6 ms·

I don't see how Austria-Hungary could be seen as a proto EU, unless you mean that they couldn't agree on many things and had muddy compromises on authority and

by tgv 2y ago

I don't see how Austria-Hungary could be seen as a proto EU, unless you mean that they couldn't agree on many things and had muddy compromises on authority and autonomy. How it could have created lasting peace is beyond me. Germany was its natural, but more powerful ally, and France, England and Russia were sworn enemies of Germany, and didn't seem to care for the double monarchy. It had very little credit in world affairs, so how could it have swayed the whole continent? Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3.

markus_zhang 2y ago
> unless you mean that they couldn't agree on many things and had muddy compromises on authority and autonomy Kinda reminds of EU right now...
- ryanmcbride 2y ago
  yes that's part of the point that the comment you're responding to was making
IgorPartola 2y ago
Russia also was a complete mess at this time. Its serfdom and class system were oppressive as hell. To give you one idea: soldiers could never be out of uniform. Officers could strike soldier at any time and routinely did. Soldiers were paid roughly 50 kopeks a month while officers go 50-1000 rubles (100k = 1r). Europe was also 60 years into the emergence of Communism at this point because there was very little upward mobility from general populace to the higher classes. Sounds more like author bias and wishful thinking but I will add this book to my list to see if I am wrong.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  Except for the last paragraph of your reply, what’s different today?
  - IgorPartola 2y ago
    Today there is a middle class (by Eastern European standards) and there is no hereditary nobility. Outside of penal colonies, forced labor isn’t a thing. The government isn’t constantly fumbling for control against political agitators (in fact it went too far into totalitarianism). Casual physical abuse of soldiers isn’t at least as widely reported on so I would assume that it isn’t an everyday norm in every unit. Pay inequality between officers and soldiers isn’t measured in how many orders of magnitude. Russia is not on the brink of three revolutions and a civil war in the span of a year. It isn’t a good place but it is very different than how it was 100 years ago.
    - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
      Hereditary nobility doesn't exist in Russia since 1917. What's your opinion on sending thousands and thousands of people to the front lines in Ukraine? Is it not true it's often forced? Or lied about where they are being taken to? What do you think about recent influential people in Russia falling out of a window? Or state-sponsored propaganda, how much of the free press remains in Russia? What happens to a regular middle class person when they speak up against the government? Can people go and protest against the government without repression? How has the Russian mentality changed in the last 60 years?
      - IgorPartola 2y ago
        I am in no way defending Russia. As a Ukrainian I am appalled at its government’s actions. What I am saying is that 2024 Russia is very different from 1917 Russia: 1917: weak government, 2024: strong government 1917: lots of protests, 2024: no protests 1917: class system (if you are born a peasant, you remain a peasant), 2024: you can sell hotdogs then become a billionaire, then have a mercenary force, then be shot out of the sky 1917: widespread income inequality, 2024: billionaires but a Lieutenant doesn’t make 1000x what a soldier in his command does. 1917: mercenary groups are a normal part of life, 2024: they are officially outlawed and unofficially there are only a few. There are lots of other differences. Again, this isn’t to say that Russia is good or doing good things. They aren’t. But you can’t say nothing changed. That is simply ignoring history. There are similarities in that Russia is still a shitty place to live. If you want a perspective, check out Antony Beever’s Russia for a history of the 1918 revolution.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  People don’t understand that western countries overthrew feudalism in the fire of revolutions a hundred years prior, but for other countries liberation from feudalism or colonialism happened under the banners of communism. But it was the same process of purging the same old system, purging of serfdom and of people being property
  - jackcosgrove 2y ago
    Land reform, not revolution, is the key to unlocking modernity. However where feudal land ownership is entrenched revolution may be necessary.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
