History

Anastasia Romanov = great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria

King Edward VII was married to the Empress of Russia's sister

Prince Philip (husband of Elizabeth II)'s maternal grandmother (Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine) was a sister of Empress Alexandra of Russia.

By the late 1950s, it was becoming clear to Soviet naval planners that the United States was winning the battle beneath the world’s oceans.

Over the previous decade, American engineers had developed sophisticated silencing technologies that made the latest generation of submarines so stealthy, they could track Soviet subs for hours, and sometimes days, without being detected. For Soviet naval planners, a nightmare scenario was unfolding. If war broke out, American submarines could find and destroy Soviet submarines before they had a chance to strike back.

Simply catching up to American stealth wasn't an option. It wasn't a technology that could easily be copied, it was the result of decades of precision manufacturing, relentless quality control, advances in materials science, and industrial discipline that the Soviet system couldn't support at the time. It would take decades to catch up.

Faced with a widening stealth technology gap, Soviet planners stopped trying to play hide and seek under the oceans, and instead chose raw power. They would bet everything on speed, depth, maneuverability and brute force.

In 1960, the Soviet Union launched their most ambitious submarine programs in history. Project 705 ‘Lira’, later designated as the ‘Alfa Class’ submarine by NATO, was a nuclear-powered attack submarine capable of outrunning torpedoes, executing extreme maneuvers, and diving deeper than anything the world had ever seen. Built with a revolutionary liquid-metal nuclear reactor, advanced automation, and a titanium hull, this machine represented a generational leap in engineering.

It wasn’t just a faster submarine, it was a radical attempt to rewrite the rules of underwater warfare.

When Western intelligence realized what the Soviets were building, it caused immediate panic. A submarine that could outrun torpedoes and dive beyond existing weapons threatened to upend NATO’s entire anti-submarine strategy, forcing the West into a sudden scramble to catch up.

But Project 705, a super submarine meant to restore balance beneath the seas, would prove to be far more than the Soviets ever bargained for.

In 1993, an elite US Army mission in Somalia was supposed to last 90 minutes. It dragged on for 17 hours, ending in chaos, dead soldiers and a rushed US withdrawal. This is the short story of the Battle of Mogadishu, better known as Black Hawk Down.

(This takes approximately four minutes to read.)

In 1920, there were already rumors within the Somali community that the province would be evacuated immediately so that local British officials had to assure Somali leaders that no transfer would take place that year. In July, Northey, back in Nairobi once again, expressed his misgivings about the proposed treaty. He informed Milner that the Somalis were unhappy with the cession.

Sir Edward warned of the possibility that the Somalis would quit the ceded territory en masse and settle further west in the NFD near the Lorian Swamp and Tana River Valley in British territory at the expense of the present inhabitants of these areas. Such a contingency would have to be considered should Somalis then living in affected areas be allowed to retain British nationality.

Less convincingly, the EAP Governor resurrected the threat of a Somali rebellion led by the exiled Cabdiraxmaan Mursal, who had led an uprising during World War I, to fortify his opposition to the transfer.¹⁸ As a consequence, Northey expressed anxiety that Italian‐administered Somalis in the northern part of Jubaland might get out of control. He even cautioned that they might join Ethiopians (an unrealistic scenario despite tension along the frontier and a spate of cross‐border murders in 1919–1920) to menace the NFD.

Finally, the Governor requested that London make public a statement on the cession so that Jubaland’s inhabitants would know where they stood, rather than allowing the information to come from the Italians.¹⁹

The above correspondence is noteworthy, not because the Colonial Office was seriously concerned about an uprising originating in Italian territory or on account of the public announcement concerning Jubaland that Northey himself later made. Instead, the exchange mattered because it broached the ticklish question of how the cession of British territory should affect Africans who were British subjects.

If the Somalis were to be treated as subjects of the Crown, they, like the few Europeans and Asians in Jubaland, should have had the right to move into British territory. Unfortunately, the colonial authorities considered the Somalis unappreciative of the blessings brought about by their subjugation. Viscount Milner was consequently against allowing the Somalis to withdraw from the ceded lands but did not know how to prevent them from doing just that if they strongly opposed being horse‐traded to the [Kingdom of Italy].

