Ugh, Russia is REALLY starting to bother me again.The Russian Civil and the collapse of the USSR war seem to both have features of an Awakening AND a Crisis. WW2 definitely seems like a crisis and I don't notice any Awakening-like elements. I've been wondering if prehaps if the Western Saeculum has been super-imposed on the Russian one and this is causing a screwed up cycle. One thing that needs to be considered is that the Russian branch of Orthodox Christian Civilization has been in a Universal Empire phase for over 500 years and thus the civilization's disintergration should be upon us soon. Prehaps such messed up saeculae are features of a civilization that is disintergrating or being absorbed by another civilization.

Originally Posted by Odin

Ugh, Russia is REALLY starting to bother me again.The Russian Civil and the collapse of the USSR war seem to both have features of an Awakening AND a Crisis. WW2 definitely seems like a crisis and I don't notice any Awakening-like elements. I've been wondering if prehaps if the Western Saeculum has been super-imposed on the Russian one and this is causing a screwed up cycle. One thing that needs to be considered is that the Russian branch of Orthodox Christian Civilization has been in a Universal Empire phase for over 500 years and thus the civilization's disintergration should be upon us soon. Prehaps such messed up saeculae are features of a civilization that is disintergrating or being absorbed by another civilization.

I know, Russia's a pain. The rest of the former Soviet bloc is even more confusing...one reason why I'm on Latin America right now.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

You make a number of good points, Matt, and I'd probably just agree
with you except that I'm going by what the history tells me.

I've now read descriptions of the American Civil War and the
Franco-Prussian war from the British point of view, and I can't see
any question about it -- Britain was clearly in a 4T during the
American Civil War, and was almost certainly in a 1T during the
Franco-Prussian war.

Yeah.. that's pretty much what I was getting at. They played it pretty cool during the F-P war. I was just complaining is that my intuition would say otherwise.

You say that you can't have a panic after 46 years, and you're right,
but is the 46 year figure right? I've assumed that the Napoleonic
wars' crisis era ended with Waterloo in 1814.

Yes. I would only imagine a panic after 46 years if there was something truly worthy of setting off a panic such as disease or the risk of annihilation.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Another point is that I'd like to urge you strongly to keep careful
notes of how you evaluate each of these countries. One reason is
that you'll forget what you did if it's not in writing. The other
reason is that putting something in writing forces you to be sure of
your reasoning.

Actually, I'd like to ask you to do more than that: Write a
description in each case and post it. Once we get a collection of
these, we can put it into a single DOC or PDF file, and if it's
really good, then we can even publish it as a book.

Well, I seriously doubt that's going to happen anytime in the near future, as these are quick analyses, typically displaying the last two crisis wars. Obviously, the more time spent on a country means a higher degree of accuracy, but it is difficult to be completely sure of anything. As of right now, what I think we're going for is to simply have a visual description of the state of the world.

If you're looking at Africa, especially southern Africa, make sure
that you're familiar with the Mfecane, the huge 1820s war that
established the Zulu Empire. Shaka was the Genghis Khan of time.
It's one of the most interesting wars I've ever looked at because
Shaka revolutionized tribal warfare with a particular "weapon of mass
destruction." I've written an article about it on my web site, and
you can get a lot more information by searching for Mfecane or Shaka
into a search engine.

^^Should prove helpful.

Well, it's now been almost a week since I last updated the map, and I have new countries to waste everybody's time with.

Latin America is still a priority, but I have to take a break from it, and no one has come up with anything new since we last mentioned it on New Year's Eve. In the meantime, since we've tackled Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and I've on my own decided to put the Philippines in red, how's about we knock out the rest of Southeast Asia?

I'm talking Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia (any others I'm forgetting?). I have no clues on any of these except Thailand. In Thailand's case, I am slightly leaning toward red, as Wikipedia speaks of student demonstrations and activism in the late '60s, early '70s, and Thailand was a key Axis country during WWII. So that would seem to put them on our U.S. timeline. But I'm open to suggestions - as always, I'm not sure.

