My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
51 comments:
Also available at Netflix for "Watch Instantly" on your PC, Roku/TV, etc.
Some iSteve readers may not understand the background of the Katyn slaughter and its subsequent downstream effects.
The natural leaders murdered by the Soviets were comprised of, relative to the general population, high-IQ bourgeoisie and quasi-nobility.
Basically, all the smartest, best educated and most productive people you need to run and administrate a country effectively.
All of Eastern and Central Europe has suffered terribly since the intentional extermination and/or driving out of that class of people.
e.g. the 200,000 best and brightest that left Hungary in 1956
Netflix also allows Katyn to be streamed through their streaming video service.
You can't judge the importance of an historical event by its appearance in movies.
The clearset example of this are asians warriors. There were two asian warrior groups who merit consideration. One group were never very sucessful. They seldom fought anyone and when they did they usually lost. They generally had poor weapons and they weren't very good with them.
The other asian group was extremely sucessful. They virtually never lost a battle and their weapons, warriors, tactics, intelligence sevices and leadership were first rate.
The first group were the Samurai. The second group were the Mongols.
The Samurai used lousy swords and were poor swordsmen. They used lousy bows and shot them poorly. Yet their martial prowess is celebrated in countless films while there has only been one major film on the Mongols in the last forty years. The previous one had Omar Sharif, Steven Boyd, and
Woody Strode as Mongols. Ha!
Christopher Hitchens said on the a web video last week that Stalin killed more communists than Hitler. I can't remember any actor except Robert Duval who ever played Stalin whereas every other actor in Hollywood seems to have played or played to Hitler.
All of it has to do with who is and who isn't photogenic. The samurai always look great in their starched and ironed outfits. The Mongols on the road all the time what with the requirements of world conquest, were shabby and probably smelly.
Similarly Stalin and the Soviets were kind of dowdy. Not like those slick and sexy Storm Troopers. Nazi officers in films always have good posture and wear well tailored uniforms.
"the postwar hoax that covered up the atrocity": is 'hoax' really the mot juste?
Netflix also has it listed as "Watch Now" online feature, so if you have an account you should be able to watch it immediately . . .
Weird, now I'm trying to remember why I just put Katyn into my queue (2 days ago I think); was it someone here who mentioned it, or is this just a coincidence (I had no idea it just became available to rent; I think I saw it because of Netflix's "you might also like" thing)? Or maybe my short term memory's just way gone.
[...] The natural leaders murdered by the Soviets were comprised of, relative to the general population, high-IQ bourgeoisie and quasi-nobility.
"Basically, all the smartest, best educated and most productive people you need to run and administrate a country effectively.
"All of Eastern and Central Europe has suffered terribly since the intentional extermination and/or driving out of that class of people. [...]
You absolutely ain't kidding there, Varangy!!!
"Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field: The Croatian Bleiburg"
http://tinyurl.com/ot7qyc
>Yet their martial prowess is celebrated in countless films while there has only been one major film on the Mongols in the last forty years. The previous one had Omar Sharif, Steven Boyd, and
Woody Strode as Mongols. Ha!
Well, surely it has something to do with who has a major film industry, and who does not. There are a couple of recent films on the rise of Genghis Khan, though not made by Hollywood.
Mongol (2007)
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0416044/
Genghis Khan (2007)
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0770722/
Varngy -- If that was the only source of leaders Poland had, it reflects poorly on the Poles. Not that I believe those who died at Katyn were the only source of leadership. Rather, the most likely source of opposition to Communist -- Stalinist rule which is precisely why Stalin (the order could come from no one else) had them killed. They were dangerous because they were *potential* rivals like say, Trotsky. Ironically, the only man Stalin liked and consider as a friend was ... Adolf Hitler.
It is a characteristic of Western society that leadership potential goes far deeper than a thin aristocracy. It is what makes it stronger. The Romans lost approximately 110,000 men at Trebia, Lake Tresmine, and Cannae, and yet still fought on, with leaders like Fabian and Scipio Africanus. When the Plague wiped out almost a third of Europe, new leaders constantly emerged. By contrast when Alexander and the Arabs destroyed Persian armies and leaders, there was no one left. Despite a very large and potentially dangerous peasantry.
