Reviews for Orange Is the Color of the Day Pictorial History of the American Airborne Forces in the Inva...

The average rating for Orange Is the Color of the Day Pictorial History of the American Airborne Forces in the Inva... based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-10-16 00:00:00 Christophe Duret In the September 2000 issue of "Touchstone" Fr Addison Hart wrote these words about Soloviev's "Tale of the Anti-Christ": 'In the face of the world we live in right now, it is blindness and sheer folly to be fighting with other Christians about ecclesiological matters that are daily becoming less defensible. "Catholic versus Orthodox" polemics would be wrong even in less troubled times, but in the context of the current cultural situation they are precisely what the devil ordered. An eschatological perspective ever keeps in mind how imperative it is "to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us;" for we are not"--or, at least, should not be--"ignorant of his designs" '(2 Cor. 2:11). I would go on to add that all true Christians are on the same side, or should be, and that is the side of Truth. In Vladimir Soloviev's A Short Story of the Anti-Christ the three major divisions in Christianity -- Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism -- are finally drawn together by the arrival of the Anti-Christ. 'The superman' as he is called, with satanic inspiration writes a well-received book entitled, The Open Way to Universal Peace and Prosperity which, 'embraced everything and solved every problem. It united a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols with a broad and daring radicalism in socio-political questions. It joined a boundless freedom of thought with the most profound appreciation for everything mystical. Absolute individualism stood side by side with an ardent zeal for the common good, and the highest idealism in guiding principles combined smoothly with a perfect definiteness in practical solutions for the necessities of life. And all this was blended and cemented with such artistic genius that every thinker and every man of action, however one-sided he might have been, could easily view and accept the whole from his particular individual standpoint without sacrificing anything to the truth itself, without actually rising above his ego, without in reality renouncing his one-sidedness, without correcting the inadequacy of his views and wishes, and without making up their deficiencies.' And nobody raised a voice against the book! As the superman went about consolidating his power, he became the Emperor Superman and acquired a magician who 'learned, among other things, the semi-scientific, semi-mystic art of attracting and directing at will atmospheric electricity . . . i.e., (how to) bring down fire from heaven.' But the Emperor's goal was to obtain the total allegiance of the penultimate leaders of three major branches of Christianity: the Catholic Pope Peter II, formerly a preacher of the Carmelite Order; the unofficial but actual leader of the Orthodox members, Elder John, technically-speaking a bishop "in retirement"; and the very learned German theologian, Professor Ernst Pauli, who represented the Evangelical members of the congress, i.e., Peter, John and Paul. The Emperor's questions only fool superficial Christians. True believers see through his not-so-subtle tricks. However, the importance of the story concerns the union of the separate churches under the pressure of persecution in this eschatological situation. Issues which currently divide the Christian world become nothing when it at last faces the true threat, the only real threat, Evil incarnate. In Soloviev's "Tale of the Anti-Christ", the spokesmen of Christianity are persecuted and killed, but they rise again; the last Christians journey to the wilderness, the Jews raise a revolt and the Christians join with them. They are slaughtered; but then Christ appears, robed in the imperial purple, his hands outspread with the marks of the nails upon them, to rule for a thousand years with those who are his own. A must read for all believers!

Review # 2 was written on 2013-06-06 00:00:00 Tama Tamitaboy I can't quite describe the sensations I felt when reading this. The text is particularly inscrutable and esoteric, and while you're reading it you can't help but to feel like you are witnessing something momentous. It is important to understand a few things about Solovyov before reading the book. Among these: that he was deeply moved throughout his life by a series of mystical experiences; he was a friend of Dostoevsky's (and, allegedly, inspiration for Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov in the Brothers Karamazov); he deeply disliked Tolstoy, who forms the basis for the Prince in the story. Solovyov poses a number of questions and answers very few of them. Is the Prince in fact the Anti-Christ? What is the proper way to resist evil? How does the Christian pacifism espoused by the Prince relate to Solovyov's friendship to Dostoevsky (whose Grand Inquisitor exemplifies what Solovyov excoriates)? What is the role of repentance (in the second conversation, Solovyov tells us to sin without repenting)? What are the eschatological implications of Christ's failure to reform Judas? I could try to summarize the text, but I have found no better summary of it than Ashtar Command's review on Amazon, which I will paste here: "War, Progress and the End of History" is a small book in dialogue format, written by Russian mystic, philosopher and sage Vladimir Solovyov. It's most known for a section called "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ". The