Originally Posted by herbal tee

So Putin is good for bidness eh?

It's not him; whoever ended up following Yeltsin would have presided over the recovery of the Russian civil environment.

...it's just another example of Russia moving deeper into a 1t.

Absolutely. Give it another five-ten years and maybe we'll be able to guess at what the Cause will be for the next Awakening here.

Originally Posted by 1990

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

It fits pretty well. The scrambling 'reforms' implemented under Gorbachev were nothing so much as doomed efforts to salvage something that was already nine-tenths of the way to the scrap heap.

(and good riddance!)

Eek...to think we're headed for a Soviet-like collapse.

..wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Russia came out on the other side a whole lot better for it. As did pretty much all of the former Soviet republics. There's no reason to think it wouldn't end up being a positive thing over in your hemisphere.

Fingers are crossed that our next president is more popular than Gorbachev and more capable than Yeltsin.

Oh, you mean like (I can't believe I'm saying this...) Hitler? He was popular and capable. And that turned out just peachy for the German people, right?

In fact, one might argue -- had one studied it a bit, and not just thought it up two seconds ago -- that having a strong, popular leader in a 4T is worse. Russia made it through without a psychotic all-consuming Crisis war; maybe if they'd had a leader at the time who was better able to rally his people behind him, that wouldn't have been the case...

Originally Posted by 1990

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.

I agree. I consider Gorby the GC.

Originally Posted by 1990

MichaelEaston,

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

I have access to a computer, just not time.

Michael,

I'm not going to be able to comment on most of this, but I do have a couple of questions.

1) Why the little knot of High-era countries in the Balkans? I'm asking for a simple reason: it's hard for me not to see 1940s Yugoslavia as part of a 4T. Tito was a partisan leader in those days fighting against the Nazis, as such he and his country were caught up in all of that madness. If I'm correct in this, then there's no way that former Yugoslavia could be all the way into a 1T by a few years from now. In fact, despite the carnage, the dissolution of Yugoslavia looks a lot more 3T than 4T to me, in that it had no real resolution.

2) I understand putting Iran on a different timeline and making this a 2T. What I'm a lot less sure about is extending that to the Arab countries to the west. Iran is a large, populous country, with a very strong sense of its own separate identity and ancient history. Iran is Muslim, but it is NOT Arab and Iranians will point that out in no uncertain terms. This gives the country the strength to maintain its own saeculum and not be pulled in (yet) by the rest of the Muslim world.

With respect to Iraq, are you looking at the Iran-Iraq war and calling that a 4T/1T? It was certainly a concluding 4T event for Iran, but I am not convinced it was for Iraq. It was Saddam who, in a shortsighted and stupid fashion typical of him, started the war; the Iranians fought back en masse and looked like winning; Saddam resorted to chemical weapons, and eventually the whole thing ended in a draw. For the Iranians, the "draw" represented a successful defense of their country and of the revolutionary regime; for Iraq, it just meant a lot of wasted effort and lives.

Incidentally, the war continued from 1980 to 1988, during which time the U.S. (and I think Europe as well) transitioned from 2T to 3T, so the timeline for Iran doesn't look to me like it's quite opposite ours, more like 1 1/2 turnings off or so. If the Iranian 4T ended around 1990, then Iran would still be in a High right now, and not an Awakening.

3) I understand your reasoning in making the Vietnam War a 4T for Vietnam as well. That makes some sense, because although Vietnam was occupied by the Japanese during WWII, its return to France after the war left this an inconclusive event, not enough to shift the saeculum. However, again I would not place Vietnam's saeculum as completely opposite ours. Ho Chi Minh started his career fighting against the Japanese, then continued against the French. They were fighting this war against one enemy or another from 1941 until 1975, which is a long stretch for one Turning, but surely the battle of Dienbienphu and the founding of the DRVN (1954-55) belong in a 4T! Otherwise, it's difficult to draw the lines correctly. A lot of the later years of the war against the RVN and the U.S. could have happened in a 1T. If, and I'm not saying I'm really sure about these dates, but if we date the Vietnamese 4T from 1946 (when the Viet Minh declared independence from France) until 1968 (when the Tet offensive ended the Johnson presidency and started the process leading to the U.S. pullout), a 22-year Turning, then Vietnam should be well into its Awakening now and not very far from moving into 3T. I have no idea whether that makes sense in terms of current Vietnamese events.

4) How certain are you about North Africa being on the advanced world's saecular timetable? Can you explain your reasoning here?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Michael,

I'm not going to be able to comment on most of this, but I do have a couple of questions.

