Guest Article: ABR's Reaction to: Cousins at War

I recently enjoyed watching the BBC series "Cousins At War" which charted the complex relationships between the sovereigns of Britain, Germany & Russia in the run up to the First World War. I even learn't something about the run up to the war which I didn't know about before, namely that the Kaiser's brother Prince Henry rushed to meet King George V at Buckingham Palace, to discern Britain's intentions in the impending Europe wide conflict. Tragically His Majesty blew him off after about 5 minutes saying he was going to be late for church, but when pressed King George made the remark that he couldn't foresee a reason for Britain getting involved, and when Prince Henry reported this back to his brother in Berlin, the Kaiser took his cousin at his word to conclude that the British Empire would remain neutral during a German invasion of France... However this being a series by the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Collective", the narrators couldn't resist getting digs into these monarchs, and did so with utter relish with with respect to Kaiser Bill and Emperor Nicky. I shall thus endeavor to set the record straight.

To start with while it is true that Kaiser Bill had a reputation for being a Sabre rattling bombast, with a knack for rubbing people the wrong way, this doesn't make him solely responsible for the series of alliances that set the stage for the impending catastrophe.We must remember that this was a man who grew up, trapped inside a metal brace, without any real affection from his parents which Wilhelm knew arose from their embarrassment towards his infirmaries, which were at odds with the traditional Prussian view that their leaders were filled with strong martial vigor. The result was that the future Kaiser grew up with a complex, and felt compelled to overcompensate for his frailties, by acting with his trademark exaggerated swagger in public. Nobody in Wilhelm's life ever seemed to bother telling him that it was ok to simply be himself, and make an effort to make him feel welcomed and accepted, without reference to his withered arm; something that anyone with a physical or mental disability can surely relate.

Likewise the Kaiser always admired Britain and earnestly desired to secure her friendship, which was only natural since he was half-English after all, but his offers of alliance were always snubbed, simply because Germany happened to be the most powerful country on the continent, and Britain was still making it official policy to make an enemy out of such a power, even though German ambitions neither conflicted with nor threatened British imperial interests whatsoever. Even the expansion of the German Imperial Navy, wasn't as big of a threat to the Royal Navy as was portrayed, since the German's were doing so partly as a way of trying to secure Britain's respect, and also because they had acquired the third largest colonial empire in the world, fairly recently; and which obviously needed defending. However even with this naval expansion Britain still had navy that was the size of the second and third largest navies world combined... Thus it was only after Britain defied all common sense and logic, by showing its aggression in an anti-German alliance with France and Russian that left the Germans encircled, did they decide to concentrate their naval strength in the North Sea...

As for the notion that Tsar Nicolas II was an unfit ruler who was an example of the flaws of monarchy, the facts clearly demonstrate that Nicky was a much better ruler than he has been portrayed. On the whole Nicola's domestic policy was sound, and it was under his rule that Russia entered the industrial revolution and began catching up with its European neighbours. Indeed the case can be made that it was during this period that Nicolas II, laid the foundations for his country's later rise as a superpower, which the communists exploited and tried to take credit for. Likewise it was under the reign of Nicolas II, that the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed which connected the Russian Empire together for the first time, while the Russian armed forces began to modernize, and with Russia also being among the first to establish an air force.

Of course criticism of the Tsar and the advocates of revolutionary treason were not publicly tolerated, however in contrast to what was to come under the Soviets, freedom of expression still existed in other areas, and the Tsar's subjects could still fully express their opinions in private. Likewise even if you run foul of the anti-treason laws of the time, punishment was at most exile in Siberia for a set period, but again in contrast to Soviet times the exiles didn't languish in slavery in the gulags waiting for their short miserable lives to end, but instead could free go about their business, and could make a fresh start with many exiles going on to prosper in their new digs, and sometimes even opting to stay once their sentence was finished. Actions that are certainly not in keeping with the brutal, arbitrary dictatorships that were to come in places like Germany, China, Cuba and North Korea...

In fact the biggest fault of Nicolas was in foreign policy, where he blatantly misjudged the rising power of Japan, and declined a deal that would have recognized of Japanese dominance in Korea in return for Russian dominance of Manchuria, opting instead for what he assumed was a quick and easy war that would boost his popularity. Instead Russia suffered its worst humiliation in living memory and lost control of both Korea and Manchuria, this set the fuse for a failed revolutionary uprising that included the tragic massacre of protesters in front of Winter Palace, for which the Tsar wasn't personally responsible. Nevertheless Nicolas was more flexible than is portrayed, and reacted by granting Russia's first constitution in which the Tsar voluntarily shared some of his traditional authority with a partially elected Duma, although Nicolas was forced to tinker with the electoral system to root out the revolutionary traitors, who spurned their emperor's goodwill gesture and used the Duma as a platform to spew their poisonous verbal filth. Furthermore to further address some of the underlying causes of the revolt, Nicolas II appointed a solid prime minister Pyotr Stolypin, who began the urgent process of land reform, but who was brutally murdered by the revolutionary scum for doing too good a job. Again hardly the actions of a brutal dictator...

At the same time Wilhelm II, offered his cousin a lifeline when he secretly wrote to the Tsar offering to conclude an alliance between Russia and Germany, similar to the one that existed during the reign of their respective fathers. Indeed such an alliance would have served the multipurpose role of mending fencse with Germany, shoring up the Tsar's position in the aftermath of the annus horribilis of 1905, given Russia breathing space to rebuild its economy and armed forces, and an opportunity to break with republican France which aside from mutual hostility with Germany, had nothing in common with Russia, and was in fact a natural enemy whose revolutionary ideology was totally opposed to the Russian imperial system, and served as a safe haven to the Tsar's enemies. But alas after signing the Treaty of Bjorko, Nicolas II was persuaded by his ministers to change his mind, thereby making the treaty stillborn which only served to humiliate the Kaiser who would have made a much better ally than republican France, while inadvertently weakening the Russian monarchy further by cementing a more powerful neighbour as an enemy on the nations western doorstep, when war broke out.

However the Tsars foreign policy blunders, weren't by no means limited to him, with mistakes committed in equal measure on both sides by the members the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, which made war ever more likely. Nevertheless contrary to public opinion in the victorious nations after the conclusion of World War I, the war was neither started by Germany, nor was she wholly to blame as it can be safely show that there was plenty of blame to go round, with the only truly innocent victims of the carnage being Belgium and Luxembourg. The real culprit to striking the fuse that lead to the civilized world entering the abyss, was Serbia who secretly backed, funded and even supplied terrorist training camps to the the Black Hand terrorist group, who assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand in an effort to spark a violent overthrow of Hapsburg rule in the Balkans, to allow Serbia to take their place.

At first Wilhelm encouraged his Austrian ally Franz Joseph to take a hard line against Serbia, with Austrian outrage certainly understandable. However when Serbia surprisingly agreed to nearly all the Austrian demands, and faced with the prospect of the continent set ablaze by war, Kaiser Bill quite sensibly asked Franz Joseph to accept Serbia's concessions. However Wilhelm's government and generals worked to sabotage their emperor's efforts by obstructing the message, and watering it down to the point that it didn't make any sense, and when it did finally arrive it was already too late, as Austria had already attacked. Likewise even the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was reluctant to give the order to invade Serbia, but was effectively bypassed by his own ministers, who downplayed the seriousness of the crisis until it was too late. However Tsar Nicolas also failed to step in by warning the Serb's that since the current crisis of their own doing, they were on their own and should come to the best possible terms with Austria-Hungary. For the reality was that owing to the state of its economy, military, and simple geography, Russia simply wasn't in a position to offer help to Serbia anyway. Instead Nicolas ignored his instincts and his country's weak position, and allowed himself to by swayed by the war hawks in his government, the French ambassador, and a fear of losing face from backing down; to set in motion events that would lead to the first continent wide conflict in nearly 100 years.

