A truly unique album. The post Experiments in Haunting: The album Laurie Anderson called an avant-garde “mantra” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

“During the covid-19 pandemic, falsehoods about masks, vaccines and “lockdowns” spread as fast as the virus itself, and were almost as deadly,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at the World Health Summit on Sunday.  […]

by Leo Hohmann, Leo’s Newsletter: Deep state’s biggest fear is that Trump will end Ukraine war effort against Russia. Jamie Raskin leaks last-ditch plan to stop Trump from getting back in office, will cause ‘civil war conditions’ With the swipe of his pen, Joe Biden announced another $425 million in military aid for Ukraine this […]

  Although altered by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, the process of choosing the nation’s executive has remained virtually unchanged since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Often called a convoluted and confusing process, the Electoral College does exactly what the Founding Fathers intended—it serves as an extra layer of protection between the whims of the electorate and the nation’s highest office.   Why the Electoral College? The Signing of the US Constitution by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940. Source: Architect of the Capitol   According to American historian David S. Muzzey (Our Country, 1943, p. 184), the success of the American experiment depends chiefly upon an affirmative answer to three questions:   “First, will the people be wise enough to choose as their public servants men and women who are wholly devoted to the public welfare? Second, will the people be intelligent enough to control their government by the force of an enlightened public opinion? Third, will the people be orderly enough to seek desired changes by the patient remedy of law rather than by the impatient resort to revolution?”   While the Founding Fathers were hopeful of the latter two, they would ensure the success of the former from the start.   The method of selecting the head of state was left to the end of the Convention as the men in 1787 could not come to a consensus on whether the said person should be chosen by the legislature or by popular election. Weary of pure direct democracy and fearing that charismatic leaders could manipulate public opinion to gain power, the Founders sought a buffer to ensure that only qualified individuals would be selected to lead. George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, famously stated that “it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for the chief magistrate to the people as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”   The electoral college, which the Founders had compromised on for choosing the president, entrusted the election to a group of electors who would make informed decisions about the best candidate and thus safeguard against the general public’s potential errors in judgment.   How Does It Work? Alexander Hamilton working on the first draft of the United States Constitution by Hamilton Buggy Company. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution allocates each state in the Union a specific number of electoral votes equal to its total number of senators (two) and representatives, which today results in 538 electoral votes. While not a state, the District of Columbia saw the 23rd Amendment grant it three electoral votes. While Article II does not explicitly state it, most states (except Maine and Nebraska) use a winner-takes-all system, with the candidate who receives the majority of that state’s popular vote being awarded all of the state’s electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never intended for the process to become a rubber stamp for the popular vote, and thus, this process remains quite controversial among Revolutionary Era scholars.   The winner-takes-all system also frustrates the electorate as it can lead to a candidate winning the presidency without winning the national popular vote. If a state has 20 electoral votes, and one candidate receives 51% of the popular vote to their opponent’s 49 percent, they do not receive 51 and 49 points, respectively. Instead, one candidate receives 20 electoral votes while the other, while only losing by a 2-point margin, receives zero.   Because even a narrow win in a state results in securing all of its electoral votes, the electoral vote margin is often much wider than the actual popular vote margin, thus granting a candidate a “landslide victory” even though it is not reflected at the polls. President Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in the 1984 election, one of the largest in American history, saw the Californian receive 97.6% of the electoral votes, even though a closer examination would reveal that he had only won 59% of the popular vote.   Why Do Swing States Matter? Counting the electoral vote in Congress, 1929. Source: Library of Congress   Because the winner-takes-all system can lead to situations where a person wins the presidency without winning the general election’s popular vote, the fight for securing key states with larger electoral vote allocations becomes each party’s priority. While Americans are often frustrated when their candidate does not win the election, there have been times in history, most recently in 2000 and 2016, when the winner of the people’s choice did not win the presidency due to the lack of sufficient electoral votes. