Originally Posted by 1990

The only candidate I see is the 30-year Aceh War, beginning in 1873. If it was a crisis war, I would guess that, like modern civil wars in Angola, Guatemala, and Mozambique, the 4T portion was less than the total duration of the war.

You're probably right, but a 30 year crisis war is possible and has happened once in a while. It's almost impossible since its hard to imagine a country maintaining that mood for 30 years, but it has happened.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're probably right, but a 30 year crisis war is possible and has happened once in a while. It's almost impossible since its hard to imagine a country maintaining that mood for 30 years, but it has happened.

In any case, that's the only war with the right timing to be a crisis war in Indonesia. It seems to have had major political effects as well in weakening Dutch colonial rule, etc.

So I'm putting Indonesia in 3T. I really can't see a climax if the 4T was 1966-1980s, but if it's more like 1945-1966 everything seems to fit.

Anyway, back to Africa. What say you about the countries I was mentioning on Wednesday?

Originally Posted by 1990

In any case, that's the only war with the right timing to be a crisis war in Indonesia. It seems to have had major political effects as well in weakening Dutch colonial rule, etc.

So I'm putting Indonesia in 3T. I really can't see a climax if the 4T was 1966-1980s, but if it's more like 1945-1966 everything seems to fit.

Anyway, back to Africa. What say you about the countries I was mentioning on Wednesday?

I haven't gotten a chance to look at it. There is a chance I won't be online until the weekend starting tomorrow.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> You're probably right, but a 30 year crisis war is possible and
> has happened once in a while.

When?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> The climax, as it seems to me, is the time where all the hard work
> through the crisis is risked through an outpouring of
> self-sacrifice. The Normandy campaign, to me, always seemed more
> like a climax than Hiroshima.

If Normandy had been the climax, then Hiroshima could not have
happened.

In many ways, the decision to kill millions of people at Dresden and
Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as difficult as the
Normandy decision. It may even have been more difficult. The emotions
involved are very similar.

The decision to kill literally millions of men, women and children
civilians, and have their blood on the hands not only of the people
directly involved but of the whole nation -- and knowing that history
will record what you did forever -- is of such enormity that it could
never happen after the climax; it IS the climax.

Sincerely,

John

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

=eod
=send 3

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,



When?



If Normandy had been the climax, then Hiroshima could not have
happened.

In many ways, the decision to kill millions of people at Dresden and
Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as difficult as the
Normandy decision. It may even have been more difficult. The emotions
involved are very similar.

The decision to kill literally millions of men, women and children
civilians, and have their blood on the hands not only of the people
directly involved but of the whole nation -- and knowing that history
will record what you did forever -- is of such enormity that it could
never happen after the climax; it IS the climax.

Sincerely,

John

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

=eod
=send 3

From simply a dramatic standpoint (and drama does or should folow the same story arc as real life!) I have to agree. First Crisis, then Climax, then finally Resolution, each one a direct outgrowth of the other. Climax - the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Resolution - V-J Day and the Occupation. And a pacifist Japan.

And yes, I remember V-J Day.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

When?

The 30 Years War and War of the Roses came to mind. Are these not crisis wars throughout?

If Normandy had been the climax, then Hiroshima could not have
happened.

In many ways, the decision to kill millions of people at Dresden and
Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as difficult as the
Normandy decision. It may even have been more difficult. The emotions
involved are very similar.

The decision to kill literally millions of men, women and children
civilians, and have their blood on the hands not only of the people
directly involved but of the whole nation -- and knowing that history
will record what you did forever -- is of such enormity that it could
never happen after the climax; it IS the climax.

I can't buy this. We had no choice but to drop the bomb. You don't think the Russians would have dropped the bomb on Germany?

Sacrificing your own men or actually murdering your friends and neighbors with your bear hands on a massive scale seems more like a crisis war climax to me. Dropping a bomb is much easier.