Even at this stage the war could have remained a solely European affair, were it not for British intervention that resulted in its escalation into a world war. Originally Prime Minister Herbert Asquith intended to sit on the fence and remain neutral, however his liberal government was on the verge of losing power to the conservatives, and it was primarily this reason, along with the vocal war hawks in the cabinet, namely the foreign secretary Edward Grey and a certain First Lord of the Admiralty by the name of Winston Churchill; who persuaded Asquith that he could use Belgium as an excuse to throw Britain's hat into the ring, and save his skin from the political chopping block... Of course by Belgium I'm referring to the Belgian Treaty of Neutrality that was signed when the country became independent, which made Belgium perpetually neutral with that neutrality guaranteed by the Great Powers. However the treaty also contained a get out clause, as Britain was not obliged to accept a Belgian request for armed intervention in defence of their aforementioned neutrality.

Indeed from a solely British perspective the approaching war didn't affect the national interest, as even the worse case scenario of a German victory and domination of Europe, still didn't affect British national interests which lay solely in maintaining her vast global empire. Indeed it could be said that the United States posed a greater threat to the British Empire, with her vulnerable holdings in Canada, the rest of the America's, than did Germany which had a tiny military presence in her African and Pacific colonies, and posed no threat to neighboring British possessions. Likewise even the Belgians themselves could see even from their own history and geography, that they were the only thing that stood in the way of France and Germany getting at each others throats. Therefore since maintaining neutrality in such a situation was patently absurd, Belgium needed to pick sides and defend herself accordingly. However even if the sight of poor little Belgium about to be engulfed by German invasion was too still too much to bear, Britain could still have secured German concessions on maintaining the territorial integrity of Belgium, in the event of what would have been an inevitable German victory, as the last thing Germany wanted was British involvement in the war...

Thus when looking at the monarchs of Russia, Germany and Austria, it seems pretty clear to me that while not completely absolved of responsibility, the role they played in the outbreak of World War One has been grossly overblown, while the role played by those country's politicians has likewise been grossly downplayed. Despite the very understandable provocations made, especially against Austria-Hungary, or in the cases of Germany and Russia old scores to settle, their monarchs were still reluctant to get their countries involved in war, because as the father's of their respective nations, these sovereigns could see the conflict as bringing a great deal of suffering upon their people, in return for little or no gain, and were deceived, acting by self-serving politicians, who deceived, browbeat or flagrantly disobeyed their sovereigns either for personal ambition or to settle scores, rather than acting in their countries national interests.

So in final summary then, it was Serbia who started the war, by backing the despicable assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne Franz Ferdinand, for wholly unjustified reasons. Although Austria ultimately invaded Serbia, her reasons for doing so were quite understandable under the circumstances. Russia bears responsibility for activating the series of alliances, that turned a Balkan conflict into a European wide war, despite being unable to come to Serbia's aid, although in fairness since no one had the courage to point out the home truths to Tsar Nicolas II, its not surprising he came under the spell of the war hawks. Kaiser Wilhelm II was deceived by his own ministers who downplayed the seriousness of the situation, meaning he was away from Berlin where he was sorely needed, and when he tried to prevent the invasion of France and thereby the entry of Britain into the conflict at the last minute, his orders were flatly disobeyed by his generals with Von Moltke the Younger bearing special responsibility. Britain's reasons for involvement appear noble on the surface, however on closer examination as we have seen, her intentions were less than savory, with prime minister Herbert Asquith bearing special responsibility, for listening to the war hawks in his cabinet Edward Grey and Winston Churchill, and instructed his king George V to declare war simply as a way of staying in office... Only poor old Belgium was completely absolved of any responsibility for the eruption of the conflict, although like I said earlier it was rather foolish to remain neutral and refuse to arm herself, which ironically, went against the wishes of her king Albert I, whose concerns were ignored by his parliament.

Thus rather than being an example against monarchy, I think the whole sorry affair of the run up to World War I, is an abject lesson of just why it is monarchs rather than politicians, who should be entrusted with foreign policy. For history has shown time and again that by acting as fathers or mothers to their people, sovereigns are far less likely to wage wars of aggression than politicians, who do so largely for selfish reasons like personal gain, or to settle scores. In contrast a sovereign as I've said before, by virtue of being the patriarch of their people, are far less likely to risk the lives of their people, and as a result set the bar much higher when going to war. Consequently if the decision to go to war had been left solely at the discretion of George V, Wilhelm II, Franz Joseph & Nicolas II, and their wishes adhered to by their political and military servants, then war would either not have happened, or at least been greatly reduced in both its scope and severity, as would its ensuring consequences namely: the weakening of Europe, the rise of Fascism and Communism, World War Two, the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations, the emergence of the United States as the dominant world power, the Cold War, the European Union, and the fall of monarchies around the world especially, a price that was certainty not worth paying.

Indeed the run up to the outbreak of the First World War, is another reason why I believe that the power to wage war and sue for peace should not be entrusted to politicians of any kind, since history has shown time and again that they simply they are not up to the task of serving as a father to their people, in the way a monarch can, which is why wars initiated by politicians in ceremonial monarchies or republican heads of state; are usually done for the wrong reasons and generally never end well, and that is why I remain an Alberta Royalist.

MM Video: Q&A #5

Royal News Roundup

It was not a terribly event week past but here are some of the royal-related items making news around the world, starting in the British Isles. Most disturbingly, one Ashraf Islam has been sentenced to three years in jail for plotting to kill Prince Harry (on the grounds that he disapproves of the mission of the British military and considers every member of the Queen’s armed forces a war criminal). Am I the only one that finds three years an exceptionally light sentence for plotting the death of the fourth in-line to the throne (of numerous countries)? In other news the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall took a tour of the BBC to highlight British radio, the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cambridge and David Beckham all teamed up to condemn the illegal wildlife trade and poaching and all that sort of thing, the Duchess of Cambridge opened an “art therapy” room in west London and Prince Harry and Prince William (Duke of Cambridge) teamed up to aid flood victims in Datchet with their regiment, the Blues & Royals, with no fuss or attention -at least until their cover was blown by The Guardian. Across the North Sea, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway gave out an award for best “sustainable fashion” (whatever that means) while Crown Prince Haakon awarded the best social entrepreneur (not too sure about that one either). Prince Joachim and Princess Marie of Denmark went off for a family vacation and the King of Sweden has been in Russia cheering on the Swedish Olympians.

In other continental news, despite some recent tensions between their two countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin and King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands sat down for a beer together at the Sochi Olympic games. Nice to see some world leaders behaving like adults, pretending to ignore the other side never made sense to me. Further south, Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg visited the “Family of Man” exhibition along with Princess Margaret of Liechtenstein in a rather rare public appearance for the elderly former monarch. In the Kingdom of Spain, there was outrage from the presiding judge in the case against the Duke of Palma de Mallorca over secretly recorded video footage of the testimony of HRH Infanta Cristina which was then passed to the media. The judge called it “unspeakable” and an investigation into that breach of security is underway. Also, the prosecutor in the case announced last week he is seeking a 17-year prison sentence for the Duke if found guilty of corruption. Just contrast that, for a moment, with the 3-year sentence handed down to the man who was conspiring to assassinate Prince Harry. Who says royals receive preferential treatment?

