Originally Posted by 1990

I feel woefully uninformed. I don't know much about Russia's place in WWII. Am I drawing a blank? I think they were Allies, but perhaps they were less vocal/active than America, Britain, and France?

the USSR signed a pact with Germany in 1939, and sat by while Germany invaded Poland. I believe then both countries divvied up Poland. The two countries were allies for a while. That changed in 1942, when Germany invaded Russia.

the USSR had horrendous losses during that invasion, but Germany's invasion failed. Plus, Germany's facing foes on both sides and US joining in set the stage for Germany's eventual defeat.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by 1990

I want to learn about history and about world events, and I want to be informed about possible future developments. That's why I like T4T, and that's why I like GD.

If you are interested in historical cycles then I suggest you read the literature rather than focus on an internet website. One of my chief objections to GD is its oracular nature. Presumably it says that there is a cycle in history than can be expressed in terms of regularly repeating wars of a particular type called a crisis war.

If one has problems with WW II not being a crisis war for Russia one brushes it off with a statement "the generations are in the wrong place". This is a tautology. One cannot say anything about the generations until after one defines the cycle, because this is what defines when the generations occur. And to define the cycle one has to define when the crisis wars happened. You cannot use the generations (which follow from the crisis wars) to identify the crisis wars. That's circular.

John realizes this, which is why he did spend a consider amount of time trying to flesh out a definition of crisis war that can be applied to actual historical wars. However he doesn't apply the same set of rules to all the wars. He will talk about genocidal energy being necessary for a crisis war, using Rwanda as an example, but then will call a perfectly conventional war like the Franco-Prussian war a crisis war for France (while WW I is not).

Where is the genocide in the Amercian Revolution? Most historians consider the American Revolution as special or important because of its outcome--it created a new nation--not because of its genocidal character. And in fact John has used this sort of criterion to argue that the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) was a crisis war, whereas the War of the League of Ausburg before it or the Seven Years War after it were not, because it fixed the borders of Europe for century. That is, the WSS was more consequential (like the American Revolution) than the other large wars around the same time and so should be considered a crisis war.

So it seems sometimes genocidal fury is important sometimes and at other times consequences is important. Yet when I try to employ this idea of consequences to argue that the current Iraq war may be a better candidate for a crisis war, than the Iraq-Iran war, I am an idiot because the Iraq war doesn't involve the same kind of genocide as Rwanda (although hundreds of civilians are getting killed in horrible ways every week).

It seems to me that the criteria for crisis war shift around depending on what war is being considered. That is, crisis wars are whatever John calls a crisis war. One must "consult the oracle" to determine whether or not a war is a crisis war.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If one has problems with WW II not being a crisis war for Russia one brushes it off with a statement "the generations are in the wrong place". This is a tautology. One cannot say anything about the generations until after one defines the cycle, because this is what defines when the generations occur. And to define the cycle one has to define when the crisis wars happened. You cannot use the generations (which follow from the crisis wars) to identify the crisis wars. That's circular.

I don't think I made myself clear. I am no expert on WWII Russia, but I have some serious reservations for saying it was a non-crisis war. I don't need to explain myself on that. So I won't brush it off. What I will say, is that World War Two will not have the same effect on the cycle that World War One/Russian Revolution had. Death, destruction, and horror can be greater in non-crisis wars than crisis wars, but they do not have the same effect.

I don't think you can measure whether a war was a "Crisis war" or not based on death toll. We lost a lot of people in Vietnam, but that was most definitely not a Crisis war.

Crisis wars have a specific "grandeur" about them, at least in the history books. Wars like Korea, Vietnam, or the first Gulf War go down in history, rightly or wrongly, as "between-war wars". Some wars are more equal than others, to quote Animal Farm.

On that track, it's clear what the Crisis Wars for the U.S. have been: World War II, the Civil War, the American Revolution. All involved not just mass casualties (as all wars do), but also a huge realignment in American society. Compare Vietnam to WWII. When WWII finished, society had been realigned forever, with a totally different world order than before. But all Vietnam did was advance and fuel the Consciousness Revolution. There was no heroic triumph or "new world order" after Vietnam.

