AP Therapy Group - Death of the IF. How do you cope?

[edubs31]

Well in some ways we have become more peaceful Tsarfan, or at least more civilised.

Public executions no longer exist and torture is widely considered unacceptable. Human rights is an important issue which was non existent a century or two ago. Waging war isn't the only example of violence in the world. But the scale of our wars has been comparatively minuscule from where they were decades ago. We lost around twelve times the troops in Vietnam as we did Iraq, for instance. The number of military related deaths from US armed conflicts is less in the past forty years that it probably was in a couple of months in the late-teens and early-40s. Of course we started neither of those wars nor were we even involved in either from the outset.

Could the Cold War have remained cold had taken place a century earlier? We vanquished Soviet Communism peacefully because we stayed the course of diplomacy instead of reverting to blood shed. Bottom line is that the 20th century was brutal, I agree with you, but it shouldn't have been. In, say, 1913 much of the world may have believed we had turned the corner. Hopefully we have now in 2013.

[Tsarfan]

We vanquished Soviet Communism peacefully because we stayed the course of diplomacy instead of reverting to blood shed.

Diplomacy had nothing to do with it.  We won the Cold War because our GDP would support more sustained military spending than the Soviet Union's, and while we were waiting for them to go broke the threat of "mutually-assured destruction" from nuclear weapons stayed both our hands.

Our diplomatic mission during the Cold War was neither to make Russia capitalist -- as that would have been impossible -- nor to make peace with communist Russia -- because a communist Russia was not a goal of U.S. policy.

Our diplomatic mission during the Cold War was to prevent the spread of communism further into Asia, Latin America, and western Europe.  Our diplomacy failed on all scores.  Cuba went communist when our attempts to keep a corrupt anti-communist regime propped up failed.  And the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis was not resolved through diplomacy, but through MAD.  South America is still riddled by communist insurgencies because our diplomacy never brought them to heel and we could not get enough arms into the region into enough honest hands.  In Europe, it was NATO, not diplomacy, that kept the Iron Curtain where it was first erected after World War II.  Remember the Berlin Airlift when, after diplomacy failed, West Berlin was kept alive only through massive military airlifts until Russia realized that keeping West Berlin cut off would result in all-out war?   In Asia, where war was not fought on terms with which we were familiar, communism spread and held.  Where military power failed us, diplomacy did not succeed:  Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea.

Do you think there is the least chance that we would have roared into an Iraq that was armed with nuclear weapons?  And what of Iran?  She is not building up her diplomatic corps with any appreciable speed.  She is developing her nuclear capability at full tilt.

[historyfan]

In, say, 1913 much of the world may have believed we had turned the corner. Hopefully we have now in 2013.

In 1913, as history has shown us, much of the world was blind or ignorant of what was going on behind the scenes. Treaties, pacts, alliances.

In 2013 we have more access to information, but is it the correct information? I don't mean what's going on with Iran and North Korea, but what is happening as a result of that? What backdoor discussions are taking place, "what-if" scenarios?

[edubs31]

Fair points Tsarfan. Perhaps "diplomacy" wasn't the right term. But I reject the notion that we failed on all scores through the type of, largely, peaceful and sensible means of governing that characterize the latter-20th century and NOT the entire history of the world up to that point.

Two countries who despised each other kept from waging a destructive global war for more than four decades. Nuclear weapons, for all of the horrors, have not been used since 1945 even though they are now in the hands of several countries. Mutual deterrence yes, but for once in human history perhaps 'might for right' actually won out over 'might makes right'.

Did containment truly fail? Certainly our form of Capitalist Democratic Republicanism spread to more regions of the world, and ultimately many more people, than their Soviet Communist misadventure. Cuba has a population of 11.2 million and every day people are trying to figure out a way to get the hell out. How many people that live in the western hemisphere are Communist (or at least living under Communist regimes) as opposed to those that are not? The ratio is staggering.

