Home / Robert Farley / The Cubs Must Not Win (II)

The Cubs Must Not Win (II)

Comments
/
/
/
347 Views

When last the Cubs won the World Series, the Romanovs ruled Russia.

The Romanovs seem to have emerged, along with a number of other important Russian families, from a minor 14th century noble named Andrei Kobyla. The Romanov branch of this large family came to prominence in the mid-16th century, when Anastasia Zakharyina married Ivan the Terrible. The marriage produced two sons, Ivan and Fyodor, who by tradition were considered part of the ruling Rurik dynasty. In 1581, twenty-one years after his wife’s death, Ivan the Terrible beat his daughter-in-law into a miscarriage, angering her husband Ivan. Ivan the Terrible then proceeded to (accidentally) beat his son to death as well. This left only Fyodor, the Fredo of the late Rurik dynasty, to ascend to the throne upon his father’s death. Fyodor’s relatively short and indifferent reign produced no heirs, but did see brutal competition between the Romanov and Gudonov families over succession to the throne. The Gudonovs, a family of Tatar origin, won the first round, and Boris became Tsar upon the death of Fyodor in 1598. The Romanovs were either murdered or dispatched to Siberia.

Seven years later Boris I died, leaving the throne to his sixteen year old son Fyodor II. Fyodor II was promptly murdered and replaced by Dmitri, who claimed to be the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. After several years, plenty of blood, and much confusion, the young Mikhail Romanov was elected Tsar by a national assembly of nobles. Only seventeen at the time, Mikhail was a weak leader, but he managed two things that helped set the course of Russian history; he survived on the throne for 32 years, and produced a viable heir. Mikhail’s grandson, Peter I, came to be known as Peter the Great for his expansion of Russia’s borders and his modernization of the Russian state.

Unfortunately, the dynastic situation remained complicated. None of Peter’s sons survived to succeed him (in shades of Ivan the Terrible, he had one of his sons murdered by torture), so he installed his wife, Catherine, on the throne before his death. Catherine, a Latvian peasant, was herself succeeded by Peter I’s grandson, Peter II. The Romanovs would have done well to learn the lesson of the French Capetians (who were remarkable in assuring the production and survival of male heirs), as Peter II died of smallpox two years into his reign. A couple more Romanovs down the line, Elizabeth, daughter of Catherine and Peter the Great, ascended to the throne. Elizabeth steered Russia through the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War before dying in 1762. She was followed by Peter III, another grandson of Peter I. Peter III married a woman who was far smarter, more ruthless, and more capable than himself. This arrangement works out well sometimes, but not for Peter; his wife (probably) had him assassinated several months after he ascended to the throne.

Catherine II was a princess in a minor German noble family. Originally a Lutheran, she joined the Russian Orthodox Church shortly before marrying Peter III. Catherine’s 34 year reign would later be recognized as a golden age for Russia; in addition to further expanding Russia’s borders and consolidating the Russia state, Catherine proved a great patron of the arts. She claimed that her son, Paul, was the produce not of her marriage with Peter but rather of one of her many extra-marital liasons. This claim remains in doubt, as consequently does the relationship between the later Romanovs and Peter the Great. Paul succeeded his mother in 1796, and was assassinated in 1801. Under the leadership of Paul’s son, Alexander I, Russia survived the 1812 French invasion, and its armies later marched across Europe to put a bullet in the head of the zombie that the French Revolution had become. Although a liberal early in his reign, Alexander moved right as he grew older, and was replaced by his even more conservative brother Nicholas I. Nicholas I helped, in his own way, to undo the efforts of Peter and Catherine to remake Russia on a European mold. He was succeeded by the liberal Alexander II, who was succeeded upon the latter’s assassination by the conservative Alexander III.

It’s important to keep in mind that, throughout all of this, Russia probably had the least well-developed political institutions in Europe (and that didn’t compare particularly favorably with those of the Ottoman, Chinese, or Japanese empires). Unlike in most other countries, there was only a very limited cushion between the preferences of the Tsar and government policy. This is not to say that the Tsar’s could do anything they wanted; not even the absolute monarchs are absolute, as the state always has to compete with other societal groups. This is especially important to note in Russia, which due to size and institutional weakness has always been difficult to govern. But in terms of institutionalized means of insulating government from the preferences of the leader, Russia lagged.