1) Why the little knot of High-era countries in the Balkans? I'm asking for a simple reason: it's hard for me not to see 1940s Yugoslavia as part of a 4T. Tito was a partisan leader in those days fighting against the Nazis, as such he and his country were caught up in all of that madness. If I'm correct in this, then there's no way that former Yugoslavia could be all the way into a 1T by a few years from now. In fact, despite the carnage, the dissolution of Yugoslavia looks a lot more 3T than 4T to me, in that it had no real resolution.

I agree with you about former Yugoslavia the events since it's breakup are classic 3T.

2) I understand putting Iran on a different timeline and making this a 2T. What I'm a lot less sure about is extending that to the Arab countries to the west. Iran is a large, populous country, with a very strong sense of its own separate identity and ancient history. Iran is Muslim, but it is NOT Arab and Iranians will point that out in no uncertain terms. This gives the country the strength to maintain its own saeculum and not be pulled in (yet) by the rest of the Muslim world.

Iran is a middle eastern country, despite not being an arab nation, neither are Turkey and Israel. However there is a common saeculum running throughout all these societies. The Iranian revolution had knock on effects in generating youth rebellion throughout the Middle East. Considering it was pretty quiet until the mid 70's when the Lebanese civil war started. I strongly think the awakening in the middle east happended from late 70's to late 90's. Right now the middle east is in 3T, although the early stages.

Middle Eastern political leaders seem to reflect the generations, especially in Iran. The last president there was a member of an Artist generation, while the present president is a Prophert. I think a lot of the Mullahs are Artists and maybe a few Heroes. Although the Hero generation in the Middle East has largely left the political stage now. They were a presence until a few years back.

Other Muslim countries seem to be on our saeculum, like Pakistan, Bangaldesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

With respect to Iraq, are you looking at the Iran-Iraq war and calling that a 4T/1T? It was certainly a concluding 4T event for Iran, but I am not convinced it was for Iraq. It was Saddam who, in a shortsighted and stupid fashion typical of him, started the war; the Iranians fought back en masse and looked like winning; Saddam resorted to chemical weapons, and eventually the whole thing ended in a draw. For the Iranians, the "draw" represented a successful defense of their country and of the revolutionary regime; for Iraq, it just meant a lot of wasted effort and lives.

Incidentally, the war continued from 1980 to 1988, during which time the U.S. (and I think Europe as well) transitioned from 2T to 3T, so the timeline for Iran doesn't look to me like it's quite opposite ours, more like 1 1/2 turnings off or so. If the Iranian 4T ended around 1990, then Iran would still be in a High right now, and not an Awakening.

The Iran-Iraq war was a 2T war, full of fanatic young idealist soliders on the Iranian side. The rebellion aganist Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War is another 2T event. Ditto the Palestinian intfafia of the 80's and the Lebanese civil war.

Personally I strongly the Middle East as a whole is like 10-15 years behind us on the Saeculum, no more than 15 considering the Iranian revolution.

Overall I have found few places that aren't on our saeculum, Japan and Korea most likely, Latin America (prehaps) and The Middle East.

4) How certain are you about North Africa being on the advanced world's saecular timetable? Can you explain your reasoning here?

I would put North Africa in the Middle Eastern saeculum, I am not totally sure.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Michael,

I'm not going to be able to comment on most of this, but I do have a couple of questions.

1) Why the little knot of High-era countries in the Balkans? I'm asking for a simple reason: it's hard for me not to see 1940s Yugoslavia as part of a 4T. Tito was a partisan leader in those days fighting against the Nazis, as such he and his country were caught up in all of that madness. If I'm correct in this, then there's no way that former Yugoslavia could be all the way into a 1T by a few years from now. In fact, despite the carnage, the dissolution of Yugoslavia looks a lot more 3T than 4T to me, in that it had no real resolution.

I have the First World War and then the Bosnian War as the two most recent crises. I'm pretty sure 1940s Yugoslavia was part of an extremely costly awakening campaign. Anyway, my two picks are classic crisis wars.

I disagree that there was no real resolution. Fighting continued sporadically after the peace accord, but much changed during those years. How is that 3T?

2) I understand putting Iran on a different timeline and making this a 2T. What I'm a lot less sure about is extending that to the Arab countries to the west. Iran is a large, populous country, with a very strong sense of its own separate identity and ancient history. Iran is Muslim, but it is NOT Arab and Iranians will point that out in no uncertain terms. This gives the country the strength to maintain its own saeculum and not be pulled in (yet) by the rest of the Muslim world.

With respect to Iraq, are you looking at the Iran-Iraq war and calling that a 4T/1T? It was certainly a concluding 4T event for Iran, but I am not convinced it was for Iraq. It was Saddam who, in a shortsighted and stupid fashion typical of him, started the war; the Iranians fought back en masse and looked like winning; Saddam resorted to chemical weapons, and eventually the whole thing ended in a draw. For the Iranians, the "draw" represented a successful defense of their country and of the revolutionary regime; for Iraq, it just meant a lot of wasted effort and lives.

