Babel

Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.

Post by Scott Dorsey
This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
little glaring. But it was still great.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-05 17:48:35 UTC

Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.

Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.

The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.

pt

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-05 22:23:38 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.
The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.

This is clear and evident before the book was even read. But what I didn't
realize before reading it was just how fun a book it was.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Evelyn C. Leeper

2024-03-06 17:38:44 UTC

This is clear and evident before the book was even read. But what I didn't
realize before reading it was just how fun a book it was.
--scott

It does seem that something good may have come out of this, namely that
more people will be motivated to get Kuang's book and read it. Getting
publicity in news stories in the MYT et al can't be bad for her.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://leepers.us/evelyn, @***@mastodon.social
Musk cares about the border because "the border" is a publicly-
acceptable euphemism for white supremacy. [@***@mastodon.social]

Robert Carnegie

2024-03-08 10:30:10 UTC

Perhaps you are not considering how a /Communist Goverment/ might feel
about a novel extolling the virtues of the non-communist past.

Perhaps the "Westerners" were embarrassed
by the contents on their own hurt feelings.

jerryfriedman

2024-03-12 16:58:20 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
determined.
If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
for that.
This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
little glaring. But it was still great.
--Scott

I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
of dissent.

A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching
Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and
21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.

Begin extract:

'You rile her up,' Victoire said.

'Don't defend her--'

'You do,' said Victoire. 'You both do, don't pretend otherwise; you like
making her snap.'

'Only because she's up her own backside all the time,' Ramy scoffed. 'Is
she an entirely different person with you, then, or have you merely adapted?'

End extract.

"Rile" and "up her own backside" stood out to me. "Rile", though originally
British, was considered regional and American dialect at the time, according
to the OED. For instance, it appears in a list of Essex dialect words in 1815.
There's no reason for Victoire, a Haitian who has lived in Paris, to know it,
or for the two other characters present (one from China and one from India)
to recognize it.

"Be (stuck) up one's own arse" is first recorded in the OED from 1988.

That kind of thing won't bother a lot of people, but every time I see something
like that it sounds like a wrong note.

Also

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

H
E
R
E

There seems to be a message that every single white person will oppose and
betray the legitimate aspirations of people of color. No exceptions.

--
Jerry Friedman

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-12 17:22:49 UTC

Post by jerryfriedman
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
H
E
R
E
There seems to be a message that every single white person will oppose and
betray the legitimate aspirations of people of color. No exceptions.

This attitude is very much in line with current CCP doctrine. The
memory of the 'Century of humiliation' is actively kept alive
in China, and informs a lot of current Chinese policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

pt

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-12 22:43:22 UTC

Post by jerryfriedman
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging,
and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th-
century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
of dissent.

Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in
China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.

Post by jerryfriedman
A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching
Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and
21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.

I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but
I agree that it won't age well.

I disagree with your spoiler, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jerryfriedman

2024-03-12 23:15:22 UTC

Or other forms of oppression.

Post by Scott Dorsey
Those problems were EXACTLY why I was surprised it didn't get a nomination.
Because those problems are very much advantages for promoting the book in
China. That's what I found so boggleworthy.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but
I agree that it won't age well.
I disagree with your spoiler, though.

Did I miss a counterexample?

--
Jerry Friedman

Chris Buckley

2024-03-22 13:08:19 UTC

Or other forms of oppression.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.

While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and
nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in
_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never
encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.

I can see the worries about the reception of _Babel_ there.

I didn't find it that jarring because I am living in the middle of it, but
I agree that it won't age well.

I think there was a stronger than realistic distinction between heros
(21-century thought) and villains ( 19th century thought) that
extended to dialogue. I would treat that as intentional rather than
a mistake.

Overall, of the 3 (potential) Hugo nominees that I've read, I would
probably rank _Babel_ ahead of _The Kaiju Preservation Society_ (fun, but
not deep) and both ahead of _Nettle & Bone_ (the winner).

Chris

Scott Lurndal

2024-03-22 14:45:29 UTC

Or other forms of oppression.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and
nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in
_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never
encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.

I find this difficult to believe. Leaving aside the ubiquity of
western entertainment in China, my folks have travelled
in China in the past and have reported no xenophobia (in
fact, due to their white hair, they were treated as
superstars in some smaller communities).

Chris Buckley

2024-03-22 20:27:49 UTC

Or other forms of oppression.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and
nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in
_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never
encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.

