The high beer consumption probably is a result of German colonial influence. Like 5% of the population is still ethnically German, descending from a small cohort of 2,500 German settlers from the very brief period when it was the Imperial German South West Africa colony. Another 5% are Boers and a tiny few Englishmen. Namibia (then South West Africa, a protectorate of South Africa) was once the whitest country in Africa, beating out South Africa by a few percentage points.
Even among the blacks, there's still a sizable German cultural presence. German is a business language there, they have German-language newspapers, and they drink a lot of beer. They notably have a local politician in some town named Adolf Hitler, who got that name just because his parents wanted to name their son after a famous and powerful German.
I may be wrong on this, but there is generally a lot of western misunderstanding of eastern European archaeology, where too many things are chalked down to "they must have not done this because there isn't enough of an archaeological record of it." But eastern Europeans, especially East Slavs and Russia in particular, made more constructions out of wood and less often out of stone. There's an awful lot of wood to go around, and a lot of space to cover, making prolific stone construction a costly endeavor. There's even a misconception that Russians outright forgot how to build things out of stone after the Mongol conquests. This isn't true, sometimes they did build buildings out of stone, but you're far likely to see less evidence for hill forts or churches in medieval Russia because they were built out of wood and not stone, and their evidence has all rotted away. Actual Christianization numbers would be worth looking into, but I have a hard time believing that Russia was barely Christianized until the 1500s. It simply plays too critical a role in the Russian state and society for them to have completely ignored the peasantry in such a rural and diffuse land as Russia.
The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth honestly sounds more like a Nietzschien society than the second or third reichs. No wonder Nietzsche larped as a Pole
albanians are mostly catholic and even amongst the muslim part i’ve heard there’s a significant shia population. But to be honest i don’t think they’re even religious especially with that hoxha guy or whatever his name was lol
Jk but Belarusians are more northerly than Ukrainians and have significant Baltic admixture, sometimes upwards of 50%, especially in the Vitebsk Oblast. Ukraine is more genetically diverse due to being ran through by invasions from the steppe while Belarus was protected by the Lithuanians and also has a natural barrier since it sits on the Polesian swamplands. Ukraine also sits on the Black Sea so Black Sea Ukrainians and those bordering Moldova have everything from Balkan and Caspian admixture to Greek and Turkish admixture. Belarus is the true home of the Slavs mang.
I can believe the Baltic thing since historically Lithuanian tribes stretched far into Belarus, but Ukrainians have pretty much no influence from the various peoples who lived there prior to the Slavs and it’s kind of surprising. You’d think they’d have Tatar DNA considering how recently it was controlled by Tatars.
Ukrainians in southwest do maybe have balkan influence
did tatars not dilute their own blood with that massive slave trade of theirs anyways? i’m pretty sure the richest dude in ukraine currently is a blond tatar, and i remember reading something about many tatars being assimilated goths but i’m not sure
Coastal Tatars are pretty much just Greco-Circasso-Goths, meanwhile "Stepnyaks" are actually more East Asian than Volga Tatars, I believe over 30% East Asian
Although it's negligible East Asian ancestry, the maps I've seen show that it is elevated in Ukraine as compared to Belarus. But I mean most of the Tatar ancestry that Ruthenians would have received would have been from intermarriage with the Tatar Schlachta which got its start when Tatars were invited to settle in Ruthenia under Knyaz Vitaut in exchange for serving as his light cavalry. I can imagine something similar happening on the steppelands of Ukraine. Cossacks most definitely had Tatars amongst their ranks.
Excellent article, and yeah Poland dick-riding the G.A.E. is real old. I sometimes fantasize about a timeline where the Soviets collapsed and Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltics, Czechs & Slovaks, and maybe Hungary form an Intermarrium/Federation of some sorts. Each nation would remain independent of each other except they would train militarily together and they would pull their economic strength together. They also wouldn't join the EU. Maybe NATO, if it still exists in this timeline. Anyways, Peace
Comes with the territory, I am afraid, as not a superpower, it tends to come quite often at "think of the children".
That being said, this was decided in the 90's and how many Americans or Westerners knew how gay the GAE could be? The Post-Soviet/Pact states of course knew even less, and were inclined to trust the West. At this point, there is a degree where we have to be loyal to the devil of our choice - because it's still about being able to beat Russia. That is always step one, it seems, and the Republics of the Versailles system were foolish to think otherwise.
Plus even for countries that had had aristorcracies in the first place, the new elite came from three places - ex-communist turn coats, who were eminently buyable, independence activists, who were naive and not very competent and exiles, who were, more often than oat, literally coastal elites, creatures of the Managerial University system.