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Yet, the losses in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were not enough for her to win the College.   States that consistently lean toward one party, such as New Jersey or California, which often vote Democratic, or Texas, which tends Republican, are traditionally ignored during election season in favor of those battleground states where the outcome is uncertain. If a candidate can sway more states into their camp, especially those with many electoral votes, their victory can be secured regardless of the popular vote.   Because “swing states” have changed over the years, detailed polling notifies respective presidential campaigns of the states that their candidate should focus on the closer it comes to election year. The disproportionate influence in presidential elections granted to swing states often leads to further voter frustration. In states such as California, where the Democratic Party is dominant, Republican voters may feel like their vote is meaningless, which can result in decreased voter registration in that state. The same goes for traditionally Republican states.   Selecting Electors and Voting New York Electoral College casting a vote for Harrison. January 14, 1889. Source: Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site   While many people wonder about the outcome of the Electoral College, not many pay attention to the selection of the electors, which begins with political parties and ends with voters casting their ballots. The selection starts at the state level, where each political party chooses its slate of potential electors, from party loyalists, usually selected for their dedication and service to the party. While they may include state and local party officials, party leaders, or respected citizens, the Founding Fathers stated in the Constitution that no member of Congress could serve as an elector to ensure total independence between the executive and the legislative branches.   The Founders also chose not to establish a federal standard for how the electors would be chosen, leaving it up to each state to decide on the process. Some make the selection through party conventions, others through selected party committees. Once a given party’s candidate wins the popular vote within that state, the electors from that respective party are officially appointed and cast their votes for the winner. Thus, when the voters cast their votes in November, they are technically not voting for the person on the ballot but for their party’s slate of electors from their state, who will pledge their votes for the favored candidate.   Once the general election results are in, the electors gather in their state capitals on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, which follows the election. As dictated by the 12th Amendment, which separated the president’s and vice-president’s votes, the electors cast two distinct ballots, one for each. When the results are certified by each state’s electoral officials, a joint session of Congress meets in early January to count the votes before the President of the Senate (the vice president) certifies the results.   Ongoing Controversies A 1943 World War II era poster touting democratic freedoms the nation was fighting for during the conflict. Source: Library of Congress   One may think that once the electoral votes are counted and the winning candidate receives the minimum of 270 votes (or the majority) of the 538 electoral votes, the bitterness ends, and everyone goes home happy. However, that is hardly ever the case. Regardless of the results, the very system at the core of selecting the US president continues to be contentious.   One of the Electoral College’s main criticisms is the system’s tendency to reward smaller states, stemming from each receiving two votes for an equal number of senators (two), granting them a higher number of electors per capita when compared to larger states. In the case of Wyoming, which has only three electors, which equates to one for every 193,000 residents, its electoral vote carries more weight than the US’s most populous state of California, where each of its 54 electors represents closer to 712,000 residents.   Another criticism centers on candidates prioritizing issues and concerns of the swing states’ electorate, leading to a skewed national policy agenda that does not always reflect the entire country’s interests.   While some propose the complete abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote, others continue to defend the Founding Fathers’ intent of safeguarding against the evils of the will of the masses.   Another proposal points to nationalizing the Nebraska and Maine model, namely, distributing the electoral votes based on the popular vote in the said election instead of a winner-take-all approach. Then, there is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an agreement between a group of US states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote. As of the time of this article, only 16 have joined—not enough for the constitutionally needed 270 electoral vote majority.

  Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov is considered among Russians to be the greatest general in Russian history. An eccentric individual who shared in the hardships of his men on campaign, he fought over 70 military engagements in his career and was never defeated once. While he spent most of his career fighting Poles and Turks, Russia’s traditional enemies, he is also known for a brilliant campaign in Italy and Switzerland near the end of his career during the French Revolutionary Wars in 1799, even though the campaign ended in strategic defeat.   “Hurrah, Field Marshal!” Alexander Suvorov by Josef Kreutzinger, 1799. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg   In March 1794, in response to dissent in the Polish army following the Second Partition of Poland, the Polish general Tadeusz Kościuszko, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, raised the flag of rebellion against Russian and Prussian occupation forces. A Russian army advancing on Kościuszko’s base at Kraków was defeated at Racławice in early April, inspiring a series of uprisings throughout Poland, including the massacre of 4,000 Russian troops in Warsaw.   By the summer, the Prussian army captured Kraków unopposed, and a combined Russo-Prussian army was laying siege to Warsaw, but an uprising in western Poland compelled the besiegers to lift the siege by the end of August. Empress Catherine the Great of Russia decided to send reinforcements under 64-year-old General Alexander Suvorov, who defeated Polish armies in Belarus and eastern Poland on the way to the Polish capital.   By the time Suvorov reached Warsaw in early November, Kościuszko had already been defeated and captured by Ivan Fersen’s Russian army at the Battle of Maciejowice on October 10. On November 4, Suvorov and Fersen’s joint force captured the suburb of Praga on the eastern bank of the River Vistula in a quick and concentrated assault. The Russian army proceeded to massacre over 10,000 civilians against Suvorov’s orders.   This brutal demonstration weakened the morale of the defenders of Warsaw, enabling Suvorov to capture Warsaw with little opposition. In a three-word report to the empress, Suvorov declared, “Hurrah, Warsaw’s ours!” Catherine promoted her commander in her equally laconic reply, “Hurrah, Field Marshal!”   The Young Officer Battle of Kunersdorf by Alexander von Kotzebue, 1848. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg   Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov was born into a noble family in Moscow in November 1729 (or 1730). He was a sickly child, and his father, General Vasily Suvorov, assumed that the boy would only be fit for a career in the civil service.   Suvorov was an intelligent child and soon learned to read French, German, Italian, and Polish. He was interested in military affairs, studied the works of several military authors, including Plutarch, Julius Caesar, and Charles XII, and tried to strengthen his constitution through exercise. When Suvorov was 12 years old, he met with General Abram Petrovich Gannibal—the African great-grandfather of the poet Alexander Pushkin—who was impressed with the boy and convinced his father to allow Alexander to pursue a military career.   Suvorov enlisted as a private in the Semyonovsky Lifeguard Regiment in 1742 and began his active service in 1748. He received his baptism of fire in 1756 during the Seven Years’ War (1756–63), fighting against the Prussians under Frederick the Great and participating in the battles of Kunersdorf, Berlin, and Kolberg.   After the victory at Kunersdorf in 1759, Field Marshal Pyotr Saltykov refused to pursue the fleeing enemy or continue towards Berlin. Suvorov is supposed to have remarked to his commanding officer that he would march on Berlin if he were commander in chief, and Saltykov’s failure to do so enabled Frederick to reorganize his army to fight another day.   A Rising Star Catherine the Great in her coronation robes by Virgilius Eriksen, 1764. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg   In 1762, Suvorov was promoted to colonel in recognition of his conduct during the Seven Years’ War. The death of Empress Elizabeth of Russia at the end of the year led to the accession of Tsar Peter III, an admirer of Frederick the Great, who withdrew the Russian armies from the coalition against Prussia.   Although Peter’s wife Catherine overthrew him in the summer of 1763 to become Empress Catherine II, Russia remained on good terms with Prussia. In 1764, the two nations signed a new treaty that would make Catherine II’s former lover, Stanislaw Poniatowski, the king of Poland. This led to the creation of The Bar Confederation, an association of Polish-Lithuanian nobles who were against Russian political influence in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.   