How significant was D-day in the grand scope of WW2??

[timobrienwells]

Hi Sid.Well,the cold war was probably more correctly,a struggle against both Communism AND the USSR and it's allies.The cold war was also against Communist China,North Korea,Vietnam,Cuba etc.However,I would agree that the Warsaw Pact was the principle adversary,and when it dissolved,the cold war was considered finished.
As to the victor,I dont think that "Liberal Democracy" was the only thing involved.Communism is primarily an economic theory,therefore it maybe possible to say that Capitalism was the victor as well.Liberal Democracy could be considered to be the victor over the politically totalitarian nature of communist regimes. Regards Tim Wells

[sid guttridge]

Hi to'bw,

I always consider the "Liberal" in Liberal Democracy to indicate the economic side of the entity. I understand "liberal" to refer to free market economies, or capitalism.

The reason why the Cold War was "Cold" was because it was not primarily fought on the military plane, but the economic. Liberal Democracy so enormously outperformed Communism economically that the USA could maintain military parity or superiority over the USSR by devoting a far smaller percentage of its economy to defence.

By contrast, defence used up such a high proportion of the Soviet economy that it was effectively maintaining a war economy through 45 years of post WWII peace. This crippled the civil economy and depressed living standards at a time when the population of the Liberal Democracies, in the words of Harold MacMillan, "never had it so good". As a result the uncompetitive USSR imploded from within.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Reb]

Re Liberal

This word has a number of possible meanings and is best taken in context I suppose.

Prior to around 1900 Liberal tended to refer to person with an open mind and a well rounded education including the classics.

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).

Liberal democracy as Sid describes it is probably a European construct - one rarely hears that term in the US.

In theological terms a liberal is one who analyzes scripture based on a critical approach - using man's 'reason' to judge the veracity of scripture.

Now - I think I'll kick back and have a liberal portion of scrambled eggs for breakfast!

cheers
Reb

[Qvist]

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).

:) 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.

Liberal democracy as Sid describes it is probably a European construct - one rarely hears that term in the US.

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.

cheers

[timobrienwells]

Well I suppose it depends on which country you live in.In Australia,liberal means that you are definitely right wing politically.In America it means the opposite,and has become something of a term of provocation.
Sid said,'Ideological struggles never end' That is for the most part true,but surely the marxist/leninist afficionados would have to concede that,as an economic theory atleast,communism has been a failure.
Regards Tim Wells

[Carl Schwamberger]

"- holders of that ideology are carefully shifting to use of the term "progressive" (at least in America). "

Ironic. A century ago T R Roosevelts & his crowd used "progressive" to identify a specific type of forward looking conservative. Although I think they meant something different by conservative than the current in the US.

[Pirx]

Communism is a slogan.
That what was in Eastern Europe was pure dictatorship. Dangerous dictatorship with powerful army, and obvious enemy to the USA, UK and other western countries. This dictatorship was not so different like this one in Spain, Portugal or Latin America, but those regimes were not against NATO members, and were not so danger.
Communist parties are in France or Italy, and nobody fought with them (only due polls).
In 1978 almost 97% Poles were active catholics. But 99% Poles "votes" for so called communist goverment! But they were simply dictators.
I prefer to hear that Western societies fought with danger of worldwide dictatorship. Today we forgot how to do that...

[sid guttridge]

Hi Pirx,

The Communist system was much more pervasive than the military dictatorships of the Latin countries. This was because Communism was more than just a slogan. It was an intrusive, all pervasive theory of government that claimed the power to interfere in the minutiae of the lives of all citizens.

Certainly the USA cynically regarded the likes of the Somozas in Nicraragua as "Bastards, but at least they are our bastards!". But the Latin military regimes were not intrusive into the minutiae of the lives of private citizens in the way that Communism was. I have seen it put that in the 70s many Latin American countries were "occupied by their own armies" in the US interest, and this is a plausible proposition. However, ruthless and vicious as they sometimes were, I would not equate their aims and achievements with those of Communism.

Cheers.

Sid.

[Pirx]

But the Latin military regimes were not intrusive into the minutiae of the lives of private citizens in the way that Communism was.
Sid.

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.
And 1981? what we have if not military dictatorship in Latin america style?

General:



Streets:




Economy:

[sid guttridge]

Hi Pirx,

Poland's military dictatorship was significantly different from the Latin American experience. In Latin America the armies just took over the levers of power in their own name, and simply overlay existing civil society. In Poland the Communist army took over power on behalf of the Communist Party, whose influence was pervasive throughout society, which it sought to mould in its image.

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.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Pirx,

Poland's military dictatorship was significantly different from the Latin American experience. In Latin America the armies just took over the levers of power in their own name, and simply overlay existing civil society. In Poland the Communist army took over power on behalf of the Communist Party, whose influence was pervasive throughout society, which it sought to mould in its image.

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.

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

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.

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.

[Pirx]

Hi Pirx,

Poland's military dictatorship was significantly different from the Latin American experience.
Sid.

I get your point Sid.
Unfortunatelly both: Latin Americans and Poles (or eastern Europeans if you like) lived under regime. That was common for all that nations, and for common people it was almost the same. Most significant victory of d-day, was that allied prevent western europe from that danger.
And military goverment from 1981 was largest fall of "communists". Only military junta let them keep power, becouse they totally lost pervasive influence on society.

Another thing is that communism from 1930's and 1980's was very different. Like capitalism from 1930's and 1980's.

[haen2]

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.

Back to the original question.
In my opinion it was the greatest military blunder Herr Eissenhauwer ever could have conceived.
In spite of undermanned German coastal defenses, he wasted THOUSANDS of Allied troops lives by persisting in this scheme.
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.
HN

[Pirx]

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.
HN

Dozen better options???
Eisenhower is not guilty for casaulties but Hitler! What wehrmacht was looking for in France? or in other countries? Someone should throw them away.

VikingTiger wrote:

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..

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?