In the TV series Band of Brothers (not the best source, I know), they mentioned that America was starting to go back to "normal life" in 1944.

Originally Posted by 1990

Anyway, back to Africa. What say you about the countries I was mentioning on Wednesday?

No new revelations yet. Sorry. Not sure if I'll have internet this week.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> The 30 Years War and War of the Roses came to mind. Are these not
> crisis wars throughout?

Well, yes and no. I think you'll find that it was a crisis war for
different countries at different times. It's been a while, but as I
recall it started out in Germany in 1618, but it didn't really involve
France until the mid 1630s.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> If Normandy had been the climax, then Hiroshima could not
> have happened.

> In many ways, the decision to kill millions of people at Dresden
> and Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as difficult as the
> Normandy decision. It may even have been more difficult. The
> emotions involved are very similar.

> The decision to kill literally millions of men, women and
> children civilians, and have their blood on the hands not only of
> the people directly involved but of the whole nation -- and
> knowing that history will record what you did forever -- is of
> such enormity that it could never happen after the climax; it IS
> the climax.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I can't buy this. We had no choice but to drop the bomb. You
> don't think the Russians would have dropped the bomb on Germany?

I can't recall ever seeing this claim before, and I don't believe
that it's true. There was a debate at the time whether to use a
ground invasion of Japan instead, and the decision to use the bomb was
based on the view that it would save many American soldiers' lives.

When the phrase "no choice" is used in the context of Generational
Dynamics, it refers, in effect, to a decision made by large masses of
people, entire generations of people.

The decision to use the bomb was pretty much Truman's decision alone,
so there was certainly a choice. The American public AT THAT TIME
would have accepted any decision that Truman made AT THAT TIME.
How they would have reacted in the months following the war really
can't be judged.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> In the TV series Band of Brothers (not the best source, I know),
> they mentioned that America was starting to go back to "normal
> life" in 1944.

I saw Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, and
they were both very intense depictions of certain aspects of World
War II.

But it has to be remembered that Steven Spielberg has very strong
political views. World War II was a "good war" to him because of the
Holocaust, and the Vietnam war and other wars were "bad wars" to him,
presumably because there are few Jews in Vietnam. Band of Brothers
ended prior to the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, but I don't
recall the series mentioning the firebombing of Dresden, and I don't
know whether Spielberg's political beliefs include approval or
disapproval of the firebombing.

So Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan reflect
Spielberg's political views as of the times they were scripted and
filmed (during the Clinton administration). If Spielberg chose to
mention "normal life" in 1944 in his script, it would be because of
his political views at that time.

In reality there was very little normalcy in 1944. The American
people were still in shock from the Bataan death march, and were
incredibly saddened by the loss of so many young American lives on
the beaches of Normandy.

There was also a certain schizophrenia at the time. This is easiest
to see in London, where people hiding in shelters from German bombs
one moment, and then went on with their lives as if nothing were
happening the next moment.

The schizophrenia is apparent in music. There were extremely sad
songs, like "The last time I saw Paris" and "The white cliffs of
Dover." In movies, there were lighthearted children's movies, like
Walt Disney's "Song of the South" (which has since become
controversial); there were strongly anti-Japanese war movies; there
were sentimental war movies, like "Since You Went Away"; and there
were lots of feel good movies, like "Going My Way," or sentimental
patriotic movies, like "Meet Me in St. Louis."

Basically, there was sadness, horror and despair at what was going
on, balanced by a determination that the enemy would not be allowed
to destroy the American way of life. Undoubtedly there were people
who did abusive things, but for most people, the idea of a "normal
life" was a pretense.

Thus, I would say that Spielberg's choice in saying that life was
"normal" in 1944 was a politicial decision, not something that truly
reflected what was happening.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Sacrificing your own men or actually murdering your friends and
> neighbors with your bear hands on a massive scale seems more like
> a crisis war climax to me. Dropping a bomb is much easier.