book was originally published in 1900. This edition has a foreword by the well-known writer and dissident Czeslaw Milosz and an afterword by Stephan Hoeller, a Gnostic "bishop" well-known in his own circles. Neither really explains the meaning or context of Solovyov's book. The reader is therefore left pretty much on his own, for good or for worse. "War, Progress and the End of History" is written in the form of three conversations, held at the French Riviera. The main protagonists are the Prince, the Politician, the General and Mr. Z. There is also a Lady, but she says nothing of importance. The Prince is obviously modelled on Leo Tolstoy, whose Christian pacifism Solovyov opposed. Mr. Z is Solovyov's alter ego. The exact roles of the Politician and the General are more unclear. The Politician is "liberal" by late 19th century standards (actually, he is a kind of "liberal" imperialist and purveyor of balance-of-power Realpolitik), while the General is an ultra-conservative Christian who fancies himself a crusader. During the third conversation, Mr. Z reads "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ", supposedly a document written by a learned Orthodox monk named Pansophius. Since Solovyov is mostly known for his veneration of Sophia, Pansophius is clearly another mouthpiece for the author. Perhaps it's also a subtle form of self-irony - unless I'm mistaken, "Pansophius" means "The All-Wise". The standard interpretation of "War, Progress and the End of History" is that Solovyov had given up on reforming society, instead awaiting the arrival of the Anti-Christ and his eventual defeat by God. However, this interpretation doesn't seem to capture all the nuances of the three conversations, since Solovyov points out in an introduction that he agrees with both the General and the Politician, as far as it goes. This doesn't make us much wiser, since these characters frequently contradict each other. There is also a contradiction between the Politician's faith in "progress", Mr. Z's statement that progress is a symptom showing that the end of the world is near, and Pansophius' short story, which rather indicates that the 20th century will be marked by wars and revolutions, not peaceful progress. Indeed, the "progress" in the short story is inaugurated by the Anti-Christ! One thing that *is* clear is Solovyov's belief that metaphysical evil exists and is a real force to be reckoned with and opposed. His alter ego's main opponent during the conversations is the Prince, who calls for non-resistance to evil, while interpreting the Bible in a purely symbolic manner (no resurrection, no second advent, etc). Solovyov considered non-resistance to evil to be absurd, pointing out that Jesus never managed to regenerate the heart of Judas and the Sanhedrin. Judging by context, Christian pacifists pointed to the Good Thief crucified with Jesus as proof that everyone could be regenerated. In response, Solovyov points out that (of course) there were *two* thieves crucified alongside Jesus. The other one - the truly wicked one - was unrepentant to the end. *How* evil should be resisted is a tactical matter, and this makes it possible for Solovyov to agree both with the warrior-prone General, the wily Politician or the meek Jesus (and, presumably, the less meek Jesus in the last chapters of Revelation). Unfortunately, this is a commonplace and thus ads little depth to the conversations. Of course evil can be resisted in different ways, but so what? Surely Jesus said more than this! Solovyov makes the argument that moral and societal good isn't enough. Death is the ultimate evil, and as long as death isn't conquered, life is ultimately meaningless despite moral and societal good. Mr. Z accuses the Prince of being inconsistent in his rejection of the resurrection - if good really is the primary force in the universe (which the Prince claims), then the resurrection must be true as well, since this is the only way in which evil can be finally overcome and goodness reign supreme. Unfortunately, Solovyov argues for his position ex cathedra, apparently considering it obvious. It is far from obvious, however: if the soul is immortal, why bother with a resurrection? Why should death be seen as "evil" in the metaphysical sense, if we all live morally upright lives in a perfect society? These questions are never touched upon in the dialogues, but Pansophius' musings on the Anti-Christ shows that Solovyov probably didn't believe in progress in the first place. While "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ" has become famous, its description of the Anti-Christ is the usual one: a counterfeit Christ who proclaims himself emperor, seduces the churches, launches a syncretistic world religion, brings peace and prosperity only to reveal himself as a demon-worshipper, etc. I think the real importance of the story is Solovyov's irenic ecumenism. Although Russian Orthodox, Solovyov was all in favour of talks with the Catholic Church, and Catholics occasionally claim that he converted to Catholicism, something his Orthodox admirers hotly deny. In the short story, three small groups of Christians withstand the seductions of the Anti-Christ. They are led by Pope Peter, Elder John and Ernest Pauli, obvious symbols for Catholicism (which claims apostolic succession from St. Peter), Orthodoxy (which places special emphasis on the Gospel of John) and Protestantism (which claims the mantle of Paul). Eventually, the three groups form a united Church in the wilderness, led by...Pope Peter. The Russian nationalists, Slavophiles and Black-Hundreds can't have been amused...