RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

I thought for sure all Americans knew about him , Professor in history at Princeton, he's not that old just over 60, on the Hoover Institution at Stanford which I suppose explains his present rants.

Stephen Kotkin - Stalin's Propaganda and Putin's Information Wars , Nathan Watson lecture at the CATO Institute.

Kotkin wrote "Magnetic Mountain - Stalinism as a Civilization" in 1990's - 630 pages really well researched and written.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to take him on and say things about him, but his contemporary political views are worth listening too, I think he's got a lot of bad predictions to live with, - Russia and China have t***sitioned completely differently to his assessment.

son of witless

So then he is not a good source for research ? I am currently reading a book called The Russians, by Hedrick Smith. It came out in the early 1980s. In my current job, I sometimes have a few hours between jobs, and I will occasionally fill that time in a public library. I missed a few months over the summer and now I am starting up again.

Mr. Smith spent years in the Soviet Union during the 70s. He spent a lot of time in conversations with Soviet citizens of all classes. He analyzes the Stalin years mostly from the remembrances of older Soviets. You definitely get a sense of the ultimate demise of the Soviet Economic System. A super power that could challenge the US militarily and in space, could not keep it's grocery store shelves from running empty for months at a time. He delves into Khrushchev's attempts to fix the system and also Brezhnev's failures and why they failed.

I hope to soon read the successor book The New Russians which deals with the 1980s.

Smith gets into the essential Russian character. I believe their history dooms them to authoritarian government. I now understand how fortunate America is, for having descended from Englishmen. Starting with the Magna Carta the English had a tradition of successfully challenging Despots. The American Revolution was in some ways only a continuation of that struggle.

Russia has a history of being ruled by the worst of human beings. From the mid 1200s when the Mongols ravaged their cities and countryside, their only hope was cruel strong men. The Czars filled that role. Lenin and Stalin were essentially Czars.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

I see Smith is getting on a bit, pushing 90, that's why he recalls the very best of times in the West and laments it's passing.

Best time in the Soviet Union was 1975.

All English people think badly of Slavs, it's always been like that long before Nepolean the Conquistadors and Sir Francis Drake changed the West into a leading light before that it was the Ottomons, the Magna Carta was about that time and had something very important in common with the Mongols, they both opposed Monarchies.

Mongols wanted peace with the Russian Princes in 1239 Batu Khan sent emissaries but the Princes k**led them so Batu marched on Moscow and 3 other cities plus Kiev the capital of Kievan Russia, Russia paid tribute to the Golden Horde this was what began the Russian National Identity mainly derived from the Orthodox Church, the Mongols got on well with the Church and in 1267 the Church was Officially recognized and protected by the Mongols.

That opposition to the Princes survives today and was responsible for the defection of Russia from the Soviet Union, which they very much regret now, the comparison is often with China who changed the system but maintained the State, Russia is very much weaker now in the region.


Far as I know, Kotkin only did that one work (Magnetic Mountian) that is worth reading, I read it twice Magnetogrosk was a town under a mountain of iron which is why the called it Magnetic Mountain it was a copy of US company towns (Lowell in Massachusetts) which was copied by Lowell in about 1822 from planned Industrial towns in Britain.

Nothing's Magnetic Mountian has great insights into Russian persona, very unlike British conceptions. From memory he describes this scene, the Forman approaches an old man and said his work was not up to scratch, the old man says "don't tell me how-to work I with my axe I build many Churches " the Forman agrees.

Magnetic Mountau mentioned Shiela Fitzpatrick as shaking American complacency and superiority, I read a few of her books, she's back in Australia now, her adventures and incursions into the Stalinist Soviet era are very interesting.
Enjoyed reading your post.

son of witless

I can see us having a good conversation on the Mongols. While I have holes in my knowledge because I study things as I come across them, I know quite a bit about the Mongol invasions. You seem to know a few things I don't about Batu and the Golden Horde. My point is that the ravishes of the Mongols had a lot to do with the Russian acceptance of Authoritarian leaders.

One of my favorite Mongol characters is Tamerlane. That guy gives Ghengis Khan a run for his money in terms of savagery and brilliance as a military leader. The legend, whether or not it is true, is that when he died he warned everyone not to disturb his tomb. " An evil worse than me will be unleashed on you. " In June of 1941 Soviet scientists opened up his tomb and examined his remains. The very next day Hitler invaded the USSR.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

You must inform OPP what you think about the Timurid Mongol feller, I think he was a bad chap, but the question remains, why on earth did God employ him, if you can answer that, I guarantee a sizeable reward will be yours to keep.

I entered this competition and never heard back, this is what I had to say.

What happened was China was the leader of Civilization, but that wasn't a mistake, gun powder was not invented either, it came from a bastard not related to Genghis like Timur wasn't, ( only guessing), so the connection with going up in smoke came from something sky high, in my answer I maintained it was God.