Not a recipe for success, but I think there is still a chance. The legacy of the Union, for all the deep scars has left us with several things that have succesfully remained beyond the corruption in the west (Latvia, for example, has a pretty based Mainline Church).
You do have a point. The American Empire wasn't as G.A.E. as now, so it makes sense why Poland, The Baltics, and Hungary trusted the West for protection from any resurgent Russia. Like I said, it's just a fantasy I have, it never would've happened. Peace
Being in the EU comes with perks. If Belarus and Ukraine got their shit together and joined the EU then there could be a more conservative Eastern European block within the EU that doesn't give in to social engineering policies pushed by France and Germany in Brussels.
While the Szlachta might have been philosemitic (which I imagine was due to their indifference and wanting to avoid religious conflicts), the majority of the population was not as could be seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.
I don't think that allying with Germany would have worked out well for Poles in the long run, as far as I know the deal Hitler presented only extended the guarantee of peace by 25 years. It's very likely that after dealing with the Soviets Adolf or his succesors would have eliminated Poland or effectively neutralised it.
Concering Danzig I have to say that Hitler's idea of uniting all people of one ethnicity under their own state lies close to my heart, and when looking at history from an objective perspective his demands were probably justified, though on the other hand the German majority only existed there beacuse they were allowed to become a majority by Slavic rulers before modern nation states were a thing. Geopolitics is essentially "might makes right".. Maybe if we had a wholesome united neo-feudal Europe such issues would not exist. Good article, many harsh truths
I think allying with Germany was the best possible option to keep from being sandwiched and also not living under USSR for half a century. I think Hitler was genuine in his goodwill towards Poland, this is a problem looking back but still, Poles would probably just be a lower working class like they are now.
The Reich would have lasted longer than the USSR. Good for them but it means that Poles would have stayed a lower caste for possibly centuries instead of having a chance to achieve something after the USSR fell. Yeah nigga I'm Polish but I'm like Aryan from the Baltic and shit. They conscripted one of my great uncles into Wehrmaht and gave his ass a medal but I don't know if it was after 1943 when they needed manpower.
You are very rare, most of your people I’ve met usually stop any sort of productive discourse as soon as they figure out where I’m from, even when I am incredibly friendly to start. Very cool ancestry, regardless of the past Germany and Poland will hopefully work together in the future like they should have done prior.
Thanks. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a self-hating latinx, but many Poles do act sort of negroidal. I believe that it's due to socio-economic factors, unironically in this case. The war forms a huge part of our national identity but outside the internet it's usually the boomers who are the most adamant we wuzzers, young guys I know laugh at the more ridiculous ww2 sob stories we are presented, while retaining national pride. On the internet, well, I have a theory that ESLs on "deep" english websites will be somewhat unhinged, beacuse you have to put in more effort to end up here. It works like a filter. Though this is far from a complete explanation.
I hate European Polacks, trying to talk to them is a pointless endeavor and to date they are the only European people to steal from me multiple times, I wish we had been as genocidal as they claim we were back in the 40’s. I like to take a mostly ahistorical approach to people but it really cannot be done with Poles, they never let it slide.
Hey sect, you think you can do like a mini master post on BAP. Just a brief over view of who he is, what his ideals are generally displayed as, also your own opinion on him. I think that’d be interesting
1., the Eastern European warfare was much more mobile, than the western one.
2., There was a lack of natural barriers, there were no real chokepoints to build a fortress.
3.,In Hungary, it was actually the mongol invasion which marked the start of large scale stone castles. So we can surmise from this, that it wasn't that common before that either in the further eastern parts.
4., The mongols actually had no problem taking stone castles, they did take much better fortified places in the east and even the Khwarezmian empire. Their reach was much more limited by the geography. The hungarians beat the returning mongols multiple times basically without battles. Blockings, constant harassment and small unit tactics(not giving up turf) which worked against them.
4., Russia for these reasons employed the abatis, which is like a long fortified ditch/berm, whatever you want to call it with outposts and other strongpoints (cities/towns).
5.,While not necessarily for the lack of stone, these were obviously made from wood. It had to be scalable and quickly rebuilt. It's objective was not protecting against a tatar/mongol army(although it was capable stopping smaller raids) rather it was warning and delaying action.
5. As basically these were overrun every time and the mongols were more than capable to destroy stone castles, it was logical that these were built out of wood. They were not planned for longevity. Things were always much more temporary in the east.