WWI was clearly not a Crisis War for America. Like Vietnam fueled the Awakening, WWI fueled the Unraveling. It was divisive, controversial, and it made the Lost youth of the time even more alienated, further fragmenting society. In other words, WWI advanced the Unraveling to a point that the Crisis could begin. Vietnam advanced the Awakening so that the Unraveling could begin. WWII, by contrast, forever changed the global balance of power.

I don't know whether WWII was a Crisis for the USSR. I'd defer to the real historians among us on that one. But Mr. Xenakis isn't just using "Crisis war, non-Crisis war" as loose terms that are defined by him and him alone. There is a clear difference between a war that reshapes society and a war that just divides society (as in an Unraveling) or stirs up social upheaval (as in an Awakening).

Originally Posted by 1990

I feel woefully uninformed. I don't know much about Russia's place in WWII. Am I drawing a blank? I think they were Allies, but perhaps they were less vocal/active than America, Britain, and France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern..._(World_War_II)

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm no expert on East Asia, by any means, but the level of anxiety and hate on both sides is far greater between Japan and China than Germany and Russia.

Yes, of course. We all know that. That's not the point.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Often in history, two nations that fought the last "Crisis War" with each other, will often fight the next with each other too. But GD never says that this must happen. Enemies can become friends and friends can become enemies.

Of course. No argument on your last point. But John bases his "100% certainty" on the enmity Japan and China have as a result of the viciousness of WWII. But Germany and Russia fought a comparably vicious war. And as we all know, though they may not be best of friends (by any stretch), the latter two are not likely to go to war with each other any time in the forseeable future (unlike China and Japan).

Therefore, as you say, a past enemy doesn't necessarily make a future enemy. I agree. But then why are the bad feelings from the past in East Asia the key to why there is "100% certainty" of a future war in that region, according to John?

Here is my problem (and the problem of others): How can the past animosity be the lynchpin to predicting war in one case and not the other??? Is it 100% or not? He wants it both ways, depending upon what seems to be his whims. I agree that past hatred can be one factor of many, but how does it confirm totality in one case and have no effect at all in the other??? GD suffers in this case from what is called a "performative contradiction". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

John has looked at the events over the past few years and longer to determine that Japan stands in the way of China and North Korea. Combined with the feelings left over from World War II, and assuming that there will be a World War involving Japan, China, and North Korea, it's hard to see any way around it.

Such a war seems a strong possibility. I don't think many would argue with you about that. I certainly wouldn't. Because I more or less agree with John, though with less . . . certainty.

But as shown above, GD is useless in it's current form to predict this. Anyone can predict this without GD, and GD predicts this but also should predict all sorts of things that did not happen, are not happening, and will not happen, e.g., genocidal wars in mid-19th century Europe, an upcoming war between Germany and Russia. If he were consistent with his use of what makes him 100% certain in East Asia, then the other things should be the case too.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

. . . The thought of WWII not being a crisis war for Russia has always been uncomfortable to me. No matter, it shouldn't have the effects of a Crisis War, the generations were not in the proper place.

"Shouldn't have the effects"? Sure, if you take GD on faith. John says Russia's Great Patriotic War was not a Crisis War and he says that the generations were not aligned properly. Do you have anything else on this other than what John "says"?

You passed over a point I made earlier that demonstrated another performative contradiction in GD: Only great, intense wars can be Crisis Wars, and only Crisis periods will always have great, intense wars.

Let's assume these points are true. Then we have a problem: WWI killed far more people on the Western Front than WWII did. Yet John believes WWII was the Crisis War for western Europe. That's a contradiction.

WWII killed far more people on the Eastern Front than WWI did. Yet John believes that WWI was the Crisis War for eastern Europe. Another contradiction.

John has indeed stated that intense, high-casualty wars cannot be in anything other than a 4T. His main opposition to S&H labelling the English Civil War a 2T war was that it is not possible for such a ravishing war to be fought in anything other than a 4T. He calls the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's such a war for that reason. Even though most Middle Eastern scholars recognize that Iran and much of the muslim world experienced a spiritual revival in the late 20th century. But according to John, that can't be.

So his definition of Crisis periods and Crisis Wars does not jive with his own conclusions or the conclusions of many others. This is another performative contradiction. GD is fatally flawed twice over.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

OK fine, hate John all you want. But I'd refrain from discrediting GD because John "gets horribly offended."

Huh? So you are suggesting I not critique GD because John might get offened? Did I get that right? Please tell me I'm wrong there. Because why shouldn't I present "objections" to a thread that John himself started that he named "Objections to Generational Dynamics"?!?

