[noemon]

When it says Great Power it means that exactly.

Sorry it bothers your British nationalism.

[B0ycey]

When it says Great Power it means that exactly.

It just means it became a larger state Noemon like the Ottomans and the Holy Roman Empire.

But whatever. Do you think that 1917 Russia was a superpower? If not, how was 1960 Russia a superpower IF Socialism cannot promote innovation. That is how we got onto Russian history which I now will not discuss with you because clearly you have your belief set in stone.

[noemon]

It just means it became a larger state Noemon like the Ottomans and the Holy Roman Empire.

But whatever. Do you think that 1917 Russia was a superpower? If not, how was 1960 Russia a superpower IF Socialism cannot promote innovation. That is how we got onto Russian history which I now will not discuss with you because clearly you have your belief set in stone.

It's quite hilarious really that you insist on this.

Great Power has a particular meaning in historical parlance.

Russia has been part of the Great Powers since 1721, that is 200 years before the Bolsheviks.

Russia has been a formative power in terms of European politics via the Concert of Europe and the Congress System.

Russia was the driving force behind European liberalism after Napoleonic France was crushed.

Russia was the counter-balance to Austrian conservatism as exemplified by Metternich.

Russia has been a superpower more times than any other European power, and by superpower we mean a great power that has grown great enough to be ganged up on by the others. This has happened to Russia more times than it has happened to anybody else in Europe.

Lastly, you made the ultra-racist claim that Russia's influence in European politics was only because of the bloodlines of its rulers. No mate, it was because of its power. Many more minor European royalty shared the same bloodlines but not the influence, because they lacked the national power. Surely that should be obvious even to you at this point.

[B0ycey]

It's quite hilarious really that you insist on this.

Great Power has a particular meaning in historical parlance.

So not a Superpower then...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

It really does mean they expanded their territory Noemon. Very much like the Ottomans and the HRE. They also were fighting nomadic tribes. And yes, nobility were the influence in Russia, very much like the rest of Europe, although the Tsars had more control over their subjects due to serfdom than say the British who established Parliament. But you keep on ignoring the reason we are discussing this. You know Socialism cannot promote innovation. Please, ignore Peter the Great for one second. Yes he made the Russian state but whilst he was fighting and expanding, Western Europe was colonialing America, Australasia and Africa. OK. But from 1917 was Russia a superpower yes or no. Perhaps start there and then we will ask you if 1960 Russia was a superpower and tham what caused that if not INNOVATION!

[noemon]

So not a Superpower then...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

Your nonsense have become overtly boring now:

As I said:

Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the great powers.

What is super power and what is great power:

A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale.

A great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale.

Russia has been a Great Power since 1721, 200 years before the Bolsheviks as history has written very clearly.

And it has been a superpower, that is preeminent among the Great Power several times before the Bolsheviks as well during the Concert of Europe and the Congress System. It has been singled out and ganged upon the rest more times than any other European power and that before the Bolsheviks.

And yes, nobility were the influence in Russia,

That is not what you claimed, you claimed that Russia had influence in global politics because of its European Royalty bloodlines. What you said is objectively false & racist. Several puny royals especially in Prussia were related to the rest but they were not Great Powers. Russia was a Great Power because the country commanded great power in a global scale.

British who established Parliament.

Nobody gives a damn about your claims to superiority, this is not about your nationalist ego nor Rugozs' nationalist ego that a Greek under Russian service penned the Swiss constitution and created Switzerland as we know it today. And lastly the fact that it was the British parliament responsible for the Irish famine, slavery and various genocides does not make your case any better.

[B0ycey]

Preeminent means surpass, not equal Noemon. And I would say you are more nationalistic towards Greece than I am towards the Tories so why do you seem intent on characters assassinations rather than answering the reason we are having this debate to begin with as I am not a nationalist.

So back to the question, was 1917 Russia a superpower, was 1960 Russia a superpower, and if Socialism wasn't a cause for Innovation what caused it?

If you don't answer it again and start waffling on about things I have not even said, then you are right, this is boring.

[noemon]

Preeminent means surpass, not equal Noemon. And I would say I you are more nationalistic towards Greece than I am towards the Tories so why do you seem intent on characters assassinations rather than answering the reason we are having this debate to begin with as I am not a nationalist.