Incidentally, the war continued from 1980 to 1988, during which time the U.S. (and I think Europe as well) transitioned from 2T to 3T, so the timeline for Iran doesn't look to me like it's quite opposite ours, more like 1 1/2 turnings off or so. If the Iranian 4T ended around 1990, then Iran would still be in a High right now, and not an Awakening.

Iran's last crisis was the Constitutional Revolution from 1906-1911 I think. I'm not sure there was a war there. And I think Iraq's was the Great Iraqi Revolution in the early 1920s.

So the Iran-Iraq war fits well in timing and its difficult to argue that the war didn't exhibit signs of a 4T with genocide both ways, despite the fact that there were no territorial changes.

3) I understand your reasoning in making the Vietnam War a 4T for Vietnam as well. That makes some sense, because although Vietnam was occupied by the Japanese during WWII, its return to France after the war left this an inconclusive event, not enough to shift the saeculum. However, again I would not place Vietnam's saeculum as completely opposite ours. Ho Chi Minh started his career fighting against the Japanese, then continued against the French. They were fighting this war against one enemy or another from 1941 until 1975, which is a long stretch for one Turning, but surely the battle of Dienbienphu and the founding of the DRVN (1954-55) belong in a 4T! Otherwise, it's difficult to draw the lines correctly. A lot of the later years of the war against the RVN and the U.S. could have happened in a 1T. If, and I'm not saying I'm really sure about these dates, but if we date the Vietnamese 4T from 1946 (when the Viet Minh declared independence from France) until 1968 (when the Tet offensive ended the Johnson presidency and started the process leading to the U.S. pullout), a 22-year Turning, then Vietnam should be well into its Awakening now and not very far from moving into 3T. I have no idea whether that makes sense in terms of current Vietnamese events.

The Tet offensive might be considered a climax in a D-Day style, but the end surely has to be in 1975. Maybe the crisis war starts in 1954, maybe not. Either way, Vietnam is experiencing signs of a 2T (http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...61121#e061121).

4) How certain are you about North Africa being on the advanced world's saecular timetable? Can you explain your reasoning here?

I'm pretty certain that this is the case. Morocco hasn't had a crisis since the Rif War in the late 1920s, Egypt since the 1952 Revolution, and I think Italian occupation was a crisis war for Libya and Tunisia. This doesn't put them on the advanced world's saecular timetable in a way that America and Europe are on (our timelines are perfectly synced), but it does mean that their crisis may be related to ours, or at least will probably happen concurrently.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I disagree that there was no real resolution. Fighting continued sporadically after the peace accord, but much changed during those years. How is that 3T?

Things DO change during a 3T. The Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the German Kaiser both occurred in the context of a horrible 3T war. It's the nature of the changes I'm questioning. 3T civic changes amount to dissolution, coming apart, chaos leading eventually to a consolidation of authority in the 4T. (As the abortive Weimar Republic led to Hitler, or the abortive Leninist socialism led to Stalin.) The situation in Yugoslavia was a collapse of authority and the fragmentation of society into mutually-antagonistic parts. I cannot see that as a 4T change unless it underlines the civic problems (as the American Civil War did) and unless it is resolved in the end. It looks to me as if all the Balkan nations are still poised to jump on each other again, and my guess is that they will during the course of this Crisis.

So the Iran-Iraq war fits well in timing and its difficult to argue that the war didn't exhibit signs of a 4T with genocide both ways, despite the fact that there were no territorial changes.

I'm not talking about territorial changes but about changes to the civic order. There were none in Iraq whatsoever: it remained a Baathist despotism from start to finish, before and after. In Iran, however, the war represented a challenge to the Islamic Republic from a secular Muslim Arab nation supported by the United States. It had much greater significance for that reason.

The Tet offensive might be considered a climax in a D-Day style, but the end surely has to be in 1975.

I wouldn't assume that. I understand what you're saying, but everything had already been decided in terms of the DRVN civic order and also the outcome of the war long before 1975. The conquest of Saigon was just follow-through. The basic problem, as I said, is that the war ran for 36 years, far too long for a single Turning. One could even argue for a 1941 beginning, in that the Japanese invasion was the event that started the ball rolling.

Another possibility is that we're seeing what I was talking about on the other thread, a country impacted from outside and in the process of having its saeculum reset. Maybe the entire period from 1941 to 1975 was, due to outside influences, one big huge long Crisis era. Maybe Vietnam has an atypical, distorted saeculum for that reason. Also, given the magnitude of what the world faces this go-round, the interference is likely to continue.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Things DO change during a 3T. The Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the German Kaiser both occurred in the context of a horrible 3T war. It's the nature of the changes I'm questioning. 3T civic changes amount to dissolution, coming apart, chaos leading eventually to a consolidation of authority in the 4T. (As the abortive Weimar Republic led to Hitler, or the abortive Leninist socialism led to Stalin.) The situation in Yugoslavia was a collapse of authority and the fragmentation of society into mutually-antagonistic parts. I cannot see that as a 4T change unless it underlines the civic problems (as the American Civil War did) and unless it is resolved in the end. It looks to me as if all the Balkan nations are still poised to jump on each other again, and my guess is that they will during the course of this Crisis.