The confederation declared war on Russia in 1768. Now an experienced soldier, Suvorov served as brigadier general in the conflict with Poland. He dispersed the Polish forces led by Casimir Pulaski at Orzechowo in 1768 before defeating a Polish army commanded by the French officer Charles-François Dumouriez at Lanckorona in 1771.   By April 1772, Russian forces captured Kraków Castle, leading to the First Partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Suvorov was promoted to major-general and gained a reputation as an unconventional tactician who did not always follow the orders of his superior commanders.   Portrait of Field Marshal Count Pyotr Alexandrovich Rumyantsev-Zadunaysky by François Riss, 1833. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg   In 1768, when Russian troops captured the fortress of Bar, a group of Polish confederates fled across the border into the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Among the troops in pursuit of the confederates were the Zaporozhian Cossacks, who clashed with Ottoman janissaries, triggering the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-74.   When Russian Field Marshal Pyotr Rumyantsev won a decisive victory over the Ottomans at Kagul (present-day Cahul, Moldova) in August 1770, Suvorov begged to be transferred to the Turkish front, but his wish was not granted until the end of the Polish War. Suvorov joined the Turkish theater in 1773 and distinguished himself at the Battle of Kozludzha on June 20, 1774, where he led 8,000 men to victory against an enemy force of 40,000.   The battle further established Suvorov’s reputation as a talented commander who was capable of showing initiative on the field, and he was promoted to lieutenant general. Soon after Suvorov’s victory, the Ottomans sued for peace, and the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca of July 1774 was concluded in Russia’s favor.   Restoring Order Pugachev administering justice by Vasily Perov, 1875. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Historical Museum, Moscow)   Empress Catherine the Great fully appreciated Suvorov’s talents, and after the end of the Turkish War, she dispatched Suvorov to join efforts suppressing the Cossack rebellion led by Emelyan Pugachev. Pugachev was a veteran of the Russian army who led the Yaik Cossacks in rebellion in 1773, claiming to be the assassinated Emperor Peter III.   The general made haste to Tsaritsyn and pursued Pugachev. By the time he arrived, the rebel leader had already been defeated on several occasions by General Ivan Mikhelson’s army, and Pugachev’s subordinates lost faith in their leader and turned him over to the authority. Suvorov had him put in an iron cage and sent to Moscow to be executed.   Subsequently, Suvorov served in Crimea and the Kuban from 1777 to 1783. After the end of the Russo-Turkish War, the Tatar Khanate of Crimea became a Russian protectorate. While the last Crimean Khan, Şahin Giray, was friendly to the Russian government, the Kuban Nogai Tatars remained hostile. After an insurrection by the Nogais in 1783, Catherine intervened in the conflict, and Suvorov occupied Crimea and the Kuban, which were incorporated into the Russian Empire.   In 1786, Suvorov was made a general of infantry at the age of 56. Despite his talents as a military leader, Suvorov’s advancement up the ranks was slow, and he believed that this was due to his eccentricities and inability to endear himself to the imperial court.   Scourge of the Turks Prince Grigory Potemkin by Johann Baptist Lampi the Elder, c. 1791. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg   The Russian annexation of Crimea violated the terms of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. By 1787, the Russians and Ottomans were at war again, with Austria joining Russia the following year. Suvorov served under the command of Prince Grigory Potemkin, and he found himself in the thick of the fighting at the Battle of Kinburn in October, where he was wounded twice and saved by a grenadier.   The Russian forces under Potemkin and Suvorov would go on to besiege Ochakov in May 1788. The cautious Potemkin disregarded Suvorov’s advice to launch an immediate attack, but after siege operations dragged on until December, the Russians finally took the city by storm.   In August 1789, Suvorov defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Focşani in Moldavia alongside his Austrian ally Prince Josias of Coburg. However, by September, the Ottomans organized a force of 100,000 to attack the Austrians by the River Rymnik in Wallachia (southern Romania). Suvorov quickly marched to the Rymnik and took command of the combined forces. With only 25,000 men at his disposal, he led the coalition army to victory and was granted the title “Count of Rymnik” by Catherine the Great.   