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

[OlgaH]

What you say is strictly correct but hides something. The territory - particularly Karelia has been under dispute and fought over for a VERY long time. and predates the modern state names you are using.

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

Yes, it is historical issue, and I hope it is resolved... and there will not be any other wars.

[deccie]

But also we should remember that the name of the tread is "Why is it referred to as "The Great Patriotic War"? 

The term Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная Война 1941-1945) is used only in the history of Russia 

True Olga.

On my last visit to St Petersburg my fiance took me to a memorial on the northern side of the city that was once an airfield during the war. I really enjoyed seeing the memorial. But the place I really want to get to next is Piskariovskoye Memorial Cemetery.

[deccie]

... and there will not be any other wars.

I think we can all hope for that.

[OlgaH]

deccie,

if you will have a chance to be in Volgograd I think it would be also interesting for you to visit Mamajev Hill

[deccie]

deccie,

if you will have a chance to be in Volgograd I think it would be also interesting for you to visit Mamajev Hill

Yes, I'm sure it would. I have heard it is a deeply moving experience.

[steviej]

My understanding is that Stalin had good intelligence during 30s that Hitler's main objective was expansion to the East, that is, into Russia. That's even part of the reason he began the military purge. He wanted politically reliable generals in place before the engagement of this great conflict. (This was a SERIOUS mistake). He spent a couple years trying to negotiate mutual defense agreements with with West, without results. Hence he concluded, rightfully, that the time had come to negotiate with Hitler, and to try to prevent the German invastion through diplomacy. And as always with Stalin, get as much out of it as he could. He believed he had made the best deal in the situation for the Soviet Union. Give Hitler what he wanted in the Polish corridor, take back for Russia what was lost in the Treaty of Brestl-Livosk (sp?), and delay Hitler's attack long enough for Russian to rebuild her military after the purge with people that Stalin considered reliable. This, given the overall situation, was a very intelligent plan (except the demented purge). Where he went wrong was that he thought he would have at least another year before the German attack, and therefore refused to believe that Hitler would attack prematurely. He persisted in this belief even in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Germany was indeed preparing their attack for 1941, not 1942.

There's no doubt that Stalin's military purge of the 30s severely hurt Russia's military capability. Even Tukachevsky (sp?), the inventor of the blitzkreig, was in prison (later released for battle duty).

Once Hitler consolidated his power, a war with Russia was inevitable. It was simply Hitler's plan from the beginning. Somehow, in some way, Russia was to face this onslaught unless Hitler fell from power before being able to launch operations. As we know, this did not happen. What can you do when history's greatest military machine of all time puts you squarely in its gunsights? You do exactly what Stalin did, negotiate and try to buy as much time as possible to prepare for the inevitable. The "sanctity" of the Polish nation has nothing to do with it. Poland has not been a country since the mid-1700s I think, and its recreation after WWI was simply a Brittish vanity and a buffer against the Bolsheviks. (Poland, like many nations, is a vanity today) Hitler was determined to have Poland - nothing you can do about it. In the "United Nations" mentality of the world today, we have many "vanity" nations. Nations that consider themselves sovereign nations that can't even field a hand grenade in their own defense. No nation that cannot defend itself is really a nation. It only means these are forward trip-wires for the large powers that can make war.

[OlgaH]

Where he went wrong was that he thought he would have at least another year before the German attack, and therefore refused to believe that Hitler would attack prematurely. He persisted in this belief even in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Germany was indeed preparing their attack for 1941, not 1942.

That was big mistake of Stalin that cost millions of lives. Stalin was warned many times about attack by Germany. Richard Sorge named the exact date of the attack. But Stalin was blinded with his own grandiose plans...

[steviej]

That was big mistake of Stalin that cost millions of lives. Stalin was warned many times about attack by Germany. Richard Sorge named the exact date of the attack. But Stalin was blinded with his own grandiose plans...

Yes, great point about Sorge. He had the exact plans for Barbarossa, had informed Moscow of the dates of the attackes, and was ignored. Much blood was shed because of it. And as we sadly know, Stalin certainly didn't care. It's impossible for us normal humans to understand the mindset of the sociopathological tyrants. They can simply do horrible things without guilt. In the sociopathological mind, certain human feelings can be imitated extremely well, when to their own advantage, but they do not really feel these feelings. Many CEOs of modern corporations are technically sociopathological. I've known many of these guys. They are brilliant, aggressive in their own interests, ambitious at a level incomprehensible to the rest of us, and without guilt.

[OlgaH]

The air force commander Pavel Rychagov accused Stalin that Russian pilots were flying in "coffins" and the commander was executed. The production of tanks T-34 and multiple rocket launchers "Katyusha" was frozen and also tens of thousands Soviet army officers and commanders were executed right before the war due to the Stalin's politics...