Perhaps other members of this forum would be willing to comment on
this question: Were the decisions to firebomb Dresdan and Tokyo and
to drop nuclear weapons on Japan -- were those decisions more or less
difficult than the decision to allow thousands of American soldiers
to be slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy?

My view is that the decision to kill millions of civilian lives --
men, women and children -- in Germany and Japan was just as
difficult and just as painful as the Normandy decision, and that all
of these decisions, taken together, are part of the Climax of the
crisis era.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Well, yes and no. I think you'll find that it was a crisis war for
different countries at different times. It's been a while, but as I
recall it started out in Germany in 1618, but it didn't really involve
France until the mid 1630s.

OK.

I can't recall ever seeing this claim before, and I don't believe
that it's true. There was a debate at the time whether to use a
ground invasion of Japan instead, and the decision to use the bomb was
based on the view that it would save many American soldiers' lives.

When the phrase "no choice" is used in the context of Generational
Dynamics, it refers, in effect, to a decision made by large masses of
people, entire generations of people.

The decision to use the bomb was pretty much Truman's decision alone,
so there was certainly a choice. The American public AT THAT TIME
would have accepted any decision that Truman made AT THAT TIME.
How they would have reacted in the months following the war really
can't be judged.

....

Perhaps other members of this forum would be willing to comment on
this question: Were the decisions to firebomb Dresdan and Tokyo and
to drop nuclear weapons on Japan -- were those decisions more or less
difficult than the decision to allow thousands of American soldiers
to be slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy?

My view is that the decision to kill millions of civilian lives --
men, women and children -- in Germany and Japan was just as
difficult and just as painful as the Normandy decision, and that all
of these decisions, taken together, are part of the Climax of the
crisis era.

Are you suggesting that a climax can be a full year long?

I get the feeling that Truman, nor the American public didn't think twice about the dropping of the bomb and that it wasn't painful at all. Maybe this was a post-climax feeling?

....

You haven't been on the message board much recently. Is everything OK or are you just short on time?

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Are you suggesting that a climax can be a full year long?

I look at the whole crisis war process as a continuum.

I've mentioned several times the rolling ball analogy: You roll a
ball down a hill. At first it bumps into trees, goes slowly, maybe
even stops and starts. But then it picks up speed, and soon has so
much momentum that it's impossible to stop until it reaches the
bottom in an explosive climax.

When looked at that way, the climax is almost a momentary thing, and
perhaps that's the best way to look at it.

But you can also state it quantitatively. Let's define a variable
"v" to refer to the value that a society gives to an individual human
life (versus protecting the entire society and its way of life).

During the Awakening era, the value of v starts increasing, and by
the end of the unraveling period, let's say that v=100. As you enter
the crisis era, the value of v starts falling (like the rolling ball
bouncing around). As shocks and surprises occur, the value of v
keeps going down. When the value of v gets down to 30 or 20, then
genocidal fury really kicks in, and in a really explosive climax, the
value of v will be close to zero at that time.

Now let's assume that you could actually measure the value of v.
(And, indeed, it's possibly that you can by looking around for some
proxies for its value: Our willingness to let 3,000 soldiers die in
Iraq, versus our shock at only a few soldiers dying in Mogadishu in
1992.)

Then you can define the "climax" in terms of v. If you want to have
a narrow definition, then you could say that the climax begins as
soon as v<10; if you want a broader definition, you could say that v
has to be <30. Even more broadly, you could say that the climax
begins with the regeneracy, though that may be too broad. (Winston
Churchill distinguished "the end of the beginning" from "the
beginning of the end," and that distinction may be useful as well.)

In the case of WW II, I see this whole series of genocidal events --
Normandy, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and the two nuclear
weapons -- as so horrific that the value of v has to be computed as
pretty low for all of them, and I do think that it's not unreasonable
to call that entire series of events a "climax," even though it was a
year long. If, for some reason, Japan had decided to go on fighting,
rather than surrender, the climax might have gone on longer. (Imagine
how furious we would have been if, instead of surrending, Japan
dropped some sort of nuclear weapon on Los Angeles?)

