Why is it referred to as "The Great Patriotic War"?

[Shadow]

You're answering a question with a question? It is easy enough to retract your tasteless remark and move on. Unless of course that is how you feel

My apologies if I offended American people in your eyes. Hope it was not too big a mistake. 

[Ronnie]

Mendelyev,
As you journalist, you must have a blog somewhere.  Can you share with us, the URL?

[ScottinCrimea]

I'm going to throw in another personal story.  My wife's grandmother, who died last year and who I loved dearly, was caught in the seige of Leningrad.  She was 17 years old at the time.  Of her entire family, she was the only one who survived, but carried a sniper's bullet in her left shoulder for the rest of her life.  I never once heard her complain about her lot in life and she had no hate for anyone.  She could never feel comfortable and safe, though, unless she always had bread in her home.  Her cupboards might be bare otherwise, but if the bread was there, she was fine.

As others have said, I don't think there is any family in the FSU who was not touched by the war on a very personal level.  To see how they have risen above what they have gone through is a testiment to their strength and character.  We as Americans in general cannot imagine such a level of destruction and suffering, never having gone through such a national experience.  I pray we never do.

[jj]

It was the hardy and brave Russian people who won the battle for Stalingrad.
-mendeleyev

I agree it's  the strength and willpower of the people not always the leader of government.  England had its Chamberlain who wanted to make a pact with Germany, Roosevelt supported with supplies but did not want to join in the war effort against Hitler until we were attacked by Japanese,  Stalin made a pact with Hitler, but when all these countries soldiers and civilians were called upon to go to war,  they made the sacrifices necessary to defend their countrymen.

I understand the sacrifices our  US veterans of WWII made on both pacific and european fronts , but have learned about other countries sacrifices by visiting some of those countries and visiting monument sights, and how proud the people are about their own inner strength during hard times, but not necessarily about their government leaders.

[jj]

I meant to state that these pics were from Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad) 

[Mir]

No one can deny the sacrifices and sufferings of the Russian people. Still one wonders did they suffer more at the hands of the Nazis or Stalin (during, before and after the war)?

The suffering or ordinary Germans was no less then the Russians.

Recently a famous misconception has been laid to rest, that Hitler was a pagan. In fact he had strong Catholic leaning and stated that by exterminating the Jews he was doing the lords work. Explains why the Catholic church turned a blind eye or colaborated in the killing of Jews.

Interestingly while the communist looked down on religion they reincarted religion and religious icons to inspire the Russian solders during the war.

Hitlers attack on Russia was not a mistake, the whole war was a clash between Germany and Russia, due to their position in Europe and ideological differences (communism vs fascism plus the fact that many Jews were prominent members of the communist party of Russia). The question was when to attack Russia and to Hitler it was clear that if he delays Russia will only get stronger and the US might come into war.

History is written by the victors

Churchill

[mendeleyev]

JJ, nice photos!  It looks like you have the opportunity to enjoy Mamayev Kurgan, the hill on which the main monuments are erected to the battle of Stalingrad.  At 82 meters in height, the Mother Russia statue was the tallest statue in the world at it's erection in 1967.

You are right about Chamberlain.  British Lord Halifax on 21 September 1939 lamented that "One of the major tragedies of the last few weeks was that we watched the resistance of a gallant nation (Poland) overborne, without ourselves rendering such direct assistance as might have produced different results."

He would go on later to protest that "while Germany dropped bombs on Poland, Chamberlain dropped leaflets on Germany" a reference to Chamberlains feeble attempts to appeal to the German people to stop Hitler."


Ronnie, You were gracious to share the address of your excellent blog in another thread but I have struggled with whether to publically post my blog or to email it to you privately after your request.  My blog is really a resource to those for whom I provide services, and there is some helpful information there regarding Russia as well, so for what it's worth here it is: http://www.russianreport.wordpress.com/

[Ronnie]

Hitler was not a pagan (unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word).  But it is an even greater misconception to imply that Hitler was in any respect a fan of any religion, least of all the Roman Catholic.  His thoughts on religion were many and were recorded by Martin Borman.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm

I have extracted some of his comments and posted them below, there are many more and they are quite interesting.  It seems difficult to classify him religiously as he talks much about science and nature as would a Darwinian.  Certainly his words and actions were consistent with a belief in Darwin's law of natural selection.

However, to return to the losses of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, I believe that Hitler may have been content to focus on Western and Central Europe and leave Stalin to deal with another day.  But Hitler knew or believed that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany through Poland so he preempted Stalin.  One could argue then that the war on the eastern front (and the resultant loss of life)was due to communism's expansionist ideology.