In any case, on November 1, 1894, the 26 year old Nicholas Romanov succeeded to the title of Tsar Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians, King of Poland, and Grand Duke of Finland. He reign would not be pleasant. Under his watch Russia was defeated and most of its fleet destroyed in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, which helped bring about the Revolution of 1905. Nicholas II survived the Revolution but was forced to create the Duma, a basic representative institution, and to issue several proclamations guaranteeing certain rights for subjects. In 1914 Russia became involved in the Great War, winning substantial early victories in Galicia against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but suffering a catastrophic defeat against the Germans at Tannenberg. The war overtaxed the capabilities of the Russian state, and helped both create and empower a group of revolutionaries who were, if anything, more bloodthirsty than the autocrats they sought to replace. Nicholas II’s wife also became enamoured of a monk named Grigori Rasputin, who appeared to display remarkable abilities for treating Alexei, the hemophiliac heir to the throne.

In early 1917 the rubber hit the road, and the Tsarist state collapsed into revolution. On March 15 (Gregorian calendar) Nicholas abdicated in favor of his brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail. Mikhail did not take the throne, however, and seven days later Nicholas and his family were arrested. In October the Bolsheviks seized power, and the situation of Nicholas and his family began to deteriorate. In March the family was dispatched to Yekaterinburg. On July 17 a forty year old Bolshevik named Yakov Yurovsky led a Cheka squad to the house in which the Romanovs were imprisoned. Yurovsky personally executed Nicholas, his son Alexis, and his daughter Tatiana, while the rest of the squad finished off the remainder of the royal family. Some people say Nicholas II got a bad break, but I consider him the luckiest deposed monarch on the face of the earth. Were I the last tyrant of a brutally oppressive, yet majestically opulent dynasty, I would rather be massacred with my entire family by revolutionary sociopaths than waste away in decades of exile. We remember Nicholas II and Louis XVI for a reason; who remembers how or when Kaiser Wilhelm II died?

Grand Duke Mikhail had been murdered a month earlier, leaving the succession in doubt. Over time, surviving elements of the family gathered around Cyril Vladimirovich, a cousin of Nicholas’ who had fled to France after the October Revolution. In 1938 the claim passed to Vladimir Cyrilovich, who held it until 1992. In 1969 Vladimir designated his daughter Maria as official heir. However, for various complicated reasons this succession is contested by another branch of the Romanov family, one that recognizes Nicholas Romanov as the legitimate heir. The issues differentiating the two are too complicated to discuss in this space; in a bygone age one would simply have had the other imprisoned or killed. Prospects for a return to the throne appear grim. Although the collapse of the Bolshevik regime opened space for the mobilization of public opinion for the restoration of the monarchy, this mobilization never manifested. The Romanovs remain relatively unpopular in Russia in spite of the measured support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Unless Vladimir Putin somehow manages to have himself declared a Romanov, it is unlikely that the family will return to the throne anytime soon.

Trivia: What dynasty went from being the target of one Crusade to being a participant in another in two generations?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Captain Oblivious

    Here’s how this goes down:

    Cubs lose 1st game to the Racist Logo’s only real, healthy starter.

    Cubs win games 2 and 3.

    Cubs lose 4th game to the Racist Logo’s only real, healthy starter.

    Cubs win game 5 and 6.

    Romanovs are still out of power.

    • cpinva

      “Cubs lose 1st game to the Racist Logo’s only real, healthy starter.”

      is Cleveland still using that obnoxious, offensive logo? I thought they’d long since gotten rid of that. at least the DC professional football club never (since I’ve been aware anyway), ever had a logo as disgusting as Cleveland’s. the logo was a source of pride in the native American warrior tradition, which the team was expected to try and emulate.

      again though, if the Boston Braves baseball team had been the Boston Sharks, I’d now be rooting for the Washington Barracudas.

    • Ahenobarbus

      Change 4th game to 5th and you may be right.

      • Captain Oblivious

        Last I heard, Klubar was pitching, 1, 4, and 7.

  • tsam

    I saw Anastasia at Walmart. THIS ISN’T OVER, COMMIES.

    • junker

      My last name autocorrects by default into Anastasia, so I get a lot of emails from students that start with Professor Anastasia.