Sorry, I should have separated my last sentence from the rest. And thanks for your clarification.

It looks to me as if we share a different paradigm here, although I knew that already. I'd argue that dissolution, coming apart, chaos, consolidation of authority, coups, abolition of slavery, etc. can happen in any turning and has happened in all turnings. I see them as part of a larger context however. If these events are somewhat random (as I believe), it must be the response to those events that dictates the turning.

So in the case of dissolution you see as 3T I presume, because it a breakdown of the old order with the hope of establishing a new one. However, the new one is not established. This makes sense, and I would say it is likely in the early stages of the 4T, as we saw with the Soviet Union breakup. This has to be viewed in the context of generations and not as this monolithic force, so we could postulate that this is due to generations that did not live through the past crisis (prophets onward) not realizing the consequences of their actions or inaction.

Of course, the breakup of Yugoslavia led to genocidal warfare, something that really only can occur in a 4T since the energy has to be at such a high level for this to happen. This type of crisis is the most common and is the most likely to reset the generational structure. So I don't see how this can't be a crisis.

I'm not talking about territorial changes but about changes to the civic order. There were none in Iraq whatsoever: it remained a Baathist despotism from start to finish, before and after. In Iran, however, the war represented a challenge to the Islamic Republic from a secular Muslim Arab nation supported by the United States. It had much greater significance for that reason.

Similar to the above.

I wouldn't assume that. I understand what you're saying, but everything had already been decided in terms of the DRVN civic order and also the outcome of the war long before 1975. The conquest of Saigon was just follow-through. The basic problem, as I said, is that the war ran for 36 years, far too long for a single Turning. One could even argue for a 1941 beginning, in that the Japanese invasion was the event that started the ball rolling.

There is a difference between politically laying down the foundation for the crisis and generationally laying it down.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Things DO change during a 3T. The Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the German Kaiser both occurred in the context of a horrible 3T war.

How do you consider the Russian Revolution a 3T war? The victors set the course of that society for the next sixty years, until the fundamental flaws in it grew to the extent that, beginning under Gorbachev, increasingly fundamental changes became necessary. That's a Crisis resolution to a tee.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How do you consider the Russian Revolution a 3T war? The victors set the course of that society for the next sixty years, until the fundamental flaws in it grew to the extent that, beginning under Gorbachev, increasingly fundamental changes became necessary. That's a Crisis resolution to a tee.

Exactly. I have heard good arguments on both sides over whether the Soviet collapse was a true 4T or not, but there is just NO WAY the Bolshevik Revolution was anything other than a 4T all the way. If you don't believe me, see "Reds". Or hell, see "Anastasia".

Originally Posted by 1990

Exactly. I have heard good arguments on both sides over whether the Soviet collapse was a true 4T or not, but there is just NO WAY the Bolshevik Revolution was anything other than a 4T all the way. If you don't believe me, see "Reds". Or hell, see "Anastasia".

Or ask a Russian about the stories his grandparents told.

(Actually in one case, the mother of one of the engineers at a factory to which we're contracting some of our work out just turned ninety-five. She saw, and remembers, the entire Soviet Union, from start to end. So you could still get first-hand, if you're lucky)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or ask a Russian about the stories his grandparents told.

(Actually in one case, the mother of one of the engineers at a factory to which we're contracting some of our work out just turned ninety-five. She saw, and remembers, the entire Soviet Union, from start to end. So you could still get first-hand, if you're lucky)

Can you interview her with a tape recorder, and then tell us what she says?

John

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How do you consider the Russian Revolution a 3T war? The victors set the course of that society for the next sixty years

Only in the sense that Stalin was one of the victors, and he didn't "set the course of that society" until he rose to power around 1930. Just because Lenin was honored as the founder of the Soviet Union, and was nominally of the same party and ruling philosophy as Stalin, don't make the mistake of thinking he really WAS the founder. Stalin was, although Lenin was its theoretical architect.

He was never able to put his theories into practice, however, due to civil war, economic chaos, and failure to consolidate his own power, as well as declining health during the 1920s. In the '20s, he retreated from socialism with the implementation of the New Economic Policy (later reversed by Stalin). The Soviet Union under Lenin was a caretaker government, unable fully to rule, but basically holding things together about like Kerensky or the Tsar had done. It was Stalin, after making himself unofficial (but total) dictator, who actually implemented the new regime which dominated the country until 1991. It was Stalin who collectivized agriculture, crash-built Soviet industry and military power, and led the war against the Nazis -- incompetently, but successfully. The years of his rule were the Soviet 4T and early 1T, and they correspond quite well with the same Turnings in Europe and the U.S.