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I get the feeling that Truman, nor the American public didn't
> think twice about the dropping of the bomb and that it wasn't
> painful at all. Maybe this was a post-climax feeling?

I believe that the pain was enormous. It wouldn't have been for
a psychopath like Hitler, but it was for Truman. Could you kill
millions of people and not think twice about it?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> You haven't been on the message board much recently. Is everything
> OK or are you just short on time?

Well, I was unemployed for a while, but I'm very relieved to say that
I recently got a job as senior systems programmer, so I should be ok
for a while. It's also a job at a company that I believe has a good
shot at continuing in business even in a new "Great Depression," but
who really knows?

Fortunately for me, I don't "have a life," and so I can spend the
rest of my free time working on my web site.

My web site traffic has been growing quite a bit. In March, there
were 759 unique user sessions (not counting search engines) on the
average for every day of the month, with each user session accessing
an average of 2-3 pages. I'm getting more e-mail -- some from
scholars, others with questions, some who consider me to be psychotic,
others who consider me and my web site to be "blessings from god" --
and I do try to answer all of them.

Finally, whatever free time I have left, I spend hanging with Jay
Leno, shooting the breeze about Generational Dynamics. So it's a
full day!

Incidentally, I've now done a fairly lengthy article on Turkey on my
web site. I've changed my mind about this several times, but I'm now
certain that Turkey's war with the PKK Kurds was NOT a crisis war for
Turkey. I still don't have an answer about whether it was a crisis
war for the Kurds, because there's so much confusion about the three
groups of Kurds -- in Iraq, Iran and Turkey -- and it would take quite
a bit of additional research to sort them all out. But for the Turks,
there was definitely no crisis war.

By the way, Nathaniel, you asked me long ago about Russia, and I
never answered. I hate to answer because I'll only rattle Justin's
cage, but I've never had any doubt that Russia has NOT yet had any
real crisis. I'd be willing to believe that the crisis era began in
1991, or even in the mid-1980s, as Justin claims, but there's been no
real crisis, no regeneracy, no climax and no resolution. It's all
still to come.

Anyway, both of you are doing a fantastic job. I saw something from
one of you a few weeks ago that you're putting together a document of
some kind. I'm glad to hear that because, as interesting as the maps
are themselves, the backup data and research is where the actual
value is. Once you start having something on a few countries, I'd be
happy to put the pages on my web site (I'm thinking one page per
country), and then we'd also want to consider putting the pages on
Wikipedia. Anyway, you're doing really cutting edge research, and it
will look very good on your resume.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Now let's assume that you could actually measure the value of v.
(And, indeed, it's possibly that you can by looking around for some
proxies for its value: Our willingness to let 3,000 soldiers die in
Iraq, versus our shock at only a few soldiers dying in Mogadishu in
1992.)

Our willingness? Are we willing to let 3,000 die? From what I can tell, people are not too happy about it. Some 35% of the American people still believe in the mission, but that's >60% who don't.

Then again, I don't see anyone calling for a mass uprising either.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

By the way, Nathaniel, you asked me long ago about Russia, and I
never answered. I hate to answer because I'll only rattle Justin's
cage, but I've never had any doubt that Russia has NOT yet had any
real crisis. I'd be willing to believe that the crisis era began in
1991, or even in the mid-1980s, as Justin claims, but there's been no
real crisis, no regeneracy, no climax and no resolution. It's all
still to come.

Russia is so damned frustrating. Intuitively, the collapse of the Soviet Union seems such a monumental event in world history - and conveniently placed, 60 years after the end of the last 4T - that it would seem to be the only answer. And the 1991 coup against Gorby would seem to serve as a regeneracy.

But then, the problem becomes this: while 4T catalysts are not always as momentous and obvious as one would think, their climaxes/resolutions/whatever SHOULD be. I can't, for example, tell you when Cuba's last 4T began, but I can sure tell you it ended in July 1959.