Here is just a sampling of Hitler's quotes taken from the above link...

If today you do harm to the Russians, it is so as to avoid giving them the opportunity of doing harm to us. 

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself. 


We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth. 

The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson on the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction! As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before — and I remember that I drove them to despair. 

[mendeleyev]

MIR, in no way were Russian troops as brutal on German citizens in the same systematic and brutal way as the SS on Russians.  German troops were indoctrinated to think of the Slavs as simply one step above Jews, barely deserving the right to live.  Their role in Hitlers future was to serve as slaves to the Master German race.

In no way did Russians think the same of Germans.  They hated them and wanted revenge of course.  

Far more Russians died than German citizens.

Hitler had no delusions about doing the Lord's work.  He may have used such analagies when dealing with clergy, of which Germany was and is primarily a Lutheran country (not Catholic), but it was Hitler's regime which decreed it "impossible to serve both SS and the church" thereby causing an exodus of elite soldiers from the ranks of the church.

Hitler also saw himself much in competition with God.  He demanded total allegiance to HIMSELF (idolatry).  In modern times he was about as close as any dictator who came close to the old Roman rulers as declaring diety for himself.  He used God when it was convenient to manipulate others.

[Mir]

MIR, in no way were Russian troops as brutal on German citizens in the same systematic and brutal way as the SS on Russians.  German troops were indoctrinated to think of the Slavs as simply one step above Jews, barely deserving the right to live.  Their role in Hitlers future was to serve as slaves to the Master German race.

The worst atrocities of SS were reserved for Jews. As regards who was more brutal the Germans or the Allies that is difficult to decide without a bias. In 1941 the Luftwaffe bombed Bristol, around a 100 people died and for the relatives of those who died or were injured the Germans were the most brutal people on earth.
In 1945 when the war was all but over the allied bombed Dresden using fire bombs to start fires. Around 300,000 German civilians were killed. Why don't the relatives of those Germans have the same rights to feel the pain as the people from Bristol? And we all know why this mindless act was not considered a war crime.
As regards the conduct of Russian troops/other allied troops well have a read of this:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/massrape.htm

I don't want to get into the argument of who was more brutal then who, the point is that all wars are brutal, men do things in war that are shameful and there are plenty of heroes and Innocent victims on both sides.
Still the victors are much more able to hide their crimes then the losers.
Perhaps it is not possible to deny that wars are a necessity but lets not glorify the conduct of one waring side and put all the evil deeds in the others account. As there is the old military saying: 'Next to a battle lost there is nothing so pitable as a battle won'

[ScottinCrimea]

Nice post Mir,
     I recently read a book called "Nina's Journey" about a Russian woman's experiences during the second world war.  What was especially appalling for me was the description of how soviet troops treated their own people when they retook the city of Feodosia from the Germans.  While under German occupation the people were treated with basic human respect and dignity (excluding the Jews, which was its own tragedy), the Soviet troops immediately set about looting, raping every girl or woman in sight and starving the population.  While all armies involved seemed to dispense their own outrages, to do this to one's own people is especially unconscionable.

[Faux Pas]

The worst atrocities of SS were reserved for Jews. As regards who was more brutal the Germans or the Allies that is difficult to decide without a bias. In 1941 the Luftwaffe bombed Bristol, around a 100 people died and for the relatives of those who died or were injured the Germans were the most brutal people on earth.
In 1945 when the war was all but over the allied bombed Dresden using fire bombs to start fires. Around 300,000 German civilians were killed. Why don't the relatives of those Germans have the same rights to feel the pain as the people from Bristol? And we all know why this mindless act was not considered a war crime.

I believe the hay is in the barn on this one. There's no doubt who was the most brutal. Who was it that beat, shot, starved, worked to death and murdered 6 million people? This part of your post is a bit appalling

[ScottinCrimea]

Faux Pas,  Tell that to the millions who were beaten, shot, starved, and worked to death by the Soviets (Our allies)

[Faux Pas]

Faux Pas,  Tell that to the millions who were beaten, shot, starved, and worked to death by the Soviets (Our allies)

Scott the ills, crimes or atrocities of Stalin and the communist would fall under another pretense other than The Great Patriotic War wouldn't it? It would also span a much longer time period. No, there is no excusing it. There is no excusing the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis either but during the war, which is the topic of I am correct, there is no comparison between the Nazis and the Russians. Its Nazis hands down. If you think otherwise, tell that to a Jew

[ScottinCrimea]