So back to the question, was 1917 Russia a superpower, was 1960 Russia a superpower, and if Socialism wasn't a cause for Innovation what caused it?

If you don't answer it again and start waffling on about things I have not even said, then you are right, this is boring.

1) You are assassinating your own character with your racist claims that white bloodlines are responsible for Russia's influence instead of her power.

2) Your Navalny troll argument you have given it up already.

3) I have answered to your silly question already but your blind militarism prevents you from seeing reality.

Russia was a superpower during the Crimean war in 1853 when it was ganged up on by the UK & France while fighting against the Ottomans.

[late]

Not taking sides, at least not trying to..

My preference would be to hold to the tradition of calling it one of the Great Powers.

In the 1800s, Russia didn't have much of a navy. They built one, but it was sunk before they got the hang of it.

In the opinion of guys back then, a navy was crucial. There was an American navy guy that came up with a theory that you had to have a navy and expand; or get crushed by the wheels of history. That thought became all the rage, and at that time, he had a point. Not defending it, just pointing out the obvious.

Anyway, a hundred years ago historians liked to call Russia 'The Sick Man of Europe'. They weren't developing the way much of Europe was.

So while Russia had a lot of manpower, and it's natural resources were a source of wealth, I would guess there were limits to it's ability to project power. A superpower is defined by it's ability to project power.



"From the westward advance of its arms in the next two years of heavy fighting, Russia emerged as Europe’s greatest land power and the first among the continental victors over Napoleon. The immense prestige achieved in these campaigns was maintained until mid-century.

But the Crimean War (1853–56) showed that this giant had feet of clay. The vast empire was unable to mobilize, equip, and transport enough troops to defeat the medium-size French and English forces under very mediocre command."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russia-from-1801-to-1917

[noemon]

In the 1800s, Russia didn't have much of a navy. They built one, but it was sunk before they got the hang of it.

This is plain wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles#Russo-Turkish_War_(1787%E2%80%9392)

Once you click it, scroll for more.

"From the westward advance of its arms in the next two years of heavy fighting, Russia emerged as Europe’s greatest land power and the first among the continental victors over Napoleon. The immense prestige achieved in these campaigns was maintained until mid-century.

Your own source tells you explicitly that Russia was Europe's greatest power between 1814-1856.

Russia was the preeminent European superpower from 1814(Congress of Vienna) until 1856(Crimean War).

Russia was a European Great power since 1721.

But the Crimean War (1853–56) showed that this giant had feet of clay. The vast empire was unable to mobilize, equip, and transport enough troops to defeat the medium-size French and English forces under very mediocre command."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russia-from-1801-to-1917

"Medium size", British storytelling is hilarious.

France mobilised over 300 thousand soldiers and Britain more than 100 thousand soldiers to help the Ottomans fight Russia in the 1850's. Sicily mobilised another 20 thousand, while Austria and Prussia(Germany) maintained a policy of "hostile neutrality against Russia", providing tacit and indirect support to the Ottomans, Brits and French intent on destroying Russia.

British exceptionalist narrative does not change reality.

Remember, B0ycey claimed that without Bolshevism, Russia would be nothing. Russia was Great way before Bolshevism and the country would have modernised regardless.

[late]

Remember, B0ycey claimed that without Bolshevism, Russia would be nothing.

I'm not interested in that.

I might address the rest later, time for a bike ride, but...

[noemon]

I'm not interested in that.

What are you interested then if not for the actual point of the conversation?

Besides I am asking you, what is your opinion on this claim?

Were the Bolsheviks required to make Russia, Great?

I might address the rest later, time for a bike ride, but...

Sure, help yourself...

Your own source tells you explicitly that Russia was Europe's greatest power between 1814-1856.

[noemon]

It has come to pass that the western people in here who support Putin and seek to apologise for Russian hubris are also the people who deny Russia her own history and undermine her historical achievements in a clear attempt to belittle her.

To the real Russians in the forum as well as to real patriots more generally, let that sink in.

While some people hate Putin and love Russia, they hate Russia and love Putin.

[Beren]

"If that had been the case"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C ... revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Hitler was more "pragmatic" than Röhm, that doesn't make him less of a socialist than Bernie (who's obviously not a socialist either).