The problem is there should be an obvious end to the last 4T in Russia if it began somewhere in the mid-late '80s. Putin's ascension to power? His reelection? There's no obvious answer. Compare to the Balkans, where the war ended regionwide in 2000-2001.

But even if Russia is 5T, this does not go for the entire former Soviet sphere. What am I supposed to do with the rest of the old bloc? I would assume all but the Balkans states to be 5T, but then how does that explain 1989's genocidal and devastating Romanian Revolution? (clearly a regeneracy) Or slightly less bloody revolutions around Eastern Europe circa 1989-91? And what of the civil wars in Central Asia during the 1990s? And again, if these were 4Ts, where's the resolution? Is it at all possible for a 4T to end subtly and quietly?

If Russia is 5T, which neighboring countries are 1T and which are also 5T? It is such a huge question, and I can't bear to put this huge chunk of the world back in grey!

Oh, and there's a broader question that disturbs me even more. If so many countries due for a 4T avoided one in the 1990s, will the U.S. do the same now that it's our turn? And then what? We'll still be watching a post-WWII system decay without any substantive change? Society continues to bloat and unravel for another 20 years?

Originally Posted by 1990

Russia is so damned frustrating. Intuitively, the collapse of the Soviet Union seems such a monumental event in world history - and conveniently placed, 60 years after the end of the last 4T - that it would seem to be the only answer. And the 1991 coup against Gorby would seem to serve as a regeneracy.

But then, the problem becomes this: while 4T catalysts are not always as momentous and obvious as one would think, their climaxes/resolutions/whatever SHOULD be. I can't, for example, tell you when Cuba's last 4T began, but I can sure tell you it ended in July 1959.

The problem is there should be an obvious end to the last 4T in Russia if it began somewhere in the mid-late '80s. Putin's ascension to power? His reelection? There's no obvious answer. Compare to the Balkans, where the war ended regionwide in 2000-2001.

But even if Russia is 5T, this does not go for the entire former Soviet sphere. What am I supposed to do with the rest of the old bloc? I would assume all but the Balkans states to be 5T, but then how does that explain 1989's genocidal and devastating Romanian Revolution? (clearly a regeneracy) Or slightly less bloody revolutions around Eastern Europe circa 1989-91? And what of the civil wars in Central Asia during the 1990s? And again, if these were 4Ts, where's the resolution? Is it at all possible for a 4T to end subtly and quietly?

If Russia is 5T, which neighboring countries are 1T and which are also 5T? It is such a huge question, and I can't bear to put this huge chunk of the world back in grey!

While we're on the topic of the Former USSR, what is everyone's opinion on Ukraine? The mood there doesn't really seem 1Tish.

Originally Posted by 1990

But then, the problem becomes this: while 4T catalysts are not always as momentous and obvious as one would think, their climaxes/resolutions/whatever SHOULD be. I can't, for example, tell you when Cuba's last 4T began, but I can sure tell you it ended in July 1959.

The problem is there should be an obvious end to the last 4T in Russia if it began somewhere in the mid-late '80s. Putin's ascension to power? His reelection? There's no obvious answer.

Maybe not to an outside observer, but Most Russians would tell you that the beginnings of the market explosion, coming out of the post-default, marked an event of major significance to their own lives and to the country overall. The confusion as regards (IMO) the placing of several countries with which you are occupied comes down to the fact that the information you have on them is lacking. Turnings happen inside a culture; so there is the very real possibility that a third-hand outsider might not see something that from the inside was perfectly clear.

Originally Posted by 1990

Our willingness? Are we willing to let 3,000 die? From what I can tell, people are not too happy about it. Some 35% of the American people still believe in the mission, but that's >60% who don't.

Then again, I don't see anyone calling for a mass uprising either.