Most of my discussions of racism in China have centered on black
racism so perhaps I was overly general. White skin is prized in
China, but incidents like this are very commonly reported by blacks.
A nice modern report from a black who loves China is
https://www.thinkchina.sg/being-black-china-loving-something-doesnt-always-love-you-back
Another older report:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/black-tourist-china

I haven't looked much at academic research, but just casually looking
now I encountered
https://africansinchina.net/race-racism-in-research/
which has lots of discussion and pointers. Eg.
contemporary research regarding online constructions of identity
in China reports that there is an overriding perception that
Africans/blacks are not only economically and culturally inferior,
but also a threat to the racial purity of the Chinese nation (Shen
2009; Lan 2016; Zhang 2019, Wang 2019).
(General point of this report, with a certain degree of validity, is
that "racism" is a Western concept)

China was tremendously insular in the past but is opening up rapidly.
Social attitudes are slow to change, though.

Chris

Paul S Person

2024-03-23 15:37:14 UTC

Or other forms of oppression.

Seems strange to me. Maybe there's something that only Chinese people, or
people very knowledgeable about Chinese culture, would object to.

I just finished reading it. The plot of _Babel_ is very much
pro-Chinese. But the theme is much more questionable. I would argue
that when you map the modern world onto the conflicts of _Babel_,
China is the best analog for Britain, even more than the United States.
While it's changing rapidly, China remains strongly xenophobic. Now
that they are expanding into the rest of the world, the racism and
nationalism of the xenophobia are a definite problem. The incident in
_Babel_ of British children encountering Robin (Chinese) for the first
time is one that is very often reported by foreigners in China today
when they stray outside their normal habitats. I don't know how true
it is anymore, but it is still being said that most Chinese have never
encountered a foreigner or some one of different race in person in
their lifetime.

Most of my discussions of racism in China have centered on black
racism so perhaps I was overly general. White skin is prized in
China, but incidents like this are very commonly reported by blacks.
A nice modern report from a black who loves China is
https://www.thinkchina.sg/being-black-china-loving-something-doesnt-always-love-you-back
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/black-tourist-china
I haven't looked much at academic research, but just casually looking
now I encountered
https://africansinchina.net/race-racism-in-research/
which has lots of discussion and pointers. Eg.
contemporary research regarding online constructions of identity
in China reports that there is an overriding perception that
Africans/blacks are not only economically and culturally inferior,
but also a threat to the racial purity of the Chinese nation (Shen
2009; Lan 2016; Zhang 2019, Wang 2019).
(General point of this report, with a certain degree of validity, is
that "racism" is a Western concept)
China was tremendously insular in the past but is opening up rapidly.
Social attitudes are slow to change, though.

When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.

During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian
people".

In terms of cultures, racism is pretty much universal, in one form or
another.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-23 16:36:13 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
the core.=20

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.

In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Post by Paul S Person
During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian
people".

Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity
besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to
erase.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Paul S Person

2024-03-24 15:19:41 UTC

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Watching that historical documentary /Aleksander Nevskii/ shows them
attacked from both East and West. What's not to be paranoid about?

But my point was that the "reasons", however valid, for some
particular nation's racism (and sexism etc) do not explain it. It is
much much deeper and far more universal than commonly acknowledged.

A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).

Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Scott Lurndal

2024-03-24 21:01:32 UTC

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar=20
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how =

Tatars

were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this =

was

needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity
besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the=20
outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to
erase.

Watching that historical documentary /Aleksander Nevskii/ shows them

Ahem.

There was a constant state of border wars for a thousand
years in eastern europe, which culminated in WWII. Rus
expanded and contracted throughout those years.

Assuming a soviet propaganda film is an accurate
depiction of historic Rus seems fraught.

Post by Scott Dorsey
attacked from both East and West. What's not to be paranoid about?

Eisenstein was pushing patriotism - how else but to extrapolate
from an historical episode and embellish it a bit for propoganda
purposes?

Since the Visigoths sacked Rome, everyone in europe has
invaded pretty much everyone else at some point in time
and the catholic church was usually either implicitly or
explicitly involved.

Paul S Person

2024-03-25 15:00:41 UTC

Tatars

were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this =

was

needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Watching that historical documentary /Aleksander Nevskii/ shows them

Ahem.
There was a constant state of border wars for a thousand
years in eastern europe, which culminated in WWII. Rus
expanded and contracted throughout those years.
Assuming a soviet propaganda film is an accurate
depiction of historic Rus seems fraught.

Post by Scott Dorsey
attacked from both East and West. What's not to be paranoid about?

Eisenstein was pushing patriotism - how else but to extrapolate
from an historical episode and embellish it a bit for propoganda
purposes?
Since the Visigoths sacked Rome, everyone in europe has
invaded pretty much everyone else at some point in time
and the catholic church was usually either implicitly or
explicitly involved.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Sort of, anyway.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:11:32 UTC

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
but it didn't cause it.