Communism won over in China...which is like winning California in the Electoral college, ie, the biggest prize. Cuba and the other communist states combine for the equivalent of roughly Washington DC. Otherwise you have very little Communist 'Red' and a whole lot of Capitalist 'Blue' on that world map! With the likely exception of China, does communism and/or non-democracies exist anywhere in the world were the country's governments and social structures aren't considered an absolute joke?

Cuba? North Korean? Iran? Iraq? Cambodia? Laos? YES! These are what I call success stories...congrats Communism!

And the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis was not resolved through diplomacy, but through MAD.

This is debatable Tsarfan. Although MAD certainly played a part in the thought process and crisis confronting Kennedy and Kruschev.

Remember the Berlin Airlift when, after diplomacy failed, West Berlin was kept alive only through massive military airlifts until Russia realized that keeping West Berlin cut off would result in all-out war?

Fair enough. Although the first post-WW2 election had the Social Democrats and Communist parties receiving a minority share of the popular votes.

Do you think there is the least chance that we would have roared into an Iraq that was armed with nuclear weapons?  

No, but if Iraq had nuclear weapons do you think there would be the least chance that our feckless "allies" would oppose some sort of punishment - economic or otherwise - on a brutal dictatorship?

[Tsarfan]

But I reject the notion that we failed on all scores through the type of, largely, peaceful and sensible means of governing that characterize the latter-20th century and NOT the entire history of the world up to that point.

This seems a very Eurocentric point of view.

The U.S. was directly involved in five wars in the 67 years since WWII ended:  the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan war.  The Middle East has been a tinderbox of bombings, civil strife, open warfare.  Mexico is coming under the sway of drug lords and corruption to the point that it is unsafe for U.S. citizens to travel in most of it.  The Balkans have seen the return of warfare and ethnic cleansing.  Nuclear weapons are spreading into unstable or destabilizing parts of the world, and we are nearing the day when authoritarian dictatorships and terrorists will have them.  

It might look as if the world has calmed down when sipping a cup of coffee in a cafe by the Seine, but "peaceful and sensible means of governing" are not the experience of the latter-20th century in a very large part of the world.  And even in France, they have the 35-hour work week.

[TimM]

Nuclear weapons are spreading into unstable or destabilizing parts of the world, and we are nearing the day when authoritarian dictatorships and terrorists will have them. 

Which is exactly why World War III is probably gonna happen before this century is done.   

[edubs31]

I've been careful to point out on other threads that I often speak from a American (or in this case) Eurocentric viewpoint. There is a current discussion about what the "best" decade of the 20th century was that I encourage you to check out...I'd like to hear your opinion Tsarfan, and it's probably a better topic to hear mine...

Let me dispose of any bias and at the same time ask you this simple question...the following is a list of the ten largest countries in the world. In total these countries account for just under 58% of the world's population. Of these ten, how many would you say have a lower standard of living than they did a hundred years ago? In how many would you say the average citizen is worse off now, all things considered, than they were a century ago?

1) China
2) India
3) United States
4) Indonesia
5) Brazil
6) Pakistan
7) Nigeria
Bangladesh
9) Russia
10) Japan

The broader point I was trying to make a few posts ago was that for all of our continued struggles and violent uprisings that we live in a better world today than a hundred years ago...and certainly a better world than we lived in two, three, four, five hundred years ago. You can give the credit to sensible governance, or to a kinder & gentler humanity, or to science/technology/innovation...or more likely portions of all three. Bottom line is that more people living longer, healthier and more comfortably than they have at any time in the history of the world. Technology has given us incredibly dangerous instruments of warfare, but it has also brought us closer together, made us happier, and certainly healthier.

P.S. I think we have a answer to the original question posed at the beginning of the thread. As in, we cope by ignoring the topic and shift the discussion to something that it has nothing to do with :-)

[Tsarfan]

Of these ten, how many would you say have a lower standard of living than they did a hundred years ago?

Certainly living standards have generally risen in many parst of the world in the past half century.