      • tsam

        Well that ain’t so bad

      • LeeEsq

        Grand Duchess of all Academia.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      was she looking for a Stones Greatest Hits CD?

      • tsam

        TOO SOON

    • (((Malaclypse)))

      WITH THE ENTRAILS OF THE LAST PRIEST!

    • cpinva

      “I saw Anastasia at Walmart. THIS ISN’T OVER, COMMIES.”

      the monarchies which have survived to the present day are (I do believe) all constitutional monarchies, not Divine-Right ones. the Duma was too little, and way too fucking late. those surviving monarchies also at least give the appearance of actually caring about the welfare of their subjects. the Romanovs couldn’t even muster that little bit of theatre. add to all that the wholly disastrous Russian wwI experience, and the only real surprise is that Nicholas lasted as long as he did.

      I always felt bad about the children, their only “crime” was having been born into the wrong family, at the wrong time. on the other hand, I also understand why they were murdered as well: it wouldn’t do to have living claimants to the throne walking around free (see: Grey, Lady Jane). in the words of Queen Elizabeth, first of her name, “it will confuse the people, my dear.”

      so yeah, I don’t get the sense of a burning desire by the Russian people, for a return of their monarchy anytime real soon. like, say, never.

      • LosGatosCA

        If you just think of the Communist regime in Russia as a crime family that took over for the biological family, you can see Russian history has a non-random flow to it.

        Or as Pete Townsend put it – Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

        • foolishmortal

          Bald hairy bald hairy.

        • Lurking Canadian

          I used to know a guy on-line who referred to the current rulers of China as the “Mao Dynasty”.

      • bender

        Saudi Arabia? Bhutan? Not sure about Thailand; the king has limited powers but I don’t know whether that’s de facto or de jure.

        • dpm

          The Vatican

        • Not sure about Thailand; the king has limited powers but I don’t know whether that’s de facto or de jure.

          if you want to be really precise the limits on the British monarch’s powers are purely de facto. The Queen has to sign off on all legislation, officially appoints the Prime Minister and is the one who officially opens, dismisses and dissolves Parliament. The fact that the Queen does all these things at the behest of elected officials is a matter of custom, not written law.

          Thailand has had a constitutional monarchy since 1932 although the army has ruled for most of that time.

          • Richard Hershberger

            The part I find most interesting is not how Parliament got its power. That is perfectly straightforward: a combination of seizing and keeping the power of taxation, and when the time came organizing its own army. But this was a process, not an event. The interesting bit to me is how the monarchy lost its remaining actual power: Victoria got distracted by Albert’s death, and Parliament stepped in to fill the power vacuum.

            • Manny Kant

              Their own army only worked temporarily. Charles II had a pretty easy time of running things after he was restored. It took a Dutch army, and then a bunch of foreign kings who needed the support of local elites to maintain their tenuous hold on the throne, before you got any permanent restrictions on royal power with real teeth.

              Even Victoria’s distraction by Albert’s death didn’t fully kill off royal political power. Both Victoria and Edward VII continued to exercise considerably political influence, especially over foreign and military affairs. It was really George V who began the tradition of a fully apolitical and ceremonial monarchy. This was partly due to personal inclination – unlike his father, he was not particularly interested in politics, and unlike his grandmother he didn’t have strong personal prejudices that caused him to intervene out of pique – and partly due to the Parliament Act, which took away the usefulness of the King’s one great remaining political power to appoint peers. Before the Parliament Act, the King and Lords could together stymie the Commons. Afterwards, the Commons was supreme.

      • Richard Hershberger

        Japan: kept its emperor because the US decided it would make for an easier transition.

      • burritoboy

        Divine-right absolutist rule was actually pretty much limited to early modern times (especially the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). That it lasted in Russia until the twentieth century is indicative of how primitive the country’s political institutions were.

        Before that, the concept would have been viewed as insane and / or wildly heretical. In medieval Europe, the rightful king is always viewed as needing to rule in alliance with the Church, nobility, the representatives of major cities to be legitimate – i.e. what were the early versions of Parliaments / Parlement, Cortes or Great Councils, etc.

  • JMP

    There are people today contesting who is the “legitimate heir” to the Romanov dynasty today, in 2016, almost a century after they fell and long after the vast majority of civilization has recognized that monarchies are a poor form of government and there is no such thing as a legitimate monarch, only the one who has the command of the strongest armies or is best at quality assassinating all their relatives? Really? That’s completely insane.