So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?

These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-25 20:15:35 UTC

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast
plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly
ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats
in east and west.

Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.

pt

Paul S Person

2024-03-26 15:36:10 UTC

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Indeed.

But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.

And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-26 17:30:07 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.

Russian Racism I can't speak on. Russia has a 'Manifest Destiny'
complex known as 'Russki Mir', or 'Russian World', in which it
desires to spread its Orthodox, authoritarian culture to the
rest of the world. [1]

[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.]

As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
geographical barriers.

Peter Zeihan [whom I take with more than a pinch of salt]
explains it best [2].

Moscow is now a one day drive from both Ukraine, and Latvia.
That NATO now has direct borders on Russia gives Putin the
vapors.

TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
[2]

Scott Lurndal

2024-03-26 18:03:12 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

Paul S Person

2024-03-27 15:41:29 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
White Man's Burden while settling the country.

It expanded these interests overseas once the mainland was subdued.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Scott Lurndal

2024-03-27 17:05:25 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
White Man's Burden while settling the country.

Simplistic and irrelevent.

I refer you to

John W. Foster's _A Century of American Diplomacy_.

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-28 00:00:26 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
had different notions of horsepower, also.
In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.

Indeed.
But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
do.
And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
White Man's Burden while settling the country.
It expanded these interests overseas once the mainland was subdued.

Kipling wrote 'The White Mans Burden' after the US acquired the
Philippines, to inform Americans that they had now joined the
circle of civilizing colonial powers, and that that carried a lot
of responsibilities and heartache.

Yes, WMB is racist to the core, and was recognized as such
immediately, but doesn't change Kipling's intent. Read it
sometime.

pt

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:19:58 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

You mean like vs. Spain or Mexico? Or dozens of aboriginal tribes? Or
Hawaii? (I'll grant - the US paid $$$ for French Louisiana and Alaska)
At least in terms of square mileage the US took more territory than
anybody but Russia (their main gain being Siberia) and with the
exception of the Phillipines - kept it all. (On the Phillipines, in
1941 Manila was considered the 6th biggest city in the United States
and many Americans in 1946 were shocked that the Filipinos preferred
independence to statehood)

Scott Lurndal

2024-04-02 19:02:09 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Cryptoengineer
[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
are/were guilty of similar hubris.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

Note that I specified 1895 or so. The spanish american war in 1898
changed that, and WWII (isolationism still existed up to the
first WWI).

James Nicoll

2024-03-26 18:05:35 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
geographical barriers.

Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier
solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
guarded fortress in some secret remote region.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

James Nicoll

2024-03-26 18:11:52 UTC

Post by James Nicoll

There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
deep beneath the sea.

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-26 20:03:00 UTC

Post by James Nicoll

Sounds like a good start.

pt

Mike Spencer

2024-03-28 22:10:33 UTC

Post by James Nicoll
There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
deep beneath the sea.

Sounds like a good start.

ObRASFW: Stand on Zanzibar, with plenty of room to lie down and take a
nap?

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-26 20:02:06 UTC

Post by James Nicoll

Watch the Peter Zeihan video I linked. By pushing the 'border' out to
mountain ranges, seas, deserts, and larger rivers they can greatly
ease their defense problem.

The obvious example is the Baltic States. Now part of NATO, nothing
natural stands between them and invading Moscow but a day's drive.
But if the Baltics 'belong' to Russia, as they did until 1940-1990,
the Baltic Sea makes that an very difficult invasion route.

Similarly, pushing Russian control into Poland means that the
Carpathians are on the south, and you can concentrate on
blocking the Fulda Gap.

Controlling Ukraine makes the Black Sea one of your
defenses. There are more 'gap fillers', but you get the
idea.

pt

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-27 13:19:56 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.

I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet
Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-27 17:31:12 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.

Either way he is trying to justify conquest now based on past "glory".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-28 00:05:40 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.

He's several times compared himself to Peter the Great. Externally, he
wants to push the Russian sphere of influence out at last as far as it
was in the 1980s, if not farther.

Internally, he'll do what he needs to stay in power. You need to think
of him as similar to a Mafia boss.

pt

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:56:21 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
to be stopped.

If that is true then what is Putin doing invading Ukraine?

Since as the map from Britannica shows:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible

while Ivan's Russia was a fairly big place it DIDN'T include St
Petersburg, the Baltic states, Belorus or nearly all of Ukraine.

Ahasuerus

2024-03-26 17:53:50 UTC

On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-26 20:14:07 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
version, the point remains:

Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia

lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.

Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

pt

Ahasuerus

2024-03-26 23:43:36 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity

I have now read Chapter 6 of Zeihan's 2020 book _Disunited Nations_. He

Post by Cryptoengineer
By the late 1970s, the leader of this group [he top tier of the
intelligence services], Yuri Andropov, had privately come to the
quiet conclusion that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War.
Ascending to national leadership in 1982, he and his disciples,
Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev, began an internal
debate about how to manage defeat with honor.

The notion that Chernenko, Brezhnev's confidant for over 20 years, was
Andropov's disciple is ... truly revolutionary.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
entered Berlin [April 1945].

Bold claims indeed.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

It's a curious list. Let's take "Swedish invasion of Russia
(1708–1709)". The invasion in question was actually a prolonged campaign
fought in Poland-Lithuania, the Cossack Hetmanate and Russia during the
Great Northern War (1700-1721). The Great Northern War had started in
1700 when Russia and its allies declared war on Sweden.

"Crimean War (1853–1856)". The war started in 1853 when Russia invaded a
part of what we would now call Romania, which was then under Ottoman
control. Great Britain and France came to the Ottomans' rescue and
counter-invaded Crimea, then a part of the Russian Empire.

"Japanese invasion of Sakhalin (1905)". In the early 19th century this
Pacific island was under Japanese control. Growing Russian presence in
the Far East in the middle of the 19th century resulted in a division of
the island between Russia and Japan in 1855. In 1875 Japan ceded the
whole island to Russia in exchange for territorial gains elsewhere. At
the tail end of the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), which was fought
mostly in China, victorious Japanese forces retook Sakhalin. The Treaty
of Portsmouth, which ended the war a couple of months later, awarded the
southern half of the island to Japan. Russia/the USSR invaded the
southern part of Sakhalin in August 1945 and has governed it ever since.

"Continuation War (1941–1944)". This was Finland's attempt to take
advantage of the Soviet-German war (1941-1945) and reclaim the lands
lost to the USSR in 1940 after the Winter War (1939-1940) when the
Soviet Union invaded Finland and (unsuccessfully) tried to install a
Communist government.

Paul S Person

2024-03-27 15:58:27 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity

I have now read Chapter 6 of Zeihan's 2020 book _Disunited Nations_. He

The notion that Chernenko, Brezhnev's confidant for over 20 years, was
Andropov's disciple is ... truly revolutionary.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
entered Berlin [April 1945].

OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
perspective.

In /The Last Battle/, Cornelius Ryan asks the question: Why did the
Allies not take Berlin? His answer: it would have cost [100,000] [1]
lives, and the Allies were not willing to pay the price. The Soviets
were, and it did.

[1] That's what comes to mind, but it could have been higher. Cite the
correct figure if you wish, but that won't change the point: the
Soviets were willing to lose the men, the Allies were not.

Of course, stopping at the pre-agreed line past which the Soviets
would control the territory was also a consideration.

Note that this book, along with /The Longest Day/ and /A Bridge to
Far/, were commissioned by Reader's Digest to document the events
primarily from the viewpoint of the people /not/ in charge but merely
required to be in the battle. This is why they have so many vignettes
of individual participant's experiences, although they also do cover
the overall story. /The Last Battle/ does less of this, as the sources
were mostly unavailable, being (if not dead) behind the Iron Curtain.

<interesting discussion of former wars involving Russia, if not
exactly invasions of Russia since Russian territory was not involved
in some cases>

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Scott Lurndal

2024-03-27 17:14:01 UTC

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-27 17:34:13 UTC

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

That is debatable. Lend-lease helped but even without it there is good
reason to believe the CCCP would have at least regained all their lost
territory. It just would have taken longer and a larger body count.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Lynn McGuire

2024-03-27 22:50:46 UTC

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Lynn

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-27 23:09:21 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with
them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.

That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-28 00:43:46 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with
them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.
That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.

The Soviet's also built the best ground attack aircraft of WW2. The
biggest advantage of Lend-Lease to the CCCP was in logistics. Most of
their trucks and railroad equipment was Lend-Lease.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person

2024-03-28 16:11:25 UTC

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:43:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with
them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.
That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.

The Soviet's also built the best ground attack aircraft of WW2. The
biggest advantage of Lend-Lease to the CCCP was in logistics. Most of
their trucks and railroad equipment was Lend-Lease.

It also included two other items, which were very useful:

-- rolled steel, which the Soviets turned into artillery and artillery
shells, among other things
-- Spam, which was a great source of energy for the troops and, since
each can came with its own opener, was simple and usable in any
situation

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 19:04:51 UTC

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:34:13 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Scott Lurndal
The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

While I would agree with that, it would have saved the future 'Warsaw
Pact' countries from 45 years of Soviet domination. Whether Stalin
would have reached the 1939 or 1941 Soviet boundaries is an exercise
for the alt-history types and the wargamers (I'd be included in both
those categories).