But your initial point was that diplomacy and more sensible government have helped us avoid wars in the latter 20th century.  I do not see the past half century as any more devoid of wars than most 50-year stretches of history.  Take just the U.S., for instance.  We have gone to war on average every 14 years since WWII.  That is not by any stretch an indicator of a more peaceable period in our history.

If there is any new force at work that has reduced warfare, at least between the nations of the highly-developed world, it is the internationalization of commercial interests.

And, yes . . . we're far off topic.

So, back to Mikhail Romanov.  No one has yet answered the question of why, if he actually became tsar immediately upon his election, his subsequent refusal to assume the crown did not nullify the election.  In fact, it was the threats of the boyars to forced him to take the crown that made him tsar.  And that did not happen on 21 February.

Also, Mikhail's election did not establish a dynasty.  As long as the tsar retained the right to appoint his own successor who need not be of Romanov blood, there was no Romanov dynasty, legally speaking.  People often make the mistake of assuming that Romanovs ascended the throne by right of birth.  That was not the case until the Pauline Laws of 1797.  Prior to that, while Romanov tsars favored male primogeniture as the means of designating a successor, it was a non-binding tradition.  Peter I explicitly rejected the tradition of primogeniture as binding on a tsar in his Law on Succession of 1722.  And, in fact, two people without a drop of Romanov blood -- the two Catherines -- sat on the throne for more than 12% of the time between Mikhail's becoming tsar and Nicholas II's abdication.  (Catherine II was actually a Rurik by remote descent, so one could argue that the Rurikids returned to power for the latter half of the 18th century, thereby breaking the Romanov run.  And, if Catherine's hints in her memoirs about Paul's birth are to be taken seriously, it was the Rurikids who finished the run to Nicholas II's abdication.)

[TimM]

And, if Catherine's hints in her memoirs about Paul's birth are to be taken seriously, it was the Rurikids who finished the run to Nicholas II's abdication.)

Meaning that Catherine's husband, Peter III, was not Paul's natural father.

[edubs31]

But your initial point was that diplomacy and more sensible government have helped us avoid wars in the latter 20th century.  I do not see the past half century as any more devoid of wars than most 50-year stretches of history.  Take just the U.S., for instance.  We have gone to war on average every 14 years since WWII.  That is not by any stretch an indicator of a more peaceable period in our history.

But not all conflicts are created equal certainly. Lets not compare our Invasion of Grenada or Operation Desert Storm, for instance, with the global wars fought in the first half of the 20th century. There is always going to be some sort of conflict, but the scale has shrunken and the methods used refined. Just think of the value we place on human life now compared to centuries ago? A half dozen soldiers are killed by a road side bomb outside of Baghdad and its headline news these...such comparatively miniscule loss of life wouldn't have even been worth mentioning way back when (unless a topic general or someone had been killed). We also go out of our way to ensure not only the safety of our own troops but to minimize civilian casualties in a way that is unique in the annals of human history.

If there is any new force at work that has reduced warfare, at least between the nations of the highly-developed world, it is the internationalization of commercial interests.

lol, cynical much? People are outraged by violence in a way that I do not believe they were in centuries past. Not long ago duels were considered an acceptable means to settle disputes. Now we decry the use of bullying as a means of settling disputes. Not long ago large gatherings (that often included well dressed & often educated women and children) for public executions were not uncommon. Now much of the industrialized has outlawed capital punishment altogether. Wars meanwhile continue to be waged but they are usually conducted at a much smaller scale than in centuries past. The list of examples goes on...

No one has yet answered the question of why, if he actually became tsar immediately upon his election, his subsequent refusal to assume the crown did not nullify the election.  In fact, it was the threats of the boyars to forced him to take the crown that made him tsar.  And that did not happen on 21 February.

Perhaps you've uncovered something here. I'd like to hear those more knowledgeable that I on the subject weigh in...

[Tsarfan]

Meaning that Catherine's husband, Peter III, was not Paul's natural father.

Another Romanov question that modern DNA science could perhaps resolve.