[OlgaH]

Soviet commanders were crying when soldiers were dying with the self-made weapons in their hands. It is only in the Soviet movies the officers and soldiers named the Stalin's name "For the comrade Stalin" advancing to the attack, in reality they cried out the names of their wives, children, mothers... "For the Mother Russia".   

[deccie]

Olga, though not directly part of this thread is there much said/written in russian histories about the Soviet blockade of West Berlin post war?

[deccie]

The "sanctity" of the Polish nation has nothing to do with it. Poland has not been a country since the mid-1700s I think, and its recreation after WWI was simply a Brittish vanity and a buffer against the Bolsheviks. (Poland, like many nations, is a vanity today)

Poland has not been a nation since the 1700's??? Poland is a vanity today???

Geezz....

I guess might is right in your book.

[OlgaH]

Olga, though not directly part of this thread is there much said/written in russian histories about the Soviet blokade of West Berlin post war?

Yes, of course.

During the Yalta Conference Roosevelt,  Churchill, and  Stalin (Bol'shaya troika - Big Trio) came to agreement that every member of Big Trio and also France will get an occupied part of Germany. In a similar manner they planed to divide Berlin into four zones.

Their measures towards Germany later got name of "5 D" - decentralization, demilitarization, denazification,  democratization and dismantlement of some  industries

After 6 months, after end of the Potsdam Conference, the unit of Big Trio was close to break-up, because there were not firm agreements and "mutual understanding"  between sides. Then the radical differences in the occupation politics, especially in the economic sphere leaded to deterioration of relations and then to "Cold War"

Soviet blockade of West Berlin lasted 11 months (1948-1949) and actively contributed to the division of Germany into two independent states, and German Democratic Republic was established  in October of 1949.

[steviej]

Poland has not been a nation since the 1700's??? Poland is a vanity today???

Geezz....

I guess might is right in your book.

Hey Deccie - I know its a controversial statement. It may sound cold hearted, but historically, a nation-state must be able to defend itself. After WWII (and to some extent WWI, many "emotional" and "historical" national boundaries were drawn, mostly for the political purposes of the major powers. And now, these nations are criss-crossed with "mutual" defense treaties with major powers. But there is no mutuality. None of these nations can do a thing to defend themselves. They are trip-wires for future wars, that's all, in my opinion. Other than that, they are just sentimental. I'm not trying to vigorously defend that particular view, its just an interesting perspective that came into my mind recently when I read an article about the some-odd 42 "mutual defense" treaties that the US is now embroiled in (incorrectly, IMO), and realizing that hardly one of them is mutual, they will only be reasons to drag the US into war, which is what the US military/industrial complex wants. It's their business. Big business.

[steviej]

Yes, of course.

During the Yalta Conference Roosevelt,  Churchill, and  Stalin (Bol'shaya troika - Big Trio) came to agreement that every member of Big Trio and also France will get an occupied part of Germany. In a similar manner they planed to divide Berlin into four zones.

Their measures towards Germany later got name of "5 D" - decentralization, demilitarization, denazification,  democratization and dismantlement of some  industries

After 6 months, after end of the Potsdam Conference, the unit of Big Trio was close to break-up, because there were not firm agreements and "mutual understanding"  between sides. Then the radical differences in the occupation politics, especially in the economic sphere leaded to deterioration of relations and then to "Cold War"

Soviet blockade of West Berlin lasted 11 months (1948-1949) and actively contributed to the division of Germany into two independent states, and German Democratic Republic was established  in October of 1949.

Olga, you are a machine! Did you do graduate study work in history in this area? About the "Big 3" conferences, Stalin had the biggest army on the ground and already occupied the territory he was going to ask (well ... demand) at the conferences. What is so amazing is that the Soviets bugged all the rooms for Roosevelt and all his staff, and knew all their discussions in advance. No surprise here - Soviet business as usual. What is remarkable is that Roosevelt was so naive about all this. He believed he was negotiating successfullly with "Joe", that he liked Joe, and that he and Joe were friends. I'm even embarrassed as an American to realize how naive these folks were about Stalin. Stalin was the most shrewd and ruthless politician in the world at that time. The idea that you would make friends with "Joe" and negotiate in good faith is just absurd. Of course, all this is why we read history, isn't it? It is endlessly fascinating.

I'm even embarrassed today to admit that most Americans think that former President Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet regime (in some way) and "won" the cold war. it is preposterous, of course, but, that's what folks here are taught, and they believe all this without question. Americans need to read more independently and not just listen to the government's interpretation of history, but then, that wouldn't leave as much time to watch 500 TV channels, would it?

