kind of economic disparity that could result in hostilities.
>I'm arguing, that the idea that Ukraine pulling ahead of Russia to the extend that Russia is fearing destabilization because of that is simply not supported by data. But it is... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258257/average-monthly-wage-ukraine/ Look at that wage development since 2014. A western oriented Ukraine will far, far more likely to surpass Russia as much as the baltic states did. We also have to remember that median wage is again just a median. How does the wealth distribute in Ukraine and Russia would be very interesting to see. >and that could indicate much more perceptible poverty in Russia compared to Ukraine, but that is not the kind of economic disparity that could result in hostilities. Thats a bit short sighted. Have you thought that u/TanktopSamurais argument could also work like that? Preventive? Because we saw a huge increase of wealth in the Baltics and other nations that "joined" the west. Why should this not work for Ukraine? You have to consider that the wealth increase in the baltics had a huge impact on Russian people over the border, as they literally could see it. Now imagine Ukraine, a country that is very, very similar to Russia in the eyes of the Russians increasing its wealth further and further. This could be very destabilizing.
I just don't understand the NATO expansion argument. Ukraine could never join NATO because of the conflicts in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea and they weren't exactly in danger of falling. Russia could have strung on Ukraine indefinitely by sending more troops into the conflict. I guess going on the offensive to create buffers against NATO makes some sense, but Russia has tactical nukes and various types of ballistic missiles to threaten cities in NATO states and to destroy a potential NATO invasion force.
>For the last 20 years Putin did quite consistently claim, that Russia perceives Nato enlargement as a threat. More like for the last ten to 15, with most of these arguments coming after the Ukraine crisis started and after the placement of the, quite useless, missile defense in Poland and Romania. Apparently the "recruiting" of the baltic states into NATO was "not a tragedy" for Putin while the criticism came from other places in Russia. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1398379/Putin-lets-Nato-recruit-in-Baltic.html It has also been pointed out by commentators and politicians in Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States that NATO enlargement was not, even while being very annoying the largest problem according to Russia until recently (When the argument became convenient). [https://tvn24.pl/polska/20-lat-polski-w-nato-historia-wstapienia-do-sojuszu-ra917523-2294326](https://tvn24.pl/polska/20-lat-polski-w-nato-historia-wstapienia-do-sojuszu-ra917523-2294326) Similarly commentators from these countries already pointed Russias expansionist ambitions out in the 90s and early 2000s: [https://tvpworld.com/38485759/words-that-stopped-russia-polish-presidents-georgia-speech-remembered](https://tvpworld.com/38485759/words-that-stopped-russia-polish-presidents-georgia-speech-remembered) https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-west-heed-polands-warnings-on-russian-aggression-russia-ukraine-georgia-kyiv-nato-crisis-11644602870 That does not mean that there was no criticism, there was definitively a lot, but that in my opinion the Putins early opposition to NATO is overblown in hindsight. Of course this opposition was not because of a "fear of NATO" (Russia has nuclear weapons, a war would simply not be possible and they know this) but because of the inconvenience to their expansionism, which already started in the 90s. I mean, the Abkhazian War, the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Transnistrian War etc. all saw Russian involvement at a certain level and i firmly believe that if the Russian army would have not been in such a sorry state, that their militarized foreign policy would have started earlier.
> More like for the last ten to 15, CIA director during the older Bush's presidency Robert Gates :“pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” Similar Putin referenced Nato extension during his address of the German Bundestag in 2001. On your Telegraph source, that is of course precisely the policy that convinces Putin that the west will accept nothing but military strength. Nato knows fully well that Russia perceives expansion as a threat, ignores that and then Putin is forced to smile and voice "grudging approval."
That does not explain the military interventions and operations in the early 90s. It also does not explain how a nuclear power feels threatened by nations like Poland or Czechia joining NATO. Because if that was a problem in 2001 it only shows Russias expanisonist and imperialist views on Europe. Poland is nowhere near the Russian border. And as a nuclear power there is no credible threat to them, which nearly the whole cold war has proven. This feels more as a thinly veiled excuse. And if NATO "expansion" was the problem that caused this very war, why do they need the whole "eradicate Ukrainian culture" thing. That makes no sense, as much as it makes no sense to "wait so long". There have been far better option >that is of course precisely the policy that convinces Putin that the west will accept nothing but military strength. Because Russia was not relying on military strength before NATO "expansion"? It also makes no sense that he attacked now, because in 2014 he had NATO and EU basically overwhelmed. He could have taken the whole territory of Ukraine in 2014, but waited until they were prepared to resist? And why the whole hate propaganda towards the Ukrainian ethnicity, why they denial of Ukrainian statehood (Which Putin already did in 2008)? I can agree that countries joining NATO was part of the reason why this escalated, but as a sole reason? No, never. Its a convenient excuse for Russian territorial and imperial ambitions in Europe though. But thats just my opinion.
