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

[Ronnie]

According to Historian Chalmers Johnson:

   It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

And many of the deaths were by unimaginably brutal.  Vivisections without anesthetic...amputation, decapitations, cannibalism.  Nothing in Europe could compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

[Faux Pas]

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.

Scott, what you have written that isn't true is that the Soviets were more brutal than the Germans during WWII. I am well aware of the Soviet atrocities. I do not need to read your links to acknowledge that the Soviets atrocities were horrific or for affirmations of my education. I am also well informed on the War of Darfur and it is inexcusable as well. Although it is current atrocities, it still pales in comparison to the Nazi's killing machine during WWII. Injecting the Khmer Rouge and Darfur into this conversation is perceived by me as just another side track to your original position. You offer more red herring. Neither hold a candle to the Nazi war machine. I have given you the scale by which to judge and you continue to ignore it.

Scott, please do the math. The widely accepted number of deaths due to Stalinism is 20 million, also quoted as high as 60 million and as low as 6 million. There is no known documentation on the actual number. For the math lets use 30 million over a period of 30 years. That would equate to 1 million per year. During the GPW (1941-1945) that would equal 4 million deaths. The Nazis with The Final Solution (1942-1945) murdered 6 million Jews alone, not counting the other estimated 20 million both civilian and military deaths in Europe, Russia and North Africa during the period of 1939-1945. The daunting numbers do not support your position.

If my comment was taken as an insult I truly do apologize. It was not delivered with that intent. More so to drive the point home. I do tend to hammer. Stalin cannot hold a candle to Hitler in proficiency of brutality or murder, only longevity. This is where you bent and shaped history to suit your need. There is no comparison during the period in question between the Soviets and the Nazis. During the Stalinist years who murdered more? Most likely the Communist. If Hitler had been allowed that much time, who knows what his numbers would be? Thats all conjecture.

I agree Scott, it is all to be abhorred. But recognizing it all for what it is and to what degree is the way that we learn from it.

[Faux Pas]

According to Historian Chalmers Johnson:
And many of the deaths were by unimaginably brutal.  Vivisections without anesthetic...amputation, decapitations, cannibalism.  Nothing in Europe could compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Ronnie, for the sake of definition these Japanese war crimes cover a much broader time span and include more Japanese Imperialism spanning almost 100 years

[2tallbill]

Japan killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000,000 Chinese of which 16,200,000 were civilians. These are WWII killings. The Japanese did start earlier in July of 1937 and lasted longer 1945.

They had a very modern war / killing machine as well.

Tojo and Hitler both killed because of race / creed

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I don't know how to measure relative evil, both men were evil pretty well locked up.

Just my two kopecks,

Bill
 

[ScottinCrimea]

Faux Pas, I think the problem here is that we are using different definitions of brutality.  You consider the degree of brutality based only on the numbers.  I define brutality more by the nature of the act.  In other words, one murder in one manner can be much more brutal than 100 murders committed in another manner.  To suggest that the Nazis were the most brutal, in my view, and based on the definition of the word, you would have to name a specific act against individuals by the Nazis that was more cruel than any act by any other grojup or individual.  I really don't think anyone can say that one form of torture or killing is more brutal than another, there are just too many variables.

As far as the numbers go, you need to spread your numbers out more as far as your timeline, just as you suggested Ronnie must do with the Japanese.  The genocide of the Jews actually started in 1933 when Dachau, the first concentration camp, was opened, you're talking about a period of 12 years.  If we stretch Stalin's reign of terror out 12 years either way from WW2, his numbers increase dramatically.

I still have a problem with your claim that the Nazis were the most prolific killing machine of all time.  Even if we take your number of 20 million killed by them during the period 1939-1945, which is at the upper limit of the estimates of numbers and the lowest range of years, that comes out to an average of about 3.6 million a year.  Though at this level we could definitely call them prolific killers, consider that the Holodomor, the genocidal starving of Soviet citizens in Ukraine and elsewhere, killed a total of 9 million people over a two year period.  That number is taken from the Report to Congress of the Commission on the Ukrainian Famine.  So if we do the math, that computes to an average of 4.5 million a year. I would call that prolific as well.  I'm sure aI could find other examples of large numbers of people killed in a shorter period of time that would have higher average totals if computed on a yearly basis, but I think you get the point.  Just as we can only imagine how much Hitler might have added to his totals if left in power, the same can be said of many others.