Don't be misled, either, by the amount of suffering and death involved in the Russian Civil War. This is the kind of thing that often OCCURS in a 4T, but it does not DEFINE a 4T. World War I was, for France, Germany, and Britain, definitely a 3T war, and its death toll was abominable, well worthy of a 4T war -- but it was NOT one.

Edit: I have, in fact, seen both "Reds" and "Anastasia." They do not change my mind.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Can you interview her with a tape recorder, and then tell us what she says?

I wish. Her health is on the downslide, and even then, she's got no teeth -- which puts my odds at comprehending what she would say pretty damn close to zero; I have a hard time sometimes making out what english-speakers are saying under those circumstances.

Give me another year to really solidify my language skills, and then I'll be willing to waste someone's time trying to decipher what they're trying to say. There are other similarly-aged people around. Not a lot of them, but that's kind of the way it goes...


I'm afraid that for me, second-hand may end up being the best I'll be able to get. 'Lucky' may not include me (as a nomad-gen, I've come to terms with that).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only in the sense that Stalin was one of the victors, and he didn't "set the course of that society" until he rose to power around 1930. Just because Lenin was honored as the founder of the Soviet Union, and was nominally of the same party and ruling philosophy as Stalin, don't make the mistake of thinking he really WAS the founder. Stalin was, although Lenin was its theoretical architect.

He was never able to put his theories into practice, however, due to civil war, economic chaos, and failure to consolidate his own power, as well as declining health during the 1920s. In the '20s, he retreated from socialism with the implementation of the New Economic Policy (later reversed by Stalin). The Soviet Union under Lenin was a caretaker government, unable fully to rule, but basically holding things together about like Kerensky or the Tsar had done.

Ah yes, because the things that characterized Stalin's years were nothing at all like a continuation of the path that Lenin had implemented.

ГОЭЛРО
ЧК
Terror
приказ о повешении

People who lived through it (and again, thus far we're talking second-hand, via their children and grandchildren) attribute the major societal change to Lenin's time. And major societal change is what Turnings are all about...

Edit: I have, in fact, seen both "Reds" and "Anastasia." They do not change my mind.

As they should not. Movies -- particularly those made in a foreign country for foreign consumption -- are far from a good way to gain information.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People who lived through it (and again, thus far we're talking second-hand, via their children and grandchildren) attribute the major societal change to Lenin's time. And major societal change is what Turnings are all about...

Their children and grandchildren, then, attribute the major societal changes to Lenin's time.

OF COURSE they do. Just like Americans believe in the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Lenin was the original leader of the Bolsheviks. Even at the height of the cult of personality, Stalin never de-canonized him.

Naturally a libertarian would focus on the seriously objectionable things that both Lenin and Stalin did, e.g. the use of terror. That, however, was not a major societal change; in fact, it was not a change at all. The tsars did the same thing. Forced collectivization of agriculture: that was a major societal change. Industrialization of the whole country in a space of 10 years, at huge human cost: that was a major societal change. Eradication of almost all private industry, and making Party membership define the new elite: that was a major societal change.

Lenin WANTED to do all of these things, although perhaps not quite the same way they happened. But it was Stalin who actually DID them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(snip)
Don't be misled, either, by the amount of suffering and death involved in the Russian Civil War. This is the kind of thing that often OCCURS in a 4T, but it does not DEFINE a 4T. World War I was, for France, Germany, and Britain, definitely a 3T war, and its death toll was abominable, well worthy of a 4T war -- but it was NOT one.

Edit: I have, in fact, seen both "Reds" and "Anastasia." They do not change my mind.

I read "We, the Living" before ever hearing of Fourth Turning theory. That bok totally convinced me Russia was undergoing a 4T at the time.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I read "We, the Living" before ever hearing of Fourth Turning theory. That bok totally convinced me Russia was undergoing a 4T at the time.

Can you explain why? (Unlike the movies, that's one I don't know.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Can you explain why? (Unlike the movies, that's one I don't know.)

Russia may have been the country least well-suited in 1914 for a major war because it was 'advanced' in its generational cycle to the point that the nation was splintering between hostile camps of Idealist factions diametrically opposed in values, both thoroughly ruthless and mutually-exclusive. World War I was a mid-3T war for Britain, Germany, France, and Italy. Maybe Austria-Hungary as well. But for Russia its unraveling had advanced a few years. To be sure, the corruption and incompetence of the leadership ensured defeat and the inability of the leadership to recognize the seriousness of the danger of defeat and continued conflict; likewise, industrial backwardness had Russia waging an early-20th century war with mid-19th century technology and a poor supply chain.