    • Nathan Goldwag

      There’s currently a dynastic dispute between Charles, Prince Napoléon VII and his son, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon VIII over who is the rightful Emperor of France.

      • Colin Day

        Napoleon XIV or go home!

      • cpinva

        perhaps it’s time to roll the “National Razor” back out, and do a little lineage trim?

        • Nathan Goldwag

          Actually, to their credit the Bonapartes have been making themselves useful since Waterloo. Theodore Roosevelt’s Attorney General was Charles Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon I’s great-nephew. Nice guy, supported civil rights and anti-trust actions. Napoleon VI, the last fully recognized Head of the Family joined the Foreign Legion under a false name to fight the Nazis, then linked up with the Resistance. And Napoleon VII’s been a reasonably successful Corsican politician. (Which is why a lot of Bonapartists don’t like him. Republican sympathies ya know). So perhaps we can hold off on a new Terror for at least a few more years.

      • Manny Kant

        Emperor of the French!

    • (((Hogan)))

      What’s your point?

    • UserGoogol

      Legitimate is a term of art.

    • cpinva

      modern day (constitutional) monarchies can serve a purpose. for one thing, if they’re really popular and well known worldwide, they can be sort of a tourist attraction. they also serve as ambassadors of good will to friendly nations, etc., etc., etc. again though, this only works if most of country is ok with it, like the UK for example. though even there, there have been rumblings of late about how much it costs to maintain them.

      • Ken

        One problem with constitutional monarchy is that people still get weird ideas about the monarch. I think it was Charles Stross, shortly after Brexit, who called this the “Break glass, unleash queen” strategy.

        Yes, in theory she could say “Bad idea, we are not exiting the EU,” and her government might even follow, but – as Stross said in a different context (one of the Laundry novels) – it’s a card she gets to play once.

        • Captain Oblivious

          As a longtime admirer of EII, I am 100% sure she would never do anything like that.

          Her idiot son, on the other hand…

          • rea

            Charles III = Charles I?

        • Gareth

          Monarchs are actually much better for that kind of emergency intervention, because they don’t have any democratic legitimacy and aren’t plausible heads of the government. Say what you will about Queen Elizabeth, but she genuinely has no desire to be President.

        • LeeEsq

          The thing is that many people seem to get similarly weird ideas about any politician acting as head of state. Maybe not on this blog or among really smart people but a lot of people seem to want or need somebody to look up to and revere. Its why you get George Washington and company treated like demigods or in the not so distant and less partisan past, the President treated as monarch of sorts by many Americans. A monarch serves as a source to direct these feelings while allowing people to treat elected politicians as normal people in most circumstances.

          • Richard Hershberger

            …the President treated as monarch of sorts by many Americans.

            There is a good reason for this. The powers the Constitution assigns to the President are, to within a pretty good approximation, the powers held by the late 18th century British monarchy. This coincidence was not lost on anyone. When the time came to figure out the proper form of address for the president, the proposals had a decidedly monarchical air. Washington quashed this by going with “Mr. President.”

            • LeeEsq

              I think a more accurate description is that the Federal government resembles an idealized and republicanized form of the British government that existed after the Glorious Revolution but ignored the changes that occurred by the time of the Revolution like the office of the Prime Minister.

              • Matty

                I think the least kind but most accurate description is that the federal government is the post-1688 British Government as implemented by the 18th C equivalent of earnest pot-smoking dorm room libertarians.

              • Manny Kant

                Secretary of State = Secretary of State. Secretary of the Treasury = First Lord of the Treasury ?

                Hamilton’s role in the Washington administration was not that different from the role Pitt was playing in Westminster at the same time, or the role North had played during the war.

                Coherent political cabinets where everyone was from the same party and agreed with each other on most things were only just barely starting to emerge in Britain in 1787.

        • Richard Hershberger

          In a related realm, English heralds are exempt from taxation, according to a decree going back to the Tudors. English heralds in fact do pay taxes. Parliament has never bothered to pass a statute on the topic because there has never been a reason to do this. The English system being the way it is, I can imagine some herald getting neck-deep in back taxes and playing this card, and that it would work, followed by Parliament closing the loophole.