[Gtex]

Let us not put to a fine a point on this.  Millions died, and I doubt that being the victim of the "Grand Prize Winner Most Evil Leader" or the finisher in second place makes a nonce to the departed.  Enough grotesque brutality was perpetrated in both their names, further glorification or attention here is point less...

The scary proposition is the sometime still heard comment by the Stalin apologist and Russian residedent, "...20 million? Maybe they needed killing!"  Apologies for Hitler are more rare and guarded, unless you are in Belarus! 

As a side note, the "Final Solution" to the Jewish question was implemented at the Wannsee conference; January 20, 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference

Things were bad before that, but after, state policy of extermination.

[mendeleyev]

Gtex, I see you also have been keeping an ear on President Lukashenko of Belarus.  A very big fan of Adolf Hitler, he often compares himself favourably to Adolf Hitler.  “To a certain extent, the history of Germany is the same as that of Belarusia.  Germany was raised from the ruins thanks to extremely harsh but effective authority.  Not everything connected to Adolf Hitler was bad.  There are many positive things about Hitler.”

Lukashenko went on to say that “Hitler formed a strong Germany thanks to strong Presidential power and reached it’s highest formation under Hitler.  That is my view of a strong Presidential Republic and of a president’s role in one.”

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/xtreme-links/freedom-day-violence-in-belarus/

[Ronnie]

Numbers of war dead are not a good measure of brutality and criminality.  If Germany killed a lot their opponents with better weapons and/or tactics then they were doing what ever other participant in every war has tried to do to their best ability.

What, IMO, is a measure of brutality is how POWs are treated, and how civilians are treated in territory that had surrendered. Yes the Germans treated Soviet POWs much worse the Allied.  The question is why?  What it tit for tat?

Further, I have not heard much about German officers murdering their own soldiers in order to instill fear in the others as did Red Army officers.   Little is written also about the way Stalin, after the war, sought and destroyed the UPA (Ukrainian Partisans who protected Western Ukraine against both the Nazi's and the Soviets).  Entire communities were "cleansed" for supporting the UPA guerillas. [As a side note, it has been reported that the Soviets were very impressed by the UPA's tunnel-building and guerilla tactics and taught them to the North Vietnamese].

So, I wouldn't use numbers of war dead alone to measure brutality.  The word has more significance.  Again treatment of unarmed individuals who have surrendered and those who can't fight back has got to be the first measure.  The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been critized as brutal by many anti-American critics.  But historians on all sides agree it saved lives on both sides and appears to have stopped the Soviets from entering Japan as planned later in August of '45.

[Ronnie]

Gtex, I see you also have been keeping an ear on President Lukashenko of Belarus.  A very big fan of Adolf Hitler, he often compares himself favourably to Adolf Hitler.  “To a certain extent, the history of Germany is the same as that of Belarusia.  Germany was raised from the ruins thanks to extremely harsh but effective authority.  Not everything connected to Adolf Hitler was bad.  There are many positive things about Hitler.”

Lukashenko went on to say that “Hitler formed a strong Germany thanks to strong Presidential power and reached it’s highest formation under Hitler.  That is my view of a strong Presidential Republic and of a president’s role in one.”

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/xtreme-links/freedom-day-violence-in-belarus/

What makes bad leaders so extremely dangerous is the inter-woven good that they do and the intelligence which they display - not to mention great public speaking ability.

Hitler was indeed intelligent. 

Interestingly, the words of John Adams that adorn the mantel in White House's state dining room say nothing of the need for intelligence in leaders.. "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereinafter inhabit it.  May none by honest and wise men ever rule under it's roof."

[OlgaH]

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

The term Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 is used only in the history of Russia, in the Wold history the War of 1941 to 1945 has term the Second World War.

The first Patriotic War in the history of Russia took place in 1812 (the French invasion of Russia)

compact Oxford dictionary

patriot

  • noun a person who vigorously supports his country and is prepared to defend it.

  — DERIVATIVES patriotic adjective, patriotically adverb, patriotism noun.

 

[Catman]

A newspaper article I read last week said that Canada recognizes Holodomor and will have a day dedicated to remembrance of this event. I have heard from more than one old Ukrainian person telling the stories of their fathers and grandfathers who participated or witnessed the war between Ukraine and Poland that the Polish were the most brutal in war, more brutal than the nazis and Russians put together.