World War I could have been a 3T war for Russia had the leadership been more competent in recent years.

Until 1917, nothing had really changed in Russia since the 1890s. In 1917 everything changed because a military debacle threatened everything. Russian leadership that had suppressed most efforts at reform that might have modernized the system and micromanaged a war that it was incompetent to manage failed. The February Revolution installed a weak government that could neither extricate itself from the war nor maintain its participation in the war.

Lenin staged his coup to overthrow the weak Provisional government and established a radical regime that offended the conservative interests within Russia. Think of the American Civil War with a sinister twist -- that the opposing sides seek to annihilate each other. The timing of a crisis was horrible -- but so was the social background, something not connected to the generational cycle. The Bolsheviks sought to create their revolution in the name of the working class and did not care how many people they killed in the process -- but the aristocrats had too much wealth and privilege to lose, and they did not care how many people they would kill to maintain or restore the wealth and the privilege that they stood to lose.

The Bolsheviks prevailed only after establishing one of the harshest systems of repression ever known. The radical changes that they imposed were characteristic of a Crisis. But even in the tyranny of early-stage Bolshevism there was no stability because Lenin was in poor health. Even as the radicalism abated, a power struggle within the Communist Party led to the rise of Josef Stalin, who imposed a social transformation even more violent and disruptive than that that Lenin had started. The forced collectivization of agriculture caused millions of deaths -- as if another civil war, only to be climaxed by the Great Purges. Tensions within Soviet Russia might have abated some in the late 1930s, only for Stalin to attempt to reap the whirlwind that Hitler set loose by devouring the Baltic States, pre-1939 eastern Poland, and Moldova. Imposition of Communist rule in those places was itself bloody. The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40 was another effort to reap the whirlwind... and it proved a disaster because of the Great Purge that decimated what had been an innovative General Staff.

If the Russian Civil War and the Collectivization-purge era were bloody, Russia got even more Crisis with World War II in June 1941 when Adolf Hitler brought to Russia the most vicious military campaign that any country could ever face. Is there any way to describe the "Great Patriotic War", including about half the Holocaust, as anything other than a Crisis?

28 years (1917-1945) might seem like a very long Crisis Era... it's really three Crises instead of the two that most countries experienced (Great Depression and World War II). For the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, or France the Crisis was 1929-1945... roughly sixteen years. For Germany it was 1929-1948 (Great Depression through the Berlin Crisis and the consolidation of a divided Germany). For Spain it was 1929-1939 (Depression, Civil War). For China, 1932 (Japanese conquest of Manchuria) to 1949 (Communist takeover). For most of eastern Europe from Finland to Greece, 1929 (Stock Market Crash) to the late 1940s (consolidation of Communist rule or the prevention of a Communist overthrow).

I interpret the Russian Crisis Era as 1917-1945... three waves of destructive madness, two resulting largely from internal power struggles and one imposed (Great Patriotic War) from outside. By 1939 Russia was likely (were it not for Hitler) to enter a conformist, crushing, but less deadly Austerity or High... only to experience another wave of Crisis. Russia was forced onto the timeline of most of the other participants of WWII.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

28 years (1917-1945) might seem like a very long Crisis Era... it's really three Crises instead of the two that most countries experienced (Great Depression and World War II). For the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, or France the Crisis was 1929-1945... roughly sixteen years. For Germany it was 1929-1948 (Great Depression through the Berlin Crisis and the consolidation of a divided Germany). For Spain it was 1929-1939 (Depression, Civil War). For China, 1932 (Japanese conquest of Manchuria) to 1949 (Communist takeover). For most of eastern Europe from Finland to Greece, 1929 (Stock Market Crash) to the late 1940s (consolidation of Communist rule or the prevention of a Communist overthrow).

I interpret the Russian Crisis Era as 1917-1945... three waves of destructive madness, two resulting largely from internal power struggles and one imposed (Great Patriotic War) from outside. By 1939 Russia was likely (were it not for Hitler) to enter a conformist, crushing, but less deadly Austerity or High... only to experience another wave of Crisis. Russia was forced onto the timeline of most of the other participants of WWII.

Oh. So then...wait...I thought you considered WWII to be a particularly sucky 1T for Russia, not the tail end of a long 4T. If *that's* the case, then the Soviet collapse was NOT a 4T.

If you think the Russian 4T ended in 1945, then Russia must be entering 4T now, not 1T.

EDIT: Nevermind, I thought you were Justin for some reason.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Can you explain why? (Unlike the movies, that's one I don't know.)

