Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
:) If "progressive" - traditionally code for "how raving leftie fanatics choose to describe themselves" - is really perceived as less leftist than "liberal", it's symptomatic of how completely the term has been demolished and distorted by their conservative opponents. Elsewhere, "liberal" is more or less synonymous "moderate" in a contemporary political context, and in a broader or historical context one should at least be aware that it is employed to describe something completely different from the connotations it has in contemporary american politics. It denotes, for example, the full set of values that the US has consistently espoused (and is still espousing) internationally and that completely permeats the US constitution, which is perhaps the purest expression of liberal principles ever produced. To top off the irony, the libertarian conservatism that dominates the political forces who see themselves as anti-liberal is essentially a purist expression of classic liberal principles.Subsequently in political terms it came to mean the left side of equation and now days means socialist - holders of that ideology are carefully shifting to use of the term "progressive" (at least in America).
No, it isn't. It is the way in which "liberal" is employed in current US politics that is completely off the board relative to the conventional meaning of the term. "Liberal democracy" is generally used quite simply as a general tag to describe the Western political, economic and social organisation - including that of the US - by americans as much as by Europeans. F.e., I am just reading Kissinger, and he uses the term consistently in this way. And with obvious justification.Liberal democracy as Sid describes it is probably a European construct - one rarely hears that term in the US.
Communism from Brezhniev era also was not so intrusive into the minutiae of the lives of private citizens. 70's it's not the same what was in Stalin era.sid guttridge wrote: But the Latin military regimes were not intrusive into the minutiae of the lives of private citizens in the way that Communism was.
They weren't pervasive of society because they were inherently conservative in nature. They didn't seekto /were sponsored to combat not only Communist expansion militarily but also socially and politically, by bolstering up traditional class systems and economies. Crony capitalism is still Capitalism and it still creates jobs and wealth for people, not the State.The aim of Latin American military governments in the post-war era was essentially to preempt Communism with US sponsorship. With the possible exception of the not very efficient Peronist Argentina, Latin American military regimes were not penetrative of civil society like the Communist Party in the Eastern Bloc.
I get your point Sid.sid guttridge wrote:Hi Pirx,
Poland's military dictatorship was significantly different from the Latin American experience.
Back to the original question.VikingTiger wrote:I would like to hear opinions from others here regarding how great of a performance this invasion really was.
Thinking about that the German forces present at the beaches in Normandie for the most consisted of reasonably substandard troops for the most, huge amount of inexperienced officers and almost no air cover the Russian performance in the entire war dwarfs this operation.
Would there have been any way the allies would have successfully landed if they had not been able to deceive the German intelligence AND the germans had one experienced corps from the Eastern front there in June?
This is something lots of ww2-veterans from the Western side often frown upon. D-DAY is glorified to the point of ridiculousness, while most people don't even grasp the vast significance of neither Kursk nor Stalingrad. Imagine if the beaches of Omaha had been staffed with assault pioneers, instead of green conscripts from the 25/26 years..
Lots of "ifs" here, but my point is that with a few noble exceptions the German OOB was so pathetic that any comparison the the Russian performances at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk or Leningrad is simply laughable, IMHO.
I have no problems understanding the Sovjet diplomats seriously questioning the western allies' sincerity about the entire efforts they put in, especially the way both Wehrmacht and the Red Army were bled to death comparably.
Dozen better options???haen2 wrote: In my opinion There were at least a dozen better options.
And again, "in my opinion" he had no regard for the loss of lives of his men, his tremendous hatred for everything German (well documented) overruled sound judgement.
And NO, this is just MY opinion, and I do not wish to debate it.
Ok. All commanders on the world tried to hit enemy in weakest point. That is much better hit green, bad trained and equiped enemy than elites. Those who tried find there any signs of mistakes are total ignorants. At Stalingrad soviets launched offensive against Romanians. Guess why?D-DAY is glorified to the point of ridiculousness, while most people don't even grasp the vast significance of neither Kursk nor Stalingrad. Imagine if the beaches of Omaha had been staffed with assault pioneers, instead of green conscripts from the 25/26 years..