Botond173
4hr ago
Since you specifically referred to ‘Wilson's deranged fantasies’ I picked Czechoslovakia because if there’s one tangible Eastern European development that can be called the result of Wilson's deranged fantasies, it’s the creation of Czechoslovakia. Also, just to nitpick further: in the case of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania there was zero democratic tendency after WW1 to slide back from towards authoritarianism.
Botond173
4hr ago
If we consider the period before the outbreak of WW1 in Eastern Europe, we can absolutely surely say that the ideas of freely functioning political parties, democratic elections, rule of law, civil society, parliamentarianism, personal liberty, freedom of expression etc. had precisely zero influence in Russia, and that this was the case ever since the Russian state existed. And yes, this is true even when compared to imperial Germany.
Botond173
5hr ago
There are two glaring problems with that. Imperial Germany had a legacy of democratic norms already - there was a legislative assembly, elections, political parties, political discussions in a free press etc. Also, Germany isn't in Eastern Europe.
Ah yes, the long rich democratic tradition of the 20 years between the World Wars, that were imposed by Woodrow Wilson's deranged fantasies, and managed to revert to authoritarianism even within that short timespan.
What is this meant to be a reference to please? Czechoslovakia? Because there was no reversion to authoritarianism in that case.
The attachment to democracy was so short that we were seriously debating if it's not better to take the Asian Tiger route, and only implement democracy after authoritarian reforms.
The Asian Tiger route was a strictly Southeast Asian (Confucian) phenomenon in the specific context of the Cold War and facilitated by generous and targeted American capital investment and the proto version of offshoring. None of that applied to Eastern Europe after 1989.
It can work if the stars align just right, but has the tendency of taking it's necessary conditions (like everybody having roughly the same values) for granted. The moment these conditions are not met the democracy enjoyers themselves will start begging for it's end, arresting opposition candidates, and seriously considering the banning of political parties, for the high crime of people voting the wrong way.
It was all a long-term consequence of German 'reunification' (the annexation of the former GDR into an unchanged federal state structure) being a complete shitshow which incidentally the Americans played no part in.
Botond173
1d ago
So the Russian army never actually managed to fight somewhat competently any time in history? Really?
Botond173
1d ago
I assume your basic HBD-related argument here is that democratic transition was largely successful in Eastern Europe in 1989 because White Christians live there, as opposed to Zimbabwe and South Africa (or something).
Either way, I don’t mean this as an insult of some sort, I’d rather go ahead and nitpick.
The obvious commonality among the Eastern European nations that more or less successfully transitioned to democracy in 1989 is that they all have some past legacy of applied democratic norms, rule of law, parliamentary systems, Western orientation and (some differing level of) Germanic cultural influence. Belarus, for example, is a clear exception. (And the question of whether the area of the former GDR was ‘properly’ democratized or not is seemingly an ever thornier one on the minds of West German normies.) In contrast, the Russian, Central Asian and Caucasian republics of the former USSR clearly lack this and continued the norms of authoritarianism and repression accordingly. Whatever marginal democratic tendencies might have even been present at the beginning clearly went nowhere. This was already clear as day back in 2003, and was available as an argument against rosy neocon predictions regarding Iraq’s future.
I won’t argue about the basket case Rhodesia has turned into; with respect to South Africa though I’d point out that it’s easy to get dispirited about developments there instead of comparing what ended up happening to the absolute bloodbath and misery the country could easily have slipped into after Apartheid collapsed.
Botond173
1d ago
What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.
Botond173
2d ago
What's even the point in getting married if you don't want to have children?
Botond173
2d ago
A couple of things:
-
The “we pretend that we work, they pretend that they pay us” Soviet joke specifically originates from the post-Stalin era of thaw and stagnation and for a good reason, as the GULAG no longer existed
-
Marx was already convinced that revolutionary terror is necessary and described it as such
-
As you stated, the commies noticed that beating up selfish people for their acts of selfishness will successfully de-normalize selfishness socially; in a similar manner, beating people up for not caring about the common good will compel them to care about it or else – it’ll work just as much; however, this assumes that the goons and their commanders will never lose their stomachs for beating people up all the time
It’s a bit of a mischaracterization to argue that ‘Germany and Russia gave up [Polish] territory between them’, isn’t it? It wasn’t exactly a matter of choice in either case, especially not in the case of czarist (or Soviet) Russia. I’ll concede that Wilson probably had a significant role in the creation of Poland as well, although this is not a subject I’m familiar with.
Anyway, I agree with your point in the sense that Hungary did in fact have a bicameral parliamentary system as the member state of a dualist monarchy before and during WW1, and was as such exposed to Western concepts of rule of law, civil rights, freedom of the press etc. although to a limited extent indeed. The transitional period of 1918-21 in contrast was characterized by wars, unrest, socio-economic collapse, internment, pogroms, terror and the general brutalization of the population, which hardly constitute a breeding ground for democratization. The regime that ended up consolidating itself was clearly right-wing and authoritarian, but the bicameral parliament and the multi-party system remained, which was still something. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, I imagine whatever political role their parliamentary system was equally or even more limited.
More options
Context Copy link