It was a novel written by a woman who lived through the Russian Revolution and its aftermath and got out - was able to come to America and make a living - and is about a woman whose life story was similar to but not identical to her own. The details and especially an old sailor who had proudly served "The Red Balt Fleet" and is caught by the corruption and political focus and turmoil and general nastiness of those years - yes, it COULD be one of the nastiest 3Ts on record. But it sure felt 4T to me at the time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Russia may have been the country least well-suited in 1914 for a major war because it was 'advanced' in its generational cycle to the point that the nation was splintering between hostile camps of Idealist factions diametrically opposed in values, both thoroughly ruthless and mutually-exclusive. World War I was a mid-3T war for Britain, Germany, France, and Italy. Maybe Austria-Hungary as well. But for Russia its unraveling had advanced a few years. To be sure, the corruption and incompetence of the leadership ensured defeat and the inability of the leadership to recognize the seriousness of the danger of defeat and continued conflict; likewise, industrial backwardness had Russia waging an early-20th century war with mid-19th century technology and a poor supply chain.

World War I could have been a 3T war for Russia had the leadership been more competent in recent years.

Until 1917, nothing had really changed in Russia since the 1890s. In 1917 everything changed because a military debacle threatened everything. Russian leadership that had suppressed most efforts at reform that might have modernized the system and micromanaged a war that it was incompetent to manage failed. The February Revolution installed a weak government that could neither extricate itself from the war nor maintain its participation in the war.

Lenin staged his coup to overthrow the weak Provisional government and established a radical regime that offended the conservative interests within Russia. Think of the American Civil War with a sinister twist -- that the opposing sides seek to annihilate each other. The timing of a crisis was horrible -- but so was the social background, something not connected to the generational cycle. The Bolsheviks sought to create their revolution in the name of the working class and did not care how many people they killed in the process -- but the aristocrats had too much wealth and privilege to lose, and they did not care how many people they would kill to maintain or restore the wealth and the privilege that they stood to lose.

The Bolsheviks prevailed only after establishing one of the harshest systems of repression ever known. The radical changes that they imposed were characteristic of a Crisis. But even in the tyranny of early-stage Bolshevism there was no stability because Lenin was in poor health. Even as the radicalism abated, a power struggle within the Communist Party led to the rise of Josef Stalin, who imposed a social transformation even more violent and disruptive than that that Lenin had started. The forced collectivization of agriculture caused millions of deaths -- as if another civil war, only to be climaxed by the Great Purges. Tensions within Soviet Russia might have abated some in the late 1930s, only for Stalin to attempt to reap the whirlwind that Hitler set loose by devouring the Baltic States, pre-1939 eastern Poland, and Moldova. Imposition of Communist rule in those places was itself bloody. The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40 was another effort to reap the whirlwind... and it proved a disaster because of the Great Purge that decimated what had been an innovative General Staff.

If the Russian Civil War and the Collectivization-purge era were bloody, Russia got even more Crisis with World War II in June 1941 when Adolf Hitler brought to Russia the most vicious military campaign that any country could ever face. Is there any way to describe the "Great Patriotic War", including about half the Holocaust, as anything other than a Crisis?

28 years (1917-1945) might seem like a very long Crisis Era... it's really three Crises instead of the two that most countries experienced (Great Depression and World War II). For the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, or France the Crisis was 1929-1945... roughly sixteen years. For Germany it was 1929-1948 (Great Depression through the Berlin Crisis and the consolidation of a divided Germany). For Spain it was 1929-1939 (Depression, Civil War). For China, 1932 (Japanese conquest of Manchuria) to 1949 (Communist takeover). For most of eastern Europe from Finland to Greece, 1929 (Stock Market Crash) to the late 1940s (consolidation of Communist rule or the prevention of a Communist overthrow).

I interpret the Russian Crisis Era as 1917-1945... three waves of destructive madness, two resulting largely from internal power struggles and one imposed (Great Patriotic War) from outside. By 1939 Russia was likely (were it not for Hitler) to enter a conformist, crushing, but less deadly Austerity or High... only to experience another wave of Crisis. Russia was forced onto the timeline of most of the other participants of WWII.

Right.. because the crisis is all about how much blood lies on the ground Why don't we just lump WWI into the crisis for France? It was much bloodier than WWII so how could you not regard the bloodiest war in France's history as a crisis?

It's difficult for people to rationalize that a generational crisis is different than an actual crisis.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Russia may have been the country least well-suited in 1914 for a major war because it was 'advanced' in its generational cycle to the point that the nation was splintering between hostile camps of Idealist factions diametrically opposed in values, both thoroughly ruthless and mutually-exclusive.

But that's not the way a 4T shapes out, further bolstering my understanding that all of these events were 3T for Russia just as they were for France, Germany, and Britain. Had Russia been in 4T, or entering 4T, in 1914, the outbreak of war would have submerged domestic disputes and rallied the country behind the Tsar. Instead, the war aggravated those disputes and led to the Tsar's overthrow, and ultimately to the Bolshevik revolution.