On December 22, 1790, Suvorov crowned his campaign against the Ottomans by the storming of Izmail, a fortress believed to be impregnable with a garrison of 40,000 Ottoman soldiers. Suvorov divided his force into five columns, one of which was led by his protégé Mikhail Kutuzov. Despite heavy losses, the Russians captured the city, leading the Ottomans to open peace negotiations. The Treaty of Jassy (Iași, Romania) of January 1792 recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea.   Prince of Italy Suvorov Crossing the Alps by Vasily Surikov, 1899. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg)   After defeating the Kościuszko Uprising in Poland, Suvorov returned to Russia in 1795. The following year, Catherine the Great died and was succeeded by her son Paul I. Suvorov opposed Paul’s efforts to reintroduce Prussian-style uniforms and drills to the Russian army and was dismissed from service.   However, in 1798, Suvorov was recalled to service after Russia joined the War of the Second Coalition against the French Republic. Now allied with the Ottomans, Suvorov combined with Admiral Fyodor Ushakov to capture the Greek island of Corfu from French Republican forces over the winter of 1798-99.   After securing Corfu, Suvorov sailed to Italy and took command of an Austro-Russian army. The Italian peninsula was under French control after Napoleon Bonaparte defeated the Austrians in 1796-97. In 1799, Napoleon was campaigning in the Middle East, and Suvorov’s armies swept through Italy to defeat the French at the Adda (April 26-28), San Giuliano (May 16), the Trebbia (June 17-20), and Novi (August 15), where the talented young French general Barthélemy Catherine Joubert was killed. Suvorov was duly honored with the title Prince of Italy.   Having conquered most of Italy, Suvorov was keen to march on Paris, but the Austrians were fearful about the further extension of Russian influence and ordered Suvorov to reinforce General Alexander Rimsky-Korsakov’s Russian army in Switzerland.   With only 25,000 Russians under his command, Suvorov overcame French defenses in the Alps, but by the time he crossed into Switzerland Rimsky-Korsakov had already been defeated by General André Masséna at Zurich. A furious Tsar Paul I blamed the Austrians for the disaster and withdrew from the coalition.   An Immortal Legacy Grave of Alexander Suvorov, St Petersburg, Russia photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2015. Source: Photo by Jimmy Chen   While Suvorov was returning to Russia, Tsar Paul promoted him to generalissimo. However, by the time he arrived in St. Petersburg in early 1800, he had fallen into disfavor once again. The 70-year-old Suvorov fell ill and died on May 18, 1800. He was buried in the Church of the Annunciation at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra underneath a simple tombstone inscribed with the words “Here lies Suvorov.”   Less than a month after Suvorov’s death, on June 14, Napoleon Bonaparte defeated the Austrians at Marengo and reconquered Italy. Although Suvorov never faced Bonaparte in battle, he inspired a generation of Russian officers who would eventually defeat Napoleon.   Prince Pyotr Bagration, who commanded Suvorov’s vanguard in Italy, was one of the few Russian officers who emerged with a greater reputation after the 1805 campaign, which ended with the disastrous defeat at Austerlitz. During Napoleon’s invasion of 1812, he fought a series of crucial rearguard actions to delay Napoleon’s advance until he was mortally wounded at the Battle of Borodino on September 7.   Although General Kutuzov had been defeated at Austerlitz, in September 1812, he took supreme command of the Russian armies, leading a strategic retreat that allowed Napoleon to occupy Moscow, only for his army to perish during an infamous winter retreat. As the French retreated from Moscow in freezing temperatures, General Matvei Platov, who led one of the assault columns at Izmail, terrorized Napoleon’s men as commander of the Don Cossack cavalry. Suvorov Crossing the Alps by Vasily Surikov, 1899. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg)