You and 1990 obviously detect my unflattering tone vis-a-vis John. But when I tried to present critiques in a civil manner (on this and several other threads) early on he was disdainful and pompous. And years of playing "beating around the bush" with him didn't help. I'm done with him. I just hate seeing you guys taken in so readily by someone like him. Oh well.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You've made your point that you think GD and TFT are vastly different. The same arguments are stated over and over again and we never get anywhere.

Especially when John refused to answer questions directly and relevantly.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I don't appreciate that tone. I may be 17, but I don't buy into things that just look nice and have a lot of drama. TFT had a lot of drama, but I was skeptical and had many problems with their theory. When I discovered GD off this forum, these questions were answered.

I am sorry you don't appreciate my tone. And my "drama" comment was out-of-line and I apologize for it. But from my point-of-view you are especially adoring of Mr. Xenakis. And 1990 asked in all seriousness if he should call John "sir"! Holy Mackerel.

Hey, if John won't answer me about the flaws I noted above, perhaps you and 1990 can address them for me. This is not (or at least originally wasn't) personal for me. I asked for serious, academic reasons. Perhaps direct answers from one or both of you will set me straight on any misconceptions I have of GD.

An open discussion about this would be new and refreshing.

Originally Posted by 1990

I don't think you can measure whether a war was a "Crisis war" or not based on death toll. We lost a lot of people in Vietnam, but that was most definitely not a Crisis war.

Apx. 60,000 vs. WWII's apx. 300,000 and the former for over a longer period. Not to belittle the suffering of the Vietnam War and the contributions of our soldiers, but yes, WWII was on a much grander scale.

Originally Posted by 1990

On that track, it's clear what the Crisis Wars for the U.S. have been: World War II, the Civil War, the American Revolution. All involved not just mass casualties (as all wars do), but also a huge realignment in American society. Compare Vietnam to WWII. When WWII finished, society had been realigned forever, with a totally different world order than before. But all Vietnam did was advance and fuel the Consciousness Revolution. There was no heroic triumph or "new world order" after Vietnam.

WWI was clearly not a Crisis War for America. Like Vietnam fueled the Awakening, WWI fueled the Unraveling. It was divisive, controversial, and it made the Lost youth of the time even more alienated, further fragmenting society. In other words, WWI advanced the Unraveling to a point that the Crisis could begin. Vietnam advanced the Awakening so that the Unraveling could begin. WWII, by contrast, forever changed the global balance of power.

Most here would be in total agreement with you on all of this.

Originally Posted by 1990

I don't know whether WWII was a Crisis for the USSR. I'd defer to the real historians among us on that one. But Mr. Xenakis isn't just using "Crisis war, non-Crisis war" as loose terms that are defined by him and him alone. There is a clear difference between a war that reshapes society and a war that just divides society (as in an Unraveling) or stirs up social upheaval (as in an Awakening).

It is indeed debatable whether WWII itself "reordered" Soviet society, or did so alone. There was definite, fundamental reordering in the 1920's and 1930's. But WWII certainly played a huge role in cementing and institutionalizing those changes, if not also making some major contributions to change itself.

I don't think I am out of line when I say most here see WWII as the climatic end of a 4T for Russia, just as it was for us. Most here also subscribe to the idea that less developed societies seem to have longer saeculums than more developed ones (though we disagree on why). Russia did most of it's industrial development just before, during, and right after WWII.

So it is not unlikely under S&H's model that their 4T lasted longer than ours by starting earlier. 25-30 year long turnings are not unheard of in own pre-developed past. A 4T running from 1917-1945 (28 years) for Russia is not out of the question. It would also explain the great, overwhelming institutional power their analogue of our GI generation had in Soviet society (that would have been one LONG Hero gen). One could argue they were holding Soviet society together after the war. After they turned over the reigns to an Artist gen, things fell apart fast.

Obviously, wars happen in Turnings other than 4T. Rather than counting the number of dead, it seems that if we look at the motivations for going to war, we can get some idea of which Turning the nation is in:

• 2T wars would be motivated by idealism: "we can change the world."
• 3T wars would be motivated by power and greed: "we can take their resources"
• 4T wars would be motivated by survival: "they're going to wipe us out"

For example, the Vietnam War was a 2T war, motivated by idealism. There were plenty who supported it on moral grounds (for example, Gore and Kerry.) The Spanish-American War was a 3T war, and was generally understood to be a war in service of Empire.

