Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Павэл

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

(don't try to translate it - it's a place name - the seat of the 6th Century Bishops of Lynsey.) :)

Maybe somebody can translate their Names and function.

Do you have a higher resolution picture set? Even at max zoom I cannot read the writing.


You've got a computer game called Il-2 Sturmovik (a very accurate flight sim of the eastern front including models of buildings, etc.) On one mission in the campaign, as the Leningrad pocket gets smaller and smaller with each mission you lead your flight of 4 Yak 1Bs you simultaneously spot:

* A large force of Heinkels heading for the city centre.
* A small group of Ju-88s heading for Tsarskoe Selo.

Normally you'd attack the former........................

I'll get you some pics of the game (it lets you save screenshots, but you can only view them in the game files, not online.)

A few bits to pick at others mentioned:

Firstly, if Russia stayed out of the war, then France would have fallen:

It can be reasonably argued that the most critical moment in the First World War was when the Russians attacked East Prussia. This would have secured their northern flank straight against the Baltic. It failed abysmally but the Germans panicked and sent 16 divisions earmarked for France eastwards instead. They arrived too late to make a difference in East Prussia (the battle already secured) and were absent from the French front as well. The absence of these 16 divisions made all the difference - at First Marne (where the Germans were halted only a few miles short of Paris), the British Expeditionary Force was 4 divisions longer than the Germans allowing II Corps to curl round the Northern flank of the Germans and peel their line backwards - forcing the germans to shore it up and so weaken the main thrust in the centre, which then failed to break the French line. If you add 16 divisions these (the important part) were, under the original war plans to be allocated to the far end of the North flank, making the German line 12 divisions longer instead and thus forcing the tiny BEF (already badly mauled at Mons) to be peeled back!

And once France was gone - that leaves Russia alone and friendless. If Russia cannot cope when combined with France and Britain, what hope does she have alone? The entire German expansion policy since the 1850s had been about isolating potential rivals in turn.

Secondly (perhaps this should go elsewhere, but it was mentioned here.)

Olga was too headstong to be Regent. Tatiana might have managed, but Tatiana also tended to do what her mother told her to do - and the empress wasn't exactly 'today's top tip' for governmental decision making (she effectively ran the country during the war and it could be said was in charge of Nicholas II anyway.) Moreover, to alter the country's inheritance system so swiftly was unlikely. Constitutional monarchies exist because they changed slowly. So many rule changes so swiftly would have been a destabilisation itself.

And as for the children themselves, were they up to the art of statehood? Who is going to teach them? If King & Wilson are correct they had already had their education 'ruined' by a narrow syllabus. They would still have been under N&A's general governance so would still have had no friends or experiences, etc. On top of that - being 'a nice sort of lass/chap' (or a good nurse) does not automate the ability to appreciate higher level decision-making. Anyone here had a really useless boss/manager? You'll find that they are often good workers who are over-promoted. Even Tatiana (with her chairing of meetings) would have had her work cut out on international relations or how to 'guide and advise' on the pitiful state of Russian agriculture or........and on and on. Then - maybe it's just my reading of it - Tatiana herself displays the fragility of her emotions many times herself during exile.

Thirdly - men like Stolypin were themselves ruthless politicians. Would they have kicked up enemies enough. Not that that matters - Stolypin was assassinated anyway.

Finally - if Germany does lose the war (Russia in or out) she would still have destabilised (the country's social problems were inherent to Germany not simply an 'import' from Russia.) A Weimar-style state would probably have occurred anyway as would have the '29 stock market crash. The reparations would still have been huge (France had been invaded twice now in 40 years and been humiliated last time). Enter the Nazis.

And would a tsarist/Duma government (however reformed) had had the ruthlessness to pursue the war against the Nazis?


Having Fun! / Re: You know you're obsessed with the Romanovs when... Part 2
« on: December 31, 2011, 11:23:41 PM »
Got up early today. I'm getting old - guess who missed new year as he had fallen asleep at about 8pm.

There's a programme on UK cable TV called This is Jinsy. I've never actually seen it before and I'd just finished watching the early morning showing of the X-Files. This was immediately after it. An odd but interesting programme - it's about the surreal inhabitants of a fictional island. But it was the theme tune that stopped me changing channels - within a few notes I joined in humming it then remembered a few notes later what it was......