Meanwhile, the secretary of state for the colonies turned to the Foreign Office for its views on how to keep the Italians from getting upset if the Somalis chose to enter British territory after the cession.²⁰ Officials there offered some promise in their opinion that it was as much the responsibility of the Italians to prevent the Somalis from leaving their territory as it was for the British to bar their coming.²¹

[…]

The […] breakthrough on the cession of Jubaland to [Fascist] Italy finally occurred far away in Britain under the new Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin when Parliament passed the East African Territories Bill in December 1924.⁷³ Even this was not a totally bloodless affair as the callous treatment meted out by colonial authorities on the Somalis elicited condemnation in the House of Commons.

Criticism arose over two articles in the treaty, namely, Article 6, which specifically excluded Somalis from possessing British nationality, and Article 9, which sought to prevent movement across the new international frontier.⁷⁴

One member of Parliament (MP) characterized the former clause as “an intolerable provision” because it treated the Africans “like cattle in an area infected by foot‐and‐mouth disease.” Another MP objected to the latter caveat calling it “a grave restriction of the liberties of these peoples.” Secretary of State for the Colonies Leopold Amery, who had taken office in November, was forced to defend the tainted treaty.

Justifying the accord, he speciously argued that consultation with the Somalis, who lived their lives beyond the control of any government, was impossible. More importantly (but even less forthrightly), he claimed that the restrictions on movement across the international boundary were for the Somalis’ own good since there was not enough room for them to subsist on the British side of the frontier. Hence, such a shift would cause a “grave disturbance with other Somalis across the border.”

After such debate and without the consent of the affected Somalis, the British government in December 1924 decided on the transfer of what had become nearly 34,000 square miles of African soil to another European government.⁷⁵

Back in the African periphery, the Somalis did not go gentle into that goodnight. Before the cession of Jubaland to [Fascist] Italy could take place, fighting broke out in February 1925 between cattle‐holding Maxamad Subeer and Harti, both Darood sub‐clans, over watering rights in which thirty of the latter were killed at Deshek Wama.⁷⁶ When A. Hastings Horne, the Jubaland senior commissioner, sent two chiefs and some armed constabulary to calm the situation, one of the headmen was killed and the other just barely escaped with his life.

Fearing that this internecine dispute might somehow explode into a revolt, Horne, the KAR commander of the nearby Gobwen (Goobweyn or “big place” in Somali) garrison, and forty‐seven askaris swiftly moved into the area only to discover at least five thousand Maxamad Subeer, “defiant” and apparently beyond the control of their chiefs.

[…]

The Maxamad Subeer “revolt” was an unwelcome development and certainly the last obstacle that British authorities wanted to see before Jubaland was transferred to [Fascist] Italy. With the episode behind him at the end of March, Acting‐Governor Denham wired London recommending that the province be ceded without delay. It would, of course, be necessary to delimit a new international boundary, but Denham urged that this be done after the transfer.⁸⁷

As Lieutenant Colonel King bore witness at the beginning of this article, the handover finally occurred on June 29, 1925. […] While it is true that officials in London and Rome concluded the diplomatic agreement that led to the transfer of Jubaland into [Fascist] hands, the rôle that Nairobi and especially frontier officials played in these developments proved more important than has heretofore been acknowledged by those who have been preoccupied with decision‐makers and developments in Europe when they have sought to relate the multifaceted history of colonial Africa.

(Emphasis added.)

I tried to find some more info, but the only non-slop thing I ran into was this article which is in french, ew.

Anyway the picture is of Guy Burmieux (miner) and Jean-Yvon Antignac (pig). They had grown up together, gone to the same school and generally known each other until early adulthood when their lives took different paths.
Here's an article about the strike itself

Apparently the two started hanging out every weekend after this. The cops son became a miner too, so I guess that's something. Still, imagine you're going out to stop ICE and you run into your best friend from back home. Must be heartwrenching.

The treaty for land possession included two agreements elaborated by the Duke himself: the patto (pact) and the vincolo (commitment). The first stated that Somalis contributed via their manpower to the hydraulic works along the Uebi‐Scebeli river. The controlled flow rate guaranteed advantages for the villages located both within and outside the reclaimed lands. This statement justified the existence of the patto. The vincolo specified that those who signed the agreement with the society could not sign similar treaties with other companies.