[mendeleyev]

OlgaH, thanks for sharing that information about the war names inside Russia.  I'd like to add that the war was officially named as the "Great Fatherland War"  (24 June 1941 declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.) 

The popular term "Great Patriotic War" while never official, made a much better propaganda tool in rallying the population around the war effort. 

[SANDRO43]

OlgaH, thanks for sharing that information about the war names inside Russia.  I'd like to add that the war was officially named as the "Great Fatherland War" (24 June 1941 declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.) The popular term "Great Patriotic War" while never official, made a much better propaganda tool in rallying the population around the war effort.

So what's the Russian term, большая патриотическая война or большая война родины?

In the latter case, why are you translating it as "Great Fatherland War" rather than "Great Motherland War", you male chauvinistic pig ?

[Ronnie]

So what's the Russian term, большая патриотическая война or большая война родины?

Guess again.

[OlgaH]

So what's the Russian term, большая патриотическая война or большая война родины?

Великая Отечественная Война  from the Russian word отечество  All patriots defend their отечество.

[SANDRO43]

Великая Отечественная Война  from the Russian word отечество.

Thank you, Olga. Since Отечественная probably derives from отец, "Great Fatherland War" would seem a more appropriate translation than "Great Motherland War", then, in addition to "Great Patriotic War".

Any difference between отечество and родина ?

 

[OlgaH]

Any difference between отечество and родина ?

The words Родина, Отечество, Отчизна are synonyms 

But I think that the terms Отечество and Отчизна are more comprehensive... and may be grand

Родина (род, рожать, родной) is as a Mother (Motherland) giving birth to children 

Отечество and Отчизна (отец or old Slavic and more used in Church language отче) - Родина отцов - Motherland of fathers - Fatherland

[OlgaH]

"Great Fatherland War" would seem a more appropriate translation than "Great Motherland War", then, in addition to "Great Patriotic War". 

Yes, I agree.

The famous poster "Mother Land calls"



and the famous monument "Mother Land"


The Mother Land calls and encourages her sons and inspires vigour in them to defend every even small part of the land of their fathers for the future generation

[SANDRO43]

The famous poster "Mother Land calls"

Is the poster from 1942 ? IIRC, Stalin made appeals to the Родина, previously considered a 'bourgeois' concept, and its defence only when the USSR had their backs to the wall under the thitherto successful German offensive.

[OlgaH]

Is the poster from 1942 ? IIRC, Stalin made appeals to the Родина, previously considered a 'bourgeois' concept, and its defence only when the USSR had their backs to the wall under the thitherto successful German offensive.

The poster "Mother Land - calls" was created in June of 1941 by graphic artist Irakli Moiseyevich Toidze. I just know (from the history) that Stalin liked that poster and ordered to print 5 million copies. 

[SANDRO43]

The poster "Mother Land - calls" was created in June of 1941 by graphic artist Irakli Moiseyevich Toidze.

Georgian Jew, judging by his name. I found another couple of his works in the same vein.

[OlgaH]

There is also the other version about the poster. According to Igor Bunich the printed date in the original poster (the first poster "Mother Land - calls" was 25th December of 1940. Stalin planed the surprise attack on Germany in 1941 and the poster was ordered by Stalin before and was as reserve in case if "something will be wrong with the plan"

[OlgaH]

Irakli Toidze also was an illustrator. Here is his art work to the poem "The Knight in the Tiger Skin" by Shota Rustaveli

[SANDRO43]

Times up to the 1950s were great for illustrators, when their work was gradually replaced by colour photographs. Our major national daily is Milan's Corriere della Sera (Evening Courier ), and for 90 years (1899 to 1989) they published a weekly Domenica del Corriere whose main attraction was its illustrated front page drawn by Achille Beltrame and later Walter Molino (author of the attached 'Trial of the Koch gang'). Incidentally, the publishers recently held:

La Domenica del Corriere: an exhibition at the Italian Cultural Institute of New York
From April 10 through May 9, 2008, original drawings by renowed Italian ilustrators from the archives of Corriere della Sera.

[OlgaH]

The Great Patriotic War posters

http://graphicwitness.org/undone/rp.htm