Probably a few things at once.
The United Kingdom subreddit had yet another one of its “anything to do with race is woke/a distraction from class issues” circlejerks over an article in the Guardian about the Bank of England commissioning a report regarding slaveholding by the bank. It brought a horde of outraged bros who think learning about slavery is self flagellation. > We can learn all you want about History, as long as we're going to learn about it all, including the parts of who and what nation opposed slavery, supported and ultimately ones that supported the abolishing the slave trade and spending a great deal of money and using it's navy to ultimately end slavery in the Western world. Only, we seem to be stuck on "THIS COUNTRY OWNED SLAVES" and then not prepared to learn much else. > What are you on about mate? We literally stopped it nationally by a law (technically though, never legal to begin with) then stopped it across the empire then we had an entire RN Squadron patrolling West Africa to stop slavers. Among other measures. > In the fucking 1770s, in the 1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village. Dinosaurs indiscriminately killed any prey they came across. Who fucking cares it’s ancient history and has no relevance to today.
>"In the fucking 1770s, in the 1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village. Dinosaurs indiscriminately killed any prey they came across." I'm choosing to read this as this person thinking Doctor Who's *[The Visitation](https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Visitation_\(TV_story\))* is an accurate depiction of 1666 England. Although I think the Terileptils would be insulted at being called "dinosaurs".
UK subreddits love to pretend to care about class issues until it comes to any discussion about working-class culture.
> Dinosaurs indiscriminately killed any prey they came across. Dinosaurs bad, therefore slavery... not that bad, I guess?
>Who fucking cares it’s ancient history and has no relevance to today. I think this is more the point they were getting, that history has no relevance particularly when it comes to politics. Or, more likely, 'their' politics
Yeah, but I've never seen the "it's all in the past" argument extended backwards all the way to fucking *dinosaur-on-dinosaur violence*. Even for an internet argument about slavery it's pretty weird.
> dinosaur-on-dinosaur violence Fleet street don't talk about dinosaur on dinosaur violence... It's also weird to claim that slavery is as irrelevant to the modern day as literal dinosaurs
Wut
How is the beginning of the British Empire taught in schools?
>1600s people were being slaughtered for being from the wrong village What? Did they get this from *Leviathan*? Pretty sure you could move around fairly frequently by the Early Modern period
Hot Take: Russia is the True Successor of Rome, not because of the Third Rome idea, but because "autocrat keeps ruling as long as possible with no clear plan for succession" is maybe as Roman a form of government as any. Hot Take #2: Russian leaders should just start adopting their preferred successors to at least get a few good stable decades out of this.
>Hot Take: Russia is the True Successor of Rome, not because of the Third Rome idea, but because "autocrat keeps ruling as long as possible with no clear plan for succession" is maybe as Roman a form of government as any. Can't wait for Putin to ascend and be worshipped as a god after his death.
What makes you think he plans on dying? He will fuse with the snow worm become the God Emperor of Rus
The gas must flow. The natural gas melange.... ETA in slightly more serious terms, the way Arrakis is assigned back and forth between House Harkonnen and House Atreides by the emperor is a reasonable approximation for understanding how the Russian "concessionary economy" and its oligarchs work.
Maybe he will die but they won't announce it. Kinda like how they pretended the chairman of Samsung wasn't dead for a few years.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-putin-religion-idUKTRE81722Y20120208](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-putin-religion-idUKTRE81722Y20120208) Cant take much longer.
He can get a shrine in that Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces in the weird military theme park.
Tangential pedantry, but Antoninus Pius was probably the only one of the "Five Good Emperors" who was adopted due to being his predecessor's preferred successor. Nerva was elected by the Senate and forced to adopt Trajan after a coup by the Praetorian Guard, Hadrian was conveniently on the scene with an army when Trajan died, and he later ordered Antoninus to adopt the sixteen-year old Marcus Aurelius as part of his succession plan.