On royal news from the continent of Asia King Abdullah II of Jordan was in Washington DC last week meeting with Arab-American leaders and politicians, calling for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and praising the Muslim community in the United States for their support of Arab causes. In the Gulf states, authorities are stepping up their policing of on-line media for potential threats to their security from dissidents which made the international busy-bodies howl (as usual) but which cannot be said to be uncalled for as last week police in Bahrain clashed with anti-monarchy protestors on the anniversary of their previous Arab Spring-inspired uprising which was put down with assistance from the King of Saudi Arabia. Across the continent in the Kingdom of Malaysia, on a related note, police arrested a woman at 1 AM for sedition based on remarks she made on-line against the Sultan of Selangor. In Thailand there was a minor uproar in the government also caused by the internet as Princess Chulabhorn Mahidol posted photos of herself wearing the Thai national colors. Government partisans took this as a show of support on her part for the anti-government (but pro-monarchy) protestors that have been demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister with some calling it a “declaration of war”. The Princess, of course, made no statement of the kind but it says something that a simple patriotic display is being cited as an attack by the current government. Finally, in a deal worked out between the Kingdom of Norway and the People’s Bandit Republic of China some marble columns that were looted by European troops from the Summer Palace in the aftermath of the Boxer Rebellion will be returned to China later this year. China and Norway have had rather frosty relations ever since a Nobel Prize was given to a prominent Chinese dissident (in this case meaning one who has called for democracy with more than one party to choose from).

Royal Friends of Texas: Canada

The connection between Texas and Canada actually goes back to before either were independent countries. Yet, most Texans and Canadians alike are probably unaware of the long history linking these two distant places. Today, the one part of Canada which most resembles Texas is certainly the Province of Alberta. Home to cowboys, oil wells and a largely conservative population, it is no wonder some have called Alberta the ‘Texas of Canada’. However, Texas and Canada have had a history long before the Province of Alberta was even settled. The list of Canadians who have played a part in Texas history and the list of famous Canadian-Texans is actually a long one. Two of the earliest were the French Canadian brothers Paul and Pierre Antoine Mallet who explored much of what is now northern Texas and New Mexico with their primary expeditions being across the area from Santa Fe, along the Canadian River and Red River to New Orleans, Louisiana. Some say it was these brothers who gave the Canadian River its name, thinking the river reached all the way to Canada. And, speaking of French Canada, thanks to the intrepid explorer La Salle, Texas and Canada shared a monarch for a short time in the person of King Louis XIV of France.

Holland crosses the line

During the War for Independence, a number of Canadians fought for Texas with great distinction. One famous name was Tapley Holland who was actually born in Ohio but whose parents were immigrants from Canada. At the famous battle of the Alamo, when Colonel Travis drew his line in the sand and asked any who would stay and fight to the death alongside him to cross the line, it was Tapley Holland who was the first to cross and offer to give his life for Texas. The year prior, when San Antonio was taken from the Mexican army, a native of Nova Scotia named William Graham (a member of the New Orleans Greys) was twice cited for bravery. Later, he formed his own company of volunteers in the U.S. and returned to serve the Republic of Texas as a member of the elite Texas Rangers. William Silvan Brown was a Canadian native of Montreal who came to Texas, joined the army and served for a time before being taken prisoner by the Mexicans and perishing in the infamous Goliad massacre. He was not the only Canadian to be killed on that tragic Palm Sunday, but, Canadians were also present at the final victory. It was a Canadian, Dr Nicholas Labadie, who patched up General Sam Houston during the battle of San Jacinto when Texas independence was won.

After the Republic of Texas was secured, one early item of business was to settle things with the Catholic Church. Several Canadian churchmen played a leading part in the agreements which saw the restoration of property to the Catholic Church by the Republic of Texas and the establishment of a local Catholic hierarchy. Canadian Catholics also played a major part in reviving Catholicism in the border region of Texas where the faith had lapsed during the period of the early Mexican republic and Texas independence. The founding father of the vital port city of Galveston, Texas was a Canadian and it was a Canadian priest, Father Paul Joseph Foik, a native of Ontario, who became a noted librarian and historian. He later founded the Catholic Archives of Texas. One of the most famous ranchers in Texas history was Henry W. Cresswell, an English-born immigrant to Canada. He was a ranching legend with vast holdings across the Texas panhandle, the western U.S. and Canada. He was also good friends with the famous Charles Goodnight. One that even a few outsiders might have heard of was Bartholomew (Bat) Masterson. He was a U.S. Marshal, born in Ontario who became a noted lawman in the Texas panhandle and eventually a living legend across the American west. He helped construct Adobe Walls on the Canadian River in north Texas, was involved in many a business venture and many a gunfight and had such a colorful life he inspired a popular television series.

In the sad War Between the States, one of the most prominent Texans was a native of Canada. Charles Arden Russell was a Canadian soldier, a veteran of the British army, who came to Texas for a visit and decided to stay. He was a local official and founder of Helena in Karnes County and was a delegate to the Texas secession convention when the state voted to leave the Union. Afterwards, he joined the Confederate army and served with the legendary Texas Ranger Colonel John S. “RIP” Ford (who won the last battle of the war in far south Texas). Another Canadian who rose to prominence in the fratricidal conflict was Margaret (Mother St. Pierre) Harrington. She was the second foundress of the Galveston Ursulines and was known as “the Soldiers’ Friend” during the war for her care of Union and Confederate soldiers during the war. Born in Montreal, Canada she moved to New Orleans and later to Galveston, Texas after joining the Ursuline Convent. Her many acts of compassion and courage during the war earned her a noble and holy reputation by people from both sides, Protestants and Catholics alike. And, there were Texans who also had an impact on Canada such as James Wainwright Flanagan. He was born in Henderson, Texas, left home when he was young and worked in mines and railroads in the U.S., Cuba and Mexico. Eventually he became a businessman, made it to Canada and became president of the Royal Bank of Canada in 1913. A decorated veteran of the Cuban army, he was also named an honorary lieutenant colonel in the First and Second Battalions of the Irish Regiment of Canada in 1940. He earned many honors in his life, including the Order of St Gregory granted by Pope Pius XI. He lived many years in Toronto, Canada before coming home to retire in Houston.

In the early days, when there was little to Canada outside of French Canada, it was the French Canadians who probably had the biggest footprints in Texas. This can even be seen in the number of Frenchmen from Acadia who settled in Texas. Most made their homes in Louisiana of course but some came to Texas and others migrated from Louisiana later and, while most associated with Louisiana, the term “Cajun” has been generally applied to any American southerner of French descent. Today this can seem somewhat strange given that no two places could seem more dissimilar than modern-day Quebec and Texas. However, most recently, Texas has grown ever more closer with the one Canadian province that is most similar to Texas; Alberta. Of course, since the 90’s Texas had increased exposure to Canadians thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and there are always the “snow birds” who come to Texas to escape the harsh Canadian winter but recently Texas and Alberta in particular have to work together more often as Alberta has become a powerhouse in a field Texas has long been famous for: oil production. Texas and Alberta were set to become linked in a much more literal sense with the planned Keystone Pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta to the refineries of East Texas. Unfortunately, and more so for Canada than Texas, President Obama blocked the plan, officially because of environmental concerns in Nebraska [which is ridiculous and this is coming from someone who has a pipeline in practically his front and back yards, the grass, the trees, the cows, horses and rattlesnakes are all fine, the only thing that has changed is the size of my bank account]. Hopefully, one day that obstructionist policy will be reversed and Texas and (especially) Canada can both benefit by being linked more ‘deeply’ than ever before.