The other 4 countries I am clueless about.

Originally Posted by 1990

Well, it's now been almost a week since I last updated the map, and I have new countries to waste everybody's time with.

Latin America is still a priority, but I have to take a break from it, and no one has come up with anything new since we last mentioned it on New Year's Eve. In the meantime, since we've tackled Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and I've on my own decided to put the Philippines in red, how's about we knock out the rest of Southeast Asia?

I'm talking Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia (any others I'm forgetting?). I have no clues on any of these except Thailand. In Thailand's case, I am slightly leaning toward red, as Wikipedia speaks of student demonstrations and activism in the late '60s, early '70s, and Thailand was a key Axis country during WWII. So that would seem to put them on our U.S. timeline. But I'm open to suggestions - as always, I'm not sure.

The other 4 countries I am clueless about.

Sorry, 1990.

These analyses, even though they are shorter, still take a lot of time. Vacation is over and I'll have difficulty finding enough time to work on certain projects. I'm completing two years of school in one so my ability to work on things like this is especially short.

I will continue, but not now.

Matt

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a political change to the CIS, not a crisis change.

..only someone who has absolutely no idea of what the Collapse was like could make that contention. The CIS is analogous to the Soviet Union only in the way that the EU is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire -- that is, rough geographic and linguistic overlap.

While I couldn't speak for the other countries of the CIS, in Russia, the time from the crumbling of the USSR to the default was a major period (10 years long, give or take) of upheaval in all areas of society. The subsequent five-to-eight years of the recovery (call it, 'Regeneracy', even...) saw the reassembly of some sort of consensus behind a more or less national 'vision' and the reinvigoration of the national culture. People who actually lived through it tend to agree on those counts...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

..only someone who has absolutely no idea of what the Collapse was like could make that contention. The CIS is analogous to the Soviet Union only in the way that the EU is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire -- that is, rough geographic and linguistic overlap.

While I couldn't speak for the other countries of the CIS, in Russia, the time from the crumbling of the USSR to the default was a major period (10 years long, give or take) of upheaval in all areas of society. The subsequent five-to-eight years of the recovery (call it, 'Regeneracy', even...) saw the reassembly of some sort of consensus behind a more or less national 'vision' and the reinvigoration of the national culture. People who actually lived through it tend to agree on those counts...

I have to agree. Although they often happen in a 4t, crises wars are not the true measure of a 4t. The distinguising feature of a 4 is that the outer world aspects of the nation-culture change. The collapse of communism and the rise of the oil rich oligarchy in late 20th century is about as 4t as you can get.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Yes. I would only imagine a panic after 46 years if there was
> something truly worthy of setting off a panic such as disease or
> the risk of annihilation.

OK, so if we put together existing information, plus the information
from David Krein, plus a few guesses, we have the following crisis
wars or crisis war climaxes:

Code:

England
    Civil war - 1640 - beheading, 1649
    Battle of the Spanish Succession - 1701 - Malplaquet, 1709
    Napoleonic wars -- 1793(?) - Battle of Amiens, 1802
		or perhaps Battle of Trafalgar, 1805
    American Civil War, 1859 - 1865 (or perhaps at the signing of the
		Emancipation Proclamation, 1863)
    World War II, 1939 - fall of Berlin, 1945

France
    30 Years War - 1636 - Battle of Rocroi, 1643
    Battle of the Spanish Succession - 1701 - Malplaquet, 1709
    French Revolution - 1789 - Overthrow of Directory - 1799
    Paris Commune - 1771
    World War II 1939 - 1945
         (Mike Alexander has suggested WW I)

Germany
    Religious Peace of Augsburg - 1555
    30 Years War - 1620 - Peace at Prague 1635
    Battle of the Spanish Succession - Siege/battle of Barcelona - 1714
    Napoleonic wars - Battle of Leipzig - 1814
    German Unification - 1864 - 1871
    World War II -- ?? - 1945

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Well, I seriously doubt that's going to happen anytime in the near
> future, as these are quick analyses, typically displaying the last
> two crisis wars. Obviously, the more time spent on a country means
> a higher degree of accuracy, but it is difficult to be completely
> sure of anything. As of right now, what I think we're going for is
> to simply have a visual description of the state of the world.