Again, I respectfully disagree.  The Nazi atrocities toward the Jews are well chronicled, and six million is a shocking number, but even if we limit it to the war years, I think the nature of the atrocities of the Soviets, as well as the number of victims, matches or exceeds those of the Nazis.  Of course there were atrocities perpetrated by all involved in the war, but for purposes of this discussion I think we are only talking about the Nazis and the Soviets.  I have the deepest sympathy the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and their descendants and don't discount their suffering in the least, but it does a great disservice to ignore or diminish those who suffered equal or worse treatment.  The following link might open your eyes to some things that haven't been so well documented in the media:

http://hometown.aol.com/rfoor76/

[Mir]

Scott the ills, crimes or atrocities of Stalin and the communist would fall under another pretense other than The Great Patriotic War wouldn't it? It would also span a much longer time period

The Great Patriotic was started in June 1941 and ended in 1945. Many of the brutalities done to Jews by the Nazis were done in the period 1933-May 1941, does that mean these should fall under other pretense as well?

No, there is no excusing it. There is no excusing the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis either

And no one is making any excuses for what Hitler and Nazis did, although someone has tried to make excuses for what the red army did as it liberated Europe. Read the link in my post and tell me is such a behaviour excuseable?

there is no comparison between the Nazis and the Russians. Its Nazis hands down. If you think otherwise, tell that to a Jew

That is exactly the point, if you ask a Jew to decide who was worse then the Nazis will win by a wide margin.
But ask a Fin or a Latvian or a Tatar, you will get a different answer.

[mendeleyev]

Thank goodness we get to live in a modern world where the histories of both losers and winners can be documented and recorded.  I don't for a moment believe that the atrocities of the SS was reserved only for the Jews.  It was not only used on Russians but also on groups like the Poles, on Jews and non-Jews alike.  The fundamental difference was that Hitler had convinced a nation that other races were good only for serving the masters and the Jews were good for nothing.

Of course Stalin was guilty of war crimes during the war and crimes against humanity before and after the war.  No one could logically excuse some of the Red Army actions toward the end of the war.  But one can understand without excusing.  As Red Army soldiers left Russia in pursuit of the Nazi's they were confronted hourly with the evidence of what the German Army had done to ordinary Soviet citizens and there is a big difference between excusing how they reacted and understanding why they felt it necessary to exact revenge.

One of the most significant books from that period is William Russell's "Berlin Embassy."  Russell was the US Ambassador and the book is the result of his daily diary and in it he records the change in the German people.  In 1939 only a minority were truly Nazi but no one was willing to speak out.  When Hitler began to gobble up his smaller neighbors most were embarrassed but they were too comfortable with German life to risk speaking out.  By late 39 to mid 1940 the Ambassadors of the US and England were warning their governments that although of German opinion was about to turn against the Allies, there was still time to show a strong hand and face down the German dictatorship.  By mid/late 1941 the German people were in a very different mental state and a majority was no longer open to outside intervention. 

The Allied leadership saw this grow stronger as the war drew near to an end.  In a seige mentality the German populace still felt that they represented a high class then other Europeans.  The war could have ended sooner if it were not for the continued effort by everyday German citizens and soldiers to 'fight to the death.'  The needless loss of life at the end of the war was borne by the German people themselves, not on military strategies designed to hasten an end the conflict.

[mendeleyev]

Again we're fortunate to live in a world where both sides of a story can be researched and discovered.

The Great Patriotic was started in June 1941 and ended in 1945. Many of the brutalities done to Jews by the Nazis were done in the period 1933-May 1941, does that mean these should fall under other pretense as well?

Unfortunately this is a 1/3 look at a whole picture.  In 1939 concentration camps did exist in Germany.  That the rest of the world seemed shocked later leaves the rest of us without excuse.

However in 1939 or 1940 a Jew's relatives could post a bail and rescue someone from a concentration camp.  Lots of Jews immigrated to the UK and the US before the war and could tell of spending time in German camps.  The horrible conditions and wholesale murder of millions was not happening in the years you reference.

In those early years the German "final solution" had not yet been implemented.  The "final solution" was in great part the result of the German gov't realizing those "scum" who susposedly didn't deserve life in the first place were breathing good air, eating good food, wearing clothing, and consuming time and care when ordinary German citizens, the susposed master race, were being forced to live on severe rations as the war intensified. 

[ScottinCrimea]

No one could logically excuse some of the Red Army actions toward the end of the war.  But one can understand without excusing.  As Red Army soldiers left Russia in pursuit of the Nazi's they were confronted hourly with the evidence of what the German Army had done to ordinary Soviet citizens and there is a big difference between excusing how they reacted and understanding why they felt it necessary to exact revenge.