  By the end of 1944, the situation for the Axis forces in Europe was critical. Soviet Armies had beaten a bloody swath across Axis territories in the east and were advancing further.   Romania was beaten and switched sides, joining the Soviets in their fight against the Axis forces. Germany’s last ally in the region was Hungary, and the Soviets sought this country’s capitulation as another step toward forcing the Germans to surrender.   Axis forces, however, fought on, resulting in the Siege of Budapest.   Desperate Times Hitler inspecting the rubble of a German city bombed in 1944. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During the Second World War, Germany relied heavily on Hungary for many resources. Of prime importance was bauxite, which was necessary for producing aluminum used in German aircraft. Hungary supplied 90 percent of German bauxite needs. Although the advancing Soviets concentrated the majority of their efforts to the north, driving directly towards Berlin, they realized that taking Hungary was still extremely important, not just for military reasons but for political ones. Stalin wanted Hungary in the Soviet sphere of influence once the war was finished.   Poster for the National Socialist Arrow Cross Party. Source: Store Norske Leksikon   As the war on the Eastern Front worsened each day for the Nazis, Germany struggled to keep Hungary as an ally. By the beginning of 1944, many Hungarians had already seen the writing on the wall. The Hungarian regent, Miklós Horthy, sought to remove Hungary from the war by negotiating a peace settlement with the Soviets. Upon hearing this, Hitler launched Operation Margarethe in March 1944. In doing so, German troops invaded and occupied Hungary. In October, the occupation was followed up by Operation Panzerfaust.   Infamous SS soldier Otto Skorzeny led a small armored column into Budapest and took Miklós Horthy captive, forcing him to abdicate. In his place, the Germans installed Ferenc Szálasi of the far-right National Socialist Arrow Cross Party as the head of the Hungarian government.   With the government under control, crack German divisions and Hungarian soldiers prepared to defend the city from the Soviet onslaught.   The Fortress German troops and a King Tiger on the streets of Budapest, October 1944. Source: Bundesarchiv via waralbum.ru   Hitler believed that if the Soviets could be delayed long enough, the tide of the war could be turned. He planned for Budapest to be the place where this would happen. He ordered all priority to be shifted to the defense of the city. A defensive line dubbed the “Attila Line” was created around the city, with emphasis placed on the highlands of Buda. Here, the Axis planned to inflict catastrophic damage on the Soviet forces.   Defending the city would be 41,000 Germans and 38,000 Hungarians. Included in the German army were two Waffen-SS divisions and the IX SS Mountain Corps from Croatia. Soviet and Romanian forces in the city would amount to 177,000 soldiers; however, the total number of those fighting was much higher as combat took place over a wide area that didn’t actually include the city of Budapest. This was due to a massive encirclement that took place on the flanks of the town.   The Encirclement A King Tiger on the streets of Budapest, October 1944. Source: Wikimedia Commons via Bundesarchiv   Under the overall command of Marshal Rodion Malinovsky, the 2nd Ukrainian Front began the offensive with over one million men split into two groups that maneuvered to isolate Budapest from the rest of Hungary and other Axis forces.   On November 7, the Soviets entered the city’s eastern suburbs, but they had no intention of pushing through straight away. Rugged defense blunted the Soviet attack, and a new plan had to be formulated.   In addition, the soldiers were tired, and logistics needed to be sorted out before the offensive could continue. With no immediate threat, the Soviets in the eastern suburbs took the opportunity for an operational pause, which lasted until December 19, when the offensive resumed. By this time, a sweeping pincer movement designed to encircle the entire city of Budapest had been completed. Fearing for his life, Ferenc Szálasi fled the city on December 9.   The Pincer movement began in November. The 6th Guard Tank Army and the 7th Guard Army struck north, taking the town of Hatvan and then pushing westwards to cross the Danube at Vác, directly north of Budapest. Directly to the south of Budapest, the 46th Army attempted to cross the Danube via Csepel Island.   Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Stalin was agitated by the slow progress, as taking Budapest would give him extra bargaining power at the upcoming Yalta Conference in early February. The drive to encircle the north of the city had to be reinforced with extra Soviet divisions, as the Germans put up an effective defense, slowing the Soviet advance to a crawl.   