It was a reckoning with a political rival and a paramilitary group rather than a purge in the NSDAP. Hitler had to do it mostly because the SA caused him problems with the Reichswehr, it wasn't really an ideological issue, even though Röhm meant to be a more radical Nazi. It was time to liquidate him and dissolve the SA anyway regardless of ideological differences. (I actually didn't know what you meant by "purge", your argument just sounded illogical to me.)

[Rugoz]

Nobody gives a damn about your claims to superiority, this is not about your nationalist ego nor Rugozs' nationalist ego that a Greek under Russian service penned the Swiss constitution and created Switzerland as we know it today.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Your Greek guy was one of several envoys the Great Powers sent to mediate in 1814. He didn't create a constitution, he "facilitated" the 1815 federal treaty (what your Wiki source says). The 1815 federal treaty is not the basis of Switzerland as we know it today. In fact, that period of Swiss history (1814-1830) is called the Restoration, because it was about the restoration of the Ancien Régime, i.e. the Old Swiss Confederacy before the occupation by Napoleon (Helvetic Republic/Mediation period, 1798-1813). The 1815 treaty wasn't totally reactionary though, for example it retained the "Untertanenverbot".

Modern Switzerland and therefore Switzerland as a federal state with its own constitution exists since 1848. There were two major foreign influences on the 1848 constitution, the French revolution respectively the legacy left by the French occupation and the United States.

[noemon]

This is wrong on so many levels.

Your Greek guy was one of several envoys the Great Powers sent to mediate in 1814. He didn't create a constitution, he "facilitated" the 1815 federal treaty (what your Wiki source says). The 1815 federal treaty is not the basis of Switzerland as we know it today. In fact, that period of Swiss history (1814-1830) is called the Restoration, because it was about the restoration of the Ancien Régime, i.e. the Old Swiss Confederacy before the occupation by Napoleon (Helvetic Republic/Mediation period, 1798-1813). The 1815 treaty wasn't totally reactionary though, for example it retained the "Untertanenverbot".

Modern Switzerland and therefore Switzerland as a federal state with its own constitution exists since 1848. There were two major foreign influences on the 1848 constitution, the French revolution respectively the legacy left by the French occupation and the United States.

Kapodistrias penned parts of the Swiss Constitution but more than that, it was Kapodistrias who obtained the Great Power guarantees that are required for Switzerland to function as the state that we know today. Without these guarantees obtained by the Russian Diplomatic Service, Switzerland in its current form would not have been possible.

In 1809 Kapodistrias entered the service of Alexander I of Russia.[34] His first important mission, in November 1813, was as unofficial Russian ambassador to Switzerland, with the task of helping disentangle the country from the French dominance imposed by Napoleon. He secured Swiss unity, independence and neutrality, which were formally guaranteed by the Great Powers, and actively facilitated the initiation of a new federal constitution for the 19 cantons that were the component states of Switzerland, with personal drafts.[35]

Beyond that, Kapodistrias as Russian Foreign Minister laid the foundations of European Liberalism at a time when ideas from the French revolution were to be gagged and buried as exemplified by the Concert of Europe.

The Swiss Constitution of 1848 would not have been possible without Russia or Kapodistrias.

In the ensuing Congress of Vienna, 1815, as the Russian minister, he counterbalanced the paramount influence of the Austrian minister, Prince Metternich, and insisted on French state unity under a Bourbon monarch. He also obtained new international guarantees for the constitution and neutrality of Switzerland through an agreement among the Powers. After these brilliant diplomatic successes, Alexander I appointed Kapodistrias joint Foreign Minister of Russia (with Karl Robert Nesselrode).

In the course of his assignment as Foreign Minister of Russia, Kapodistrias's ideas came to represent a progressive alternative to Metternich's aims of Austrian domination of European affairs.[34] Kapodistrias's liberal ideas of a new European order so threatened Metternich that he wrote in 1819:[34]
Kapodistrias is not a bad man, but honestly speaking he is a complete and thorough fool, a perfect miracle of wrong-headedness...He lives in a world to which our minds are often transported by a bad nightmare.