Russia is so damned frustrating. Intuitively, the collapse of the Soviet Union seems such a monumental event in world history - and conveniently placed, 60 years after the end of the last 4T - that it would seem to be the only answer. And the 1991 coup against Gorby would seem to serve as a regeneracy.

But then, the problem becomes this: while 4T catalysts are not always as momentous and obvious as one would think, their climaxes/resolutions/whatever SHOULD be. I can't, for example, tell you when Cuba's last 4T began, but I can sure tell you it ended in July 1959.

The problem is there should be an obvious end to the last 4T in Russia if it began somewhere in the mid-late '80s. Putin's ascension to power? His reelection? There's no obvious answer. Compare to the Balkans, where the war ended regionwide in 2000-2001.

But even if Russia is 5T, this does not go for the entire former Soviet sphere. What am I supposed to do with the rest of the old bloc? I would assume all but the Balkans states to be 5T, but then how does that explain 1989's genocidal and devastating Romanian Revolution? (clearly a regeneracy) Or slightly less bloody revolutions around Eastern Europe circa 1989-91? And what of the civil wars in Central Asia during the 1990s? And again, if these were 4Ts, where's the resolution? Is it at all possible for a 4T to end subtly and quietly?

If Russia is 5T, which neighboring countries are 1T and which are also 5T? It is such a huge question, and I can't bear to put this huge chunk of the world back in grey!

This is going to be a more pessimistic post than I want it to be, but Russia is likely having a 1t. Throughout its history, autocracy has been the norm for Russia. Yes, there has long been a movement in Russia that seeks for them to be a part of the larger euro-western world, with economic progress and prosperity and political democracy.

But, except for the Menshevick period in 1917 and the Yeltsen presidentcy in the 1990's, the modernist westernizers have never held power. The permanent collapse of the USSR 74 years after the old regieme died makes, as you noted, a strong case for a 4t. Also, the rise of Russian importance as an oil superpower just in time to strenghten Putin and his allies is not good from a western perspective, but looks like an immutable fact as of now.

So, if Russia is 1t, is it high or austere? I would say that it may be much like the US after the civil war where the south had an austere recovery and the rest of America, except the indian tribes, enjoyed a high. In Russia, is a high 1t for the mob and those with connections to it and also for rabid nationalists. It is austere for the most western and progressive element within the society.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

I look at the whole crisis war process as a continuum.

I've mentioned several times the rolling ball analogy: You roll a
ball down a hill. At first it bumps into trees, goes slowly, maybe
even stops and starts. But then it picks up speed, and soon has so
much momentum that it's impossible to stop until it reaches the
bottom in an explosive climax.

When looked at that way, the climax is almost a momentary thing, and
perhaps that's the best way to look at it.

But you can also state it quantitatively. Let's define a variable
"v" to refer to the value that a society gives to an individual human
life (versus protecting the entire society and its way of life).

During the Awakening era, the value of v starts increasing, and by
the end of the unraveling period, let's say that v=100. As you enter
the crisis era, the value of v starts falling (like the rolling ball
bouncing around). As shocks and surprises occur, the value of v
keeps going down. When the value of v gets down to 30 or 20, then
genocidal fury really kicks in, and in a really explosive climax, the
value of v will be close to zero at that time.

Now let's assume that you could actually measure the value of v.
(And, indeed, it's possibly that you can by looking around for some
proxies for its value: Our willingness to let 3,000 soldiers die in
Iraq, versus our shock at only a few soldiers dying in Mogadishu in
1992.)

Then you can define the "climax" in terms of v. If you want to have
a narrow definition, then you could say that the climax begins as
soon as v<10; if you want a broader definition, you could say that v
has to be <30. Even more broadly, you could say that the climax
begins with the regeneracy, though that may be too broad. (Winston
Churchill distinguished "the end of the beginning" from "the
beginning of the end," and that distinction may be useful as well.)