With this provision, the SAIS became the exclusive recipient of the lands, acquiring approximately 30,000 hectares for the duration of the treaty, enabling it to plan its activities on a long‐term basis.³⁴ In addition to these agreements, Luigi Amedeo of Savoia‐Aosta reinforced the rights of the SAIS regarding the territories located on the left bank of the Uebi‐Shebeli by acquiring those lands directly from the Somalis. This was another innovation by the SAIS, which became the new owner of 16,000 hectares previously the property of 20,000 Somalis.³⁵

These aspects impacted on colonial Somalia: through the SAIS’s work, traditional agriculture, based on a subsistence farming system, turned into large‐scale farming production,³⁶ which until then was totally unknown to Somali farmers. Although the land agreements were considered the best and the most convenient solution for the local population, who remained the owners of the land,³⁷ they entailed significant limitations for the Somalis.

Thus, the contract has been defined as both promoting slavery and paternalistic,³⁸ and has been harshly criticized by historians such as Angelo Del Boca, who affirmed how Somalis were forced to stay and work in the territories ceded to the company, even after the initial works had ended.³⁹

(Emphasis added.)

What would you say you do around here? Could you walk me through a typical day?

(This takes nearly three minutes to read.)

Quoting Edmond Paris’s Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941–1945, pages 118–119:

In occupied Serbia, the [Wehmacht] took charge of “liquidating” the Jews, and only a few of them succeeded in hiding in people’s homes for the duration of the war.

To the north of Belgrade, the province of Backa was occupied by [the Kingdom of] Hungary, whose army and gendarmery immediately began germanizing and magyarizing the Serbian and Jewish regions. The German and Hungarian minorities took part in this patriotic work, which resulted in scenes of frightful savagery.

On January 7, 1942, at Čurug, Serbs and Jews were piled into the primary school and into a few large stores, and there they were machine-gunned by soldiers and police, and their bodies thrown into the Danube and the Tisa.

On a block of ice which bordered the river bank could be seen one of the executioners, whose name will never be forgotten, Elek Kovács, who was sawing up the nude bodies of women.

In the village of Zablje, the massacre lasted from January 4th to the 9th. The prisoners, bound with wire, were taken in trucks to the banks of the Tisa, where they were shot and thrown into the river.

On the 10th of January an engagement was undertaken in the town of Titel. At Stari Becej, individual executions began on the same day, followed by a general killing on January 26, 27, and 28th, by the order of Colonel Deak, commanding the 9th regiment of infantry. The victims were searched and their stores, shops and apartments pillaged, and turned over to be used by the Hungarians and Germans.

But it was at Novi Sad that the massacres were the most numerous. General [Vitéz Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner], commanding the 5th army of Segedin, mobilized a special unit under the orders of Col. Jossef Grassy. This commando of killers, backed up by the constabulary and Hungarian civilians, exterminated about 1,300 Serbs and Jews from the 21st to the 23rd of January.

The houses, streets, and even the cemeteries of the town were searched, at a temperature of thirty below zero. Men, women and children, and mothers with nursing babies were taken to the Strand (the beach) where they were machine-gunned and thrown, some still with a breath of life, into the frozen river. There were two Catholics among them, the Lawyer Pavlas and his wife, originally from Slovakia, who, as friends of the Serbs, were also martyred.

A Croatian officer who was there on the spot used a stop-watch to time the killing. This arbitrary amateur, his calculations once jotted down, announced that such a fine performance of “liquidation” had been done at the rate of 15 persons a minute.

Such a sportive event ended in various awards to the different initiators, either decorations or promotions to a higher rank. By a decree of Regent Horthy, Colonel Jossef Grassy was promoted to General, and his assistant, Gunda, was made a Colonel, along with Zoltan Czakas, commander of the 16th battalion of Frontier guardsmen, who had lent a hand in the slaughter.

The President of the Hungarian Council, Miklos Kallay, in response to indignant protests from abroad, revindicated his responsibility in the massacres. Nevertheless, he was admitted “persona grata” to the United States where he has become an influential member of the Free Europe Committee in New York, as well as the national Hungarian Committee in exile. As for Regent Horthy, everyone knows that he spent his last days quite peacefully in the attractive summer resort of Estoril, in Portugal. It is doubtful that the memory of 35,000 victims ever troubled the remainder of these benevolent men.