    • bender

      Absolute rulers are bad in any circumstance. A country fortunate enough to be ruled by a series of enlightened and capable monarchs is probably a happier place, with more social solidarity, than a nominal democracy where the elected leaders are either from a handful of elite families or inexperienced demagogues. The main advantage of democracy over most other systems of government is that it has more mechanisms for self correction.

      The above isn’t intended as snark about recent US politics. I’m thinking of various developing nations like Venezuela, Pakistan, and maybe the Philippines.

    • Richard Hershberger

      “Really? That’s completely insane.”

      There absolutely are such people today. I used to occasionally read a usenet group of such people. They are very earnest, and mostly harmless.

  • junker

    Is the answer to your question a byzantine dynasty?

    • cpinva

      that’s what I was thinking too.

    • Linnaeus

      I’m wondering if it’s a Muslim dynasty. I’m not at all a Crusades specialist, but IIRC, the Byzantine dynasty that was ended in the Fourth Crusade was not the same one that reunified the Byzantine Empire from the Latin successor states some 50 years later.

      • mds

        Indeed. The emperor when Constantinople fell to the Fourth Crusade was a Doukas, ruling on the heels of emperors descended from the Komnenoi. Though the Doukas / Komnenos clan founded one of the Byzantine successor states in Epirus, it was the Nicaean usurper Michael Palaiologos who reclaimed the city from the Latins.

    • foolishmortal

      No, it must be a target of one of the Northern Crusades.

      • Connecticut Yankee

        Yes, this. I think the answer is the the Griffins. Duke Ratibor I was a target in the Wendish Crusade, and his grandson Bogislaw II participated in Conrad of Mazovia’s crusade against the Prussians

    • (((max)))

      Is the answer to your question a byzantine dynasty?

      The Seljuks. The First Crusade was meant (in part) to assist the Byzantines. (I thought it was the Seljuks, but I couldn’t remember which one.) The Fifth Crusade was allied with the Crusaders (against other Muslims).

      The Byzantines are the answer to the reversed question: ‘Which dynasty started out as an ally of a Crusade and eventually became a target of a Crusade?’

      max
      [‘Wading through rivers of blood to the altar of Christ… and picking up some great bargains on the way!’]

      • mds

        The First Crusade was meant (in part) to assist the Byzantines.

        Naturally, what that translated to in practice was a bunch of ambitious Latin rulers trying to grab any former Byzantine possessions that weren’t sufficiently tied down. Fortunately for the twelfth-century empire, most of the time Alexios I had their number.

        All in all, I’d probably quibble with Byzantium being an “ally” of the First Crusade, as opposed to trying to make the best of it.

        ALEXIOS: “We are hard-pressed by the Turk. Mercenaries would be much appreciated.”

        THE WEST: “Let’s put together a bunch of armies under nobles hungry for territory and pillage the East!”

        ALEXIOS: “… Great. Now the Balkans are being plundered, too.”

  • Bootsie

    Unless Vladimir Putin somehow manages to have himself declared a Romanov, it is unlikely that the family will return to the throne anytime soon.

    Putin seems like he’d be more of a Rurikid kind of guy.

    • efgoldman

      Putin seems like he’d be more of a Rurikid kind of guy.

      Rasputin

    • JonH

      In keeping with the current nationalistic mood, I’d expect someone to come up with a theory making Putin a descendent of some Tsar untainted by non-Russian blood. So probably not a Romanov.

      I do wonder how long Putin’s going to persist with the charade of swapping jobs with Medvedev every few years.

      • Manny Kant

        There’s a ton of Rurikids out there. It’d probably be trivial to come up with a phony family tree that makes Putin one.

      • John F

        He’s got no reason to stop, it has no impact on his de factor power and give him a fig leaf of a cover to say he’s following the law, if Medvedev steps out of line he’ll replace him in the next swap.

        Plus it’s my understanding that there’s quite a bit of separation between Medvedev and Putin’s other allies/power base- Putin finds that to be useful since it means Medvedev has no viable support outside of Putin and he’s also insulated from being pushed by those folks with power in Russia not named Vladimir Putin. He can also interact with non_Russians without embarrassing himself or Russia (many Russian Putin supporters really can’t do that)

    • rea

      He just ain’t Gudonov to be Tsar.