If you don't at least keep notes, then you won't remember how you
reached your conclusions.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Latin America is still a priority, but I have to take a break from
> it, and no one has come up with anything new since we last
> mentioned it on New Year's Eve. In the meantime, since we've
> tackled Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and I've on my own
> decided to put the Philippines in red, how's about we knock out
> the rest of Southeast Asia?

> I'm talking Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia (any
> others I'm forgetting?). I have no clues on any of these except
> Thailand. In Thailand's case, I am slightly leaning toward red, as
> Wikipedia speaks of student demonstrations and activism in the
> late '60s, early '70s, and Thailand was a key Axis country during
> WWII. So that would seem to put them on our U.S. timeline. But I'm
> open to suggestions - as always, I'm not sure.

Malaysia and Singapore were heavily involved in WW II. Thailand's
last crisis war was also WW II, and they had big awakening events
during our Vietnam war, culminating in the 1973 Democracy movement.

Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand are perennial enemies. The Burmese
destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767 was a crisis war, but I haven't
identified a crisis war in the mid-1800s (though the Second
Anglo-Burmese war of the 1850s is a candidate). Then WW II is
apparently a crisis war.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> The collapse of the Soviet Union was a political change to the
> CIS, not a crisis change.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> ..only someone who has absolutely no idea of what the Collapse was
> like could make that contention. The CIS is analogous to the
> Soviet Union only in the way that the EU is analogous to the Holy
> Roman Empire -- that is, rough geographic and linguistic overlap.

> While I couldn't speak for the other countries of the CIS, in
> Russia, the time from the crumbling of the USSR to the default was
> a major period (10 years long, give or take) of upheaval in all
> areas of society. The subsequent five-to-eight years of the
> recovery (call it, 'Regeneracy', even...) saw the reassembly of
> some sort of consensus behind a more or less national 'vision' and
> the reinvigoration of the national culture. People who actually
> lived through it tend to agree on those counts...

Countries go through upheavals all the time without it being a fourth
turning. Actually, the fact that Russia went through such a major
upheaval without having a crisis war is evidence that Russia in the
1990s was still exhibiting "unraveling" behavior, rather than
"crisis" behavior.

As I've said a couple of times before, it's a very good question why
Russia has gone so long without a crisis war, and I've advanced two
possible reasons: Russia's sudden oil wealth, and the extreme
violence of the Great Patriotic War. But I've still seen no
substantial reason to believe that Russia is going to avoid a crisis
war.

Perhaps the 1990s period is analogous to America's Great Depression,
a time of enormous upheaval and turmoil, leading to World War II.

Here's a new BBC story that depicts typical fourth turning behavior:

> BBC NEWS
> Enforcing Russia's migrant quotas
> By James Rodgers
> BBC News, Moscow

> Russian police are raiding the country's markets.

> They are enforcing quotas on the number of foreigners working in
> the retail trade - new laws limit that to 40%.

> That is just for now. By the end of the year, there are not
> supposed to be any.

> The building supplies market in a far-flung northern suburb of
> Moscow is the target of an ongoing operation.

> Market patrols

> The officers pile out of a bus and get to work. They split up
> into pairs and fan out among the shops and stalls.

> > Caption: Who will clean the streets? All those sorts of jobs fall
> > on immigrants' shoulders Roman, immigrant

> They seem pretty clear what they are looking for: anyone whose
> appearance suggests they might come from the Caucasus, Central
> Asia, or further afield.

> The process looks pretty simple. If you are not white, they would
> like to see your documents.

> The slightest irregularity gets the suspected offender marched off
> for questioning.

> 'Positive effect'

> Viktor Markov from the Russian immigration service is on hand to
> oversee the operation.

> "The number of foreigners at the markets has definitely gone
> down," he tells me as officers search the suspects they are
> holding.