But, in revenge, a Hungarian deputy, Bajczi Zsilinsky, indignant because of the part his country’s army had played, was fearless enough to send a letter to Horthy, in which he stigmatized these crimes “as leaving a mark of shame on Magyar culture.”

(Emphasis added.)

I feel that it is important to bring this up because hardly anybody ever talks about the Kingdom of Hungary’s atrocities.

https://x.com/propagandopolis/status/1813307820160475594

A conversation with Kim Bowes about her recent book, Surviving Rome: The Economic Lives of the Ninety Percent, which presents a brilliant new model of the Roman imperial economy, specifically for how the majority of the population experienced it. We talk about the skeletal evidence, monetization, affluence and precariousness, and levels of consumption. This is only a taste of the many exciting new arguments made in the book, which all of you should go read.

Kim Bowes is professor of archaeology and ancient history at the University of Pennsylvania. Her new book, Surviving Rome: The Economic Lives of the Ninety Percent, is published through Princeton University Press.

Byzantium & Friends is hosted by Anthony Kaldellis, a Professor at the University of Chicago.

(This takes approximately five minutes to read.)

Quoting David Swanson’s Leaving World War II Behind, chapter 2:

U.S. immigration policy, crafted largely by antisemitic eugenicists such as Harry Laughlin — themselves sources of inspiration to [Fascist] eugenicists — severely limited the admission of Jews into the United States before and during World War II.¹⁸

Some segment of the U.S. population is aware of this, I’ve found. The U.S. Holocaust Museum’s website informs visitors: “Though at least 110,000 Jewish refugees escaped to the United States from Nazi-occupied territory between 1933 and 1941, hundreds of thousands more applied to immigrate and were unsuccessful.”¹⁹

But very few, I’ve found, are aware that the policy of [German Fascism] for years was to pursue the expulsion of the Jews, not their murder, that the world’s governments held public conferences to discuss who would accept the Jews, that those governments — for open and shamelessly antisemitic reasons — refused to accept the [Fascists’] future victims, and that Hitler openly trumpeted this refusal as agreement with his bigotry and as encouragement to escalate it.

When a resolution was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1934 expressing “surprise and pain” at [the Third Reich’s] actions, and asking that [it] restore rights to Jews, the State Department stopped it from emerging out of committee.²⁰

By 1937 Poland had developed a plan to send Jews to Madagascar, and the Dominican Republic had a plan to accept them as well. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain came up with a plan to send Germany’s Jews to Tanganyika in East Africa. None of these plans, or numerous others, came to fruition.

In Évian-les-Baines, France, in July 1938, an early international effort was made, or at least feigned, to alleviate something more common in recent decades: a refugee crisis. The crisis was the [Fascist] treatment of Jews. The representatives of 32 nations and 63 organizations, plus some 200 journalists covering the event, were well aware of the [Fascists’] desire to expel all Jews from Germany and Austria, and somewhat aware that the fate that awaited them if not expelled was likely going to be death.

The decision of the conference was essentially to leave the Jews to their fate. (Only Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic increased their immigration quotas.) The decision to abandon the Jews was driven primarily by antisemitism, which was widespread among the diplomats in attendance and among the publics they represented. Video footage from the conference is available on the website of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.²¹

These nations were represented at the Évian Conference: Australia, the Argentine Republic, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. [Fascist] Italy refused to attend. [Remember that at this time Cuba was still an American neocolony. — Anbol]

Australian delegate T. W. White said, without asking the native people of Australia: “as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.”²²

The dictator of the Dominican Republic viewed Jews as racially desirable, as bringing whiteness to a land with many people of African descent. Land was set aside for 100,000 Jews, but fewer than 1,000 ever arrived.²³

In “The Jewish Trail of Tears: The Évian Conference of July 1938,” Dennis Ross Laffer concludes that the conference was set up to fail and put on for show. Certainly it was proposed by and chaired by a representative of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt who chose not to make the necessary efforts to aid Jewish refugees, before, during, or after the conference.²⁴

[…]

“At stake at Évian were both human lives — and the decency and self-respect of the civilized world,” writes Walter Mondale. “If each nation at Évian had agreed on that day to take in 17,000 Jews at once, every Jew in the Reich could have been saved.”²⁶ Of course, with [Fascist] expansion in the years ahead, the number of Jews and non-Jews subject to murder by the [Axis and its collaborators] would grow to much more than 17,000 times 32 (for the 32 nations represented at Évian).