I don't think Eastern Europe suffered from all the "smart people being killed" but rather, demographic decline, due to WWII deaths, horrific Soviet Occupation, a mangled and nearly dead civil society still on life support after nearly 70 years or brutality, and sustained looting by politically connected criminals since the 1930's (merely the party affiliations changed). Though certainly Katyn and the brutal Soviet oppression did damage itself -- I don't think it was decisive. And Poland DID develop many working-class leaders like Lech Walesa.
Agreed Albertosaurus. The Samurai were not particularly effective. Their swords were all based one sharp killing blow -- the greatest swordsman Musashi actually used long wooden or iron staves to do most of his killing. The medieval hand and a half sword was probably more versatile.
Just as an alternative history speculation, I wonder if a successful Mongol invasion of Japan would have had far reaching effects. What I envision is that even in defeat, the Japanese would have been better sailors and fleets of refugees would have departed. This could lead to the Japanese discovery and settlement of Australia and America. Looking at a map, it seems odd that New Zealand didn't end up as South Japan. On the other end of Eurasia, a Mongol invasion of Scandinavia and Britain could have sent heavy settlement into Vinland.
I have to agree with Whiskey. For example, if some communist horde took out out our intelligensia in New York and Washington I'd doubt if it would have much of an effect. Leaders like that are easy to find.
albertosaurus sez:
All of it has to do with who is and who isn't photogenic. The samurai always look great in their starched and ironed outfits. The Mongols on the road all the time what with the requirements of world conquest, were shabby and probably smelly.
Similarly Stalin and the Soviets were kind of dowdy. Not like those slick and sexy Storm Troopers. Nazi officers in films always have good posture and wear well tailored uniforms.
Ugh, more intentional obfuscation?
Apart from the obvious fact that Samurai were obviously also "smelly" (no deo in those days, sweety), the obsession with Hitler has MANY advantages to a particular group, who happen to control HW. So why is it a surprise that we have 50 Nazi flicks every month?
whiskey/testing99/evil neocon said
"It is a characteristic of Western society that leadership potential goes far deeper than a thin aristocracy. It is what makes it stronger. The Romans lost approximately 110,000 men at Trebia, Lake Tresmine, and Cannae, and yet still fought on, with leaders like Fabian and Scipio Africanus. When the Plague wiped out almost a third of Europe, new leaders constantly emerged."
The Plague is a poor example. H.L. Mencken went so far as to say that the Plague was a necessary condition of the subsequent Renaissance and Enlightenment - because it mostly wiped out proles, who lived in more unsanitary conditions than their betters...leaving the survivors freed of the social dead weight of much peasantry and able to devote more time and energy to speculation and science.
All of it has to do with who is and who isn't photogenic.
Laughable. Hollywood does whatever it sees fit to sex up the story. If they wanted to tell the stories, they could put the Nazi outfits on the Commies (or more practically, just tailor, and otherwise improve, the Commies' uniforms). And the Mongols used equipment that was indistinguishable from that of their enemies (E.g., eastern European armor and Golden Horde armor were essentially the same for the elite on either side, and quite beautiful and exotic from a western POV BTW), and steppes are quite photogenic.
But, they'd have to do something about certain ethnies creating mountains of Europid corpses and, well, if you have to go that far to whitewash, what's the point? You've moved beyond aesthetics and can't escape the fact that it's the story you don't want to tell. (The Mongols went one step further into PC by conquering, slaughtering, and plundering near eastern territories - definitely not PC, that's whitey's exclusive demesne).
Hollywood's rural white stereotype is a poorly dressed and spoken one, interesting only in his vices, yet he's ubiquitous for all that.
Try again, Al.
(I mean really, photogenic? The photogenic periods and subjects of the middle ages, for example, are studiously avoided, AFAICT, in favor of the less photogenic. Probably partially monetary - faux mail is easier than faux plate? And good livery is probably expensive. But it's also undoubtedly partially political, too. The past must suffer on an aesthetic level, or the Progressive Era might suffer in comparison.)
It's not clear at all that Poland has suffered from any dysgenic effects as a result of the war, probably the opposite. The officer class in pre-war Poland was not always the best and brightest - don't forget that European aristocracy suffered horribly from inbreeding. That was a reason for a great deal of the social discontent in Europe from the 18th century on - talented bright individuals had no easy reliable mechanism to advance socially, and they often found dull scions of the aristocracy blocking their way. Arguably WWII also weeded out a lot of the stupider, more violent people from the peasant class - in particular Poland probably did not suffer terribly from abandoning the dull peasants of the Eastern territories that are now in Belarus and Ukraine. My impression in general is that Poles today seem far more intelligent and conscientious than Ukrainians or Russians. I'm not sure anyone would have said that in 1920.