Mongolia, Monarchy and Hope

Recently, NHK reported that Mongolia (independent Outer Mongolia) was seeking closer ties with the State of Japan as an alternative to the ever-encroaching pressure from Russia to their north and China to their south. This is not an altogether new position for Mongolia to be in and it is not the first time that Mongols have looked for support from Japan in the face of domination from their more immediate neighbors. In the past, monarchy played a key role in this drama and it is something worth considering as few people tend to be very familiar with the monarchial history of Mongolia, at least following the fall of the massive Mongol Empire that once dominated most of the known world. Many people seem to be under the mistaken belief that Mongolia was, at some point, conquered by Imperial China. Such is not the case. Mongolia was never a part of Imperial China but China could be said to have been part of Mongolia for a time. As most know, Genghis Khan conquered most of northern China and it was left to his grandson, Kublai Khan, to conquer the rest of China and establish the Great Yuan Empire, the Yuan Dynasty being one of the major imperial dynasties of Chinese history. Eventually, the Mongols were displaced and China came under the rule of the Ming Dynasty as the Great Ming Empire of which Mongolia was never a part.

Ligden Khan

Just because the Mongols were evicted from ruling China does not mean it all came to an end. They retreated to their Mongolian homeland and continued there as the “Northern Yuan Dynasty” until the reign of Ligden Khan. After his death many Mongols, and they were fractured at the time, allied with the rising power of the Manchus and the son of Ligden Khan handed over the dynastic seal to Hong Taiji, son of Nurhaci who was the founder of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. The Manchus and the Mongols were then allies and the Mongols certainly saw themselves as partners with the Manchus in taking control of China and establishing the Great Qing Empire. Because of this, the monarchial tradition in Mongolia continued in the person of the Manchu Emperor who also held the title ‘Great Khan of the Mongols’. This continued up until the duplicitous overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1911/1912 with the abdication of the famous ‘last emperor’. Already, by that time, Mongolia was feeling pressure from the Russian Empire. In the agreements drawn up among the European powers, Mongolia and Manchuria were both considered to be part of the Russian sphere of influence. However, when the Qing Dynasty lost power, it happened with the Mongols (and the Manchus for that matter) having no say in the decision and they were not prepared to just accept being a part of the Republic of China when they had never been ruled by China.

It was at this time that the last monarch to hold power in Outer Mongolia came to prominence. In the absence of their former monarch, the Qing Emperor, the Mongols turned for leadership to their highest religious official, the Bogd Gegeen or “Holy Shining One” and invested him with secular power as the Bogd Khan of Mongolia. Long-time readers will remember the fate that befell him. He was first removed from power and placed under house arrest by a warlord of the Republic of China only to be liberated and restored in 1921 by the multi-national White Russian-led army of Baron von Ungern-Sternberg. When he was defeated and captured the Bogd Khan spent the rest of his life under house arrest as Outer Mongolia became the first satellite state of the Soviet Union, ruled with the most extreme brutality by a succession of Soviet stooges, the most infamous being the Stalin-worshipping Choibalsan. All the while, the Republic of China still claimed jurisdiction over all of Mongolia just as they did over all lands formerly a part of the Great Qing Empire even though these had never been part of China. So, Outer Mongolia was effectively being ruled by Soviet Russia and Inner Mongolia was being ruled (somewhat intermittently) by the Republic of China which also claimed Outer Mongolia as their own as well but were still fighting among themselves for control of what territory they actually occupied.

Prince De Wang

An obvious place to look to for help in this situation was the Empire of Japan. There had, in fact, been some elements in Japan working for some time on forging a pan-monarchist coalition across northeast Asia of Japanese, Manchus and Mongols. It was to further cement such an alliance that the tough, colorful Japanese-raised Manchu princess, Kawashima Yoshiko, was (briefly) married into one of the leading Mongol noble families. However, whereas Outer Mongolia had to be taken off the priority list after the ineffective border clashes with the Soviet Red Army and the subsequent Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact, Inner Mongolia remained a region of potential. In this area, the man looked to for leadership was Prince Demchugdongrub or Prince De Wang. He had been loyal to the Qing Emperor during his time in the Forbidden City and after his expulsion and exile to Tientsin. He also visited the Emperor after he was restored to the throne in Manchuria. The Japanese Kwantung Army, operating in Manchuria, supported Prince De Wang in establishing an autonomous government and while he controlled relatively little territory and his state consisted mostly of an army and a monarchy, he was a pan-Mongol visionary and his ultimate goal was no secret to anyone. That was to reunite all the Mongol peoples into a restored Mongol Empire or, perhaps, even another partnership with the restored Manchu Empire.

As Mengjiang (as it was called -the territory of the Mongols) did not survive the Japanese defeat in 1945 and was conquered by communist forces along with Manchuria, we will never know how it would have developed. Prince De Wang was certainly no puppet, despite what his detractors may say. The first Japanese advances made toward him were rejected and his first official alliance was with the restored Emperor of Manchuria (who may have been his cousin but I am not sure about that) who also bestowed on him a special title. When the Prince did come to an agreement with the Japanese Kwantung Army he remained very alert to any hint of a move that would infringe on his authority. Officially, his regime was autonomous, which it was, but also was seen as something temporary. Even the name, Mengjiang, suggested to all who saw it that the intention was to recover all the lands inhabited by the Mongol people. He always dealt with the Emperor of Manchuria as he would have (and did) in the pre-revolutionary days of the Qing Empire. However, after 1940, Inner Mongolia was listed as an autonomous region of the Reorganized National Government of China led by President Wang Jingwei. However, it was truly autonomous and no activities by the Kuomintang party were permitted there nor were any Han Chinese allowed to settle in Mengjiang.

It seems unlikely then that, even if the war had ended differently, Mengjiang would have remained a part of the Republic of China. The goal of Prince De Wang was always to revive the Mongol nation, reuniting Inner and Outer Mongolia, and most assume that this would have meant that Prince De Wang would have been the monarch of this new restored Mongolia. There was certainly a Royal Family on hand ready to take up the responsibility. However, given his own character and personal history, it is also possible that Mengjiang, somewhat enlarged, would have become a partner with Manchuria again under the reign of Emperor Kang Te (PuYi). It is also encouraging that, unlike the Manchu Emperor, after the war Prince De Wang remained fairly popular amongst the Mongol people despite the best efforts of the communist regimes in both China and Mongolia. He spent about 13 years in a Chinese prison of course as a “traitor” and “collaborator” but his own people still, to a large extent, viewed him as a visionary national leader who wanted to restore Mongol glory and make them a proud and united nation once again. That is something to be thankful for as we move forward.

The unfortunate thing is that Inner Mongolia today is mostly a lost cause. Mongol traditions are slowly going away and the Mongols themselves are being drowned out in a flood of Han Chinese settlers (particularly after the coal boom and other related mineral exploitation in the region). Today Mongols make up only 20% of the population of the “Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region” of the People’s Bandit Republic of China. The Chinese Communist Party is not about to change its ways and no other country or countries will do anything about it because China has the bomb -and if you have the bomb, no one can touch you (which is why so many of the worst regimes want it so badly). Outer, independent, Mongolia, while not encouraging, at least has room for hope. In the absence of a secular monarch, they had the Bogd Khan who ruled until the country became a Soviet client state. In 1926 the communist regime ruled that there would be no further reincarnations but, apparently, the spirit world paid them no heed and after the Soviet collapse it was announced that there had been a reincarnation who was enthroned in 1999 in Mongolia as the spiritual leader of Mongolian Buddhists by the Dalai Lama. That incarnation has since past away and, I presume, the search is continuing for his successor.

The (now) late Bogd Gegeen

If there is to be a royal restoration in Mongolia it seems most likely that the spiritual variety will be the most likely avenue. Of course, the Chinese bandit government has expressed their great displeasure at every kindness or courtesy shown to the Bogd Gegeen or the Dalai Lama in Mongolia and the Mongolian government still tends to be dominated by communists with a cosmetic make-over. However, a restored Bogd Khan would seem to be the least threatening to those in political power and the most likely, at this point, to be able to unite the Mongol people. In the past, some high ranking officials expressed that they were at least open to the idea of having another Bogd Khan as a ceremonial head of state. Unless a more dynamic secular figure comes along who could do better, I would hope that other countries, such as Japan if Mongolia is looking to the Japanese to offset the influence of the Russians and Chinese, would support and encourage the next Bogd Gegeen when his new incarnation is found and made public. I say “hope” because, unfortunately, too many in Japan these days take the monarchy for granted and tend to view things in purely economic or racial terms rather than in terms of politics. The past support for Prince De Wang should serve as an example. Just as in the past, Mongolia is becoming unhappy with their level of dependence on Russia or China and just as in the past, a revival of a traditional Mongol monarchy should be the solution that Japan (and hopefully other countries) unite in support of.

