Vladimir M. Purishkevich Erich Ludendorff After the Russian Civil War had broken out, a pro-German wing of the Russian White movement appeared in contrast to the pro-Entente sentiment of the mainstream Russian Whites.   It must have been difficult for these Russian nationalists to forgive General Ludendorff and the Germans for aiding the Bolshevik Revolution and overseeing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.   Yet, in their eyes, compared to the Entente Powers, with their pro-Bolshevik banks and criminal negligence of their Russian ally’s logistical needs, Ludendorff and the Germans had only been doing their jobs.             From 1918 until 1923, this pro-German wing of the Whites, initially formed by Vladimir M. Purishkevich upon his release from prison in 1918, would heavily influence the direction of the nationalist right in Weimar era Germany.   The extent of this influence includes, but is not limited to, the fledgling NSDAP in the years before the Beer Hall Puts

There are several ways in which Stephen the Great is still a pertinent figure today, contrary to what his critics claim.  It is flatly wrong to dismiss him as too much of an anachronism to be an appropriate role model in our age.  Let us examine the reasons why. In the Islamic tradition, there are three classifications that a Muslim nation or empire uses to classify other states.  A “House of Islam” is an Islamic or Islamized nation, while a “House of War” is a non-Muslim enemy nation.  A third, less common category is a “House of Peace,” a neutral country that is neither Islamic nor regarded as an enemy of Islam.  The “House of Peace” status is what the old Romanian princes wanted for Wallachia and Moldavia, and most of them only went to war with the Turks after the latter had flagrantly violated this agreement.  Stephen the Great is the foremost example of this mentality. The “House of Peace” status is something that, from time to time, must be fought for.  For examp

The Significance of Michael the Brave for Bram Stoker: An Ongoing Investigation How did the life of Michael the Brave (1558-1601) influence Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula ?   This Wallachian prince was, as Hans Corneel de Roos has shown, the main historical basis of Count Dracula — when he was still alive.   De Roos’ research has displaced the claim of Raymond T. McNally and Radu R. Florescu that Stoker based his character on Vlad Ț epe ș . [1] The 1590s in Eastern Europe have been described as “the time when the fierce sword blows of the crusader Michael were striking against the Turks along the Danube.” [2]   Michael the Brave, later feeling betrayed by his Hungarian allies, the Bathory princes of Transylvania, turned his attention northward and controversially conquered that principality, with the help of the Szeklers.   Making many enemies from Turkey to Central Europe, Prince Michael was assassinated in 1601.   What was it about this man and his era that insp

(Romanian version of this introduction  here )             Until recently, the geopolitical theories of 20th century German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt have been neglected.   His early jurisprudential doctrine of decisionism , by which the sovereign is defined as “he who decides on the exception,” has been given plenty of attention.   So has his definition of “ the political ” as the potentially lethal distinction between friends and enemies.   Recently, however, his works on geopolitics have been recognized as equally worthy of attention.             Schmitt’s concept of the land as the source of all true law is similar to the ideas expressed in the conversation between the Ottoman sultan and the Wallachian prince in Eminescu’s “Scrisoarea III.”   Like Eminescu, Schmitt often viewed bodies of water in sinister, demonic terms.   One common influence on their ideas about war may have been Clausewitz, whom Schmitt mentions as an influence in some of his other text