"... Ironically, the only man Stalin liked and consider as a friend was ... Adolf Hitler."
Ah, VINTAGE TESTY!
And was beginning to wonder where he was lately.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_us
Off topic, but here is why the conservative movement can't be led by the religious right. His foreign policy would be as bad as GW Bush.
Dearieme is quite correct: Katyn was not a hoax. The attempt by the Soviets and Allies to blame it on the Germans could be termed a hoax, however (or perhaps just business as usual in the Churchillian bodyguard-of-lies sense). Orwell noted that the purpose of war propaganda is to dehumanize the enemy so as to justify their indiscriminate slaughter. Once that purpose is served,Truth might be allowed to raise its head.
Stevil's review of "Katyń" from The American Conservative:
It often seems as if humanity's seven decade struggle with Communism has disappeared down the memory hole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly. A vast, thundering silence for twenty years since the fall of the wall. It would seem a treasure trove for mining in numerous movies, novels, plays exploring the entire experience from endless aspects. Instead a sort of unspoken, perhaps unconscious, blacklisting.
Anne Applebaum's 'Gulag'
by itself is ample basis for an epic movie.
The crime against humanity that occurred in that forest was compounded in the years that followed, first by the Brits who caved into the lying Soviets and went along with their blame of the Nazis (a disgrace, given that brave Poles were at the time fighting side-by-side with the Brits), then during the show trial at Nuremberg, where not only was the massacre officially attributed to the Nazis (which everyone knew was a lie), but from where they dispatched Nazi POWs to Poland so that they might be tried and executed for what the Russians did in Katyn.
Like so many of the lies that emerged from the war in Europe, Katyn played an important role in the Big Lie that was to become the official history of the war in Europe, a fraudulent history partly written in Hollywood, where it now functions as the gift that keeps on giving.
In all of the books I have read on WW2 and Katyn the Poles were more afraid of the Soviets then the Germans. In 1938 if Poland had to pick one or the other it would have been the Germans. History has proven that wrong but not by much.
Albertosaurus:
Christopher Hitchens said on the a web video last week that Stalin killed more communists than Hitler. I can't remember any actor except Robert Duval who ever played Stalin whereas every other actor in Hollywood seems to have played or played to Hitler.
Here's the IMDB page for Stalin as a movie/tv character
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004051
Duval's name was the only one I noticed, not that I could name a single Russian language actor.
"They were dangerous because they were *potential* rivals like say, Trotsky. Ironically, the only man Stalin liked and consider as a friend was ... Adolf Hitler."
They never even met you nut.
I heard Hitler was driven to despair after a lifetime of rejection by WHITE WOMEN. In the USSR, WHITE WOMEN and Muslims Tatars formed the bureaucratic machine that emasculated the Russian betas.
"Katyn" is an excellent movie about the sort of atrocity our elites would like to forget, since the killers were Communists.
Katyn was a disaster that has been suppressed because it reminds us one of our biggest WWII allies was (a) complicit with Hitler for the first two years of the war (b) murderous (c) totalitarian (d) murdered a lot of people not because they were Jews but for other reasons including their Christianity and murdered many non-Jews(numerically more, though not proportionally more than Hitler's murder of the Jews themselves in the end) and (d) that the ostensible moral prupose of the war was abandoned at Yalta when Poland was given to the lackeys of the Polish regime set up by Moscow.
Between Stalin and Hitler, 3mm Polish Christians and 3mm Polish Jews were killed. This destroyed much of Poland's pre-war economic and intellectual elites.
Incidentally, the officer killing was more damaging than it might otherwise be because Poland had a Swiss style regime of reservists and many of the local leaders in small towns and cities, lawyers, business owners and the like, were officers in the reserves who fought against either Germany or the Soviet Union in 1939. Bielski of the Partisan Unit Bielski featured in Defiance was a Polish reserve officer in the early 1930s for instance.
Just as an alternative history speculation, I wonder if a successful Mongol invasion of Japan would have had far reaching effects. What I envision is that even in defeat, the Japanese would have been better sailors and fleets of refugees would have departed. This could lead to the Japanese discovery and settlement of Australia and America. Looking at a map, it seems odd that New Zealand didn't end up as South Japan.