Though I personally am convinced that Russia paid too high a
"butcher's bill" during the war to still have a vibrant economy 10
years afterwards. In a 'no lend lease' war a postwar Russia / USSR
would be too weak to require an alliance like NATO to contain it.

There are too many "butterflies" to speculate on the long term effect
on modern Europe as such a Russia would not have been powerful enough
to dictate the creation of anything like NATO (militarily) or the
ancestors of the European Union (economic) particularly if the Reich
had been subdued by nuclear weaponry.

Paul S Person

2024-03-28 16:02:35 UTC

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
in the East and occupy Berlin.

But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
enough).

The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
"pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
a consequence of the Five Ps:

Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Lynn McGuire

2024-03-29 01:35:37 UTC

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
in the East and occupy Berlin.
But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
enough).
The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
"pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance

That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the
largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis
wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
retreating from Moscow.

Lynn

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-29 15:48:41 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire
That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the
largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis
wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
retreating from Moscow.

Unfortunately the long-term consequences of trying to hold ground
occupied by people that now hate you for destroying their land is
generally not good. Many eastern europeans are still upset at Russians
as much as French over them employing that same tactic during the
Napoleonic wars.

Winning battles is easier than winning wars.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Paul S Person

2024-03-29 15:53:07 UTC

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:35:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20

[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
entered Berlin [April 1945].

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
in the East and occupy Berlin.
But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
enough).
The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
"pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance

Which is the point: they may have nearly got there, but they failed.

And lend-lease had nothing to do with it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#:~:text=Lend-Lease%2C%20formally%20the%20Lend-Lease%20Act%20and%20introduced%20as,food%2C%20oil%2C%20and%20materiel%20between%201941%20and%201945.]
(which records some very negative evaluations of the Soviet war
ability without Lend-Lease, some of which may be a reaction to other
opinions that it was of little importance, mostly if not entirely from
Soviet sources) quotes David Glantz as saying, in part, that

"Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the
difference between defeat and victory in 19411942; that achievement
must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve
of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates."

He also notes that "trucks, railroad engines, and railroad cars" were
vital to the offensives the Soviet Army undertook as the war went on.

This same Poor Planning resulted in the unavailabilty of suitable
clothing for the troops when the weather turned cold -- and suitable
lubricants as well. There were, IIRC, some early battles where the
Soviets pushed in, found themselves surrounded, and pulled back out --
which was feasible because the artillery was not functioning because
the lubricants used were not up to the job because of the cold.

But, yes, their extermination campaigns were well-planned --
particularly if they wanted to encourage the creation of Partisan
units to harass them. The film /Come and See/ applies here.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-27 01:01:38 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.

And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.

Post by Cryptoengineer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Robert Woodward

2024-03-27 04:45:55 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.

Post by Cryptoengineer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
â-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Ahasuerus

2024-03-27 04:54:53 UTC

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.

Post by Cryptoengineer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916) is another
relevant episode.

Ted Nolan <tednolan>

2024-03-27 05:26:05 UTC

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ahasuerus
[snip-snip]

Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]

And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.

Post by Cryptoengineer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916) is another
relevant episode.

Well, if you count the Aleutians, then you have to count Pearl Harbor &
The Philippines.

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:41:53 UTC

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, if you count the Aleutians, then you have to count Pearl Harbor &
The Philippines.

The Japanese actually took Kiska and Attu and while the Japanese
withdrew from Kiska (the only "inhabitant" left on Kiska was the
Japanese commander's dog who was left behind by mistake and was
terrified after six weeks of bombing before the "liberation" (I put
that in quotes since Kiska had no human inhabitants when "liberated"),
it took a joint US-Canadian force to re-take Attu - and was the first
of the "island hopping" battles of 1943-45.

The Attu battle would probably be better known had the commanding
general not been killed at Okinawa - he was the highest ranking
American casualty of the Pacific theater.

I agree with you on the Philippines though many wouldn't. Many
Filipinos felt the US had "cut and run" from the Japanese in 1941-42
despite Corregidor and other such places.

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:33:55 UTC

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:45:55 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

Not to mention US attempts against Canada both in 1775 against Quebec
and 1812 (mostly what is now the area between Niagara Falls and
Toronto)

Which is how Burlington, Ontario (my late wife's hometown) became the
last place in the British empire to execute by hanging drawing and
quartering - in 1816 against 4 men (of uncertain nationality but said
to have owed allegiance to Britain) who acted for American forces on
their way from Niagara Falls to York (today known as Toronto) as
guides. It was claimed 1500-2000 British soldiers (many of whom were
local militia) died due to their actions.