The Iraq War is obviously 3T (especially if as Mr X asserts, it's been running the whole duration of the 3T), even if Shrub periodically positions it as a new Vietnam war (domino theory redux) or a new WWII, depending on the target audience.

So how does the Iran-Iraq war stack up? It seems pretty ideologically motivated to me.

That jibes with my impression of modern-day Iran as mid-3T: the overwhelming consensus among the (very youthful) population is that the Islamic Revolution has failed, but there is little political or social will to actively oppose or change it.

So I expect any possible conflict with Iran to be a good ten years in the future (not coincidentally, the earliest timeframe for them to actually get the Bomb.)

But as shown above, GD is useless in it's current form to predict this. Anyone can predict this without GD, and GD predicts this but also should predict all sorts of things that did not happen, are not happening, and will not happen, e.g., genocidal wars in mid-19th century Europe, an upcoming war between Germany and Russia. If he were consistent with his use of what makes him 100% certain in East Asia, then the other things should be the case too.

Has he made any predictions that have already been disproven? I'm not challenging you, I'm asking this as a question.

You passed over a point I made earlier that demonstrated another performative contradiction in GD: Only great, intense wars can be Crisis Wars, and only Crisis periods will always have great, intense wars.

Let's assume these points are true. Then we have a problem: WWI killed far more people on the Western Front than WWII did. Yet John believes WWII was the Crisis War for western Europe. That's a contradiction.

WWII killed far more people on the Eastern Front than WWI did. Yet John believes that WWI was the Crisis War for eastern Europe. Another contradiction.

Is he talking in terms of casualties, though? A terrorist attack could conceivably kill 50,000 people, but that wouldn't make it a Crisis war. Isn't the contrast between Crisis and non-Crisis more about overall result than about casualty count?

You and 1990 obviously detect my unflattering tone vis-a-vis John. But when I tried to present critiques in a civil manner (on this and several other threads) early on he was disdainful and pompous. And years of playing "beating around the bush" with him didn't help. I'm done with him. I just hate seeing you guys taken in so readily by someone like him. Oh well.

I wouldn't say I'm being "taken in". Geez. I'm 15 years old, at my computer, reading a website. I will likely never meet Mr. Xenakis, and I'd like not to be thought of as being taken in by anybody here.

I don't want to be gullible to either side of this argument. I'm just looking at what I read, and a lot of what GD says makes sense to me. I'm not converting to a religion or joining a political party here.

I am sorry you don't appreciate my tone. And my "drama" comment was out-of-line and I apologize for it. But from my point-of-view you are especially adoring of Mr. Xenakis. And 1990 asked in all seriousness if he should call John "sir"! Holy Mackerel.

I can't speak for MichaelEaston, but I would not call myself adoring of Mr. Xenakis. He writes well and has created a very intriguing website. That's all.

As for "sir", I was being polite. Unfortunately that's not very common anymore.

I don't think I am out of line when I say most here see WWII as the climatic end of a 4T for Russia, just as it was for us. Most here also subscribe to the idea that less developed societies seem to have longer saeculums than more developed ones (though we disagree on why). Russia did most of it's industrial development just before, during, and right after WWII.

So it is not unlikely under S&H's model that their 4T lasted longer than ours by starting earlier. 25-30 year long turnings are not unheard of in own pre-developed past. A 4T running from 1917-1945 (28 years) for Russia is not out of the question. It would also explain the great, overwhelming institutional power their analogue of our GI generation had in Soviet society (that would have been one LONG Hero gen). One could argue they were holding Soviet society together after the war. After they turned over the reigns to an Artist gen, things fell apart fast.

I'm beginning to feel really stupid. I used to be told that I knew a lot about world politics for my age, but this thread has reminded me how clueless I am about Eastern European history.

Must read some more books.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Huh? So you are suggesting I not critique GD because John might get offened? Did I get that right? Please tell me I'm wrong there. Because why shouldn't I present "objections" to a thread that John himself started that he named "Objections to Generational Dynamics"?!?

On second look, my wording was unintentionally ambiguous. I had the feeling that you had many of your problems with GD because of your 'incompatibility' with him. I didn't mean for you not to voice your objections.