      (Note, by the way how Rocky and Bullwinkle got to name-check Boris Gudonov).

  • gogiggs

    On the one hand, I’m a lifelong Clevelander and die-hard Indians fan.
    On the other hand, I would welcome a Communist revolution and purge.
    So, mixed emotions.

  • LeeEsq

    The last blood libel trial, later to inspire the Fixer, occurred under the reign of Nicholas II.

  • Ahenobarbus

    Danishmends?

  • Perhaps the assassins of Alexander II were trying to heighten the contradictions.
    Both short term and long term, it didn’t work out too well for Russia.

    • Colin Day

      Especially since one of the executed plotters was the older brother of Lenin.

      • cpinva

        “Especially since one of the executed plotters was the older brother of Lenin.”

        who got a front row spot to watch being executed. supposedly, this kick-started the younger brother on his path to ultimate revolutionary victory. of course, he also gave us Stalin.

        • mds

          “Gave” is a little bit strong. A post-revolution Russia where Trotsky didn’t completely blow the transfer of power is a fascinating alternative history.

        • rea

          Lenin’s brother unsucessfully attempted to assassinate Alexander III–he had nothing to do with the successful assassination of Alexander II

    • LeeEsq

      Or the world. Russia as a developed constitutional monarchy is a fascinating alternative history.

    • John F

      Everything I’ve read indicates that the assassins meant well but were criminally stupid. They were like the people who honestly believe that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They did not mean to take down a liberal monarch to get a reactionary one to heighten the contradictions- they saw no difference between Alexander II and any other divine right despot- they intended to take down the regime and reshape society.

      You don’t replace monarchies with something else by killing the King- you get another King- this does not seem to have occurred to them- you replace a Monarchy with something else by evolution or by revolution, both take a long time and a lot of work.

  • Darkrose

    I was leaning toward rooting for Cleveland until I saw the asshole in redface with the feathered headdress on camera and you know what? Fuck the Cleveland Racists, and fuck the Cubs. I’m on Team Meteor.

  • mikeSchilling

    Who remembers how or when Kaiser Wilhelm II died?

    He died from a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

  • Peterr

    Hater.

    When last the Indians won the World Series, Francisco Franco ruled Spain.

    Franco’s regime committed a series of violent politically-motivated human rights abuses against the Spanish people, which included the establishment of concentration camps, the use of forced labor and executions, mostly against political and ideological enemies, causing an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths, depending on how the deaths in the more than 190 concentration camps are considered. Although Franco’s Spain maintained an official policy of neutrality during World War II, his regime helped the Axis in numerous ways. . .

    Student revolts at universities in the late 1960s and early 1970s were violently repressed by the heavily armed Policía Armada (Armed Police). Plainclothes secret police worked inside Spanish universities. . .

    Francoism professed a devotion to the traditional role of a woman in society, that is being a loving child to her parents and brothers, being faithful to her husband, and residing with her family. Official propaganda confined the role of women to family care and motherhood. Immediately after the war most progressive laws passed by the Republic aimed at equality between the sexes were nullified. Women could not become judges, or testify in a trial. They could not become university professors. Their affairs and economic lives had to be managed by their fathers and husbands. Even in the 1970s a woman fleeing from an abusive husband could be arrested and imprisoned for “abandoning the home” (abandono del hogar). Until the 1970s a woman could not have a bank account without a co-sign by her father or husband. . .

    This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

    • John F

      A professor I had in the 80s claimed he’d been told by someone “with knowledge” that the War Department did briefly look at taking down Franco in 1944/45, he claimed a study was done that basically said, “Terrain is awful, but opposing troops poorly equipped and led”- that a few divisions could be detached from France and take out Franco in as long a time as it took to drive there- Spain’s air force would not have lasted a day- his armored forces would have lasted only slightly longer (a few days) because at around 20-30 MPH it would have take time to reach them. He was told that the planners did their study passed it up and heard nothing- absolutely nothing.

      Any way, the Prof said that whether the story of the study was true or not- we could have deposed Franco’s regime and we *should* have. At the time I thought he was right, but after Iraq…. just because you can remove a thug doesn’t mean you should all things considered.

  • Pingback: [BLOG] Some Thursday links | A Bit More Detail()

  • Ahuitzotl

    The Romanov motto: At least we’re not the Stewarts

It is main inner container footer text