What are you basing this off of? Japanese shipbuilding technology was crap all the way until the 19th and 20th century modernization drive, they couldn't sail much farther than the occasional trip to China. During the Imjin War in the 16th century for example, Japanese ships were VASTLY inferior to Chinese Ming warships and Korean Panokseongs. The Japanese instead had to rely on superior numbers, but they still lost. What makes you think they could have fled all the way to Australia in the 13th century?
And the Samurai/Mongol thing is easily explained without aesthetics; Mongols produced an awesome war machine, and NOTHING ELSE. No culture strong enough to pass on myths...no myths. History is written by those who write.
The mongols needed grazing land. The average mongol warrior had three horses. Once they hit europe they found trees. Same thing for russia. above a certain lattitude you get trees. Japan does not have a lot of pasture land. The mongols would have conqured and left leaving behind tax collectors.
actually, Alexander's defeat of Persians did not involve elimination of their nobility at all. The Persian leaders just made a deal with him after battle of Gaugamela. Quite significantly, all 3 major battles of the war were outside Iran - after losing the western provinces Persian leadership got rid of king Darius and became temporary vassals of Alexander. Well, Alexander tried keeping them happy for awhile by incorporating them into the military and so forth, but ultimately Persian nobility got rid of the Greeks and reconsituted as the Parthians. So IMHO the lesson is opposite here - a well run, capable nation will do perfectly well even after losing a big war and a few provinces. And yes, leadership is indeed the key.
Pat Shuff: It would seem a treasure trove for mining in numerous movies, novels, plays exploring the entire experience from endless aspects.
Brought to you by the very same folks who get to decide whether or not 200 Years Together will ever see the light of day.
In all honesty, it's getting to the point that we really need to quit whining about this stuff and start taking it upon ourselves to rectify matters.
The Samurai used lousy swords and were poor swordsmen. They used lousy bows and shot them poorly.
Wait, what?
@Whiskey
Who said "only" leadership? It is factual/true that the natural leaders I referred to were:
a) generally, high-IQ bourgeoisie and quasi-nobility
b) (as you point out) the most likely source of opposition to Communist
c) therefore, intentionally targeted
You then write:
"It is a characteristic of Western society that leadership potential goes far deeper than a thin aristocracy. It is what makes it stronger. The Romans lost approximately 110,000 men at Trebia, Lake Tresmine, and Cannae, and yet still fought on, with leaders like Fabian and Scipio Africanus. When the Plague wiped out almost a third of Europe, new leaders constantly emerged."
Clearly, new leaders will always emerge -- but will they be of the same quality and same IQ level/capacity?
To wit, no.
Eastern Europe very much DID suffer from the smart people being killed and/or driven off. That very much includes the Jews of WWII BTW.
In very practical terms, the Communists made "doctors" and "lawyers" out of low-IQ peasants.
Think medicine and law didn't suffer after that?
BTW nowadays we call it affirmative action.
CEE also suffered from the other reasons you mentioned.
Let me leave you with an anecdote.
There is a song in Hungarian called "Elveszett gyémántok" (translation: Lost Diamonds)
The words directly refer to the "lost diamonds" and "pearls who have rolled away" -- those driven off and/or killed by the Communists.
For anyone who can read Hungarian:
http://www.zeneszoveg.hu/lyrics.php?lc=6262
@Whiskey
I should also add -- the converse is true.
It can be very beneficial for countries to accept, even a very few high-IQ people.
Data point:
Fermi, Szilard, Wigner, Teller, Neumann.
The last four, all Hungarian Jews fleeing Europe involved, at least tangentially, in the Manhattan Project.
There is a reason that countries that experience brain drain are worse off than those countries that are the recipients of these folks' IQs.
@ El Caudillo
Excellent article. Steve should do a post on that alone.
No one can read accounts of pre WWII Poland or literature of that period and possibly think the Polish leadership or upper class of that era was more intelligent than Poles today. Hungary does seem to have suffered from some sort of dysgenic effects over the last 60 years - whether WWII, emigration or whatever - but Poland certainly has not.
Hungary does seem to have suffered from some sort of dysgenic effects over the last 60 years - whether WWII, emigration or whatever - but Poland certainly has not.
