Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When I did PLM programming, we had problems with programs working well in development and beta test environments but showing unacceptably poor performance in production. This was due to there being about 200 times more users each processing much more complex drawings in production than either development or beta test environments.
"Those particular invasions were revanchism, perhaps cloaked in revolutionary rhetoric "
This is one of the main points of contention. Revanchism cloaked in revolutionary rhetoric - or revolutionary drive towards the world revolution which looked like a revanchism and used some imperial instruments.
As for Germany, we can wonder whether the Nazis can succeed if Moscow does not instruct Communists to fight against the Social Democrats and the Republic.
What's revanchism? I've never heard the term before?It really makes very little difference to the people who would be conquered in either case.
There's often a preoccupation for power in those who become dictators. You generally see some of the same traits that appear over and over again.the one thing that stuck in my mind about Lenin is his quest for power.
It really makes very little difference to the people who would be conquered in either case.
Having read some of Lenin's writings in my political science classes in college, the one thing that stuck in my mind about Lenin is his quest for power.
Just to be clear the USSR had a doctrine that was defensive and relied on superior numbers?
The core principle of any of the three programs was world domination.
but those feelings did not determine the state policies, internal or foreign. And they had no impact on grand strategy.
I disagree with both these statements, simply because, as I mentioned, the USSR was driven by fear of failure, fear of what it considered hostile Western attitudes, fear of foreign intervention, fear of its leaders' lies being exposed etc. The desire to appear strong was (is in current Russia - Putin has stated on numerous occasions that Russia is surrounded by potentially hostile countries) driven by this exact same feeling
Of course. Not any cost but only at that cost which was acceptable, as in the bloody but successful offensives of 1943-1945. Or in the proxy wars where the cost was economical mostly. But who said that USSR did NOT enact that policy? It was enacted step by step, year by year, everywhere where there was an opportunity. There were successes and failures and draw results, but the policy was enacted until the last years of the USSR.This is true, but not at any cost otherwise the USSR would have enacted this policy.
Brezhev was a character of many anecdotes, true. And he was a talented apparatchik and Party manager much more capable than his predecessor. He and his foreign minister Gromyko managed to divide the West and to enjoy the fruits of the so-called detente. "National LIberation"(read - organized terroristic) movement began to flourish during the Brezhnev's rule. He started to "draw" those curtains in his last 5-6 years, but it did not mean that the Party was headless. There were other smart and capable leaders. Andropov, despite the illness since 1980, was one of them and not a walking zombie even in his last weeks.Brezhnev's (and the two walking zombies between him and Gorby) approach was to draw the curtains and not look outside
For people who would be conquered if the USSR manages to expand beyond the borders of the "socialist camp" of 1970s-1980s, who knows...
But there was a huge difference between the ways the old Empire and USSR behaved in the conquered territories, before 1917 and after 1917, respectively.
He was very straightforward in that quest, wasn't he. Ruthlessness unbelievable even for many of his comrades. From the letter to Trotsky (1919):
"If the advance begins, is it possible to mobilize about 20 thousand workers plus 10 thousand bourgeois, to place machine guns behind them, to shot down several hundred and to achieve the maximum pressure on Yudenich...."
Spoken like a true 3rd generation social democrat!I don't think Lenin or a Lenin-like leader could come out of anyplace except a autocratic state.
I know it sounds strange, but I generally assume most leaderships are devoid of ideology except to aggregate power and maintain it. I figure they simply use displays of ideology to get people to do what they want.Agree to disagree. Your descriptions of the USSR are sometimes right on the spot and sometimes are missing crucial elements, as ideology.
Accidents happen...not Stalin himself but his close circle who probably helped the dictator to die
I assume the Vietnam war was used as a means to divide the United States up, and other conflicts affected other nations?Brezhev was a character of many anecdotes, true. And he was a talented apparatchik and Party manager much more capable than his predecessor. He and his foreign minister Gromyko managed to divide the West and to enjoy the fruits of the so-called detente.
Agree to disagree. Your descriptions of the USSR are sometimes right on the spot and sometimes are missing crucial elements, as ideology.
I think you're a bit harsh here. I think the process of acquiring power to achieve their honestly held ideological goals, and then hold on to power to protect those achievements from ideological heresy tends to change leaders from true believers to cynics. The perks that come with that power can also exert a seductive effect.I generally assume most leaderships are devoid of ideology except to aggregate power and maintain it. I figure they simply use displays of ideology to get people to do what they want.
And can be encouraged to happen.Accidents happen..
I think encouraging and supporting Uncle Ho started out as a cheap way to siphon off some of the USA's overwhelming military power, and was later recognized as a way to drive disruptive divisiveness into American society.I assume the Vietnam war was used as a means to divide the United States up, and other conflicts affected other nations?
Dimlee, a pleasure to learn your perspective as always.
I assume the Vietnam war was used as a means to divide the United States up, and other conflicts affected other nations?
I think for the kind of people you're thinking about, they start out with ideological goals and, in their desire to achieve them, they have to be what they're not (and they start to become the mask), and resort to devious means (which start to become routine).I think you're a bit harsh here. I think the process of acquiring power to achieve their honestly held ideological goals, and then hold on to power to protect those achievements from ideological heresy tends to change leaders from true believers to cynics. The perks that come with that power can also exert a seductive effect.
Adds up. That said, the media played a role (whether unintentionally or not).I think encouraging and supporting Uncle Ho started out as a cheap way to siphon off some of the USA's overwhelming military power, and was later recognized as a way to drive disruptive divisiveness into American society.
I should start readingYes, I think so. Vietnam war was probably the most impressive example, but not the only one. Yuri Bezmenov (aka Tomas Schumann) has written and spoken in many details about the underlying strategy and the methodology. I can't recommend his lectures highly enough.
Hey, I just got that book! I was looking into nuclear close-calls (I'm honestly amazed we didn't blow ourselves to smithereens), and I stumbled upon to this book during the whole process.Interesting book that gives a good chronological summary of SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) from 1960 to 2003 based around the story of the Damascus accident...
Single Integrated Operational Plan - Wikipedia
View attachment 490778
That said, the media played a role (whether unintentionally or not).