    Don't know about all the countries, but since you're answering a comment on Russia, I must say, it reads comically out of touch. Yeah, the old system was purged alright, but calling it a liberation is disrespectful to the lives of millions of common Soviet people driven to hungry death, being forcefully moved around the country, killed in internal squabbles or purges or otherwise "collectivised". And it all happened despite the fact they hadn't exactly been property for more than 50 years by the time tsarism was overthrown.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      Appropriate comparison would be French Revolution and napoleonic wars that followed. The whole mess lasted for decades. Tsatism was indisputably a tyrannical system, and many peasants were still not free until they paid for their freedom ‘Most former serfs had to pay a land redemption fee (redemption payments were not abolished until 1907’
roenxi 2y ago
> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. How could you know that? Are you a time traveller? It is unlikely in any specific year, but over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen and the risks seem elevated right now. There isn't anything in particular stopping WW3 and there are lots of ways it could happen (open war with Russia, China or Iran spring to mind, civil war in the US spiralling globally is thinkable, the EU is re-arming and something absurd might happen there for a 3rd time). The US doesn't have the economic sway it used to either, it appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors right now which has been a major factor for the last 70 years. Even a good argument isn't comforting. There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. In the case of WW2 for example, it was pretty foreseeable what could happen - devastation of Europe, probable defeat of the Germans by a large coalition and a roughly century-long occupation. No real upside for them. Happened anyway. And famously before WWI there was that book that correctly argued that the economic interconnections between European powers was so great that war could only bring economic ruin - which also happened to be right in hindsight, WWI set up some of the most catastrophic economic conditions ever seen and was also the death knell of Europe's long term economic dominance.
- Animats 2y ago
  > Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. >> How could you know that? We're rather close. All it would take is a major blowup in the Ukraine war. The war has stepped up a notch in the last two days. Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones.[1] What if they stop hitting apartment buildings and level the Kremlin? Or Russia steps up attacks on Latvia, a member of NATO.[2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-moscow-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-in-latvia-president-calls-on-nato-to-respond/ar-AA1qejVP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-i...
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones. That's not new, see this from a year ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. We're on the cusp in the sense that the World War is not yet and might never be recognized (because one or the other side might fall apart without a fight); OTOH, we're not "on the cusp" in that, if the conditions which would cause it to be recognized occur, we're past the point that will likely be looked at as the start date. The Russo-Ukrainian War, and the war between various Iranian proxies and Israel, are all part of the same global conflict between an axis centered around Russia and Iran and a broader one in the West
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  The geopolitical headlines today could have all been written in 1967 and it was far more harrowing and precarious - at least for the continuity of the US - back then
  - roenxi 2y ago
    In 1967 the only real risk to the US was a nuclear strike. In 2024 the only risk is a nuclear strike. When you say it was "more harrowing and precarious", in what sense do you mean that? The risk is about the same.
    - anamexis 2y ago
      Presumably that the risk of nuclear strike was higher
    - dh2022 2y ago
      In 1967 US had something like 30,000 nuclear warheads deployed and USSR had 6,o00. Today both countries have around 1,500. Both countries had bombers with nuclear payload continuously up in the air. The risk was much bigger then. [1] https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/transparency-us-nuclear-weapons-stockpile https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/transparency-us-nuclear-weapons-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
ekianjo 2y ago
> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3 yeah and we all know that there would be no more war after ww1. proxy conflicts between big powers are very dangerous.