No offense but this does not explain why the Soviet troops acted in such a horrible manner toward their own citizens in occupied areas such as Crimea.  Revenge had nothing to do with it.  I can neither excuse NOR understand such behavior.

[Faux Pas]

No offense but this does not explain why the Soviet troops acted in such a horrible manner toward their own citizens in occupied areas such as Crimea.  Revenge had nothing to do with it.  I can neither excuse NOR understand such behavior.

Scott, nobody that I read or noticed are excusing the Soviet atrocities before, during or after the GPW. And they were ample. In total estimated to be greater than the Nazis. It is mostly documented and we know this. I am not aware of Stalin attempting to obliterate an entire race from the face of the earth. However, your and Mir's assumption that the Soviets were more brutal during the war is just plain wrong. I personally am not Jewish but the evidence is overwhelming (in my mind) that it was the Nazis without a doubt more brutal in this period. Is there one account of death camps in Russia or an occupied territory? The gulags would not qualify in this instance, in this period as they had no gas chambers that I am aware of. BTW, I just recently read where the Brits are excluding the Holocaust from their curriculum in schools to not offend the muslim populace. I can't personally verify that. But it is no secret that the Iranians and Saudis already have declared it didn't happen. Other western european nations are expected to follow suit.

[Ronnie]

As incredible as it may seem, in thirteen countries you can be arrested for denying the holocaust: 

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. 

Spain and Slovakia recently repealed their laws.

[Mir]

I don't for a moment believe that the atrocities of the SS was reserved only for the Jews

Yes and you are right there, note that I said the worst atrocities were reserved for the Jews and that is the truth.
As for the rest you are proving my point how the victorious so thoroughly convince others that all the wrongs they did had a reason while all the same things done by their opponents were just mindless sadistic cruelty.
I totally reject that the Soviet troops were seeking revenge. Even the Russian women who had been deported to Germany by the Nazis were raped by the Soviet troops.

As regards why the Germans will to fight etc, well why not? they have the same sense of patriotism as any other. Look at the Russians, they were willing to fight to they end, not for Jo Stalin but for mother Russia.

However, your and Mir's assumption that the Soviets were more brutal during the war is just plain wrong.

I do not assume that Soviet's were more brutal then the Nazis. I just don't think there is a scale available with which one can meassure the brutalities of both sides and get a accurate estimate.

[ScottinCrimea]

Scott, nobody that I read or noticed are excusing the Soviet atrocities before, during or after the GPW. And they were ample. In total estimated to be greater than the Nazis. It is mostly documented and we know this. I am not aware of Stalin attempting to obliterate an entire race from the face of the earth. However, your and Mir's assumption that the Soviets were more brutal during the war is just plain wrong. I personally am not Jewish but the evidence is overwhelming (in my mind) that it was the Nazis without a doubt more brutal in this period. Is there one account of death camps in Russia or an occupied territory? The gulags would not qualify in this instance, in this period as they had no gas chambers that I am aware of. BTW, I just recently read where the Brits are excluding the Holocaust from their curriculum in schools to not offend the muslim populace. I can't personally verify that. But it is no secret that the Iranians and Saudis already have declared it didn't happen. Other western european nations are expected to follow suit.

Have you read Gulag Archipelago?  How can you not call these death camps simply because they did not have a gas chamber?  They were called death camps by those to whom it mattered. It seems you are at least to some extent familiar with the literature outlining the Nazis' atrocities against the Jews, but what have you read regarding those of the Soviets? Did you even read the link I provided that gave only a few examples? The method of mass murder is irrevelant, be it gas chamber or wholesale machine gunning.  To even debate which method is more humane is unthinkable. I don't recall stories of mass gang rapes against the Jews, nor of crucifying Jewish women to barn walls and using them for target practice, nor or tying them nude to trees in sub freezing temperatures and allowing them to slowly freeze to deat as the mosquitos ate them alive.  I don't discount the suffering of the Jews, but to even suggest that it was worse than all other groups makes no sense to me and does not fit with the facts.  It is NOT apparent that the Nazis were more brutal, just different in their methods.  You're not Jewish, but it seems important to you to proclaim that the Nazis are the worst.  Why?  Do you have a German ex-wife? 