Hearing across a crowded bar the word "AnastAYsia".

Not only do your ears prick up but you really feel the violent urge to walk over and correct his pronunciation.


(Met her as an undergraduate)

when she was younger she had a distinct similarity to a set of photos of maria. (Taken 1910? A common set - one lot goes left to right T,A,Alexei,M,O with A and M on T and O's laps)

And as for Belle - she's always had a viciously strong maternal instinct.......................

I was (re) reading on this this morning (now I can't find my book - did I leave it at the allotment?) but:

In Romanov conspiracies Occelshaw says he spoke to someone (name? page?) who used to look over the wall and talk to Larissa. When shown a picture of Tatiana, this lady said they looked the same. Bet I've lost lost the book now. Can someone find this and elucidate?

For the Larissa story as a whole, (and claimant stories in general) I've always been sceptical at least. The Larissa story is odd in that no 'public' announcement is made (everyone else is making up their own mind.) As for other parts of the story, something is up with this (whoever she is).


I wouldn't get too excited until you peek through it for yourself. As far as I can tell, there's nothing new here. Seems to be a rehash of already published material, as far as I know.

Eventually that will happen to any subject. A rehash sometimes serves well to keep things going. I take it you've experienced the problems of getting hold of out-of-print books at some point for a start. Also, from experience, for me it was a book with in the end no greatly new material (that could not have been seen elsewhere in some other form) that started it for me (long ago), but it was presented in just the right way.


Indeed - even if Russia did require the re-swearing of an oath then this can still be done via the command chain, the entire regiment does not necessarily need to be shipped to the capital. Each nation has its own variation, but each has recreated the command-chain principle in one variety or another and also different variations on 'interregnum rules' depending on precise circumstances.

I would argue that even in russias case, then loyalty oaths and standing orders carry over - otherwise on the death of Alexander I (presuming the command chain 'dies' with the monarch) the regiment would stop functioning and all soldiers would be released. If a parade could be arranged then the loyalty oaths did infact carry over to Nicholas I.

In much older days soldiers (presuming they were 'freemen') were indeed released from service upon the death of a predecessor and had to re-swear. But that was before the ideology of the 'state' (as opposed to merely 'terrain ruled by a person') was in use.

The question then becomes 'Has Russia, at some point prior to 1917, become a state ruled by a monarch or not?' I would argue that she probably had crossed that line and re-swearing ceremonies are merely formalities. The main 'indicator' for me would be the very existance of succession laws - surely an indicator that the nation has rules and therefore independant existence beyond an individual.

If taken further, can you really say " inherited wealth and political power that derives bad, other wealth good (as long as you don't pass it on)." If the love of money is the root of all evil then that comes irrespective of the means by which it was accrued. I have personally also been witness to very hard working people who are nonetheless equally selfish in why they work - the cynical methodologies that plunge those around into despair.

Further, if inherited wealth is a poor matter then what of a working class person who inherits a small sum from his hardworking parents? If you would accept that a small sum is acceptable, then you've accepted inherited wealth, contradicted the argument I put in a different font, above. So then the argument (in order to avoid contradiction) becomes - "excessive wealth" is a crime, and as a result also encompasses earned/'semi-earned' (but not necessarily inherited) wealth.

Additionally, All money brings political advantage and so 'celebs' (for the want of a better term) must begin to share the burden of good governance.

Do I think the IF are bad simply by being rich? I don't know. I would argue, however, (contrary to Constantinople) that if the answer is 'yes' then all wealth becomes questionable. This relates very closely to the original question. In my travels about this life, I've found those who hate 'the inherited classes' most will then  adulate the viciously rich but self-made instead! Or, hate 'privilege' only when they don't experience it. I will not relate all details quite now as passions are running high (student demos anyone?) but perhaps a little while along. I knew and worked with some of the 'austerity enforcers' when they were undergraduates. Amazing how they fought privilege back then and how much they now defend their own impressive salaries now.

Comparing inherited wealth which was accrued due to autocratic rule of a country to high incomes that are earned in a democracy is not useful.