> "More and more people are applying for residence permits. So I
> think altogether these laws have had a positive effect."

> The quotas became law on 1 January.

> By 15 January, foreigners must make up no more than 40% of those
> working in the retail trade in Russia.

> Then, between 1 April and the end of the year, that number is
> supposed to go down to zero.

> The new legislation was proposed after race riots in northern
> Russia late last summer.

> President Vladimir Putin spoke of the need to defend the interests
> of what he called the "native population".

> Markets - often a source of employment for Russia's army of
> immigrant workers - were singled out.

> Tajik hardship

> Many of them live in miserable conditions.

> Roman came to Moscow from Tajikistan in the 1990s.

> He shares a tiny room no more than a few metres square with two
> other people. When we meet, he is also babysitting for a
> neighbour's two-year-old daughter.

> More than a quarter of his meagre wage goes on the corner he
> calls home.

> Roman knows that he may have to leave Russia. But he questions
> whether the new laws are workable.

> "If they deport us, we'll leave," he tells me.

> "But the people here won't do the jobs we do. Who's going to do
> the work? Who will clean the streets? All those sort of jobs fall
> on immigrants' shoulders," he says, slapping his own shoulder for
> emphasis.

> 'Police corruption'

> Human rights groups concede that the legislation will simplify
> some bureaucratic processes.

> People arriving in Russia can now register by telegram instead of
> having a lengthy wait at a police station.

> That will not alter the fact that, on the face of it, foreigners
> are simply being banned from a huge area of economic activity.

> Bakhroom Khamruyev campaigns for the rights of Central Asian
> immigrants in Russia.

> He suspects, like Roman, that the new law will make life tougher.
> He also suspects that much will depend on how the law is actually
> applied.

> That is because despite many attempts to eradicate it, police
> corruption in this country is rife.

> "This is playing straight into the hands of corrupt police
> officers," Mr Khamruyev says of the new laws.

> "They've always taken bribes from migrants, and they won't stop
> now."

> Russia is getting rich. The economy is growing, but short life
> expectancy and a low birth rate mean the population is falling.

> So Russia needs to expand its workforce. Immigrants are not
> encouraged to apply.

> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/6262549.stm

> Published: 2007/01/15 12:31:58 GMT

> © BBC MMVII

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Rick,

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> I have to agree. Although they often happen in a 4t, crises wars
> are not the true measure of a 4t. The distinguising feature of a 4
> is that the outer world aspects of the nation-culture change. The
> collapse of communism and the rise of the oil rich oligarchy in
> late 20th century is about as 4t as you can get.

How does this rule work? How would you apply it, for example, to
England in WW I and WW II and to America in WW I and WW II? Are
there any other examples that illustrate your new rule?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Justin,





Countries go through upheavals all the time without it being a fourth
turning. Actually, the fact that Russia went through such a major
upheaval without having a crisis war is evidence that Russia in the
1990s was still exhibiting "unraveling" behavior, rather than
"crisis" behavior.

As I've said a couple of times before, it's a very good question why
Russia has gone so long without a crisis war, and I've advanced two
possible reasons: Russia's sudden oil wealth, and the extreme
violence of the Great Patriotic War. But I've still seen no
substantial reason to believe that Russia is going to avoid a crisis
war.

Perhaps the 1990s period is analogous to America's Great Depression,
a time of enormous upheaval and turmoil, leading to World War II.

Here's a new BBC story that depicts typical fourth turning behavior:



Sincerely,

John

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

It sounds like Russia may have been on the Balkans timeline when they had their 1917 Revolution (which was definitely a 4T), but their timeline somehow was upset and changed, because Russia was very active in WWII. Maybe they had an abnormally long 4T from the 1910s through 1945 (that had a bit of a "respite" between forming the Soviet Union in 1922 and the outbreak of WWII in the late '30s).

Thus the collapse of the Soviet Union was a 3T? Maybe this makes more sense than one would think, as it was very much the "unraveling" of a 75-year order. And Russia's paranoid behavior lately seems more 4Tish than 1Tish.