Russia seems to go through changes in government during Unravelings. I believe the transition from Brezhnev, to the string of ancients after Brezhnev, to Gorbachev, to Yeltsin, to Putin, also to be 3T events, a decay of public order and not a strenghtening of it (although Putin is trying to reverse the process and, with Russia entering a 4T, may succeed). Whatever form the new post-Communist government takes for the next saeculum is yet to be determined.

Until 1917, nothing had really changed in Russia since the 1890s. In 1917 everything changed because a military debacle threatened everything.

This is where we disagree. Everything didn't change, only the blueprints of change were laid down.

Lenin staged his coup to overthrow the weak Provisional government and established a radical regime that offended the conservative interests within Russia. Think of the American Civil War with a sinister twist -- that the opposing sides seek to annihilate each other.

You're talking about the Russian Civil War here, obviously. What you say is true, but it's also true that the civil war, along with Lenin's bad health and some other factors, prevented the Bolshevik revolution from really taking place. The plans were there, the blueprints were drawn up, but they weren't implemented until later. Russia was a backward country when Lenin took over, and it was still a backward country when he died.

But even in the tyranny of early-stage Bolshevism there was no stability because Lenin was in poor health.

Also because the economy broke down, and because there was too much internal opposition. Typical 3T stuff; if it were a 4T, Lenin would have been replaced as unable to govern, and the defeat of the Whites would have led immediately to the implementation of the revolutionary regime (as happened in the U.S. with the defeat of the Confederacy), not to a retreat from it as actually happened.

Even as the radicalism abated, a power struggle within the Communist Party led to the rise of Josef Stalin, who imposed a social transformation even more violent and disruptive than that that Lenin had started.

Yes, but another way to put this is that he actually implemented the revolution that Lenin never got further than planning.

What I believe to have been the catalyst of Russia's last 4T was the death of Lenin in 1924. This set loose the power struggle. The Regeneracy was Stalin's consolidation of power in 1928. The Climax was the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. And the Crisis ended, I believe, in 1945 or 1946, with the end of the war and the creation of the Soviet central-European satellite empire. The Nazi invasion was the last Crisis era challenge to the Stalinist regime, and its defeat confirmed that regime in power, to persist beyond Stalin's death.

Is there any way to describe the "Great Patriotic War", including about half the Holocaust, as anything other than a Crisis?

Well, I certainly agree with this, but I see it as the END of Russia's Crisis, not the beginning, just as it was with us.

I interpret the Russian Crisis Era as 1917-1945... three waves of destructive madness, two resulting largely from internal power struggles and one imposed (Great Patriotic War) from outside. By 1939 Russia was likely (were it not for Hitler) to enter a conformist, crushing, but less deadly Austerity or High... only to experience another wave of Crisis. Russia was forced onto the timeline of most of the other participants of WWII.

I have a very significant problem with this: I believe Russia went through another Crisis in the period beginning from 1854 (beginning of the Crimean War), encompassing the reign of Tsar Alexander II. Wikipedia has a good article on Alexander:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia

From that article:

Alexander succeeded to the throne upon the death of his father in 1855. The first year of his reign was devoted to the prosecution of the Crimean War, and after the fall of Sevastopol to negotiations for peace, led by his trusted counselor, Prince Gorchakov. Then he began a period of radical reforms, encouraged by public opinion but carried out with autocratic power. All who had any pretensions to enlightenment declared loudly that the country had been exhausted and humiliated by the war, and that the only way of restoring it to its proper position in Europe was to develop its natural resources and thoroughly to reform all branches of the administration. The government therefore found in the educated classes a new-born public spirit, anxious to assist it in any work of reform that it might think fit to undertake.

The reforms were extensive: the serfs were freed, the military reorganized, courts reformed, industrialization encouraged, and democratic local government (Dumas) established. The level of bloodshed and suffering may not satisfy the understanding of those who define Crisis eras along those lines, but of course I do not, so this looks very much like a 4T to me.

If it was, then 1917 falls too early from the end of the last Crisis to be a 4T itself.

Okay, explain this to me. If Russia is on the Western European timeline, and thus the Bolshevik Revolution was a 3T with WWII a 4T, then where was the Awakening during Brezhnev?

Originally Posted by 1990

Okay, explain this to me. If Russia is on the Western European timeline, and thus the Bolshevik Revolution was a 3T with WWII a 4T, then where was the Awakening during Brezhnev?

There was one. The Prague Spring and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were part of it. Similar things happened in Russia. The biggest cultural change is that people stopped believing in the promise of the Revolution. After that, the Soviet Union was running on fumes. Not very long after the Awakening ended, Gorbachev came to power, and that was the beginning of the end. It could never have happened that way if people still believed they were building a workers' paradise.