Ervin Birnbaum was a leader on the Exodus 1947, a ship that carried Holocaust survivors to Palestine, a Professor of Government in New York, Haifa, and Moscow Universities, and Director of Projects at Ben Gurion’s College of the Negev. He writes that, “the fact that the Évian Conference did not pass a resolution condemning the [Fascist] treatment of Jews was widely used in [Axis] propaganda and further emboldened Hitler in his assault on European Jewry leaving them ultimately subject to [the Fascist bourgeoisie’s] ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question.’”²⁷ The U.S. Congress also failed to pass such a resolution.

Hitler had said when the Évian Conference had been proposed: “I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.”²⁸

[…]

Speaking on January 30, 1939, Hitler claimed justification for his actions from the outcome of the Évian Conference:

“It is a shameful spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the poor tormented Jewish people, but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when it comes to aiding them — which is surely, in view of its attitude, an obvious duty. The arguments that are brought up as excuses for not helping them actually speak for us Germans and Italians. For this is what they say:

“1. ‘We,’ that is the democracies, ‘are not in a position to take in the Jews.’ Yet in these empires there are not even ten people to the square kilometer. While Germany, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to have room for them!

“2. They assure us: We cannot take them unless Germany is prepared to allow them a certain amount of capital to bring with them as immigrants.”³¹

The problem at Évian was, sadly, not ignorance of the [Fascist] agenda, but failure to prioritize preventing it. This remained a problem through the course of the war. It was a problem found in both politicians and in the public at large.

I believe that the Fascist bourgeoisie always knew that extermination was an option, but had not seriously contemplated it either until 1941. That was plan B. Until then, plan A was encouraging Jews to leave the German Reich (or even better, all of Europe), most notably by means of Haʻavara.

This way, petty bourgeois goyim would have less competition, more resources and job positions would be available for White Gentiles, services would profit from the emigration, and capitalist goyim could reach all these goals without resorting to something as shocking or enraging as populicide, making it easier for the world to overlook this oppression.

A neat annotated kabuki performance giving historical context.

The kabuki play Shibaraku ("Wait a Moment!") was first staged by Ichikawa Danjūrō I at the Nakamura-za theatre in Edo, and represents the greatest surviving example of aragoto drama. Let's have a look at its plot and some of the main elements!

Since the beginning of the Heisei period in 1989, there has been only 14 performances of Shibaraku, 4 by Ichikawa Danjūrō XII, 6 by his son, Ichikawa Ebizō XI, 2 by Onoe Shōroku IV (as part of productions of Gohiiki Kanjinchō), 1 by Ichikawa Uzaemon XVII (in 1993) and 1 by Matsumoto Kōshirō IX (in 1991).

You can read an english translation of this play in the book "Kabuki Plays on Stage Vol 1: Brilliance and Bravado", and find more information in kabuki21: https://www.kabuki21.com/shibaraku.php

Life has become harder than you could ever imagine. I am writing to you while the bombing is happening right now above our heads. There is no life, no food, no safety, no warmth.

How long will all this humiliation and suffering continue? We depend entirely on your donations to stay alive. You are our only hope.

Please, do not stop donating. We are begging you https://gofund.me/f6e9cc9d

Plans for the fascistizzazione of colonial agriculture resulted in the introduction of systematic practices of forced labor and recruitment. Throughout the 1920s, labor recruitment was organized by the concessionaires who generally offered temporary seasonal occupations, from one to six months, mainly to male laborers.