— Metternich on Kapodistrias, [34]
Realising that Kapodistrias's progressive vision was antithetical to his own, Metternich then tried to undermine Kapodistrias's position in the Russian court.[34] Although Metternich was not a decisive factor in Kapodistrias's leaving his post as Russian Foreign Minister, he nevertheless attempted to actively undermine Kapodistrias by rumour and innuendo. According to the French ambassador to Saint Petersburg, Metternich was a master of insinuation, and he attempted to neutralise Kapodistrias, viewing him as the only man capable of counterbalancing Metternich's own influence with the Russian court.
More than anyone else he possesses the art of devaluing opinions that are not his own; the most honourable life, the purest intentions are not sheltered from his insinuations. It is thus with profound ingenuity that he knew how to neutralize the influence of Count Capodistrias, the only one who could counterbalance his own.

— French ambassador on Metternich, [34]
Metternich, by default, succeeded in the short term, since Kapodistrias eventually left the Russian court on his own, but with time, Kapodistrias's ideas and policies for a new European order prevailed.[34] He was always keenly interested in the cause of his native country, and in particular the state of affairs in the Seven Islands, which in a few decades' time had passed from French revolutionary influence to Russian protection and then to British rule. He always tried to attract his Emperor's attention to matters Greek.

[Rugoz]

Kapodistrias penned parts of the Swiss Constitution but more than that, it was Kapodistrias who obtained the Great Power guarantees that are required for Switzerland to function as the state that we know today. Without these guarantees obtained by the Russian Diplomatic Service, Switzerland in its current form would not have been possible.

I know what the Wiki entry on Kapodistrias says, but it's not supported by the German source it cites (which is a note he wrote to the Tagsatzung), and I cannot find another source saying anything similar. He also clearly had nothing to do with the Swiss constitution.

Frédéric-César de La Harpe is considered the person with most influence on Alexander I in the Swiss context.

[noemon]

What does Switzerland, the country, say?

Ioannis Antonios Kapodístrias, also known as Conte Giovanni Antonio Capo d’Istria, was a great statesman who played a prominent role in Switzerland's institutional reorganisation and in asserting Switzerland's permanent status as a neutral country.

Born in Corfu in 1776, Kapodístrias supported the struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire and was subsequently elected governor of newly independent Greece. The minister plenipotentiary of Tsar Alexander I at the congresses of Vienna and Paris, he gave Switzerland its federal state structure and the policy of neutrality. Switzerland would not be what it is today without his exceptional negotiating skills and his deep attachment to the land.


First mission to Switzerland: contribute to the creation of a viable and relatively independent state

Kapodístrias's genius as a diplomat and friend of Switzerland came to the fore at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. In imposing the Act of Mediation of 1803 on the Swiss Confederation, Napoleon had abolished the centralised government and given each canton a constitution that did not allow for their differences. In 1813, the Confederation was invaded by soldiers of the victorious powers (United Kingdom, Russia, Prussia, Austria), who set about reorganising Europe to restore the old order. In 1813, as a diplomat in the service of the Russian Empire, Kapodístrias received instructions from Tsar Alexander I – a defender and advocate of Swiss independence – to "save Switzerland" and make it a neutral country. Kapodístrias was dispatched to Switzerland, where he stayed from November 1813 and September 1814. His objective was to get the cantons to sign a federal contract, which was essential for Switzerland to take part in the Congress of Vienna.

Kapodístrias arrived in Switzerland at a moment when the country was deeply divided and on the brink of civil war. Driven by extraordinary determination and strength of conviction, Kapodístrias managed, after ten months of dialogue and negotiation, to persuade the cantons to come together to lay the foundations for the creation of today's Swiss Confederation. Kapodístrias wrote constitutional drafts, resolutions, decisions and letters. Thanks to his unremitting efforts and persistence, Kapodístrias was also said to be "undeniably the most [...] decisive influence" among the envoys of the allied powers. After his first mission to Switzerland, each canton drafted a new constitution, the Diet (assembly of cantonal delegates) ratified the Federal Constitution, civil order was restored and Switzerland was recognised by the Allies.