So this little bastard, meant in the proper sense, had a Divine purpose, which was to link up nothing other than the development of complexity with (P) Abraham's Religion, what initially caused this strange turn of events was the fact that, and I kid you not, diversity.

China didn't have it and uniformity was essential for civil ascent.so what began couldn't finish and Timur had to bridge the gap.

The question really is asking what is the outcome of (P) Abraham's Religion if you think that means conquering the world you could be right because I obviously got it wrong, but there again so did Genghis, maybe there is no right answer that's why the prize is safely stored in the tomb of Genghis Khan.

Two famous people asked for eternal life and both are immortal in literature Gilgamesh and Genghis Khan, unbeknown to them everyone is immortal anyway, some in a good place and some in a bad place, I can't say for sure but because of the link with gunpowder it could be Timur and Genghis went sky high.

son of witless

" You must inform OPP what you think about the Timurid Mongol feller, I think he was a bad chap, but the question remains, why on earth did God employ him, if you can answer that, I guarantee a sizeable reward will be yours to keep. "

Why does God allow evil to have it's day ? No idea. Why did God allow Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to murder millions ? no idea.

It is easier to analyze their net influences on history. The bad parts are easy. The constructive results are more difficult. As far as Tamerlane, even though he was a Muslim, he set back the causes of Islam. A good percentage of the civilizations and human beings he destroyed were Muslim. He also delayed the inevitable conquest of Constantinople by half a century when he put Bayezid in a cage.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

I inform about Timurid Mongol , but I fear I can't do it as good as "Tooky History" - Timur: Conqueror of the World-

Trump supporters don't watch this Documentary. This is a emergency. Hope nobody watches Tooky, Arrrrr !!!! Tooky should be banned.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

I've had a bit of a rest, Ifeel better now, I wasn't expecting that, maybe I shouldn't learn and post at the same time, but using two devices concurrently is a heck of an advantage.

Why did God save the Soviet Union by causing Churchill to lose all his money on the Stock Exchange?.

Another mental challenge, why did God give Rome victory over Carthage.

To have a world view in terms of Theology these questions are mandatory, otherwise God is not related to outcomes.

Maybe Rome was not sacrificing children to God's and Carthage was, and God was extremely pleased with Stalin.

But it's not one size fits all.

About Tamerlane born in 1336 followed on from the Ilkhanatat Dynasty after they sacked Baghdad in 1258.

The defences of Damascus were also breached in 1260 which later affected Sheikh ibn Taymiyya who was born in Harran close to the now Turkish border in 1263.

The invasion caused ibn Taymiyya's parents to move to Damascus in 1268, so he grew up hating the Mongols

Ibn Taymiyya is the Imam of the Salafist school of jurisprudence which is a connection between Tamerlane and Divine Providence.

Notice the dates, Tamerlane born 1336 and ibn Taymiyya 1268 the preaching that ibn Taymiyya did caused Tamerlane to get a bad Cold and die before he could conquer China.

I think Charles Allen describes it best in "God's Terrorists " The Wahabbi Cult and the Roots of Modern Jihad.

son of witless

You sure like to skip around a lot. I like the Rome-Carthage issue. I cannot answer for God, but I have thought about why Rome triumphed and Carthage lost. I think it is similar to why the Allies beat the Axis in WW2.

In both cases the eventual losers had great early advantages and won important victories. Carthage like the Axis had a better military, certainly a better navy. However Rome like the Allies was able to absorb and come back stronger from the early defeats. Rome and the Allies also showed a great ability to learn and adapt.

Carthage and the Axis both lost because despite their early advantages, they could not come back from defeats, once the tide turned against them.

Rome was in it's young adult stage and was able to recover from devastating defeats during the Punic Wars. Contrast that with the latter Western Roman Empire, which could not recover in the 4th and 5th centuries AD from Barbarian attacks. That was Geriatric Rome.

In WW2 both Russia and the US had to come back from early defeats that seemed insurmountable. How very youthful of them. Older Empires cannot do that.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

I hadn't thought of it, but that's exactly right, Carthage code was broken and the Enigma code was broken both very early in the war effecting a great advantage in the war.

Carthaginians were Phoenician people who were first to spread the iron smelting industry, you might know who invented it first, I did but must give forgotten, unlike the Carthaginians who were also know as Philistines in the Bible and they never forgot a thing and kept on making improvements especially with prefabricated ship.

But like the Axis they gave away their secrets unintentionally and signalled out there connections, the Romans captured a Carthaginian ship and noticed all these coded messages on every one timber which was connected to another, so then they knew parts were made in batches and ships assembled in multiples, sk**ls were specialised enhancing the efficiency of the craftsman.

That was during 260 BC just after the first Punic war 264 BC -241 BC, when in a mere 60 days the Romans built 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes, because they copied the Carthaginian method as well as their designs, Romans were then, after that, the masters of the Mediterranean.