Fine, I'll put the Land of the Bear back in red (but leave the Balkans blue). Now I guess that would suggest putting the rest of the former Soviet Union and nearby countries like Poland and the former Czechoslovakia in red as well. Turkey, though...Turkey I still think is on the Balkans timeline because of their war in the '90s and their attempts to clean up the image of Turkey these days (including trying to join the EU, which is getting stiff - and somewhat xenophobic - opposition from the 4T Europeans).

I've also taken the liberty of putting several more Latin American countries in green after a little research: Peru, Bolivia, and the Guays all seem to have had major meltdowns in the '70s and early '80s. Now the only Central American country not colored in is Panama (still a mystery), and the only South American countries left are Venezuela and the three Guiana neighbors.

UPDATE: Okay, I finally have a coherent, if odd, theory on Russia. This would support Xenakis' notion of putting it in 4T red, but also support the idea that the Soviet collapse was a bit of a crisis. Okay, here goes. The Revolution (1917) was a 4T. At that time all of Eastern Europe (the Balkans AND what would become the Soviet bloc) was on the same timeline (one turning ahead of America and Western Europe). But...the establishment of Communism and the Soviet Union sort of messed up the natural order, and when World War II rolled around it was at the tail end of a very long founding 4T for the Soviets. Wikipedia suggests that while the Revolution was absolutely devastating, WWII was just as much for the USSR. So thus the Soviet Union had an abnormally long 4T starting in the 1910s and stretching all the way until 1945 (a 30-year 4T? Hell, the American Civil War 4T was not even 5 years, so it's possible I guess). Thus WWII upset the traditional balance and forever put the Balkans on a different timeline from the Soviet bloc. When the '90s came, it was time for a crisis war in the Balkans, and that happened. The Soviet collapse in 1989-91 was the climax of a 3T and the early warning of a 4T for Russia and the former Soviet bloc. So while the Balkans were having a traditional crisis war as would be expected on their timeline, the rest of Eastern Europe was sort of in 4T limbo. Now it's 2007, and Russia and its neighbors are clearly deep into 4T tension and panic mode. Putin has the sort of gravitas expected of a 4T leader, unlike the very 3Tish (disorganized and weak) Yeltsin. So I guess Xenakis had this one right. Well at least it's one possible theory, and it makes more sense than anything else I've been able to come up with.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Rick,



How does this rule work? How would you apply it, for example, to
England in WW I and WW II and to America in WW I and WW II? Are
there any other examples that illustrate your new rule?

To begin wth, if you have a total regieme change as Russia had in WWI but not in WWII, it might just be a good clue that WWI was a crises war for Russia but WWII was not.

In the cases of both the UK and the US, the society underwent a total change around the time of WWII. The British moved away from empire following WWII, whereas the US had gone through the new deal just before the war. In both cases the outer world that the nation culture inhabited changed in major ways. The same is not true in WWI. For example, in the US, prohibition came about just after the war. It did not last 15 years. Many of the changes brought about by the new deal-WWII era, like the rise of the military-industrial complex and its attendant global commitments, still impact American life.

4t's by definition, change the outer world in long lasting ways.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Countries go through upheavals all the time without it being a fourth turning. Actually, the fact that Russia went through such a major upheaval without having a crisis war is evidence that Russia in the 1990s was still exhibiting "unraveling" behavior, rather than "crisis" behavior.

Huh? Perhaps minor upheavals happen all the time, but major, cultural-paradigm-shifting upheavals are the key feature of fourth turning. And beginning with the first cracks in the Soviet Union, and ending with the stabilization of the ruble and the beginnings of serious investment in rebuilding the wrecked infrastructure, you see a cultural paradigm change as profound as those in the first two American crises, and somewhat more profound than the one from the third.

I frankly don't understand your absolute insistence that a war be the key component of a 4T. Would you assert that, for example, that Switzerland has not had a 4T since the 1845-1849 civil war? They remained neutral and uninvaded through the totality of WWII, after all, so that couldn't have been a crisis war for them by all the definitions I've seen you give.