Hey, if John won't answer me about the flaws I noted above, perhaps you and 1990 can address them for me. This is not (or at least originally wasn't) personal for me. I asked for serious, academic reasons. Perhaps direct answers from one or both of you will set me straight on any misconceptions I have of GD.

OK Sean, I will try my best. 1990 just joined the forums a couple weeks ago. I've been here (and reading GD) for about a year and a half. Go ahead.

Dear Matt and Nathaniel,

I'm going to let you handle Mike and Sean. You'll learn a lot by
trying to answer their questions, so it will be worth your time.

But whatever you do, don't let them bully you. They're both Xers,
and they work by intimidation. I'm addressing this to you
particularly, Nathaniel: Don't let them bully you. No one expects
you to be an expert in two weeks. Just keep your head and do the
best you can. If you don't know an answer, just say you don't know
the answer.

They're both pretty bad, but Sean is probably the worst because he's
a complete idiot. Mike isn't an idiot, but he's stopped being a
researcher and he's turned into a hatchet man, a person who uses
research to do hatchet jobs on people he doesn't like.

One technique they both use is to ask the same question over and over
again. If you answer it, they demand more. If you provide more,
they go back to the original question and claim you didn't answer it.
And they never acknowledge your points, and they always use
intimidation techniques. It's all a sadistic game to them. I think
they're really pathetic to be assaulting high school students like
that, but it tells you something about Xers in general.

Incidentally, I really had to laugh when Mike brought up the War of
the Spanish Succession again. We went round and round on that for
months. You'll notice he didn't mention the battle of Malplaquet.
http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/
But as I said, he's just playing sadistic games.

I'll be watching the proceedings, and I'll insert my opinion if I
feel it's appropriate. And I'll have your back if the bullying gets
too bad. If you need help, just ask for it. But since it's just a
sadistic game to them, try to make it a fun experience for yourselves.
As I said, you'll learn a lot.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

They're both Xers, and they work by intimidation.

They're both pretty bad, but Sean is probably the worst because he's a complete idiot.

[...]

And they never acknowledge your points, and they always use intimidation techniques. It's all a sadistic game to them. I think they're really pathetic to be assaulting high school students like that, but it tells you something about Xers in general.

[...]

But since it's just a sadistic game to them, try to make it a fun experience for yourselves.

Every now and then, I start feeling a little guilty about my dismissive stereotypes of Boomers. And then a comment like this comes along and helps me feel a lot better about it. Thanks, John!

Note to all Boomers: disagreeing with you, even in the rudest and most insulting way possible, does not make a person an idiot. It just makes them a rude person.

Now, I agree with John's comment about Millies learning to get past the crap that Xers dump on them. I say, find a way to enjoy it, or at least get used to it, because we're going to be dishing it out for the next thirty years until the Singularity finally arrives and shuts us up. We'll be the first generation in American history to have a lower standard of living than our parents; and we're really, really, really cranky about it.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt and Nathaniel,

I'm going to let you handle Mike and Sean. You'll learn a lot by
trying to answer their questions, so it will be worth your time.

But whatever you do, don't let them bully you. They're both Xers,
and they work by intimidation.

I claim Mikebert as one of my own. Born in 1959, he is a fellow Disco Wave Boomer.

One thing I am dismayed about is the nastiness that happens on these Forums when people disagree with each other. Epiteths such as "madman", "idiot", "crank", "moron", "charlatan", "hatchet man", and worse get hurled at each other.

Maybe its a sign of our polarization today. I just don't like it. It gets in the way of discussion.

This applies to Zarathustra, Mikebert, and John Xenakis.

Originally Posted by 1990

I feel woefully uninformed. I don't know much about Russia's place in WWII. Am I drawing a blank? I think they were Allies, but perhaps they were less vocal/active than America, Britain, and France?

Russia, while initially ostensibly neutral, was making preparations to hit Germany in the back by surprise when Hitler (obviously having had the same idea as Stalin) struck first. The vast majority of the European battles during WWII were between the USSR and the Germans. Soviet aircraft in many later battles dealt several crippling blows to the German air forces (the effectiveness of whose leadership was, by that point, suffering already), in large part helping the landings of US, British, and Canadian troops in France to come off more successfully. Numerous regions of Russia lost upwards of 40% of their male population during the war -- which turned in Russia -- breaking of the siege of Leningrad (January, 1944) well before the anglophone landings (June, 1944).