Needless to say that "achievement" is not well publicized by the
Burlington tourist bureau and I got whacked by Milady when I showed
her the reference in Pierre Berton's book on the 1812-13 campaign and
his description of what happened to the guides and specifically where.
(The old Berlington city square which still exists but mostly as a
tourist trap - it's about 1 1/2 miles from her parents' home and
somewhere she knew well minus that one factoid)

Mad Hamish

2024-03-24 23:40:22 UTC

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Post by Scott Dorsey
If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems
sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
for that.
This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining
and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe?
There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted
for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a
little glaring. But it was still great.
--scott

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-25 18:18:13 UTC

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.

Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Evelyn C. Leeper

2024-03-26 03:29:39 UTC

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.
Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott

As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
if it *had* won the Hugo.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://leepers.us/evelyn, @***@mastodon.social
Musk cares about the border because "the border" is a publicly-
acceptable euphemism for white supremacy. [@***@mastodon.social]

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-27 11:47:35 UTC

Post by Evelyn C. Leeper

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.
Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott

As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
if it *had* won the Hugo.

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

pt

Tim Merrigan

2024-03-27 11:58:03 UTC

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:47:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Evelyn C. Leeper

I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.

Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for "reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.
Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott

As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
if it *had* won the Hugo.

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

Depends how far back you go in history. How about the first half of
the last half millennium.

--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Tim Illingworth

2024-03-27 21:46:50 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

Tim

Keith F. Lynch

2024-03-27 22:44:02 UTC

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.

--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-27 23:03:09 UTC

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.

The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Keith F. Lynch

2024-03-27 23:57:24 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?

--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-28 00:02:26 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?

Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of the
Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

I seem to recall that Villa had previously been a representaive of the
Mexican government but that at some point he had gone out on his own,
and I think that was before 1916 but I cannot recall precisely.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-28 00:46:30 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?

Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of the
Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
I seem to recall that Villa had previously been a representaive of the
Mexican government but that at some point he had gone out on his own,
and I think that was before 1916 but I cannot recall precisely.

I believe Villa's raid was after as part of why he did it was in an
attempt to drag the US into his conflict with the Mexican government.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Keith F. Lynch

2024-03-28 01:30:32 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.

In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?

--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Gary McGath

2024-03-28 11:14:03 UTC

Post by Keith F. Lynch
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?

The Duchy of Normandy was basically an independent state at the time,
and William was its head.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-28 22:40:08 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.

What if it's only one armed foreigner?

Post by Keith F. Lynch
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?

He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tim Merrigan

2024-03-29 18:50:10 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.

What if it's only one armed foreigner?

Post by Keith F. Lynch
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?

He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
--scott

He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.

--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-30 01:40:30 UTC

Post by Tim Merrigan

Post by Scott Dorsey
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?

Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.

What if it's only one armed foreigner?

Post by Keith F. Lynch
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?

He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.

He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.

Yes! I stand corrected!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-28 00:44:51 UTC

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person

2024-03-28 16:21:06 UTC

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.

I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.

Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?

As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.

The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-28 21:44:57 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.

I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.

With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
be barred but everyone else can be. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person

2024-03-29 15:55:09 UTC

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:44:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.

I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.

With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
be barred but everyone else can be. :P

That's not what they ruled so far -- for purely local offices, at
least.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-29 22:33:36 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:44:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.

Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.

I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.

With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
be barred but everyone else can be. :P

That's not what they ruled so far -- for purely local offices, at
least.

They're just not high enough ranked MAGA people.... :P

(Sort of like the Purge universe, you have to high enough in the
government before you are safe.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Gary McGath

2024-03-28 23:04:27 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-28 23:58:28 UTC

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

Trump wasn't opposing US foreign policy. He was opposing the counting
of electoral votes, using a violent mob, because the normal operation
of government was going to put him out of power. At very least,
that's insurrection.

I really doubt that Trump actually takes orders from Moscow, but
he does seem to admire Putin, and its possible that Putin has
kompromat on him, which bends his actions even if not given
explicit instructions.

Looking at the actual law, 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES says:

§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR
[helps enemies of the US] Shal <punishments>

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim

With that, I think you can argue that Trumps actions *might* meet the
clause before the OR. In that case, yes, he committed treason.

pt

Paul S Person

2024-03-29 16:01:13 UTC

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
official performance.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-29 22:35:07 UTC

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

Actually, any Federal employee has sworn that oath. I did both times I
worked on the decennial Census. And it is a lifetime oath.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Scott Dorsey

2024-03-30 01:39:51 UTC

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that=20
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

It worked for Klaus Fuchs.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-27 23:48:08 UTC

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.