The generational-turning model is not a war-cycle model, but a cultural-phases cycle. All the cultural phase indicators point to the 1980s-1990s being the 4T and to the present being the first half of their 1T. Your single 'crisis war' criteria seems to perhaps point otherwise; though in the example I gave if the Swiss, it seems to be a flawed marker anyway. So what's the deal?

Here's a new BBC story that depicts typical fourth turning behavior:

-snip about immigration restrictions-

John, as I've said before, the First Turning is the one that is characterized by rampant xenophobia. It is the polar opposite of the Unraveling, which is characterized by a very welcoming attitude towards immigrants. You will note, that as would be expected of polar opposites, they sit 180 degrees from each other on the cycle.

Your example makes my point for me. As always, thanks for that.

Originally Posted by 1990

Now it's 2007, and Russia and its neighbors are clearly deep into 4T tension and panic mode.

Har har. That breaks the story right there! Unlike the ever-so-4T USA, the level of tension inside the RF is... how to put it...
um... nonexistent.

Party politics continues, and political leaders continue to be untrustworthy scumbags, just like always, but there's no whiff of change or upheaval in the air; people aren't saying to each other, "something has got to be done, this situation can't go on this way much longer".
Nope. That all ended almost a decade ago.

Putin has the sort of gravitas expected of a 4T leader, unlike the very 3Tish (disorganized and weak) Yeltsin.

But just like the gravitas-laden George Bush, huh? And not at all like that wishy-washy Eisenhower.
And Putin doesn't really have much of what you'd call gravitas. Didn't you see him giving a belly-fart to that little kids six months or so back? Real grey-champion material there... He's also not an ideologically-charged, fire-breathing Prophet, which is exactly the type of leader that happens during 4Ts. You know, the kind that would stand up on a tank to make a speech...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But just like the gravitas-laden George Bush, huh? And not at all like that wishy-washy Eisenhower.
And Putin doesn't really have much of what you'd call gravitas. Didn't you see him giving a belly-fart to that little kids six months or so back? Real grey-champion material there... He's also not an ideologically-charged, fire-breathing Prophet, which is exactly the type of leader that happens during 4Ts. You know, the kind that would stand up on a tank to make a speech...

Ooh, good point!


I'm starting to lean towards Russia being 1T now, there still seems to be a wiff of 3T about the time period as well, though, Maybe I'm just not understanding Russian culture.

Originally Posted by Odin

...there still seems to be a wiff of 3T about the time period as well...

Maybe that can be cleared up. What, exactly, whiffs of 3T? I've been through one personally, so might be able to comment.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Har har. That breaks the story right there! Unlike the ever-so-4T USA, the level of tension inside the RF is... how to put it...
um... nonexistent.

Party politics continues, and political leaders continue to be untrustworthy scumbags, just like always, but there's no whiff of change or upheaval in the air; people aren't saying to each other, "something has got to be done, this situation can't go on this way much longer".
Nope. That all ended almost a decade ago.

But just like the gravitas-laden George Bush, huh? And not at all like that wishy-washy Eisenhower.
And Putin doesn't really have much of what you'd call gravitas. Didn't you see him giving a belly-fart to that little kids six months or so back? Real grey-champion material there... He's also not an ideologically-charged, fire-breathing Prophet, which is exactly the type of leader that happens during 4Ts. You know, the kind that would stand up on a tank to make a speech...

LOL, I'm still laughing at "belly-fart". I have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't sound very GC-ish.

So Yeltsin was their GC? Why not Gorbachev?

Originally Posted by Odin

Ooh, good point!


I'm starting to lean towards Russia being 1T now, there still seems to be a wiff of 3T about the time period as well, though, Maybe I'm just not understanding Russian culture.

How can we understand any culture that was the origin of War and Peace?

Every time I lean toward putting Russia back in 4T, Justin convinces me it is 1T.