One could hardly call them less vocal than two group upon whose soil no battles were even fought.

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

> One thing I am dismayed about is the nastiness that happens on
> these Forums when people disagree with each other. Epiteths such
> as "idiot", "moron", "hatchet man", and worse get hurled at each
> other.

> Maybe its a sign of our polarization today. I just don't like it.
> It gets in the way of discussion.

> This applies to Zarathustra, Mikebert, and John Xenakis.

And why are you selectively quoting my words but not theirs?

I was having a conversation with "1990" and "MichaelEaston," when
Mike Alexander and Sean Love charged in and started harrassing them,
calling them "Boys", using words like "fawning" or "You can just
blindly follow the ramblings of a madman."

Why aren't quoting those words in your criticism? Why are you, in
effect, taking their side?

Every time I try to have a conversation with anyone -- and this has
happened several times -- about Strauss and Howe and TFT and GD,
they've charged in as a tag team and started using harassing, abusive,
contemptuous language directed at me and whomever I'm trying to have
the conversation with.

In this case, I can't believe they came in here and started piling on
two high school students. Their behavior is absolutely grotesque,
but you didn't say anything about that.

I don't want Sean and Mike in this thread, but without a moderator I
have absolutely no way of handling the situation except by calling
them idiots or hatchet men, which they are. Other than that, they're
completely free to harass, assault and offend anyone who wants to have
a discussion with me.

But you want to know why this happens? It's because women like you,
Jenny, effectively take the side of the man or men that you want to
win. Incidentally, the same thing happens in street fights and wars.
If you and other women made a real effort not to take sides, the
nastiness would happen less.

If this subject really interests you, here's something you might do:
Lead a balanced discussion about specific techniques people use in a
forum like this one to derail a discussion. Include me, if you like,
but also include techniques used by Mike and Sean and David Kaiser and
other people. That would be very interesting, and you'd actually be
accomplishing something.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Jenny,

And why are you selectively quoting my words but not theirs?

Because I was quoting in a hurry and those were the words that came to mind. I edited my post, adding some of Zarathustra's. Check again. I didn't find any of Mikebert's to quote. His main refrain is that you don't answer his questions. I'm not going to judge on whether that is a valid complaint, but it's not in the same league as the epiteths quoted in my (revised) post.

I really didn't mean to take sides. I find Zarathustra's harangues to be just plain tiring, even when I agree with him. These flames really obscure the messages that both of you are trying to make.

I also find that the internet can inadvertently promote bad communication. Those fingers fly and oops -- we've pissed off someone.

Pax?

Russia and World War II

Let me make some additional comments on Russia and World War II.

Many years ago I read a book on the "Siege of Leningrad (St.
Petersburg)", Hitler's 900-day siege that lasted roughly from January
1941 to January 1944.

Now, I read this book a long time ago, so I'm referring to memories
from long ago, but almost everything that I remember of Russia's
reactions to that siege was entirely passive. The Russians evacuated
some people, and tried to fly food and other supplies into the city,
but didn't (or couldn't) try very hard to break the siege for three
years. There were close to a million deaths, mostly from starvation,
a very big chunk of the total Russian deaths in the war.

Basically, the Russian strategy was to let the Russian winter defeat
the Germans -- and IT WORKED.

Remember that there was a HUGE precedent for handling this war --
When Napoleon invaded Russia, the Russians evacuated Moscow and let
the French take it. The French army lost all discipline, and were
defeated by the Russian winter.

This is important, and it's why you can't just look at statistics
like war deaths. You have to get into the heads of the people you're
evaluating. The Russians well remembered their defeat of the French,
as well as their defeat of the Swedes before that.

That's why any sort of statistical approach to this stuff has to
fail. You MUST use Strauss & Howe's approach -- read histories and
diaries of the time, and understand what people are thinking and
feeling. My own experience is that you can't really understand a war
unless you read some accounts of the war from both sides.

There's a fundamental logical flaw in the argument that WW II must
have been a crisis war for Russia because so many people died. The
logical flaw is this: The strategy for prosecuting the war (and
hence, the crisis/non-crisis war "decision") is made at the BEGINNING
of the war, while the number of people who end up dying is determined
at the END of the war.