In the case of WW II, I see this whole series of genocidal events --
Normandy, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and the two nuclear
weapons -- as so horrific that the value of v has to be computed as
pretty low for all of them, and I do think that it's not unreasonable
to call that entire series of events a "climax," even though it was a
year long. If, for some reason, Japan had decided to go on fighting,
rather than surrender, the climax might have gone on longer. (Imagine
how furious we would have been if, instead of surrending, Japan
dropped some sort of nuclear weapon on Los Angeles?)

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. I hadn't thought of that before. However, it seems to me, that as v is lowered, the decision to commit to actions such as Normandy and Hiroshima become less and less painful. The higher the genocidal fury, the easier it becomes to send your own men to certain death or to condemn "innocent" civilians to that same fate.

This would support your assertion that the genocidal fury was higher in the bombings. From my knowledge of history, and my impression of the events in 1945, the bombings were not were not as difficult as a decision as you might be lead to believe. The actual dropping of such a weapon was a HUGE, PIVOTAL event in history, but my guess is you didn't have anyone really losing sleep over it. First, it would get us out of the war (hopefully, or at least reduce Japan's will or ability to fight), and second, it would send a message to the Soviets. From my impression, those were the thoughts going on in the White House.

Of course, were this 1918 or something, this possibility wouldn't have even been considered.

I believe that the pain was enormous. It wouldn't have been for
a psychopath like Hitler, but it was for Truman. Could you kill
millions of people and not think twice about it?

My AP history book depicts Truman as being confrontational and very decisive. It also portrays him in a slightly negative light.

Well, I was unemployed for a while, but I'm very relieved to say that
I recently got a job as senior systems programmer, so I should be ok
for a while. It's also a job at a company that I believe has a good
shot at continuing in business even in a new "Great Depression," but
who really knows?

That's good.

Fortunately for me, I don't "have a life," and so I can spend the
rest of my free time working on my web site.

LOL.

My web site traffic has been growing quite a bit. In March, there
were 759 unique user sessions (not counting search engines) on the
average for every day of the month, with each user session accessing
an average of 2-3 pages. I'm getting more e-mail -- some from
scholars, others with questions, some who consider me to be psychotic,
others who consider me and my web site to be "blessings from god" --
and I do try to answer all of them.

Finally, whatever free time I have left, I spend hanging with Jay
Leno, shooting the breeze about Generational Dynamics. So it's a
full day!

I don't get it. I remember something about Jay Leno either here or on your site.

Incidentally, I've now done a fairly lengthy article on Turkey on my
web site. I've changed my mind about this several times, but I'm now
certain that Turkey's war with the PKK Kurds was NOT a crisis war for
Turkey. I still don't have an answer about whether it was a crisis
war for the Kurds, because there's so much confusion about the three
groups of Kurds -- in Iraq, Iran and Turkey -- and it would take quite
a bit of additional research to sort them all out. But for the Turks,
there was definitely no crisis war.

That's the same conclusion I had when I researched Turkey. Could it be possible that Turkey responded as if they were in a crisis era? Obviously, it doesn't check out as a crisis war, but the amount of "v" appears to be low. Same with Chechen Wars for Russia.

Anyway, both of you are doing a fantastic job. I saw something from
one of you a few weeks ago that you're putting together a document of
some kind. I'm glad to hear that because, as interesting as the maps
are themselves, the backup data and research is where the actual
value is. Once you start having something on a few countries, I'd be
happy to put the pages on my web site (I'm thinking one page per
country), and then we'd also want to consider putting the pages on
Wikipedia. Anyway, you're doing really cutting edge research, and it
will look very good on your resume.

Better be for grad school or jobs. Maybe something related to the crisis?

Too far.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But, except for the Menshevick period in 1917 and the Yeltsen presidentcy in the 1990's, the modernist westernizers have never held power.

Try reading up a bit on the Yeltsin years. Those were a bad time to be a real democrat, but a really good time to be a bloodthirsty crook (especially if you wore a suit and called yourself a democrat and a businessman and a capitalist in front of the Western press).
And really, really bad times to be an anti-anyone journalist.