Fine, just one last question for Justin. I agree with you, Justin, that a 4T doesn't require a war. But: If Russia is in 1T, that means it was 1T during WWII. Right? How does that explain the Soviets' all-out, wholly energetic participation? Usually 1T countries are averse to any kind of fighting (especially after as bloody an affair as the Bolshevik Revolution).

Originally Posted by 1990

How can we understand any culture that was the origin of War and Peace?

A better military history I've never read. You can just skip all the socializing-aristocrats parts to spped it up, if you want.

How does that explain the Soviets' all-out, wholly energetic participation? Usually 1T countries are averse to any kind of fighting (especially after as bloody an affair as the Bolshevik Revolution).

Umm.

• Korea
• Operation Ajax
• Vietnam
• Cuba

.
And also, they were invaded! The front made it as far as Pushkin (I'm living right now in what was no man's land during the Siege of Leningrad, and I actually drive across the closest extent of the German line on the way to and from work every morning. Further south, Germany occupied Ukraine and a fairly sizable chunk of the heavily-populated parts of Russia, coming a handful of miles from Moscow itself.
Moscow and the main northern front
Detail on the Southern Front to Stalingrad

If the Russians hadn't kicked the Germans' asses, it might very well have been pushed into a 4T for them. Sort of depends on what kind of rulers the Germans ended up being... As it was, however, they had a pretty crappy High for the most part, but they were living under a pretty crappy system.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A better military history I've never read. You can just skip all the socializing-aristocrats parts to spped it up, if you want.
Umm.

• Korea
• Operation Ajax
• Vietnam
• Cuba

.
And also, they were invaded! The front made it as far as Pushkin (I'm living right now in what was no man's land during the Siege of Leningrad, and I actually drive across the closest extent of the German line on the way to and from work every morning. Further south, Germany occupied Ukraine and a fairly sizable chunk of the heavily-populated parts of Russia, coming a handful of miles from Moscow itself.
Moscow and the main northern front
Detail on the Southern Front to Stalingrad

If the Russians hadn't kicked the Germans' asses, it might very well have been pushed into a 4T for them. Sort of depends on what kind of rulers the Germans ended up being... As it was, however, they had a pretty crappy High for the most part, but they were living under a pretty crappy system.

Okay, I get that. I suppose our reaction in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis (which was at the height of our 1T) was no less energetic than the Soviets during WWII. If you're correct about Russia's timeline, then they were the only leading power in a 1T at the time (both the major Allies and major Axis powers were in 4T).

Alright, so now my map has pretty much all of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, from Croatia to the end of Russia, in blue. I also put the former Soviet states in Central Asia (Kyrgyz-, Kazakh-, Turkmen-, Tajik-, and Uzbekistan) in blue. From some quick research, there is a strong indication that the entire former USSR is on the same 1T timeline, as even these Central Asian states had crises during the '90s.

I wonder what's up with Mongolia - squeezed between 1T Russia and soon to be-4T China.

Anyway, thanks for all your help. Russia has been confusing all the way, and having someone who actually lives there explain it has been very enlightening.

Originally Posted by 1990

Okay, I get that. I suppose our reaction in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis (which was at the height of our 1T) was no less energetic than the Soviets during WWII. If you're correct about Russia's timeline, then they were the only leading power in a 1T at the time (both the major Allies and major Axis powers were in 4T).

I'm not sure what could constitute a height of a 1T (the McCarthy Era comes to mind, but what do I know?), but the Cuban Missile Crisis seems very 1Tish to me.

How would we handle a Cuban Missile crisis now? I'd wager a different outcome.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm not sure what could constitute a height of a 1T (the McCarthy Era comes to mind, but what do I know?), but the Cuban Missile Crisis seems very 1Tish to me.

How would we handle a Cuban Missile crisis now? I'd wager a different outcome.

Absolutely.

I can't help but think that anything after the 65th year after the end of the previous crisis must be a crisis event. I know little about the fall of the Soviet Union, but in that type of generational alignment (assuming that WWII didn't delay the crisis), it seems impossible for the "crisis mood" to be absent.