Perhaps not, but (simply to reply to that section of thread) it is necessary to ask "what is earned?" Money creates more opportunities for money. This may be by greater opportunities to invest or by 'association'. Do people buy David Beckham's books because he's a great author? Moreover, if simple liberty to earn (negative liberty - aka unrestricted capitalism) is sufficient then positive liberty (e.g. giving scholarships to poor students*) is a falsehood. It may well be a falsehood, but I'd like to see you make a case for unrestricted capitalism. As our society throughout the 20th century has evolved defining 'what is REALLY earned' is an extension of the same debates of the 17th century over the place of the King over government - you start at the top and reform 'downwards'. With each century comes a new challenge - and whether the economic and/or political power of the new 'rulers' (businessmen for example) itself composes a new tyranny. Compare to the position of modern Russia and it's all powerful business moguls.

In order to begin to accuse we must first define our objective. If that is to 'build a better society' (and punish/remove/reeducate non-followers), for example, then we need to know in the more general case what a despot really is (or what constitutes unearned income) and what roles they play in damaging the objective. From this general definition, encompassing all considerations we can then build a consistent answer (say, in the courts.)

In the 17th Century the matter of income was critical. The crown was greedily hunting for new taxes and liberty of all forms was under threat. 200 years later, it became clear that negative liberty alone and the argument "cos its my money and I made it" was itself a threat to liberty - because the man who lives in a sewer (the sewer that served that self-made non-inheriting but still overpaid industrialist) may be free, but is also a slave by his lack of finance irrespective of whether he was politically persecuted or not.

Before you ask, 'negative' and 'positive' definitions of liberty were adopted simply to compare the two, not as a means of slighting one as negative. It is 'negative' because it is not 'positive'. The latter is called positive because it required active energies and intents to implement (be it tax, welfare, etc.).

* Which, ironically, would be unearned income!

A little on the Removeal of the Guard Equippage:

Its been noted that Dr. King has made comment and other comments are also in place. Consider alternatively:

Nicholas has abdicated and hence is no longer in a command position. That privelige then passes to Michael. Michael passes executive authority (which by definition must include final military authority) to the Duma Committee. In the rule of Nations, the state never dies, although its personnel might, so these two transfers are immediate and 'unbroken'. Hence KV is now taking orders from the duma committee or from any subcommittee it has formed and delegated to or from any military commander it has authorised for that purpose. But the standing orders remain.

Put another way, until the new government (or its appointed delegates) say otherwise, The Guards previous orders (defend the palace) ARE STILL IN PLACE.

But what about swearing loyalty to the new regime?

The military etiquette (accross the world) is for unit commanders to take loyalty oaths from their soldiers. Before this the commanders will swear loyalty either through their own higher commanders or in person. So, KV can easily go to the capital and swear loyalty. As guard commander he would be entitled to travel about to ensure smooth runing of the regiment. Upon finishing he returns to the regiment and gets his subordinates to swear their new loyalties.

If soldiers had to personally take oaths directly to the head of government there would be chaos - is the whole russian army to get the train back to Petrograd every time a monarch 'passes on'? In the middle of a war? Did the troops in Afghanistan suddenly fly back to Washington when Obama was elected? The military etiquette -the command chain principle - is set up just for these eventualities. Orders remain until rescinded by the new authority, etc.

KV might not be a legal traitor, but he has still abandoned his post.

Welcome New Users! Read 1st please. / Re: Good Advice
« on: December 04, 2010, 01:43:04 PM »
Additional Problems:

I have recently discovered why some old friends from my undergraduate days were not replying. They know nothing about Russian history - all they could see was that my facebook account was full of pictures of pre-pubescent girls. "Remember that bloke in the room above us in the 2nd year? Never dates?" and all. The black and white format didn't help them figure this themselves. Now they just think I'm a REALLY SAD monarchist! As if.

The other problem is for those who write poetry or playa about with faded collages. Be careful your wife doesn't think the word 'affair'. (Not one I've had personally).

The Final Chapter / Re: The Missing Bodies
« on: November 15, 2010, 06:27:41 PM »
As a side point from the above:

If gunfire was used to open the pots, could these rounnds also have hit the bodies (and therefore caused confusion on who recieved which damage- e.g. Body number 6's skull as reported in FOTR?)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4