[Faux Pas]

Have you read Gulag Archipelago?  How can you not call these death camps simply because they did not have a gas chamber?  They were called death camps by those to whom it mattered. It seems you are at least to some extent familiar with the literature outlining the Nazis' atrocities against the Jews, but what have you read regarding those of the Soviets? Did you even read the link I provided that gave only a few examples? The method of mass murder is irrevelant, be it gas chamber or wholesale machine gunning.  To even debate which method is more humane is unthinkable. I don't recall stories of mass gang rapes against the Jews, nor of crucifying Jewish women to barn walls and using them for target practice, nor or tying them nude to trees in sub freezing temperatures and allowing them to slowly freeze to deat as the mosquitos ate them alive.  I don't discount the suffering of the Jews, but to even suggest that it was worse than all other groups makes no sense to me and does not fit with the facts.  It is NOT apparent that the Nazis were more brutal, just different in their methods.  You're not Jewish, but it seems important to you to proclaim that the Nazis are the worst.  Why?  Do you have a German ex-wife? 

Scott, no I did not read the links you provided. Quite frankly, I do not need to, to refute your revisionist history.  You're tossing out a red herring to the question of who was the most brutal during the GPW, Soviets or Nazis. It is unquestionably the Nazis. If you want a yard stick of how to gauge, start with the 6 million civilian deaths of the Jews. Did Stalin and the gulags kill 6 million in this period? The GPW didn't last for the 30 years of Stalinism. It was 1941 to 1945. Unless of course your Poland and then it started in 39. Hardly 30 years worth in any event. The Nazis Final Solution didn't even began until 1942 with the wholesale industrialized mass murder and genocide.

I am in no way attempting to overlook or excuse the atrocities of the communist under Stalin. When you attempt to brush off the Nazis as kids play to the Soviets you are, and I will state it again, just plain wrong. During this period in history the Nazis became the most prolific killing machine ever known in the history of mankind. You seemed to have (for some reason) reached a conclusion and then looked for some facts to support it.

The answer to your last question is, no I've never had a German wife. I also am not Jewish. I have no dog in this hunt. My motive to correct you on history is not to inflame. But when I see someone bend and shape history as to brutality, death and war for some useless esteem. I see it as a correction should be stated, at the very least an opposing view. I could be wrong but, I also sense you haven't experienced enough about war and death to make a proper determination.

[ScottinCrimea]

Faux Pas,
     I'm confused as to why you would accuse me of revisionist history.  What have I written that isn't true?  Give me one example.

So if I understand it, you know essentially nothing about the Soviet atrocities, let alone those of the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia, the current events in Darfur, etc.  In fact, you refuse to even look at anything related to these atrocities that might suggest they were at least equally as brutal as what was perpetrated by the Nazis. How is it "apparent" to you that one was more brutal than the other when you have made no attempt to even research the issue.  This smacks of a "head in the sand" mentality.

Your comment, "When you attempt to brush off the Nazis as kids play to the Soviets you are, and I will state it again, just plain wrong." I view as an insult.  I have NEVER discounted the brutality of either party.  In fact, I have been very clear in my disgust for the brutalities.

You now have expanded to not only say that the Nazis were "unquestionably" the most brutal during WWII, but that they were "the most prolific killing machine ever known in the history of mankind".  If you want to talk sheer numbers, try these on for size:  Under Stalin's regime there were more than 50 million democidal deaths (genocide, politicide and mass murder).  Over 18 millionn of these were during the years of the 2nd WW.  I would call that a pretty prolific killing machine.

You also added this comment, "But when I see someone bend and shape history as to brutality, death and war for some useless esteem..."  Again, I challenge you to show me one instance where I bent or shaped history in this thread.

The problem with any discussion of this nature is that any attempt to show the brutality of one party can be misinterpreted as diminishing the brutality of another.  I would hope that those reading this would see that this is not my intent at all.  The problem I have with Faux Pas's statements is his claim that it is "obvious to all" and undisputed that the Nazis were the most brutal.  And to say this without even bothering to research anything beyond the Nazis makes no sense to me.

I am not revising history, I am merely providing facts that Faux Pas apparently wasn't aware of before he issued his declaration of truth.

I have an open mind on this.  My goal is not to win a battle of "who was the worst".  I don't think anyone can reasonably make a claim of that sort.  Which is the worst brutality?  Sending someone to a gas chamber? Putting a bullet in their brain? Starving them to death? Rape? Torture by whatever method?  Unless someone is foolishly willing to list these in order of severity, they cannot place a rank on who is the most brutal.

Man's inhumanity to man has been a fact since recorded time.  Certainly those of the Nazis toward the Jews is probably the best documented and the most widely known, but perhaps it is the story of those democides less well known that will provide the greatest lessons on how to avoid this in the future.  We can't focus on the one as an excuse to avoid learning of the others, even if we have to dig a little deeper.