Initially, labor recruitment drew upon the communities living in nearby Janaale.⁸⁵ As laborers frequently abandoned colonial plantations to return to their villages, concessionaires extended their search for labor to northern areas, especially in the regions of Buur Hakaba and Baydhabo.⁸⁶

There is little archival evidence on how labor recruitment was carried out by private concessionaires in the 1920s. Surely, successive colonial governors admitted that this “chaotic and disorganised recruitment” generated degrees of “resentment” and “disruption” into the lives of sedentary riverine communities.⁸⁷

It also seems likely that the search for new recruits coupled with labor mutinies in the concessions generated a considerable movement of laborers in the area. In this way, the colonial government estimated that overall, between 1924 and 1929, about 100,000 laborers had been employed for some time in colonial estates in Janaale.⁸⁸

In 1929, the colonial government drafted a new labor contract with the aim of regulating labor mobility, which by then was seen as the major obstacle to the development of the colonial economy.⁸⁹

Modeled on the resettlement scheme implemented at SAIS [Società Agricola Italo‐Somala], the new contract introduced a quota system. This required each community living in the proximity of cultivations to provide concessions with a certain amount of laborers for a fixed and renewable term.

Moreover, the new contract called for the recruitment of entire farming families, rather than single laborers, in the hope that this would hinder labor mutinies.⁹⁰ To facilitate this process, the fascist régime began arranging forced marriages.⁹¹

[…]

The resettlement of entire farming families in private concessions would create, Barile claimed, a new ethnic group whose offspring will constitute the future generation of laborers of the fascist “Greater Somalia.” It was further argued that the resettlement scheme provided many impoverished families with an opportunity to improve their standard of living.⁹⁴

But, as at SAIS, employment in private concessions became questionable: laborers were required to work six days per week, harvesting commercial crops while devoting the remaining time to their own crops; laborers’ retribution was allocated by piecework; a laborer’s piecework was not transferable to another; and the completion of piecework did not necessarily provide laborers with salaries.⁹⁵

In the 1970s, social historian of Somalia, Cassanelli, collected vivid memories of abuses and coercion in the colonial plantations, bitterly remembered by Somalis as the tragic “years of colonya.”⁹⁶

Although the [Fascists] have later denied these charges before an international commission of the United Nations, reports about the abuses in colonial plantations were well known among colonial circles and brought the colonial government under closer scrutiny in the 1920s.⁹⁷

Critiques came from within the Fascist Party. The federal secretary in Mogadishu, Marcello Serrazanetti, for instance, published a review of slavery‐like conditions in colonial plantations in 1933, where he accused the colonial government of offering little assistance to laborers; of promoting forced marriages that were often arranged before the resettlement scheme; and, more generally, of covering up the abuses laborers endured in the concessions.⁹⁸

It seems likely that the assistance the colonial government provided to concessionaires went beyond the regulation of labor recruitment. Colonial police was also used to hinder laborers’ mutinies, to chase laborers who had abandoned the fields, and to bring them back to the concessions.⁹⁹ Sometimes, colonial assistance was also sought for punishing laborers.

Although the colonial government assisted and facilitated labor recruitment and surveillance in the plantations, its relations with Italian concessionaires did not come without problems.

Officials in the field often complained that the brutality and violence concessionaires inflicted upon laborers compromised the results and credibility of the entire project of valorizzazione in Somalia. Reporting on labor relations in the plantations, one political officer asked for the colonial government’s intervention in favor of Somali laborers.

In this way, the officer explained, “the population would believe that the government endeavours to promote their wealth and not their destruction”; “it [was] only through these [development plans] that we can justify our presence in the colony in political and economic terms.”¹⁰⁰

Yet, these critiques remained isolated voices. In fact, the officers that tried to oppose the concessionaires, like Federal Secretary Serrazanetti, were later removed from their posts.¹⁰¹

(Emphasis added. See here for more on Somalia under Fascism.)

You guys are all much more well-read on communism than me, so I ask based on this quote:

As a reminder, the Sino-Soviet split occurred due to an ideological fracture in the Communist bloc whereby Mao accused the Soviets of being “revisionists” after Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization and his embrace of “peaceful coexistence” with the West.

Now that the ex-Soviet countries are pretty much all capitalist oligarchies and China is, well whatever it is but hugely successful and prosperous, is there a consensus about the Sino-Soviet split? I mean yea it sucks that it had to go down like that but can we say in general that Mao was right about that?

I know it's just an arbitrary point in time (as now) and that there were and are loads of factors at play so this is perhaps a simplistic way of framing it, but I'd love to get your thoughts on the matter. Every time I ask something of the dope-ass bear I'm blown away not just by how little I know but also that I wasn't even looking in the right direction, so if this is a stupid question I'm sure you'll let me know, lol.

EDIT: Thank you very much for your answers! Very informative.