The Prince is right

The Spectator ^ | 5/010/02 | Simon Heffer

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

With people like the Clintons, the Robespierre solution would have been best.

[weikel]

Bump

[weikel]

I agree on Louis XIV being horrible but I would not rate Nicholas II as a good monarch although until World War I( which was mostly Nicholas fault if not for him Austria would have taken over Serbia and that would be the end of it). Nicholas was of course better than the Bolsheviks.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

I always find the portrayal of Louis in the various Man in the Iron Mask films rather amusing. Considering that Louis actually became much worse (for France and Europe generally) as his reign wore on, the story should really show that it was the evil twin brother that was originally imprisoned, and the good one that was then deposed and sent to prison in his place.

Perhaps we need a revisionist Man in the Iron Mask.

[nopardons]

No, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was NOT trying to " take over " Serbia. It had been ruling Bosnia and Herztagovina, for decades, as part of the Berlin Treaty ( which involved France, England, etc. ), when the " Sick Old Man of Europe ( Turkey ) was in shambles. What pecipitated WW I, was the assination of Franz Ferdinand and his morganisctic wife. All that Franz Jospeh, the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, wanted, was an apology and that the men ( boys really, funded and trained by the Russians !) who were part of the plot, be dealt with. Franz Jospeh was a sick old man, he did NOT want to go to war. He asked his nephew, Kaiser William, of Germany to help out. Negotiations and diplomacy was tried repeatedly ; they got nowhere. Nicholas had NOTHING to do with any of this; all of it was done without his knowledge and behind his back. BTW ... Nicholas had his troops pull out of WW I ... in the middle of it.

Please do some more study of this very interesting part of world history, before making erronious statements.

[weikel]

BTW im also curious how was Charles I superior to his predecessors( Though obviously superior to Cromwell a military genius but a religious fanatic and very evil man he did lift the ban on Jews going to England but thats about all the good that can be said for him)?

Charles I seemed even dumber and more corrupt than his father and nobody can hold a candle to Lizzie Tudor( and I know your Catholic but they brought persecution on themselves by repeatedly trying to kill her and then collaborating with Spain and Phillip II was the Hitler of his age Charles V tried to stop all of the horrible things being done in the new world but to Phillip every atrocity was justified to make the world catholic).

[weikel]

I don't care whether they were or not my point was the fate of Serbia was not worth Russia starting WWI.

[Mo1]

KEEP AMERICA FREE

DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[weikel]

I agree with your assesment btw I don't think Franz Joseph wanted a war with Serbia either I think it was the Serbs fault.

[nopardons]

The major players were the Russians ( aided somewhat by the French, who wanted to sell aarms!) and yes, the Serbs. The " Black Hand " and the Marxists, in Serbia , were the mentors of the Bosnian Youth brigades.

It's a fascinating history and far more complicated, than what is taught in school, if they even manage to teach much of anything at all about it. If you're interested, I can give you some titles, of very informative books on the subject.

[nopardons]

Cromwell forbade the secular practice of Christmas, and was far worse than any monarch he replaced / wished to subsume.

[nopardons]

It wasn't about Serbia; not at all ! That is my point.

FWIW, I know that the USA fought on the wrong side, of WW I. We shouldn't even have been in it at all.

[weikel]

Total agreement was the Zimmerman telegram even authentic?

[weikel]

Im not a Cromwell fan as I said the only good things that can be said about him was he lifted the ban on Jews in England and he was a damn good military commander. Hes also to the Irish what Hitler is to the Jews.

[nopardons]

Nope , it wasn't thought to be, by those who would have known.

[nopardons]

Your are correct about Cromwell, who was a thoroughy horrid, eveil man.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

Charles I attempted to reduce legally mandated religious persecution through non-enforcement. Cromwell extended tolerance only to those on the religious left (Puritans and other Non-Conformists). He combined this with unprecedentedly brutal persecution of the religious right (Roman Catholics and, to a lesser extent, High Church Anglicans).

As a (more or less) conservative, I believe that the status quo (or status ante) is to be preferred to revolutionary change. As such, the Tudors -- with the exception of Mary -- were revolutionaries every bit as bad as the judicial activists who have wrecked the Constitution during our own generation. Actually, the Tudors were much worse because, starting with Henry VIII, they explicitly violated their coronation oaths. The end result had been to create a "Vicar of Bray" mentality whereby religion (and language) mean whatever the current government dictates.

What King Philip's servants did should be understood in the context of the times. The English propaganda machine was as active against Spain in the 16th century as it became against France in the 18th, Russia in the 19th, and Germany in the 20th,

One rule of thumb when appraising national conduct in past eras is to ask if these people were at any time viewed as a threat by the English. If so, then reduce their alleged crimes by about 50%.

[weikel]

Henry VIII was a bad guy you'll get no arguement on that from me but bloody Mary wasn't nice either. Elizabeth Tudor's inclination was towards religious tolerance, and she had no love for the puritans btw, but the Catholics made that impossible because they repeatedly attempted to kill her. Phillip II's brand of catholicism was about as tolerant as wahabbi Islam thats not English propaganda thats just the truth.