The southern arm fared even worse. The 46th crossed onto Csepel Island, a massive piece of land surrounded by the Danube, but struggled to advance further. The Axis forces were well reinforced, and Soviet progress was slow as they advanced north to secure the island. By the time a river crossing west was available, a Soviet army to the south, the 3rd Ukrainian Front, had pushed up through Yugoslavia and was poised to secure the western flank of Budapest.   At this time, the Soviet army was characterized by fierce rivalries between its commanders, and Malinovsky feared the 3rd Ukrainian Front would overtake his efforts and snag all the glory for encircling Budapest. It was in this framework of competitiveness that Malinovsky hastily ordered a river crossing. Attacking Axis positions without proper artillery preparation, the Soviet casualties were immense. Nevertheless, they pushed through, breaking the Axis lines of defense.   Marshal Rodion Malinovsky. Source: topwar.ru   Progress was made in time, and the Soviet encirclement was completed on December 26 when the road between Budapest and Vienna was cut off, essentially trapping over 70,000 Axis soldiers and 800,000 civilians in the city.   As was his usual modus operandi in situations like this, Hitler refused to give an inch. He declared that Budapest was to be defended at all costs. Retreat or surrender was not an option, and those who did so were disobeying direct orders from the Führer. He declared Budapest a “fortress city,” and Waffen SS General Karl Pfeffer-Wildenbruch was put in charge of the Axis defenses.   On December 28, the Soviets addressed the Germans and Hungarians over loudspeakers, inviting them to surrender with promises of humane treatment. Two groups of emissaries, one from each Front, tried to treat with the Germans and Hungarians. They approached the enemy lines unarmed and bearing white flags. The emissaries from the 3rd Ukrainian Front spoke with Pfeffer-Wildenbruch, who refused the chance to surrender. When the Soviet delegation turned their backs to return to their lines, the Germans mowed the emissaries down. The group from the 2nd Ukrainian Front fared no better. They were fired upon before they even arrived at the Axis lines.   Fighting in Budapest Soviet troops in Budapest. Source: albumwar2.com   With the encirclement in place, the Soviets intensified their efforts within the city and began to press westwards. German and Hungarian forces gave resistance, rotating troops to keep fresh soldiers at the front, but the wide avenues of Pest meant the Soviets had a relatively easy task of advancing. Axis forces withdrew to new positions to the east to shorten the defensive line and prepared for attempts to break the encirclement.   On January 7, the Germans launched Operation Konrad, an attempt to retake the airfield to the west in order to provide relief for the city via the air. Spearheaded by the IV SS Panzer Corps, the Germans launched their last offensive of the Second World War.   The Soviets responded by reinforcing the area with four divisions, which halted the German offensive completely. Meanwhile, on the east bank of the river, Pest became impossible for the Germans to hold, and they eventually pulled back to the western side of the river to concentrate on defending Buda, destroying the five bridges that spanned the Danube after they had evacuated.   Soviet troops in Budapest, 1945. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Vicious street fighting occurred as temperatures plummeted and Axis forces struggled to find food. They were forced to eat their horses. The city’s sewers also became a battleground. Raids and ambushes were conducted under the streets of Buda.   On January 17, the IV SS Panzer Corps made another attempt to break the encirclement but were met with little success. With the failure of this action, there was no hope of Axis forces being able to withstand the siege. Supplies and manpower were dwindling.   In the hilly terrain of Buda, the Axis forces were able to mount a more effective defense, but the Soviet attacks were relentless. The defenders were tired, disease-ridden, malnourished, and under intense artillery bombardment for weeks. Hungarian forces bolstered their numbers by conscripting civilians, many of them being secondary school students.   Hitler refused to allow any surrender, but many Hungarian troops defected and fought on the side of the Soviets. In the chaos, thousands of Axis soldiers attempted to coordinate an escape, but most were captured or killed. Only a few hundred managed to escape the encirclement. Pfeffer-Wildenbruch was captured during an escape attempt, and on February 13, the defenders finally surrendered.   