Poland is also about four times the size of Hungary, which is quite small. (Albeit nearly 30% of Magyars in Europe live outside of the current borders of Hungary). Hungarians are also notoriously psychologically delicate...all in all, not a recipe for a very resilient society. Lovely place, though, and in spite of massive economic woes at the moment not doing too horrifically.
Pat Shuff,
"Exactly. A vast, thundering silence for twenty years since the fall of the wall. It would seem a treasure trove for mining in numerous movies, novels, plays exploring the entire experience from endless aspects. Instead a sort of unspoken, perhaps unconscious, blacklisting."
Um, dude, what are you talking about? Everybody knows it's because WWII was so much more interesting and because there's just too much good source material on WWII. That's why we still continue to get cinematic gems every year like the soon to be released Inglorious Basterds.
Another reason why the Katyn massacre has not been given "enough" play, and why it has been so damaging to Poland: the loss of these officers was not just a loss of IQ, but a loss of crucial patriotic leadership. When you look at countries that have become economically successful after WW II, like South Korea or Singapore, there is a very strong strain of patriotism that illuminates the way their societies strive to compete against foreigners. Poland clearly had this before 1939, and the Communists did their best to suppress it, Katyn is the most extreme example of this campaign. A lot of the chaos and failure in Poland after 1990, and its relatively poor economic performance (relative to potential) has been a lack of patriotism. People just don't care about the big picture. A lot of people in Poland make this argument quite strongly these days. Of course the modern Western media will never look at things this way, because the distinction between patriotism and nationalism is all gone.
A second reason why Katyn was so damaging to Poland was that it was so emblematic of the kind of thing Poland can expect to experience from the East--murder under the cover of friendly words--that it was thoroughly demoralizing. In that respect, Germany does seem a simpler, easier enemy than Russia. As the Polish saying has it, "When we lose against Germany, we lose our life, but when we lose against Russia, we lose our souls."
They never even met you nut.
I heard Hitler was driven to despair after a lifetime of rejection by WHITE WOMEN. In the USSR, WHITE WOMEN and Muslims Tatars formed the bureaucratic machine that emasculated the Russian betas."
Lotta nuts on this board, including, maybe, me. Diversity does that to people, once they are released from the bond PC and stupid-think. But opinions can at least be expressed and discussed till some sort of consensus is reached.
Anyway, Eva Braun was quite devoted to Adolph, wasn't she? It only takes one true love.
Still, Hitler's problems ran deeper. He didn't connect with anyone. His only friend in adolescense wrote a memoir of his days with Adolph (they went hiking together), and it sounds reicht. Hitler seemed to be enclosed in a world of his own, though he seemed to enjoy the company of his friend. Neither expressed much politically at that time. The only friend lost touch with Hitler later and doesn't seem to have become a Nazi or supporter.
Hitler the 17 year old sounds very much as you'd expect.
Peter A: No one can read accounts of pre WWII Poland or literature of that period and possibly think the Polish leadership or upper class of that era was more intelligent than Poles today.
I think this sentence is missing a "not".
"Peter A said...
It's not clear at all that Poland has suffered from any dysgenic effects as a result of the war, probably the opposite. The officer class in pre-war Poland was not always the best and brightest - don't forget that European aristocracy suffered horribly from inbreeding."
Poland's pre-war army was good enough to beat the Red Army - which they did, stopping them almost at the gates of Warsaw in 1920.
Sorry Jerry. Of course Katyn was a horrible crime but a lot of Poles tend to focus too much on it. It's hardly the only horrible crime committed against Poland. How many high IQ Polish officers died in the initial German and Soviet invasions? I think the subsequent Russian occupation of Poland from 1945-1990 was certainly far far more damaging to Poland than Katyn. It also seems to me that the pre-1939 Polish elite spent far too much time obsessing about their own backwardness vis-a-vis Jews and Germans - who were both of course significant minorities in pre-war Poland. That's a kind of patriotism of course, but it wasn't the type of patriotism conducive to economic development. The post-1990 elite has the advantage of living in a homogenous Polish nation. You say Poland hasn't "lived up to it's potential" - but you need to compare it to Ukraine or Lithuania, not Germany or France.
"..Szilard, Wigner, Teller, Neumann...all Hungarian Jews fleeing Europe involved, at least tangentially, in the Manhattan Project."
I love the idea that Szilard was involved, "at least tangentially", in the Manhattan Project. He was the inventor of the Atom Bomb.