The Great War in Italian Africa

The struggle for Africa in World War I is a subject not widely known. Among those who are aware of it, most are familiar with the campaigns by the Allies to seize control of the German colonies in Africa; Togoland, Kamerun, German Southwest Africa and most especially German East Africa where a small band of German colonial troops held out until the end of the war, evading or defeating forces vastly superior to their own. Yet, these were not the only areas of Africa touched by the Great War and the focus on Germany diverts attention away from another of the Central Powers that had big plans for African expansion and that was, of course, the Ottoman Empire. If the Great War had gone in favor of the Central Powers the Ottoman Empire was anxious to reclaim control of North Africa and East Africa from Egypt-Sudan to the Horn of Africa. Although the British were successful in stopping the Turkish efforts to invade Egypt, the Turks were energetic in forging alliances with Islamic groups already in rebellion in northern and eastern Africa against the friends and armed forces of the Kingdom of Italy.

Even before war broke out in Europe, Italian colonial forces were engaged in North Africa, fighting against Sanussi rebels. Italy had gained the three north African provinces of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan after defeating the Ottoman Empire in a war in 1911-1912 and ever since there had been periodic rebellions in the form of attacks on Italian settlements and Italian farmers mostly by members of the Sanussi sect, a tribe and religious order of the Sufi branch of Islam. The Sanussi had been fighting the French in Chad but moved to attack the Italians as soon as the three provinces were handed over to Italy by the Turks. Ultimately, of course, these three provinces would be grouped together by Italy and named Libya, restoring the old Roman title for the area. Since most know it as that, for the sake of simplicity this region will be henceforth referred to as Libya here even though it would not become the official name until 1934. In February of 1914 the Italians began an offensive against Sanussi camps and punitive raids continued until late in the year. However, the number of Italian colonial forces was limited and these were stretched over an immense area.

In August, an Italian column was attacked and defeated by Sanussi rebels at Bir al-Fatia. Subsequently, there was a massive uprising in Fezzan, home of the Sanussi holy city of Kufra. The “supreme leader” of the Sanussi was, at this time, Ahmed Sharif as-Senussi and he would lead or direct his forces in attacks on the French, Italians and British throughout this period. The rebellion became so severe that the Italian forces had to withdraw to Tripolitania by early 1915. To make matters worse, the “Dervishes” of Italian Somaliland in East Africa were becoming increasingly aggressive and clashing with Italian or Italian-allied Somali forces in 1915. These so-called “Dervishes” were the followers of the “Mad Mullah” (who was actually not a mullah at all) Muhammad Abd Allah Hassan. Already, in 1914, he had caused considerable problems for the British in British Somaliland, defeating or at least bloodying British colonial forces in a number of clashes before moving across the border into Italian territory. Meanwhile, back in north Africa, a see-saw campaign, similar to what would later be seen in World War II was unfolding.

Early March, 1915 saw Italian troops defeat (or disperse without much actual combat) a large Sanussi force gathering in southern Tripolitania. Eager to follow this up, a large Italian column set out eastward in the hope of crushing the Sanussi rebellion in the area of Surt. However, on April 28-29 they were soundly defeated by a massive rebel attack at Abu Zinaf. The tide of war swung back in favor of the rebels and from May to June they had besieged Italian garrisons at Banu Walid and Tarhunah, preventing all relief efforts by other Italian forces. May also saw the formal entry of the Kingdom of Italy into the First World War on the Allied side. This had positive and negative effects for the war in Africa. While, Italy gained allies who were as equally threatened in the region, it also meant that Italian military strength would have to be concentrated almost entirely on the border with Austria with the result that the already hard-pressed troops in the colonies would be reduced to a bare minimum. In the summer, another attempt to relieve the siege of Banu Walid failed and when the garrison, driven to desperation, tried a breakout they were overwhelmed. Southern Tripolitania was abandoned  and by October all Italian forces in Cyrenaica as well were withdrawn to the coast.

Obviously, a major change had taken place and that was that the Ottoman Empire had begun to arm the rebels in the hope of eventually retaking their former provinces and reestablishing control of northern Africa. In spite of the fact that, at the time, Italy was only at war with Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire was effectively waging a proxy war against the Italians and Germany was also helping them do it, using German U-boats to smuggle weapons to the Libyan insurgents. In retaliation, on August 21 the Kingdom of Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire (Italy would not declare war on Germany until the following year). By the end of 1915, things looked bleak for the Italian position in north Africa. There had never been much of a real presence in Fezzan and Italian forces in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica had been forced to abandon their interior positions and concentrate their modest forces on the coast in the major towns and port cities. 1916, however, would open with another change in fortunes for the Italians in Libya. In the early months, alarmed by the radicalism of the rebels, the coastal population rallied to the side of the Italians in Tripolitania and Jabal Nafusah. Sanussi control was restricted to the area east of Wadi Zamzam. On February 1, 1916 the Italians were able to strike back for a change and wipe out a Sanussi rebel column.

Emperor Lij Jasu

As the year wore on and the tide seemed to be turning in Libya, events were growing worse in East Africa. The “Mad Mullah” Muhammad Abd Allah Hassan formed an alliance in May with Emperor Lij Jasu of Ethiopia who had reportedly converted to Islam. Both hoped to achieve their goals of expansion across the Horn of Africa by allying with the Ottoman Empire, placing Ethiopia and Somalia under the spiritual authority of the Ottoman Sultan, the Caliph of Islam. The “Mad Mullah”, the Ethiopian Emperor and the Ottoman Turks formed an alliance to wage war against the British, French and Italian presence in the region. The Ottomans had already been smuggling weapons into the area from southern Arabia across the Gulf of Aden. However, neither of their two allies were in total control of any country or colony. Hassan was already a wanted man by both Britain and Italy and the flirtation with Islam by Lij Jasu did not go over well in Ethiopia. Forces opposed to him declared him deposed and Ethiopia descended into another civil war. Italy rushed reinforcements to Eritrea, the oldest Italian colony in the region, to maintain security and plans were drawn up for a more vigorous colonial strategy.

In May of 1916 Italian troops launched a counter-offensive in Libya with an amphibious landing at Ras al-Muraysah in Cyrenaica that results in the recapture of al-Bardi after which another Italian column, in a joint operation with the British, destroy a major Sanussi camp near Darnah. The British became involved since, with the outbreak of World War I, the Sanussi leader Ahmed Sharid as-Senussi had invaded Egypt, capturing Sallum and provoking the British to strike back and take the Sanussi threat more seriously. Now, however, the Allies were advancing and later that month Italian forces retook Zuwarah in Tripolitania. They were so successful that, by July, the Sanussi agreed to meet for talks with the British and Italians about making peace. Some decide to lay down their arms but others do not and in early 1917 the Italian forces resumed their offensive, clearing the rebels west of Tripoli and completely retaking southern Tripolitania. At the same time, in East Africa, the “Mad Mullah” attacks the Sultan Uthman of Obbia who is allied with Italy but the forces of the Sultan soundly defeat him.