In order to argue that high war deaths => crisis war, you'd have to
make a very difficult argument: That as the war progresses, and the
number of war deaths becomes apparent, then the constellation of
generations changes in such a way as to make it a crisis war. That's
clearly impossible.

If the Bolshevik Revolution and civil war composed a crisis war --
and they did -- then the order of generations at the BEGINNING of the
war was prophet - artist - hero - nomad. But you can't have a crisis
war unless the order is artist - hero - nomad - prophet. And there's
no way that Russia could have shuffled around those generations. So
it must have been an awakening war.

Let me mention some additional, more visceral considerations.

First, the Bolshevik revolution looted and destroyed the Russian
Orthodox Church.

Here's one of the early memos from Nicolai Lenin to the Politburo in
1917, when Lenin was embarking on this destruction in order to
harvest the Church's wealth:

Originally Posted by Nicolai Lenin in 1917

> We must pursue the removal of church property by any means
> necessary in order to secure for ourselves a fund of several
> hundred million gold rubles (do not forget the immense wealth of
> some monasteries and lauras). Without this fund any government
> work in general, any economic build-up in particular, and any
> upholding of soviet principles ... is completely unthinkable. In
> order to get our hands on this fund of several hundred million
> gold rubles (and perhaps even several hundred billion), we must
> do whatever is necessary.

Now, the Church effectively didn't exist until the beginning of WW
II, when Stalin needed the Church's support in the war against
Hitler. This revival of the Church is a sign of an Awakening era.

There's another visceral issue: The Russian attitude toward Europe.
Russians don't hate the Europeans, any more than we hated the
Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. Russians have always admired
Europe, even when they're at war with them. This was true during the
Great Northern War with Sweden, the war with Napoleon, and WW II.

By contrast, the Russians developed a fair amount of visceral hatred
of Muslims and Asians during the 1200s, thanks mainly to Genghis Kahn
and the many wars with the Mongols.

The major fault line was defined in 1453 with the Fall of
Constantinople to the Muslims. This was not only the end of the
(Greek) Byzantine Empire, it was also the end of Eastern portion of
the Roman Empire, where the Western portion had fallen to the hordes
centuries earlier. Most Americans haven't even heard of the Fall of
Constantinople, and yet it may well be the most important historical
event of the entire millennium.

At that point, Russia made an enormous decision: To become the Third
Roman Empire. Orthodox Christianity was the true Christianity, the
Christianity originally practiced by Jesus Christ, since Western
Christianity had become polluted by other faiths. Russian leaders
would be known as Tsars (or Czars), derived from the name of Caesar.
And, crucially important, they would become the protectors of the
Holy Land, of Jerusalem, now that the Crusades had ended.

Thus, all of Russia's crisis wars have been on the north/south axis,
mainly against Muslims -- the Muslim Tatars in Crimea, the Muslim
Turks, etc. The Russians have given the protection of Jerusalem as
one of the causes of the Crimean crisis war of the 1850s.

The Bolshevik Revolution was a huge rejection of Russian's Orthodox
tradition, and especially the protection of the Holy Land. That
began to be reversed during the Awakenings that occurred with WW II.

I have a tiny personal insight into this. My Mother was always a
very devout Greek Orthodox. But she went to Catholic schools as a
girl and she has always loved Catholic nuns. Her family went to
Catholic services because there was no Orthodox Church near their home
in Chicago. Even as an adult, she sometimes went to Catholic services
because the services only last half an hour (versus two hours for the
Orthodox service).

When she finally came down with Alzheimer's, I transferred her out of
a glitzy new nursing home into a more traditional nursing home run by
the Catholic Church. She was always very comfortable there, because
of her love of Catholics, especially Catholic nuns.

But although she loved Catholics, she always considered the Orthodox
religion to be far superior to the Catholic religion. She was
contemptuous when the Catholics gave up their "no meat on Friday"
rule, and also when the services started being given in English. She
considered this a weakness, and just another corruption.

This is exactly the kind of mixed emotions that Russians have when
dealing with Europe. They can have a war with Europe and the
Catholics and Protestants, and at the same time they love the
European culture and Western Christianity, even though they feel
superior in some ways.

These visceral considerations illustrate why you have to go farther
than look at war deaths to evaluate crisis wars.