An advocate of Swiss interests at the Congress of Vienna and the 1815 Treaty of Paris

During the Congress of Vienna (September 1814 – June 1815) attended by the diplomatic representatives of the victors of the Napoleonic Wars – the European great powers – Kapodístrias made the acquaintance of the Geneva statesman Charles Pictet Rochemont, who had a mandate to represent the Republic of Geneva. The two men became friends. With the Geneva representative François d’Ivernois, they worked together to rally Geneva to join the Swiss Confederation as a canton, consolidate its territory and thus establish a secure military border for the canton and the Confederation. Following the 1815 congress, Geneva joined the Confederation, giving the country its final borders which have remained unchanged to this day. The Vaud region is also indebted to Kapodístrias, who successfully argued for it to become a sovereign canton.

During the Second Paris Peace Conference (1815), which followed Napoleon's second abdication, Kapodístrias and Pictet distinguished themselves once again by securing by decree the powers' famous recognition of Switzerland's permanent neutrality, one of Switzerland's long-held aspirations and a major aim of the great powers, Russia in particular. The declaration was written by Pictet on Kapodístrias's request, who then transmitted it to the Allies' high representatives. During the two congresses, Kapodístrias was the most faithful, tireless and effective advocate of Swiss interests and a trusted guide and compass to Pictet de Rochemont, the most respected man in the Republic of Geneva.

In recognition of his accomplishments, Geneva and Vaud would award Kapodístrias honorary citizenship, one of the most beautiful stretches of the Geneva waterfront now carries his name, there is a commemorative plaque in his honour on his Geneva home, and a statue of him was unveiled in Ouchy on the shore of Lake Geneva in 2009.

Quotes (translated from French)
Biography written by Kapodístrias's Geneva secretary Elie-Ami Bétant:

"Born in a weakened divided republic, familiar with the language of popular passions, Capodistrias was perfectly at ease in the clash of sides that beset the Helvetic Republic at that time. He earned their respect because he approached them with neither duplicity nor stiffness, and made a sincere effort to learn about their domestic concerns […]". (BETANT Elie-Ami, Correspondant du comte J- Capodistrias, Président de la Grèce, Genève-Paris, 1839, vol.I, p.25).

"Capodistrias's conduct in Switzerland has always done him proud. At first, the mission with which he was entrusted earned him the hostility of various parties whose interests he was jeopardising. Little by little his noble qualities were recognised, and today the Swiss unanimously mourn his loss; his name is also venerated by men of all persuasions" (idem, p.28).

Charles Pictet de Rochemont's report to the Geneva parliament at the end of his mission (April 1815):

"[…] of all those with an interest in our success, nobody acquitted himself with more consequence, goodwill and intelligence, and to greater effect, than Count Capo d’Istria. I met him 92 times and always found him true to himself, a most excellent guide, a most excellent adviser, and tirelessly patient, though what was happening in Switzerland frequently gave him just cause to give up in disgust. And the far more consequential negotiations over Poland and Saxony, which had been largely entrusted to him, could have given him an excuse to be indifferent to the interests of little Geneva" (CRAMER Lucien, Correspondance diplomatique de Pictet de Rochemont et de François d’Ivernois, Paris, Vienne, Turine 1814-1816, 2 vol. Genève-Paris 1914, I, XXIII).

[Rugoz]

What does Switzerland, the country, say?

It's a page on Swiss-Greek relations, I suppose it tries to be nice.

[noemon]

It's a page on Swiss-Greek relations, I suppose it tries to be nice.

Why did they have to be nice to Russia?

I think you have major personal psychological complexes against both Greece and Russia that prevent you from recognising the impact they had in the creation of modern Switzerland.

A recognition that the Republic of Switzerland has officially recognised in word and in deed.

Who the heck calls his own country a "liar" so that he does not admit the influence of Russia and her Foreign Minister.

[Rugoz]

I think you have major personal psychological complexes against both Greece and Russia that prevent you from recognising the impact they had in the creation of modern Switzerland.

A recognition that the Republic of Switzerland has officially recognised in word and in deed.

Who the heck calls his own country a "liar" so that he does not admit the influence of Russia and her Foreign Minister.

Russian influence on securing Swiss neutrality was never in doubt, but Modern Switzerland as a constitutional state ows much more to French and US influence. It's fair to say that represents a consensus among Swiss historians. I never even heard of the guy despite reading quite a bit of Swiss history. So yes, I attribute this article mostly the diplomatic friendliness.