I think Hitler knew at the battle of Kursk that his code was broken, but he didn't know it was broken in 1941, there was nothing he could do the mobilization has exhausted all available resources, he probably thought, well what can you do when a commitment is made, other than follow it through.

Greek Fire was a secret sooo well kept in the end the Byzantines themselves didn't know what it was, or how to reproduce it, the secret was lost by the time Constantinople was overrun by Mehmed II.

Maybe it could have saved the day as actually did happen so many times before, although it is stated that God was the only one who knew how to make Greek Fire work, even so the Turks had gunpowder in 1453 so it would not have been as effective as it was before but if it was God's secret weapon He must have wanted Constantinople to fall.

Ottoman,Safavid and Mughal all acquired gunpowder from China about the same time in 15 th. Century, Theologians call it the great balancing act allowing purpose to be defined by the wars of attrition enacted by devotion to our Lord.

son of witless

I am amazed by the Roman sense of stick-to-itiveness . The Romans were not Sailors. The Carthaginians totally outclassed them in naval technology, but the Romans kept experimenting with ships until they destroyed the Carthaginian navy.

In the Second Punic War Carthage had the brilliant General Hannibal, who defeated many Roman armies, but Rome kept coming back from those defeats and finally won. In WW2 nobody could conceive of how the Soviet Red Army could possibly come back from it's crushing defeats in 1941, and yet it did. Likewise the US had to recover from the Pearl Harbor disaster and all of the terrible defeats of early 1942.

I keep coming back to my central point. The side that can recover best from it's defeats will generally win. Carthage, like Germany and Japan lacked the innate ability to bounce back from crushing defeats.

To get back to the Soviets, I think it is useful to compare the WW2 Soviets to WWI Czarist Russia. The Russian defeats in WWI were not nearly as bad as the 1941 Soviet defeats. Czarist Russia collapsed in WWI.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

WW 1 ended for the Russians less than 4 months after what had become technically the first Foreign Policy agenda of the Red Army which was for a cease-fire agreement with the Central Powers of November 11; 1917, the Germans took it as a formal surrender leading to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty of March 3; 2018 which in turn caused the Red Baron Manfred von Richthofen to be shot down and k**led April 21/ 1918, he was only 25 years old, how sad.

But exactly what does that tell us about God's ambition forthe nascent Soviet State as we now know the young Red Baron was taken up by God because the Germans were demoralised due to the fact that they were told by the Kaiser and Ludendorff, the war was over, Richthofen lost his concentration when he found out it wasn't.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, God treasured the Red Baron and all good men in the world treasured the Red Army.

You might think only Christians call God a man, but the Salafists do too.

About Hannibal, I think he went to Spain after the first Punic war 264-242 BC got really wealthy and was more or less divorced from Carthage who never endorsed his escapades against Rome in the second Punic war of 219 BC.

The Third Punic was 149-146 BC, 93 years after the second was brought on not because Carthage didn't recover, it happened because Cato the Elder ended every one of his speeches with "Furthermore it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed" , Cato like Bolton was a believer in a unipolar world, and his psychological enemy was the Phoenix as you say recovery.

So it was a technology and a madman that caused the Romans to spend years dismantling every stone that the Phoenicians put in place, remarkably Hitler spared Rome and the Allies spared Rome so the lines are blurred between good and bad all that's left is the outcomes, sometime crazies lose but with Carthage they won.

If God didn't figure into it then why would He figure into it now or in the future?.

If Carthage had of backed up Hannibal history would be very different today, but they said it would have been too expensive and even if Hannibal loses we will always bounce back, Spain sent him not us, it's nothing to do with us, Rome believed differently, not so much about the past it was the future without a competitor which concerned Rome.

The Soviets created the first industrial miracle Christopher Read calls it "The Great Turn", in 1928 - 32, the market was marginalised - though never completely abolished - 1929 saw the rapid collectivisation of the peasantry.

I don't remember hearing anything about Czarist Russia ever doin stuff like that, and it was "collectivisation and cultural revolution" Christopher Read tells us in "The Making and Breaking Of The Soviet Union", collectivisation and cultural revolution, - quote - "which undermined the vestigial toleration of the mid - 1920's and replaced it with strident leftism and visionary utopianism, themselves eventually undermined by the later turn to socialist realism." end quote.

The vestigial toleration of the mid mid 1920's were the outcomes of Lenin's concessions to the peasantry after and during the Civil War, the concessions led to grain sales plummeting in 1926 -27 the Kulacks got the blame because it was thought they were still supporting the W****s not the Reds..

Nothing to do with the Czarist superstition there.

Nicholas was one of the worst at superstition, except for his wife of course, Rasputin told everyone in ambiguous terms he was screwing all the females in the family kids and all, Nicholas just let him get on with it, this type of behavioural trait wasn't unusual for many European Aristocrats.