Back in Libya, the Sanussi finally agree to come to terms with Italy and Great Britain, promising to recognize their authority and cease hostilities. However, some rebel groups simply denounce the Sanussi leadership that made the agreement and carry on fighting anyway. Because of this, retaliation against these post-peace agreement rebels would often be quite severe. Throughout the rest of the year the restoration of Italian rule over Tripolitania continued at a steady pace while in East Africa the Sultan of Obbia launched his own counter-offensive against the “Mad Mullah”, winning another victory. 1918 saw an unbroken string of Italian victories across Libya with the rebels only managing to launch one major attack which was repelled by the colonial troops while taking heavy losses. In East Africa, the much vaunted threat of a Muslim takeover of the Horn of Africa came to nothing as local forces friendly to Italy proved capable of handling things on their own in Somalia while in Ethiopia, the deposed Emperor Lij Jasu ended up fighting for his own throne rather than waging a war of conquest against the French, British and Italian colonies.

Italian rule was restored and secured across the Italian African colonies. However, peace would not be permanent and it would take another major campaign before Libya was pacified in 1932. Ahmed Sharif as-Senussi left Libya in 1918 for the Ottoman Empire via Austria-Hungary, leaving the peace negotiations with his cousin Mohammad Idris who would, for a short time, become King of Libya after World War II. In Ethiopia, Lij Jasu (or Iyasu V) was deposed in favor of his aunt Empress Zewditu who kept him safe and tried to have him reconciled with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which had excommunicated him. However, Empress Zewditu was suppressed by Haile Selassie who made himself Emperor and finally had Lij Jasu killed during another war with Italy. The “Mad Mullah” took his fight back to British territory, was soundly defeated and died of influenza in 1920.

MM Video: Q&A #4

Royal News Roundup

Starting, for a change, in Scandinavia, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway opened a special exhibition on Wednesday in Oslo to bring awareness to the subject of “child brides”. The Crown Princess is also planning to take up again an event she had previously canceled for a train-trip across country to share her favorites of literature at each stop along the way. In The Netherlands, Princess Beatrix (and it still seems odd writing that) moved into her new home last week, a restored Drakensteyn castle in Lage Vuursche. In neighboring Belgium, King Philip had his first euro coins minted and along with Queen Mathilde made his first official visit to Paris, France where the socialist President Hollande sort of, maybe, flirted with the Queen a little bit. In the Kingdom of Spain, HRH Infanta Cristina appeared in court last week. Her arrival was marked by large crowds, much of it a treasonous mob shouting republican slogans. As expected, her testimony did not amount to much; she was not involved with what went on, has no knowledge of what went on and cannot be obliged to incriminate herself anyway. However, in the face of mounting anti-monarchy anger in Spain, the Royal Family has tried to improve its image by cutting costs and making its financial dealings public. And, also last week, HM Queen Sofia visited a post office. Big news that. And in other news that probably shouldn’t be news, after extensive testing German scientists have determined that the bones resting in the cathedral at Aachen really are those of the Emperor Charlemagne, King of the Franks. Did I miss the part about there ever being any doubt?

In the United Kingdom, it was announced last week that the Queen will be attending D-Day ceremonies in France this summer and will soon be paying a visit to Pope Francis at the Vatican. It will be after a morning meeting with the President of Italy and will be at the Pope’s Santa Marta residence (his choice of abode rather than the Apostolic Palace) and will be, according to reports, a very informal and ‘low-key’ affair. Of course it will be, that seems hardly newsworthy. I think it is safe to say at this point that Pope Francis will not ‘put on the dog’ for anyone. Also last week the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge joined forces to put out a message in opposition to the illegal wildlife trade just before the Duke went down to Spain on a hunting trip to shoot some of that wildlife (not that the two are in any way similar). There is also still some consternation over the discovered remains of the late King Richard III as there has still been no decision on where his final resting place is to be. Personally, I don’t know why this is being handled the way it is. I would have assumed that the Palace and the government would be much more involved. Like him or not Richard III was King of England, a former head of state, and should be treated as such and according to the same procedures. The Prince of Wales also visited flood-damaged Somerset, which he said was shocking and where he got his nose pinched by a toddler.

The biggest news, however, was the Olympics with the 2014 Winter games beginning in Sochi, Russia. With many world leaders, such as President Obama, boycotting the games and others worried about terrorist attacks this has been called the “No-Show Olympics” but the royals did not seem all that bothered and made a good showing. Among those on hand for the opening ceremonies were Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco (both former Olympians themselves), King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of The Netherlands, King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece, Grand Duke Henri and Prince Felix of Luxembourg (presumably with their better halves though I did not see them) and Princess Royal Anne from the United Kingdom who was less than impressed with the opening ceremony saying that they have gotten rather out of hand to the point that the focus is no longer on the athletes. I must say I agree. It seems every Olympic opening ceremony must now include a complete reenactment of the entire history of the host country (which Britain is guilty of as well and just as I didn’t appreciate making the Soviet-era look like a happy time of young people waving in cars, I didn’t think highlighted sources of British national pride should have included American TV shows and the NHS). A greater focus on the athletes in the future would be welcome.

In the Middle East, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia enacted tougher jail terms of 20 years in prison for those caught belonging to terrorist related groups in an effort to crack down on the Saudi nationals joining such organizations. Amnesty International, not surprisingly, criticized the new law saying that it could be used to suppress internal dissent. It was also announced that President Obama will visit Saudi Arabia in March where he has been less than popular lately over his acquiescence to Iran developing the potential for a nuclear arsenal as well as his failure to intervene in Syria. In the United Arab Emirates, the brother of Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, President of the UAE, said the head of state is doing “well” after an operation last month following a stroke. The Kingdom of Bahrain has announced tougher jail sentences for those found guilty of “offending” the King, the country still being somewhat on edge after the Shiite-led uprising of three years ago. Human Rights Watch issued a new criticism this week of Kuwait over similar laws which restrict criticism of the monarch.

In East Asia it has been a somewhat odd week for monarchy-related news in the State of Japan. Some things were perfectly normal, pleasant events such as the visit by Swiss President Didier Burkhalter to the Imperial Palace. He was received by Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress at the start of four days of events to mark the 150th anniversary of the first treaty of friendship and commerce between the Swiss Confederation and the Empire of Japan in 1864. HIH Crown Prince Naruhito attended a performance of the opera ‘Carmen’ by the late Georges Bizet at the New National Theatre in Tokyo but then there was also the rather strange and tragic story of the week. The latest member of the management board of NHK, Michiko Hasegawa, picked for the position last year by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has caused some controversy by making positive statements about the suicide of conservative activist Shusuke Nomura in the offices of the liberal Asahi newspaper in 1993 in exasperation for its mockery of his organization. Writing that it was only to God that people could offer their lives, Ms. Hasegawa wrote in a document recently found and posted online, “If it is devoted in the truly right way, there could be no better offering. When Mr. Shusuke Nomura committed suicide at the Asahi Shimbun headquarters 20 years ago, he …offered his death to God”. Prior to shooting himself three times in the stomach, Shusuke Nomura said a prayer for the prosperity of HM the Emperor which Ms. Hasegawa referred to saying, “His Imperial Highness, even if momentarily, became a living God again, no matter what the ‘Humanity Declaration’ says or what the Japanese constitution says”. The Abe government has refused to take action because of any of this, saying that members of the board are entitled to their own opinions and freedom of speech, however, it has caused many on the left to accuse the government of trying to make the NHK a bastion of conservative nationalism. I will only point out that NHK, like most major media outlets in the world, has had a noticeably left-leaning bias for a very long time which those complaining now seem to take for granted.

Who Is Afraid of Hanfu?