If twice as many people had been killed in the Siege of Leningrad, or
if half as many people had been killed, it would have made no
difference. The Great Patriotic war with the Nazis was never about
war deaths, and could never be about war deaths. In fact, it could
never be a crisis war. The Russian people simply don't have that
level of visceral hatred of the Europeans, or of the Western
Christians.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wchina226.xml


Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
By Francis Harris in Washington

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

How it works

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

"After a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line," Defense News said.

The document said that China could blind American satellites with a ground-based laser firing a beam of light to prevent spy photography as they pass over China.

According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years.

Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.

The American military has been so alarmed by the Chinese activity that it has begun test attacks against its own satellites to determine the severity of the threat.

Satellites are especially vulnerable to attack because they have predetermined orbits, allowing an enemy to know where they will appear.

"The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier," said one senior former Pentagon official.

There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.

Military experts have already noted that Chinese military expenditure is increasingly designed to challenge American military pre-eminence by investing in weaponry that can attack key systems such as aircraft carriers and satellites.

At the same time, China is engaged in a large-scale espionage effort against American high-tech firms working on projects such as the multibillion-pound DD(X) destroyer programme.

Several spy rings have been cracked and the FBI is increasing the number of counter-intelligence staff tracking the Chinese effort.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I claim Mikebert as one of my own. Born in 1959, he is a fellow Disco Wave Boomer.

"Disco wave boomer." Sounds cool makes me almost wish that I could be one Oh well, "atari wave X'er" has a neat ring to it too.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

"Disco wave boomer." Sounds cool makes me almost wish that I could be one Oh well, "atari wave X'er" has a neat ring to it too.

I didn't make up the expression, but I like it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wchina226.xml


Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
By Francis Harris in Washington

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

How it works

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

"After a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line," Defense News said.

The document said that China could blind American satellites with a ground-based laser firing a beam of light to prevent spy photography as they pass over China.

According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years.

Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.

The American military has been so alarmed by the Chinese activity that it has begun test attacks against its own satellites to determine the severity of the threat.

Satellites are especially vulnerable to attack because they have predetermined orbits, allowing an enemy to know where they will appear.

"The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier," said one senior former Pentagon official.

There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.

Military experts have already noted that Chinese military expenditure is increasingly designed to challenge American military pre-eminence by investing in weaponry that can attack key systems such as aircraft carriers and satellites.

At the same time, China is engaged in a large-scale espionage effort against American high-tech firms working on projects such as the multibillion-pound DD(X) destroyer programme.

Several spy rings have been cracked and the FBI is increasing the number of counter-intelligence staff tracking the Chinese effort.

Very interesting. The Russians also used to "flash" birds in thier time. Unlike the Soviets, this cold war is going on with an active trading partner, complicating things no end. The Chinese relationships with the rest of Asia also link to the Islamic problems and India. A Chinese desire for hemispheric dominance is going to make life very, very busy for us all.

Wonder what I am. "9/11 wave Millennial"? Sounds so depressing. Maybe "Lewinsky wave Millennial"? No, too specific.

<pouts>...I don't have a wave.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I didn't make up the expression, but I like it.

I'm a 1959 cohort, and I can't dance. Damn.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wchina226.xml


Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
By Francis Harris in Washington

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday.

How it works

The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.

Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat.

"After a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line," Defense News said.

The document said that China could blind American satellites with a ground-based laser firing a beam of light to prevent spy photography as they pass over China.

According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years.

Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.

The American military has been so alarmed by the Chinese activity that it has begun test attacks against its own satellites to determine the severity of the threat.

Satellites are especially vulnerable to attack because they have predetermined orbits, allowing an enemy to know where they will appear.

"The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier," said one senior former Pentagon official.

There has been increasing alarm in parts of the American military establishment over China's growing military ambitions.

Military experts have already noted that Chinese military expenditure is increasingly designed to challenge American military pre-eminence by investing in weaponry that can attack key systems such as aircraft carriers and satellites.

At the same time, China is engaged in a large-scale espionage effort against American high-tech firms working on projects such as the multibillion-pound DD(X) destroyer programme.

Several spy rings have been cracked and the FBI is increasing the number of counter-intelligence staff tracking the Chinese effort.

Ominous, to say the least.

I'm gonna make a scary and (admittedly early) prediction. China is going to lead the "new Axis". Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are along for the ride, but China's going to be the big threat.