@Duff Dry
You are making Pat Shuff's point. Inglorious Basterds is just another Holocaust flick, and has nothing to do with Communism.
@Jerry Czarnecki
Absolutely spot-on with patriotism argument. Hungary is exactly the same. If you are a patriot, the Hun. Left (former Communists) brand you a xenophobic nationalist/racist etc etc
Also, with regard to being slain/raped/pillaged by Germans or Russians --- Hungarians preferred the former. This is not a joke - this comes from direct familial experience. The slaying/raping/pillaging was a lot more civilized when done by the Germans, if that makes sense.
(I sound like Tibor Fischer in "Under The Frog". Great book, recommended to all iSteve readers interested in Communism)
@dearieme
You are clearly correct. Poor phrasing on my part. I picked the lowest common denominator that applied to all the Hungarians I mentioned.
"Varangy said...
Also, with regard to being slain/raped/pillaged by Germans or Russians --- Hungarians preferred the former."
I don't think there were too many non-jewish Hungarians slain/raped/pillaged by the Germans in WWII. Hungary was an ally of Germany.
"dearieme said...
I love the idea that Szilard was involved, "at least tangentially", in the Manhattan Project. He was the inventor of the Atom Bomb."
Szilard was I believe the first to have the idea that Uranium could be made to undergo a sustained chain reaction. He also drafted the letter (over Einstein's signature) that was sent to Roosevelt alerting him of the significance of nuclear power. And he may have had some involvement with the British tubealloys project (their contribution to the Manhattan project). But he did not invent the atomic bomb. That really was a joint effort by many people.
Poland's pre-war army was good enough to beat the Red Army - which they did, stopping them almost at the gates of Warsaw in 1920.
Are you seriously claiming the Red Army in 1920 was a disciplined well led fighting force? It was a rag tag group of amateurs and criminals. Anyway I'm not saying the Polish pre-war elite was stupid, just that I don't see any evident cultural decline in Polish Poland (excluding Jewish and German Poles) from 1925 to 1995 - not in the arts, not in literature, not in business, not even in politics.
"Also, with regard to being slain/raped/pillaged by Germans or Russians --- Hungarians preferred the former. This is not a joke - this comes from direct familial experience. The slaying/raping/pillaging was a lot more civilized when done by the Germans, if that makes sense."
Varangy,
As I am sure you are very familiar with, Hungary shared a fairly long heritage with die deutschen Österreichers, as with the Österreich-Ungarisches Reich (Austro-Hungarian Empire), so they were never exactly strangers with eachother.
Additionally, have you ever read the VERY interesting book "The Siege of Budapest" -
http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Budapest-100-Days-World/dp/0300104685
Yup, few cities during the Second War of White Genocide, oops, I mean the 'Second World War', was as heavily contested and bitterly defended as was the 102 day siege of Budapest, 1944.
The Germans definately could not instill, or force, that kind of loyalty, on the part of the Hungarians, toward fighting the Soviet monster had not the Hungarians strongly already believed in what they were fighting for.
http://www.osaarchivum.org/galeria/sites/siege/framee.html
Maybe Bela Kun and the short-lived 'Hungarian Soviet Republic' of 1919 -- and the Red Terror that followed it -- had colored their perceptions on the realities of Bolshevism, rather than its envy-inducing rhetoric?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/hotel/hungary1919a.htm
re:Andrzej Wajda's Katyn
This video excerpt is the essence of Katyn. One needs only to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Be0QG_-Gw
or
http://tinyurl.com/mfv4p2
Varangy,
Corrected links to link #2 and #4of my above post -
"The Siege"
http://tinyurl.com/n488rd
"Hungary Bela Kun Communist Terror 1919"
http://tinyurl.com/nevjn5
I read that invading communist forces always killed off everyone whose wealth or income was above a certain amount. A good proxy to use in cutting the head off the society.
Pol Pot's minions deliberately targeted educated people. Anyone who wore glasses: snuffed. Students under Mao had similar practices during the Cultural Revolution.
"Peter A said...
Are you seriously claiming the Red Army in 1920 was a disciplined well led fighting force? It was a rag tag group of amateurs and criminals."
I'm sure they weren't the force they were in 1937, or would be again by the 1970's or 80's, but they were probably pretty formidable for 1920 - not as good as the German army, but probably more determined and better led than the British or French armies of the time.
Post a Comment