This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group. He
usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this one look
busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and AI generated
posts.

I don't know if Keith's kill filing of me works on Endless September
but he may need to update his killfile.

pt

Gary McGath

2024-03-28 00:34:20 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group. He
usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this one look
busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and AI generated
posts.

If it's been taken over, I haven't noticed. I've set up filters to block
anything Dr. Who related, which may be overkill but works.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Keith F. Lynch

2024-03-28 01:26:22 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group.
He usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this
one look busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and
AI generated posts.

If it's been taken over, I haven't noticed. I've set up filters to
block anything Dr. Who related, which may be overkill but works.

I've been posting to rasfw intermittently for decades. But in this
thread I've been posting to rasff, and failed to notice that the
thread was being crossposted to rasfw. Peter is still in my killfile,
so I only see his posts when someone quotes them. As I've said
before, I'm willing to remove him from my killfile if he he emails
me an apology. (He's never been blocked from my email.)

The Who-related posts in rasff have mostly died down. Peter is right
about some of the Who-related posts being generated by ChatGPT, but
that was pretty universally condemned even by the Whovians.

--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-28 13:43:34 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group.
He usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this
one look busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and
AI generated posts.

If it's been taken over, I haven't noticed. I've set up filters to
block anything Dr. Who related, which may be overkill but works.

I've been posting to rasfw intermittently for decades. But in this
thread I've been posting to rasff, and failed to notice that the
thread was being crossposted to rasfw. Peter is still in my killfile,
so I only see his posts when someone quotes them. As I've said
before, I'm willing to remove him from my killfile if he he emails
me an apology. (He's never been blocked from my email.)
The Who-related posts in rasff have mostly died down. Peter is right
about some of the Who-related posts being generated by ChatGPT, but
that was pretty universally condemned even by the Whovians.

This is one of those petty fannish feuds that go on long beyond
reason. In this case, each of us feels that the other has wronged
them, and wants an apology from the other.

It simply isn't going to happen, and matters very little.

I'd rather people NOT respond this this post. There's no
reason to incite Keith to keep going on about it.

pt

Cryptoengineer

2024-03-27 23:45:20 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.

The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.

Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.

Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world

The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

pt

2024-03-28 09:54:16 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who
studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the way
they do.

I think that in order to get long lasting peace in europe, the russian
people need to go through some kind of public shaming like germany in WW2
in order to create a longing for peace and democracy.

It has to come from within, based on a collective, cultural realization
that Tsars won't build a happy country. If it is pushed from above and
outside, like after the soviet union fell, the system will fall again,
since the people haven't internalized democracy.

Another way for peace, as you say, is to break up russia and confiscate
all major weapons. Moscow and the west will probably be a european
oriented country, the rest will be factured between various small warlords
and revert to their "*stan" names.

The risk will still be though, that the moscow + west will again fall into
tyranny after a decade or two.

Best regards,
Daniel

Gary McGath

2024-03-28 11:09:11 UTC

Post by D
I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who
studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the
way they do.
I think that in order to get long lasting peace in europe, the russian
people need to go through some kind of public shaming like germany in
WW2 in order to create a longing for peace and democracy.

They came close in the nineties, but Yeltsin's government messed up so
badly that they went back to autocracy, which is all that Russia had
ever known.

Post by D
It has to come from within, based on a collective, cultural realization
that Tsars won't build a happy country. If it is pushed from above and
outside, like after the soviet union fell, the system will fall again,
since the people haven't internalized democracy.

Democracy — elected government — is just a part of something more basic.
The best word for it is liberalism, but in the USA that's unfortunately
been taken over by the advocates of heavy government in the economy.
Here I'm using it in its proper sense.

Germany had a liberal tradition to help it find its way. It was weirdly
mixed with strong monarchs, religious violence, and antisemitism, but it
was there. Frederick the Great was an "enlightened absolutist" — a
powerful oxymoron which I have an article on that should show up on
libertyfund.org later today. It was based on a somewhat Hobbesian notion
that a nation needs an absolute ruler, but the ruler is supposed to act
for everyone's good. Frederick enacted some reforms, as did Joseph II of
the Holy Roman Empire.

Russia also had an "enlightened absolutist," Catherine the Great, but
her "enlightenment" consisted mostly of promoting culture and not of
giving anyone more freedom. The Russian Revolution traded one set of
czars for another, the main difference being that the new ones were even
more expansionist.

Post by D
Another way for peace, as you say, is to break up russia and confiscate
all major weapons. Moscow and the west will probably be a european
oriented country, the rest will be factured between various small
warlords and revert to their "*stan" names.
The risk will still be though, that the moscow + west will again fall
into tyranny after a decade or two.

Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up nuclear
weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of international and
logistical issues, and someone might decide to launch them rather than
give them up. They're probably already poorly maintained and unreliable,
but that could just mean that instead of blowing up their intended
target, they'll blow up somebody else.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Chris Buckley

2024-03-28 13:00:38 UTC

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

obSF: _The Moon Goddess and the Sun_, Kingsbury was a 1986 novel that
as one thread had an immersive virtual reality "game" used for
Americans to understand this "deeply rooted paranoia of Russia" and
the related addiction to strong-man dictatorships.

The novel was actually a very good collection of ideas for the time, a
Favorite bookcase book, that failed as a novel, IMO, due to its
lack of coherence. It was an expansion of an earlier Hugo nominated
novella and added more neat ideas but lost its plot focus.

Kingsbury didn't write much but he had nice fresh ideas.

Chris

Ted Nolan <tednolan>

2024-03-28 13:51:39 UTC

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

obSF: _The Moon Goddess and the Sun_, Kingsbury was a 1986 novel that
as one thread had an immersive virtual reality "game" used for
Americans to understand this "deeply rooted paranoia of Russia" and
the related addiction to strong-man dictatorships.
The novel was actually a very good collection of ideas for the time, a
Favorite bookcase book, that failed as a novel, IMO, due to its
lack of coherence. It was an expansion of an earlier Hugo nominated
novella and added more neat ideas but lost its plot focus.
Kingsbury didn't write much but he had nice fresh ideas.
Chris

This might be the Finnish briefing from above; I found it very interesting:

https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/

I think Kingsbury's _Courtship Rite_ is a great book, but it seems to be
almost forgotten now.

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

2024-03-28 14:22:15 UTC

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.

obSF: _The Moon Goddess and the Sun_, Kingsbury was a 1986 novel that
as one thread had an immersive virtual reality "game" used for
Americans to understand this "deeply rooted paranoia of Russia" and
the related addiction to strong-man dictatorships.
The novel was actually a very good collection of ideas for the time, a
Favorite bookcase book, that failed as a novel, IMO, due to its
lack of coherence. It was an expansion of an earlier Hugo nominated
novella and added more neat ideas but lost its plot focus.
Kingsbury didn't write much but he had nice fresh ideas.
Chris

https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/
I think Kingsbury's _Courtship Rite_ is a great book, but it seems to be
almost forgotten now.

Yes, looks like the one, although I watched a recorded presentation on
youtube, but the man and the content matches.

Mike Spencer

2024-03-28 22:04:52 UTC

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/

Thak you for that!

From the article:

Russia has the word "krugovaya poruka" or gang guarantee. It
means that when we have some set of people with a common
goal. Be it the Kremlin leadership or the Russian armed forces
or whatever. We have a common goal so I step out of the circle
and lie to an outsider. My gang hears that I lie but they don't
judge me as a liar because they understand that I am using
tactical truth (vranjo) to achieve the greater goals of our
gang. The use of tactical truth, or a lie, is accepted if it is
done for the benefit of the in-group. Just like you can steal
when you don't steal too much or from the wrong guy. You also
get to lie if you lie for the sake of the gang.

It's a form of doublethink, as Orwell showed in 1984. At the
kitchen table, different things are said than outside the
home. Everyone understands that Bob speaks very differently
around the kitchen table than he does in public. Everyone
understands why he does so. The in-group creates their own
story.

The across-the-party adoption of this principle by the GOP and TFG's
enablers, most of whom know they're lying and speak differently at the
kitchen table, apparently hope and promise to bring Russian-style
chaos, corruption and autocracy to the USA. Somehow, evangelical
Christians seem to have been especially susceptible to being entrained
is this maneuver to power contrary to generations of evangelical
religious principles.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Paul S Person

2024-03-28 16:14:35 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.

And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Dimensional Traveler

2024-03-28 21:45:43 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.

"Topic Drift". :)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Gary McGath

2024-03-28 23:07:56 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.

And now you're treating getting the month wrong as being "fanatically
insistent."

*plonk*

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Paul S Person

2024-03-29 16:05:05 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt

December 1814 not count?

As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.

And now you're treating getting the month wrong as being "fanatically
insistent."

When did I say getting the month wrong mattered? Why /would/ it
matter? Either this is a "nigglened edge case" independent of the War
of 1812, or it is /part/ of the War of 1812, in which case it is not a
separate example from the War of 1812.

Nice try at a save, though. Just continue on with your fanaticism.

Post by Gary McGath
*plonk*

I felt nothing. Sorry 'bout that.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

The Horny Goat

2024-04-02 18:50:57 UTC