The kind of democracy you're looking for never had the slightest chance here. But not to fear; Russians do a good job of managing things their own way.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Try reading up a bit on the Yeltsin years. Those were a bad time to be a real democrat, but a really good time to be a bloodthirsty crook (especially if you wore a suit and called yourself a democrat and a businessman and a capitalist in front of the Western press).
And really, really bad times to be an anti-anyone journalist.

The kind of democracy you're looking for never had the slightest chance here. But not to fear; Russians do a good job of managing things their own way.

No Yeltsin was not perfect. But he was better and came closer to the western ideal than anyone else has. It would have been better for Russia long term if the rise in oil prices had occured on his watch. As it stands the even worse corruption under Putin will someday be seen as the "good old days" by many Russians because of the oil dollars flowing into the economy. And this is bad for the prospect of a long term democracy ever taking hold in amongst the russe.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

No Yeltsin was not perfect. But he was better and came closer to the western ideal than anyone else has.

You watch too much teevee, son.

It would have been better for Russia long term if the rise in oil prices had occured on his watch. As it stands the even worse corruption under Putin will someday be seen as the "good old days" by many Russians because of the oil dollars flowing into the economy.

Worse than in the days when anyone who had a few high-placed friends and fewer scruples about hurting people was able to loot the Russian public blind and then ship what little could be salvaged after the disaster that was the Soviet Union overseas to be pissed away on booze and hookers?

Do you have any idea what Russia was like under Yeltsin? There's a good reason why the vast majority of Russians -- and here I can, thanks to a coincidentally-relevant conversation we had just this afternoon, include my hard-core Yabloko work-colleagues -- recognize Putin as a major improvement. And it's not just the money; though since under the significantly less corrupt current regime, much less of Russia's natural wealth gets looted overseas, which does help improve peoples' mood here.

So Justin,

What was the climax/resolution to the 4T?

Originally Posted by 1990

So Justin,

What was the climax/resolution to the 4T?

The climax is pretty clearly the default; that was the final surge of the 4T, and its effect was the finalization of the clearing out of the last lingering unresolved 3T and Crisis issues. And the resolution would be in the way the pieces were put back together and the fundaments of the currently-functioning model coalesced.

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Worse than in the days when anyone who had a few high-placed friends and fewer scruples about hurting people was able to loot the Russian public blind and then ship what little could be salvaged after the disaster that was the Soviet Union overseas to be pissed away on booze and hookers?

Do you have any idea what Russia was like under Yeltsin? There's a good reason why the vast majority of Russians -- and here I can, thanks to a coincidentally-relevant conversation we had just this afternoon, include my hard-core Yabloko work-colleagues -- recognize Putin as a major improvement. And it's not just the money; though since under the significantly less corrupt current regime, much less of Russia's natural wealth gets looted overseas, which does help improve peoples' mood here.

So Putin is good for bidness eh?

Seroiusly even if he is, it's just another example of Russia moving deeper into a 1t.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The climax is pretty clearly the default; that was the final surge of the 4T, and its effect was the finalization of the clearing out of the last lingering unresolved 3T and Crisis issues. And the resolution would be in the way the pieces were put back together and the fundaments of the currently-functioning model coalesced.

So if the 4T ended in 1999, it would have had to begin well before my ~1986 date. Maybe Brezhnev's death in 1982? (This has previously been suggested)

I could argue that the invasion of Afghanistan (which was 1980 I think?) is scarily similar to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in terms of late 3T / early 4T overreaching. In that case, Brezhnev's death comes at the same time as Hurricane Katrina in the saeculum, and Gorbachev's rise comes at the same time as the 2008 election.

Eek...to think we're headed for a Soviet-like collapse. Fingers are crossed that our next president is more popular than Gorbachev and more capable than Yeltsin.

MichaelEaston,

When you get computer access again, we must must must get back to Africa.