Sometime around 2003 (as best as anyone can trace these sorts of things) there began to grow in the Rich People’s Republic of China (formerly the glorious Great Qing Empire) something called the Hanfu movement. This is a movement that seeks to reintroduce to everyday life in the People’s Sweatshop of China the very tasteful and elegant traditional clothing styles of the Han nationality from the imperial era prior to the elevation of the Great Qing Dynasty. In other words, these are people who wear what was for centuries traditional Chinese clothing and who would like to see it more widely worn in China as well as for the Han Chinese to re-familiarize themselves with their ancient customs and traditions. One can certainly understand the need for this since most people around the world would probably not recognize traditional Chinese costume if they saw it or would, perhaps, mistake it for something Korean. The national costume of Korea was based on the Chinese style but traditional clothing is much more common in Korea today than in China (moreso among women than men). For most people around the world, if asked to describe traditional Chinese clothing, most would probably describe what is actually the Manchu style, such as the changpao (qipao), as when the Manchu Qing Dynasty came to power, the old Han national dress was suppressed in favor of Manchu clothes and hair styles. So, a greater familiarity with traditional Chinese clothing is certainly needed.

However, this renewed interest in traditional style and all things culturally and authentically Chinese has aroused the opposition of the bandit government in Peking. Officials have spoken derisively of members of the Hanfu movement as people trying to live in the past and dramas set in imperial times or featuring people traveling back in time to the Qing or more distant dynasties became so popular that government censors banned them in 2011 for, among other things, “promoting feudalism”. In other words, the commie bandits are afraid that people are being too nostalgic for the colorful, glorious days of Imperial China rather than joining in the mandated worship for the days of Maoist purges or the current communist/state capitalist kleptocracy. However, they really should not be surprised. The Han are, of course, the largest and most dominant ethnic group in modern China by far and yet, they have been the most far removed from their own traditional culture. The last few centuries of the imperial era were dominated by Manchu styles, the birth of the republic saw a fanatic grasping for all things western and then came the Maoist dictatorship which literally declared war on all things traditionally Chinese during the horrific “Cultural Revolution”. Even after that subsided, the Han majority often felt like the only group in China that lacked something as simple as national dress.

It should go without saying that the bandit government is totally in the wrong on this issue and that the hanfu movement is a positive thing for China. Those elements of the public embracing the movement are merely reflecting the fact that there is very little truly “Chinese” about China these days. Thousands of years of history was swept aside by the revolution and the hanfu movement is proof that some people in China are awakening to the fact that China had a rich and beautiful culture before the likes of Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen came along and ruined it, suppressing everything truly Chinese to embrace western-style republicanism and feuding economic systems. Critics have spoke condescendingly of the members of the hanfu movement as people stuck in the past, people who are anachronistic or, worst of all, people who romanticize “feudalism” (the commies love to harp about feudalism which is basically their term for anything pre-revolution). It would be too much to hope for that every member of the hanfu movement was a closet monarchist who wished to see the customs and values of Imperial China restored in the public sphere as well as the private but, alas, that is certainly not the case and those elements of the bandit government who see traces of dissent and counterrevolution everywhere are barking up the wrong tree. All they are doing in denigrating hanfu is suppressing their own history and culture rather than suppressing dissent.

Another major criticism of the hanfu movement is that it is too simplistic, it is merely cosmetic and that adopting old style clothing will not bring about any greater spiritual-nationalistic awakening in China. The simple answer to that is, “Well so what?!” It doesn’t have to be the cure-all for every problem to still be a positive thing and even if it were only cosmetic (which it is not, at least not entirely) it would still be a good thing. Even though, as a matter of personal taste, I prefer the Manchu style, I find hanfu style quite attractive and consider it infinitely preferable to the modern, grungy, western street garb most people wear, it is infinitely more dignified on a Han lady or gentleman than the tired western business suite or Clintonesque pantsuit. Regardless of personal taste, it looks better simply by virtue of being truly Chinese and not some imported fashion. True, it may not always be the most practical sort of garments but many traditional clothes are not anyway. It does not mean they should go away and there are many different ideas about how far one can take the movement. Some wish to see hanfu worn widely as everyday clothes while others wish to see them merely as acceptable, not something everyone would wear all the time but something some people would wear day to day without standing out. Still others would be content to see them used on special occasions, during festivals or such similar holidays as is often in the case in neighboring countries with their own national dress.

There is also the possibility of making hanfu something to be worn everyday but adapting it to be more practical for modern life. I think that would be great, provided of course that the classic style is preserved for special occasions as is usually the case. This has actually been done in many other countries. In Vietnam, although less common today, the late Madame Nhu popularized an adapted form of the traditional ao dai that was open at the neck. In Scotland there have been kilts made in different materials and with pockets and things to be more practical for everyday wear and even in China itself, there have already been numerous adaptations of the qipao (for ladies) that are practical and extremely attractive. So long as the original is not forgotten, adding more traditional styles to modern fashions can only be an improvement from my perspective and the people of China have every right and should feel no shame in embracing styles that are genuinely, authentically Chinese. In their opposition to this movement and their opposition that would dare to paint anything of the Qing or previous imperial eras in anything but a negative light, the communist bandit government is only proving their own insecurity, proving how fundamentally un-Chinese they really are and that they, in fact, have a deep-seated hostility to the true cultural legacy and traditions of their own people. This should have been obvious all along but many who have grown up long after the Cultural Revolution and the Deng Xiaoping era might not have been aware of it.

I have very mixed feelings about cash-strapped communist dictatorships paying actors to dress up and reenact traditional ceremonies (on the one hand, I am glad to see any attention given to the imperial era, on the other hand, doing it without *really* doing it seems almost blasphemous to me) but as far as people simply wishing to resurrect and celebrate traditional Chinese styles and ceremonies, I see it as a very positive thing. For the clothing, it simply looks better than most modern styles if nothing else and anything which encourages people to take a look back at the whole of Chinese history and not be limited to the Maoist era or post-1911 history is, in my view, a very positive thing. The hanfu movement as well as the recent renewed interest in Confucius (which the bandit government first opposed and then tried to co-opt) highlights the hunger people in China have for the magnificent imperial legacy that they have been denied. In time, perhaps, it may lead to more people reconsidering whether or not what they have been taught for so long might be in error, that Imperial China had some positive aspects (gasp!) and just maybe, eventually, this renewed interest in things traditionally Chinese might lead to the restoration of the one institution that was at the heart and center of it all: the monarchy.

Wansui!

Soldier of Monarchy: Colonel Alexander Kazakov

The First World War saw many advances in the art of war, particularly in the harnessing of industry and modern machinery for military purposes. It was the conflict which saw the first widespread use of automatic weapons, chemical weapons, super-long range artillery, submarines, tanks and, of course, aircraft. Somewhat unfairly, the Russian Empire is usually seen as lagging far behind the other Allied powers in all of these areas, depending almost entirely on the massive hordes of Russian infantry to win battles. True enough, Imperial Russia was not as industrially advanced as some other major powers, and the tough, relentless Russian soldier was always the best weapon of the Tsar but the Imperial Russian Navy actually had the first military submarine fleet in the world, deployed from Vladivostok during the war with Japan and while Russia was taken out of the First World War before tanks came into widespread use, the Russian Empire did also take to the skies with the war planes of the Imperial Russian Air Service. In fact, Russia had been training military pilots (using French aircraft) since 1910. At the outbreak of World War I it was, in fact, the Russian Empire that had the second largest air force in the world.

The man who would achieve the greatest combat record of anyone in the Imperial Russian Air Service was Alexander Alexandrovich Kazakov. Born into a minor noble family on January 15, 1889 in Kherson Governorate (today the Ukraine), the young Kazakov wasted no time in setting his life on course for a military career. Like many future pilots (in many other countries) Kazakov first decided on the cavalry as his preferred branch of service. In 1908 he graduated from Yelizavetgrad cavalry school and served in the cavalry until 1913. First serving as a coronet in the Twelfth Lancer regiment he was promoted to lieutenant in 1911. In 1913 he decided to trade his horse in for an airplane and began undergoing training to become a pilot at the Gatchina military aviation school. He qualified as a military pilot in September of 1914, after World War I had already broken out, and was sent to the front in December as the youngest pilot of the fourth aviation corps. During his career, Kazakov flew the Morane-Saulnier, Spad - SA2, the Nieuport 11 and the Nieuport 17; all French aircraft. In quick order he would prove himself to be among the best fighter pilots the First World War would produce.