Just because the Mongols were capable of taking castles doesn’t mean they had no problems with them. Korea was heavily castled in a similar vein to Western Europe, and it took the Mongols several invasions to conquer Korea. It would have been harder in Europe because every castle came with its own tiny state. There was simply so much stuff that had to be besieged, so far from the imperial core. Eastern Europe was less castled and more open, while castles in Western Europe often took advantage of the more hilly terrain. Upper and Middle Germany for example has far more castles than Lower Germany
Yes...but the two is connected. Korea too is mostly a mountainous country and Western Europe's landscape is for one part dissected, limiting the manoveur capabilities and has a lot of chokepoints, hence the castles. You can't build castles just everywhere...well, you can...but capabilities are limited.
(I was trying to reply Wolliver but oh...nevermind. Still, great post, keep up the good work.)
> The Spaniards granted minor nobility to entire provinces in the North out of the presupposition that such places did not have blood tainted by the Muslims and Jews.
one of the great ironies of history being that people from Galicia have the highest north african ancestry of any other region in iberia
really? this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w) says its highest among galicians and the portuguese , im a little confused on the genetic history though. I remember seeing autosomal results of some Andalusians from some town in spain and the results were around 10-30% north african but many of the people commented on how the north african admixture is from the roman era not the muslim era which contradicts what this paper says since it suggests they may have come in between 863-1138 (probably the latter stage with all the berber invasions following the collapse of the umayyads)
Yes, I feel like I didn’t really talk enough here about how important the story of the Russian knights against the Tatar and Mongol are to old Russian identity.
We Namibians are white
The high beer consumption probably is a result of German colonial influence. Like 5% of the population is still ethnically German, descending from a small cohort of 2,500 German settlers from the very brief period when it was the Imperial German South West Africa colony. Another 5% are Boers and a tiny few Englishmen. Namibia (then South West Africa, a protectorate of South Africa) was once the whitest country in Africa, beating out South Africa by a few percentage points.
Even among the blacks, there's still a sizable German cultural presence. German is a business language there, they have German-language newspapers, and they drink a lot of beer. They notably have a local politician in some town named Adolf Hitler, who got that name just because his parents wanted to name their son after a famous and powerful German.
U black? Black???
I may be wrong on this, but there is generally a lot of western misunderstanding of eastern European archaeology, where too many things are chalked down to "they must have not done this because there isn't enough of an archaeological record of it." But eastern Europeans, especially East Slavs and Russia in particular, made more constructions out of wood and less often out of stone. There's an awful lot of wood to go around, and a lot of space to cover, making prolific stone construction a costly endeavor. There's even a misconception that Russians outright forgot how to build things out of stone after the Mongol conquests. This isn't true, sometimes they did build buildings out of stone, but you're far likely to see less evidence for hill forts or churches in medieval Russia because they were built out of wood and not stone, and their evidence has all rotted away. Actual Christianization numbers would be worth looking into, but I have a hard time believing that Russia was barely Christianized until the 1500s. It simply plays too critical a role in the Russian state and society for them to have completely ignored the peasantry in such a rural and diffuse land as Russia.
That’s a good point
The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth honestly sounds more like a Nietzschien society than the second or third reichs. No wonder Nietzsche larped as a Pole
Albanians are also mostly Muslim if I’m not mistaken. But yeah, they basically act like Mexicans.
albanians are mostly catholic and even amongst the muslim part i’ve heard there’s a significant shia population. But to be honest i don’t think they’re even religious especially with that hoxha guy or whatever his name was lol
wanted to make a correction, it turns out muslims are the plurality in albania and sufis not shias are the significant minority among them
Half the essay is about the Baltic origin of the Slavs and the Ruthenian Slachta, but Belarus isn't mentioned even once.
Belarusians are Ruthenian. Ukrainians and Belarusians both descend from Ruthenians
Jk but Belarusians are more northerly than Ukrainians and have significant Baltic admixture, sometimes upwards of 50%, especially in the Vitebsk Oblast. Ukraine is more genetically diverse due to being ran through by invasions from the steppe while Belarus was protected by the Lithuanians and also has a natural barrier since it sits on the Polesian swamplands. Ukraine also sits on the Black Sea so Black Sea Ukrainians and those bordering Moldova have everything from Balkan and Caspian admixture to Greek and Turkish admixture. Belarus is the true home of the Slavs mang.
I can believe the Baltic thing since historically Lithuanian tribes stretched far into Belarus, but Ukrainians have pretty much no influence from the various peoples who lived there prior to the Slavs and it’s kind of surprising. You’d think they’d have Tatar DNA considering how recently it was controlled by Tatars.