Catherine certainly hinted in her memoirs that Sergei Saltykov was Paul's father.  And in the early years after his birth many at court also apparently believed as much, given the state of Peter's and Catherine's marriage.  However, as Paul aged he progressively resembled Peter more in looks and temperament, bearing no resemblance to Saltykov at all, and those courtiers in particular who could remember Paul came to discount rumors of illegitimacy.

It would have been an extraordinary thing for Catherine, nearing the end of her life, deliberately to sow doubts about her successor's lineage -- doubts that in that era could destabilize a government.  Even so, most modern historians feel that Catherine was so contemptuous of Paul that she did this to take a dig at him.  As for me, I don't find that argument quite convincing.  Catherine, while occasionally surrendering to passion and her emotions, never let them destabilize government -- something which she always approached with calculating logic and political finesse.

So I am at a loss.  I think the fact that Paul, even in portraiture from the era, clearly resembles Peter carries a lot of weight.  But I also have difficulty dismissing Catherine's memoirs entry.

[edubs31]

Sorry for my lousy grammar in the last post. Strange looking words and others omitted. I lay blame at the feet of my cell phone auto correct :-)

I too would be fascinated to know the birth mystery and agree that it seems highly likely that Paul and Peter are the true related couple. This was touched on in 'Russia: Land of the Tsar's' which was on TV Saturday morning and I hadn't seen in a few years.

[TimM]

This was touched on in 'Russia: Land of the Tsar's' which was on TV Saturday morning and I hadn't seen in a few years.

I watched it on YouTube not too long ago.  Pretty good and informative.

[TimM]

Getting back to my time machine idea.  I wonder what would happen if I went to Sarajevo in 1914 and prevented the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie.  Would the First World War be prevented, or only postponed.  No WWI would mean that 19th Century Europe would remain intact.  No Lenin, no Stalin, no Hitler, no Mussolini, no Franco (I could go either way here, but many say he won the Spanish Civil War because of military assistance provided by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy).

Doesn't sound so bad.

[edubs31]

Getting back to my time machine idea.  I wonder what would happen if I went to Sarajevo in 1914 and prevented the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie.  Would the First World War be prevented, or only postponed.  No WWI would mean that 19th Century Europe would remain intact.  No Lenin, no Stalin, no Hitler, no Mussolini, no Franco (I could go either way here, but many say he won the Spanish Civil War because of military assistance provided by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy).

Doesn't sound so bad.

What's really interesting is how easily the Archduke's assassination, on that particular day at least, could have been avoided. If only the driver had been told the correct route and not made that mistaken turning down Franz Joseph Street. And then, instead of stopping and trying to reverse, if he had only kept driving.

It was Christmas morning for Gavrilo Princip. The guy was about to go down in history (for the small handful who would have actually remembered him) as something of a coward for not following through with the pre-planned attack. But he couldn't resist the opportunity given a second chance and having it almost literally placed on his lap!

Of course we are assuming that Ferdinand wouldn't have been killed at some point anyway, even if Princip hadn't been afforded such a golden opportunity on that day. And even had he survived the attack there surely would have been investigations into who committed the crime. Once it was revealed that Serbian nationalists were behind it the result could very well have been the same.

I think of Princip's act only accelerated things, but a war would have been waged regardless as Europe was a powder keg ready to explode. Of course Lenin had his own batch of good fortune that allowed him to come to power and narrowly avoid arrest. The convergence of so many events that led to the downfall of the Empire in 1917, and how close so many were to not happening, makes you believe in the destiny of it all.

Of course I'm more of the opinion that just as the distance of the earth from the sun and it location in the universe make it possible for mankind to exist, that a series of blunders committed by the Tsarist regime is what allowed for the Soviet takeover. In between you have all sorts of random chance, natural selection, evolutionary factors, etc, for the former, and social development, human will, and plain dumb luck for the latter. You can't award full credit to the sun for human exist, and you can't claim that a Nicholas II was only the reason for the collapse of his empire and the takeover of the Soviets regime. But they are the prime motivating factors. History, just as life, has an amazing way of connecting all of the dots in between...