Outcome A Jewish man in the Budapest Ghetto, 1944. Source: Yad Vashem Photo Archives   For the Soviets, the victory opened a path to Vienna, which fell two months later. The losses were grievous for the Germans, and the Waffen-SS became a severely reduced fighting force.   Casualties were high. From November 3 to around mid-February, the Axis lost around 140,000 men killed or wounded in the fighting in Budapest, while the Soviets lost between 100,000 and 160,000 killed or wounded.   The civilian population suffered terribly as well. Around 40,000 died in the siege, many from the result of the intense artillery barrages that leveled 80 percent of the city. Of these 40,000, about 17,000 were Jews, many of whom were rounded up and executed along the banks of the Danube by Hungarian nationalists. Another 40,000 civilians would later die in Soviet POW and labor camps. They were of hundreds of thousands taken by the Soviets to be used as slave labor.   For months after the battle, bloated corpses rose from the depths of the Danube and floated downstream.   During and after the battle, the remains of Budapest and its population were subjected to looting and raping at the hands of the victorious Soviet soldiers.   Soviet officers in Budapest, 1945. Source: FORTEPAN / Ungváry Krisztián/Wikimedia Commons   From a military perspective, taking Budapest was not a great victory for the Soviets. The casualty rate was extraordinarily high, and after the city fell, vital parts of the Transdanubia region still remained under German control for several months. It also delayed the advance of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts. At the same time that these armies were focused on Budapest, Soviet troops to the north had advanced from Warsaw almost all the way to Berlin.   This didn’t mean the Siege of Budapest was any victory for the Germans either. The casualty rate was far too high for an army that was quickly shrinking and struggling to defend its territory on multiple fronts.   Ultimately, the fall of Budapest was of little strategic importance to both sides when considering the movements happening on other parts of the European frontline. Soviets pushed to Berlin via a northern passage while the Western Allies pushed into Germany via France. Victory for the Allies in these areas was almost already assured.

Artificial intelligence technology is making its way into more areas of daily life. But there are still many unknowns about AI, including major legal questions about the ways the technology should be governed, and which AI-generated speech is, or is not, protected under the First Amendment.  Generative AI, in its most basic form, is “trained on vast amounts of data,” according to Ryan Bangert, senior vice president of strategic initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom. “It ingests petabytes of information in order to learn how human language works, in order to understand how it is that human syntax grammar is structured, and then it predicts what comes next.” Generative AI is “not a mind, it’s not a consciousness, it’s not a human being,” Bangert says. “It’s a piece of software, a very complex piece of software, that’s fulfilling an algorithmic function.” Therefore, he adds, generative AI is “not a First Amendment rights-bearing entity.” In their new paper, “The Ghost in the Machine: How Generative AI Will Test the Bounds of the First Amendment,” Bangert and Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president of corporate engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom, parse the relationship between AI and the First Amendment.  Bangert and Tedesco join “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss the fight to protect free speech amid rapidly changing AI technology use.  Listen to the podcast below: The post How Artificial Intelligence Is Testing the ‘Bounds of the First Amendment’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I'd seen it said elsewhere that "safe and rare" isn't Vice President Kamala Harris' position on abortion, but rather her position on interviews. On Wednesday, we found out why. Harris' Fox News shindig represented her first foray into territory which would actively fact-check her soundbites, and it came, not exactly...

What did the vice president know, and when did she know it? It's a spin on the old line from the Watergate hearings -- and curiously enough, it hasn't really been posed to Kamala Harris since President Joe Biden basically handed her the Democratic nomination in mid-July after his campaign...

Of all the moments in Kamala Harris' catastrophic Fox News meltdown on Wednesday night -- and there are too many to properly do justice to, really -- one stood out above the rest. Harris, as you may have gleaned, is part of an administration that has been in the White...