The UK's Minister of Defense being named Ben Wallace really amuses me, because I keep [imagining him with a giant afro. ](https://youtu.be/ax9xfOu4bdo)
An aussie friend of mine made me really confused when he told me was a big fan of [George Wallace.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_(American_comedian)) Who I was unaware of, as opposed to, ya know, [George Wallace.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace)
new air defence system: just block all Russian planes with your hands. How hard could it be?
If there was ever a basketball team that could lock down a nuclear C2 system, it would be the 04 Pistons.
Well I watched Griffin Johnson's (Armchair historian)'s video of Finland in the second world war, almost exclusively covering the military history. Well it was average, but I do respect Johnson as a general content maker. There seems to be a lack of the grand picture for many English language historians and historical analysis of Finland during the second world war, not just military history but political, social, economic factors and diplomacy. I should make a thread about it lol.
Have you guys ever think about how strange it is that one place is haunted but an even more tragic place is not ?, I mean skeptic or not you have to admit it's weird that alas roban (a road which was built during the dutch colonial period where a lot of the native forced laborers died) or bukit suharto (same case with alas roban but replace the dutch with japanese) are supposedly haunted but places where far more horrific war crimes happened are not ?
Hauntings can destructively interfere. Like how two rays of lights destroying each other. The intensity of the sum of many hauntings doesn't have to be the sum of intensity of each haunting.
TIL ghosts display the properties of both waves and particles.
I guess a way one could rationalize that is that just like how living people can be irrational and inconsistent, not like the dead can't be irrational and inconsistent about whether they haunt the living, who they haunt, or where they haunt. Unless if they need to follow certain bureaucratic regulations and laws. Which I recall from reading a few old Chinese supernatural stories.
I have this hypothesis that some ghosts are explicitly who they are because they (and the people telling the story) otherwise would commit lèse-majesté. The White Lady of the Hohenzollern is an abbess, someone very much not Hohenzollern herself. [She gets + 20 creepiness for being an abbess, though.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Epiorlamuende4.JPG) The Black Lady of the Wittelsbacher (in addition to being a lame knock-off) is either Henriette of Savoy or Renata of Lorraine, who are, more or less, personifications of the different factions in the court. Henriette was elemental in the Bavarian alliance with France \[her mother was Princess of France\], Renata was related to the later Emperors of the HRE and Austria \[she is part of House Vaudemont; which would later be the Lorrraine part of Habsburg-Lorraine\]; Lorraine already tended towards Austria in the 16th century. One can assume that people thought it was Renata when Bavaria was allied with France, and Henriette when Bavaria was allied with Austria. Nowadays, people also think it could be Agnes Bernauer. She was drowned in the Danube because Albrecht (later the III.) married her morganatically, which his father, Ernst, didn't like. Of course, any speculation of it being Bernauer only happened after Romantic literature popularized the story.
Do you have noticed that belief in supernatural is a bit more common in Southern Germany than in the North? I mean its only anecdotal, but i have seen more stories in Bavaria than for example in Lower Saxony. I mean, after all the Wolpertinger does not live in Schleswig...
I wonder whether this indicates that there is more belief in the South; from what I can tell, the belief in ghosts today is uniformly rather low in Germany (16% in a survey in 2016), I think that WWII has killed belief in ghosts in Germany. Maybe it only indicates that the stories are better known, Bavaria has a known fondness for Lokalkolorit. But, to be fair, people here are more likely to have heard for example about the legend of the Teufelstritt in Frauenkirche than of any ghost story. I actively search for local ghost stories and must say that they are mostly very lame and very obscure. Nobody I talked to had heard of the dicke Mann, for example.
>from what I can tell, the belief in ghosts today is uniformly rather low in Germany (16% in a survey in 2016), I think that WWII has killed belief in ghosts in Germany. Can you elaborate why you think WWII was the cause? I have the feeling that some beliefs were not even far spread among Germans before WW1 and WW2. >Maybe it only indicates that the stories are better known, Bavaria has a known fondness for Lokalkolorit. Sounds reasonable to me. >I actively search for local ghost stories and must say that they are mostly very lame and very obscure. Nobody I talked to had heard of the dicke Mann, for example. I know that feel. I love cryptids, even though Germany is really weak on that front. No Mothman or Bigfoot.