by tgv 2y ago

markus_zhang 2y ago

> unless you mean that they couldn't agree on many things and had muddy compromises on authority and autonomy Kinda reminds of EU right now...

ryanmcbride 2y ago
yes that's part of the point that the comment you're responding to was making

IgorPartola 2y ago

Russia also was a complete mess at this time. Its serfdom and class system were oppressive as hell. To give you one idea: soldiers could never be out of uniform. Officers could strike soldier at any time and routinely did. Soldiers were paid roughly 50 kopeks a month while officers go 50-1000 rubles (100k = 1r). Europe was also 60 years into the emergence of Communism at this point because there was very little upward mobility from general populace to the higher classes. Sounds more like author bias and wishful thinking but I will add this book to my list to see if I am wrong.

rad_gruchalski 2y ago
Except for the last paragraph of your reply, what’s different today?
- IgorPartola 2y ago
  Today there is a middle class (by Eastern European standards) and there is no hereditary nobility. Outside of penal colonies, forced labor isn’t a thing. The government isn’t constantly fumbling for control against political agitators (in fact it went too far into totalitarianism). Casual physical abuse of soldiers isn’t at least as widely reported on so I would assume that it isn’t an everyday norm in every unit. Pay inequality between officers and soldiers isn’t measured in how many orders of magnitude. Russia is not on the brink of three revolutions and a civil war in the span of a year. It isn’t a good place but it is very different than how it was 100 years ago.
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    Hereditary nobility doesn't exist in Russia since 1917. What's your opinion on sending thousands and thousands of people to the front lines in Ukraine? Is it not true it's often forced? Or lied about where they are being taken to? What do you think about recent influential people in Russia falling out of a window? Or state-sponsored propaganda, how much of the free press remains in Russia? What happens to a regular middle class person when they speak up against the government? Can people go and protest against the government without repression? How has the Russian mentality changed in the last 60 years?
    - IgorPartola 2y ago
      I am in no way defending Russia. As a Ukrainian I am appalled at its government’s actions. What I am saying is that 2024 Russia is very different from 1917 Russia: 1917: weak government, 2024: strong government 1917: lots of protests, 2024: no protests 1917: class system (if you are born a peasant, you remain a peasant), 2024: you can sell hotdogs then become a billionaire, then have a mercenary force, then be shot out of the sky 1917: widespread income inequality, 2024: billionaires but a Lieutenant doesn’t make 1000x what a soldier in his command does. 1917: mercenary groups are a normal part of life, 2024: they are officially outlawed and unofficially there are only a few. There are lots of other differences. Again, this isn’t to say that Russia is good or doing good things. They aren’t. But you can’t say nothing changed. That is simply ignoring history. There are similarities in that Russia is still a shitty place to live. If you want a perspective, check out Antony Beever’s Russia for a history of the 1918 revolution.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
People don’t understand that western countries overthrew feudalism in the fire of revolutions a hundred years prior, but for other countries liberation from feudalism or colonialism happened under the banners of communism. But it was the same process of purging the same old system, purging of serfdom and of people being property
- jackcosgrove 2y ago
  Land reform, not revolution, is the key to unlocking modernity. However where feudal land ownership is entrenched revolution may be necessary.
- ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
  Don't know about all the countries, but since you're answering a comment on Russia, I must say, it reads comically out of touch. Yeah, the old system was purged alright, but calling it a liberation is disrespectful to the lives of millions of common Soviet people driven to hungry death, being forcefully moved around the country, killed in internal squabbles or purges or otherwise "collectivised". And it all happened despite the fact they hadn't exactly been property for more than 50 years by the time tsarism was overthrown.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    Appropriate comparison would be French Revolution and napoleonic wars that followed. The whole mess lasted for decades. Tsatism was indisputably a tyrannical system, and many peasants were still not free until they paid for their freedom ‘Most former serfs had to pay a land redemption fee (redemption payments were not abolished until 1907’

roenxi 2y ago

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. How could you know that? Are you a time traveller? It is unlikely in any specific year, but over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen and the risks seem elevated right now. There isn't anything in particular stopping WW3 and there are lots of ways it could happen (open war with Russia, China or Iran spring to mind, civil war in the US spiralling globally is thinkable, the EU is re-arming and something absurd might happen there for a 3rd time). The US doesn't have the economic sway it used to either, it appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors right now which has been a major factor for the last 70 years. Even a good argument isn't comforting. There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. In the case of WW2 for example, it was pretty foreseeable what could happen - devastation of Europe, probable defeat of the Germans by a large coalition and a roughly century-long occupation. No real upside for them. Happened anyway. And famously before WWI there was that book that correctly argued that the economic interconnections between European powers was so great that war could only bring economic ruin - which also happened to be right in hindsight, WWI set up some of the most catastrophic economic conditions ever seen and was also the death knell of Europe's long term economic dominance.

Animats 2y ago
> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. >> How could you know that? We're rather close. All it would take is a major blowup in the Ukraine war. The war has stepped up a notch in the last two days. Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones.[1] What if they stop hitting apartment buildings and level the Kremlin? Or Russia steps up attacks on Latvia, a member of NATO.[2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-moscow-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-in-latvia-president-calls-on-nato-to-respond/ar-AA1qejVP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-i...
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones. That's not new, see this from a year ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. We're on the cusp in the sense that the World War is not yet and might never be recognized (because one or the other side might fall apart without a fight); OTOH, we're not "on the cusp" in that, if the conditions which would cause it to be recognized occur, we're past the point that will likely be looked at as the start date. The Russo-Ukrainian War, and the war between various Iranian proxies and Israel, are all part of the same global conflict between an axis centered around Russia and Iran and a broader one in the West

yieldcrv 2y ago
The geopolitical headlines today could have all been written in 1967 and it was far more harrowing and precarious - at least for the continuity of the US - back then
- roenxi 2y ago
  In 1967 the only real risk to the US was a nuclear strike. In 2024 the only risk is a nuclear strike. When you say it was "more harrowing and precarious", in what sense do you mean that? The risk is about the same.
  - anamexis 2y ago
    Presumably that the risk of nuclear strike was higher
  - dh2022 2y ago
    In 1967 US had something like 30,000 nuclear warheads deployed and USSR had 6,o00. Today both countries have around 1,500. Both countries had bombers with nuclear payload continuously up in the air. The risk was much bigger then. [1] https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/transparency-us-nuclear-weapons-stockpile https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/transparency-us-nuclear-weapons-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...

ekianjo 2y ago

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3 yeah and we all know that there would be no more war after ww1. proxy conflicts between big powers are very dangerous.