Ukrainians in southwest do maybe have balkan influence
did tatars not dilute their own blood with that massive slave trade of theirs anyways? i’m pretty sure the richest dude in ukraine currently is a blond tatar, and i remember reading something about many tatars being assimilated goths but i’m not sure
Coastal Tatars are pretty much just Greco-Circasso-Goths, meanwhile "Stepnyaks" are actually more East Asian than Volga Tatars, I believe over 30% East Asian
Although it's negligible East Asian ancestry, the maps I've seen show that it is elevated in Ukraine as compared to Belarus. But I mean most of the Tatar ancestry that Ruthenians would have received would have been from intermarriage with the Tatar Schlachta which got its start when Tatars were invited to settle in Ruthenia under Knyaz Vitaut in exchange for serving as his light cavalry. I can imagine something similar happening on the steppelands of Ukraine. Cossacks most definitely had Tatars amongst their ranks.
There are a sizeable amount of Lipka Tatars that resided in Belarus albeit
>:[ Belarus is special.
Excellent article, and yeah Poland dick-riding the G.A.E. is real old. I sometimes fantasize about a timeline where the Soviets collapsed and Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltics, Czechs & Slovaks, and maybe Hungary form an Intermarrium/Federation of some sorts. Each nation would remain independent of each other except they would train militarily together and they would pull their economic strength together. They also wouldn't join the EU. Maybe NATO, if it still exists in this timeline. Anyways, Peace
Comes with the territory, I am afraid, as not a superpower, it tends to come quite often at "think of the children".
That being said, this was decided in the 90's and how many Americans or Westerners knew how gay the GAE could be? The Post-Soviet/Pact states of course knew even less, and were inclined to trust the West. At this point, there is a degree where we have to be loyal to the devil of our choice - because it's still about being able to beat Russia. That is always step one, it seems, and the Republics of the Versailles system were foolish to think otherwise.
Plus even for countries that had had aristorcracies in the first place, the new elite came from three places - ex-communist turn coats, who were eminently buyable, independence activists, who were naive and not very competent and exiles, who were, more often than oat, literally coastal elites, creatures of the Managerial University system.
Not a recipe for success, but I think there is still a chance. The legacy of the Union, for all the deep scars has left us with several things that have succesfully remained beyond the corruption in the west (Latvia, for example, has a pretty based Mainline Church).
You do have a point. The American Empire wasn't as G.A.E. as now, so it makes sense why Poland, The Baltics, and Hungary trusted the West for protection from any resurgent Russia. Like I said, it's just a fantasy I have, it never would've happened. Peace
Being in the EU comes with perks. If Belarus and Ukraine got their shit together and joined the EU then there could be a more conservative Eastern European block within the EU that doesn't give in to social engineering policies pushed by France and Germany in Brussels.
Fair enough. Makes sense. Peace
While the Szlachta might have been philosemitic (which I imagine was due to their indifference and wanting to avoid religious conflicts), the majority of the population was not as could be seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.
I don't think that allying with Germany would have worked out well for Poles in the long run, as far as I know the deal Hitler presented only extended the guarantee of peace by 25 years. It's very likely that after dealing with the Soviets Adolf or his succesors would have eliminated Poland or effectively neutralised it.
Concering Danzig I have to say that Hitler's idea of uniting all people of one ethnicity under their own state lies close to my heart, and when looking at history from an objective perspective his demands were probably justified, though on the other hand the German majority only existed there beacuse they were allowed to become a majority by Slavic rulers before modern nation states were a thing. Geopolitics is essentially "might makes right".. Maybe if we had a wholesome united neo-feudal Europe such issues would not exist. Good article, many harsh truths
I think allying with Germany was the best possible option to keep from being sandwiched and also not living under USSR for half a century. I think Hitler was genuine in his goodwill towards Poland, this is a problem looking back but still, Poles would probably just be a lower working class like they are now.
The Reich would have lasted longer than the USSR. Good for them but it means that Poles would have stayed a lower caste for possibly centuries instead of having a chance to achieve something after the USSR fell. Yeah nigga I'm Polish but I'm like Aryan from the Baltic and shit. They conscripted one of my great uncles into Wehrmaht and gave his ass a medal but I don't know if it was after 1943 when they needed manpower.
You are very rare, most of your people I’ve met usually stop any sort of productive discourse as soon as they figure out where I’m from, even when I am incredibly friendly to start. Very cool ancestry, regardless of the past Germany and Poland will hopefully work together in the future like they should have done prior.