Not many may be aware of the fact that it was actually a pilot of the Imperial Russian Air Service, Pyotr Nesterov, who was the first pilot to ever attack and bring down an enemy aircraft; which he did by ramming an Austrian observation plane. On March 31, 1915 Kazakov followed in his footsteps by similarly ramming and bringing down an Austrian plane. Miraculously, he survived and was awarded the Order of Saint Anne, fourth class (later earning the third as well). With this initial victory Kazakov proved himself a pilot to be reckoned with and he soon demonstrated his abilities even further and by September was promoted to command the Nineteenth Corps Fighter Detachment, continuing to fly Nieuports. From June 27 to December 21, 1916 he brought down four more enemy aircraft to officially join that elite club of fighter pilots known as aces. The exact total of the victories of Colonel Kazakov are a little difficult to ascertain. This was due to a number of factors, one of which was the emphasis of the Russian Empire on “teamwork” which emphasized the successes of the group rather than the scores of individual pilots (Russia was not the only country to do things this way, Italy being another example). There were also the usual complications of attributing victories achieved by more than one pilot working together and victories over enemy territory or for which there were no witnesses and thus could not be confirmed.

An example of this came on May 6, 1917 when Colonel Kazakov achieved his sixth victory but which he won in cooperation with Ernst Leman and Pavel Argeyev. Nonetheless, he had shot down another plane by May 25 and by the end of his career reached a total of 20 confirmed aerial victories, making him the number one Russian ace of the First World War. His actual score, however, may have been considerably higher or a bit lower, though not enough to rob him of his ‘number one’ status. According to some sources he shot down 15 enemy planes on his own and 17 in conjunction with other pilots while still other sources claim he shot down 32 aircraft but this was most likely a number arrived at by combining both sets of victories into one total. However, whether it was 15 and 17, 20 or 32, Kazakov was certainly the most successful Russian fighter pilot of the war. Unfortunately, despite the ultimate Allied victory, the cause for which he fought was a lost one.

Kazakov was disgusted by the outbreak of the October Revolution and refused to betray his oath of loyalty to the Tsar. As a result, the revolutionary government stripped him of his rank and dismissed him from service. Later, a friend warned him that the Red Army was about to press him into service as a military aviation expert. Refusing to join the detested Red faction, Colonel Kazakov went to Murmansk in June of 1918 and from there, in August, to Archangel where he enlisted with the Slavo-British Allied Legion to fight for the White Russian faction against the Reds. He was given the rank of major in the Royal Air Force of Great Britain and appointed to command the air squadron of the legion, flying the rugged Sopwith Camel planes. Unfortunately, the British soon withdrew their support and as this vital assistance drained away, White Russian morale plummeted. On August 1, 1919, near Benezniky, Kazakov arranged an air show to cheer the troops. Sadly, he died in a plane crash in that very show. Officially, it was considered an accident, but many witnesses, such as the British flying ace Ira Jones, believed that Kazakov had crashed his plane deliberately, knowing that the counterrevolutionary cause was doomed and refusing to live on in a world in which his beloved Russian homeland was ruled by the hated Bolsheviks. Whatever the case, Russia had lost her most successful ace, one of the great pioneer fighter pilots of Russian history and a faithful soldier, loyal to the death to his Tsar and motherland.

Guest Article: Why the Monarchy Still Matters

(This article was contributed by ABR)

Recently the CBC featured an article about the impending visit of Prince Charles and Camilla to the country this year, that was surprisingly positive about the contribution of the royals still make to Canada, such as presiding over important anniversary's that highlight the Crown's role in Canadian history, the opportunity for Canadians to connect with their Royal Family (which may come as a shock to many Canadians...), and how the sovereign embodies our rights and freedoms!

However this being the Communist Broadcasting Collective, the CBC couldn't help betray their treason as public broadcasters in monarchies tend to do, by voicing the views of that traitor group, Citizens for a Canadian Republic. This being a monarchist blog I'll try to keep their drivel to a minimum, but suffice to say in addition to their usual whining and irrational arguments, the traitors in the commentary harped on about the absurdity of having a "British foreigner" as our Head of State, and the apparent embarrassment of this as a justification for getting rid of the monarchy sooner, rather than later.

Of course it is the notion that the royals are "foreigners" that is most patently absurd, since despite their denials to the contrary, Canadians are just as British as those born in that blessed isle of Great Britain, whose roots go back generations, going by Canada's history, culture, tradition, values and form of government; which no amount of denials or legislation is going to take away soon. Why is it that a Head of State who was born outside the country not good enough, when governor-generals or even prime ministers born outside of it in living memory are? Likewise these same arguments about the Queen not being "Canadian" and living abroad, could also be made for the heads of the Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, churches and the leaders of other faiths, but you never hear their Canadian followers complain, and again like these religious leaders, just because Queen cannot be in multiple places at once (hence why the governor-general is her representative in theory), doesn't mean she cannot do a good job.

Unlike other Canadian monarchists I won't try to gloss over the Queen's Britishness, but will use it to demonstrate what an advantage this is, because her position as this country's sovereign reminds us as Canadians, to stop being so insular or obsessed with all things American for a moment, and remember that we are not simply Canadians, but also Britons who are tied not just by bonds of history and culture, but even more importantly, by ties of blood. For our sovereign and that glorious British crown she wears, is a visible reminder of our brothers elsewhere not only in England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, but also the nations that had the good sense to hold fast to the British throne, and make it also uniquely theirs.

This was after all what our ancestors intended when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were united into the Kingdom of Great Britain, and indeed goes to the heart of what the very word British means, for that word was not meant to suppress and destroy our identity but rather to complement it, for the inhabitants of that new kingdom remained just as English or Scottish as they were before, but henceforth were to be British also, which gave these two nations something in common which they never had before, and which helped bind them together in solidarity. Thus I don't think of it as shameful but rather a mark of honour, to count myself as not only as a Canadian but British too, and by doing so I hold myself as sharing something in common with not just the inhabitants of the British Isles, but also those living in Australia and New Zealand, in the same way that different relatives share a surname that sets them apart from mere strangers.

Likewise by having the good sense to retain the monarchy as the head of state for our respective realms, we retain what it represents, namely; its ethos of stability, duty, honour, paternity and impartiality, that it apart as the superior system above the republican system, with its contrasting ethos of pride, partisanship, instability, selfishness and immorality that beguile modern republican head's of state. Furthermore, we remind ourselves of our shared ties of blood in the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who not only serves as the personification of our shared Britishness, but her impartiality also makes her the personification of a family patriarch presiding over the British family of nations, in like manner as a grandfather or grandmother does over their own families, no matter where in the world their offspring move too.

By kicking the monarchy to the curb, despite all that it has done for our respective dominions, we remove the remaining anchor of political stability in our respective countries, descend into the even deeper seedy murky chaos that beguile republics, and soon become forgetful of our blood ties in addition to their historical and cultural ones, leading to U.S. style government tyranny and or, slavery to an organization like the EU, which is the fate that Ireland has befallen to. So long as we in Canada and the other dominions retain our common monarchy and the principles it personifies, there yet remains a glimmer of hope that all is not lost, and that things can yet get better, while it's abolition confirms all is lost, and that is why the monarchy still matters to this Alberta Royalist.