Thanks. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a self-hating latinx, but many Poles do act sort of negroidal. I believe that it's due to socio-economic factors, unironically in this case. The war forms a huge part of our national identity but outside the internet it's usually the boomers who are the most adamant we wuzzers, young guys I know laugh at the more ridiculous ww2 sob stories we are presented, while retaining national pride. On the internet, well, I have a theory that ESLs on "deep" english websites will be somewhat unhinged, beacuse you have to put in more effort to end up here. It works like a filter. Though this is far from a complete explanation.
Woah Poles are Slavs?
Very informative article. Shame what happened to the Albanians, their language is pretty cool.
So what am I supposed to take away from this (I'm 25% Polish, and 25% Slovakian)?
Not sure
If you go to soft drink fountain and get a spurt of every drink in your cup and spit in it the 25% Polish will vanish from yuor DNA
I hate European Polacks, trying to talk to them is a pointless endeavor and to date they are the only European people to steal from me multiple times, I wish we had been as genocidal as they claim we were back in the 40’s. I like to take a mostly ahistorical approach to people but it really cannot be done with Poles, they never let it slide.
i once made a meme and a montonegran stole it off of me and put his own watermark on it , shit made me hate their kind
They’re usually really annoying on imageboards
And u can go fuck your pussy in England
Eh ?
Hey sect, you think you can do like a mini master post on BAP. Just a brief over view of who he is, what his ideals are generally displayed as, also your own opinion on him. I think that’d be interesting
I couldn’t really do it justice as I only have listened to his podcast, I’ve never read BAP book
-Poland invented multi-polar Duginist Eurasianism
-Poland invented anti-Slavic racism and taught the Nazis to be racist
-Naziism is "land back" indigenous rights for aboriginals
-Russia was going to be the biggest economy in the world if not for those meddling Bolsheviks
Three truths and a lie... Highly entertaining.
It probably didn't help that,
1., the Eastern European warfare was much more mobile, than the western one.
2., There was a lack of natural barriers, there were no real chokepoints to build a fortress.
3.,In Hungary, it was actually the mongol invasion which marked the start of large scale stone castles. So we can surmise from this, that it wasn't that common before that either in the further eastern parts.
4., The mongols actually had no problem taking stone castles, they did take much better fortified places in the east and even the Khwarezmian empire. Their reach was much more limited by the geography. The hungarians beat the returning mongols multiple times basically without battles. Blockings, constant harassment and small unit tactics(not giving up turf) which worked against them.
4., Russia for these reasons employed the abatis, which is like a long fortified ditch/berm, whatever you want to call it with outposts and other strongpoints (cities/towns).
5.,While not necessarily for the lack of stone, these were obviously made from wood. It had to be scalable and quickly rebuilt. It's objective was not protecting against a tatar/mongol army(although it was capable stopping smaller raids) rather it was warning and delaying action.
5. As basically these were overrun every time and the mongols were more than capable to destroy stone castles, it was logical that these were built out of wood. They were not planned for longevity. Things were always much more temporary in the east.
Just because the Mongols were capable of taking castles doesn’t mean they had no problems with them. Korea was heavily castled in a similar vein to Western Europe, and it took the Mongols several invasions to conquer Korea. It would have been harder in Europe because every castle came with its own tiny state. There was simply so much stuff that had to be besieged, so far from the imperial core. Eastern Europe was less castled and more open, while castles in Western Europe often took advantage of the more hilly terrain. Upper and Middle Germany for example has far more castles than Lower Germany
Yes...but the two is connected. Korea too is mostly a mountainous country and Western Europe's landscape is for one part dissected, limiting the manoveur capabilities and has a lot of chokepoints, hence the castles. You can't build castles just everywhere...well, you can...but capabilities are limited.
(I was trying to reply Wolliver but oh...nevermind. Still, great post, keep up the good work.)
Ahh, I see, I was kind of confused what this was replying to
> The Spaniards granted minor nobility to entire provinces in the North out of the presupposition that such places did not have blood tainted by the Muslims and Jews.
one of the great ironies of history being that people from Galicia have the highest north african ancestry of any other region in iberia
So fucking blackpill. Fuuuck
really? this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w) says its highest among galicians and the portuguese , im a little confused on the genetic history though. I remember seeing autosomal results of some Andalusians from some town in spain and the results were around 10-30% north african but many of the people commented on how the north african admixture is from the roman era not the muslim era which contradicts what this paper says since it suggests they may have come in between 863-1138 (probably the latter stage with all the berber invasions following the collapse of the umayyads)
wait i may have misunderstood your reply
ist es vorbei
Yes, I feel like I didn’t really talk enough here about how important the story of the Russian knights against the Tatar and Mongol are to old Russian identity.