[OlgaH]

Stalin was the most shrewd and ruthless politician in the world at that time.

He was an evil genius who ruled for 31 years

[deccie]

. I'm not trying to vigorously defend that particular view, its just an interesting perspective that came into my mind recently when I read an article about the some-odd 42 "mutual defense" treaties that the US is now embroiled in (incorrectly, IMO), and realizing that hardly one of them is mutual, they will only be reasons to drag the US into war, which is what the US military/industrial complex wants. It's their business. Big business.

just don't include Australia in that list. Australia has fought beside the US in far to many wars already to no advantage of ours. Including Korea, Vietnam and the current Iraq situation.

[deccie]

. What is remarkable is that Roosevelt was so naive about all this. He believed he was negotiating successfullly with "Joe", that he liked Joe, and that he and Joe were friends.

I've always thought Churchill had a better understanding of Stalin than Roosevelt did.

[deccie]

He was an evil genius who ruled for 31 years

And Russians are still paying for his legacies even today.

[steviej]

just don't include Australia in that list. Australia has fought beside the US in far to many wars already to no advantage of ours. Including Korea, Vietnam and the current Iraq situation.

Agreed. Glad to hear your new PM is pulling out of this Iraq catastrophe. Guess what? Our president is from a wealthy oil family. Our president represents Big Oil. And guess what? In the last 7 years the price of gas has gone up more than 3 times and the oil companies are making historic profits (actually, blowing any previous "windfall" profit records out of the water). And our Vice President is the former CEO of Halliburton. Guess who is the largest defense contractor operating in Iraq with contracts worth several hundred billion dollars? Halliburton. It's not a mystery to me, but many Americans think we are "killing terrorists before they kill us" over there. Pathetic.

[steviej]

I've always thought Churchill had a better understanding of Stalin than Roosevelt did.

Oh yes, exactly. Churchill was no fool. He understood the game.

[deccie]

He was an evil genius who ruled for 31 years

All this talk about Stalin reminds me of a conversation my fiance and I had in front of the war memorial I mentioned. She told me she found that Europeans from the west were more open than Russians and she didn't understand why.

I think I replied that "being open" or trusting (during the purge period in particular) under Stalin  was probably as good as signing your own death warrant.

[SANDRO43]

Oh yes, exactly. Churchill was no fool. He understood the game.

Definitely better than FDR, but he was not exempt from some awkward calls originating from his right-wing leanings and hatred of Communism.

the General Strike of 1926, Churchill was reported to have suggested that machine guns be used on the striking miners. Churchill edited the Government's newspaper, the British Gazette, and, during the dispute, he argued that "either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country" and claimed that the fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" — that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
For a long time, he nurtured a strong liking for Mussolini, and from 1936 until June 1940 he apparently had a secret correspondence with him:

THE TIMES  - LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Churchill-Mussolini 'secret letters'
From Signor Roberto Festorazzi
Sir, -- The question of the existence of correspondence between Winston Churchill and Mussolini from 1936 until June 1940 (report, "Churchill 'offered land to Mussolini' ", January 29) has never been taken very seriously in Great Britain. Nevertheless, in 1952 Luigi Carissimi-Priori was offered £100,000 by British sources for photographic copies of the letters that they believed were still in his possession...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Mussolini_letters/Times_030200.html
Some investigative documentaries hint at the possibility that Mussolini's execution was not actually performed by partisans:

Investigative Reports: Secret Letters of Churchill and Mussolini (1996)
This documentary, part of the A&E Investigative Reports series, explores the mystery behind possible letters from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Narrated by producer and host Bill Kurtis, this episode follows the supposed history of these letters that were said to have been damaging to the reputation and career of Churchill. The program shows the possibility that Mussolini threatened to release the letters, with Churchill doing everything in his power to prevent this from happening. Featured is an interview with one Italian historian who believes Churchill went so far as having a British agent murder Mussolini in order to get the letters. Investigative Reports uncovers evidence of Churchill searching Italy and retracing Mussolini's final days in order to find the letters. The program concludes that, to this day, no one knows the contents of these alleged letters or if they actually did exist.

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/249502/Investigative-Reports-Secret-Letters-of-Churchill-and-Mussolini/overview

Churchill `ordered killing of Mussolini'
Independent on Sunday, The,  Aug 29, 2004  by Peter Popham in Rome
Benito Mussolini was not killed by Italian partisans but by two secret agents acting on orders from Winston Churchill. That is the startling conclusion of a new investigation into the death of Il Duce. Britain's wartime Prime Minister was desperate, an Italian documentary claims, to prevent secret letters coming to light in which he had tried to induce Italy to make a separate peace with the Allies. This was in defiance of his agreement with President Franklin Roosevelt at Casablanca that the war could end only with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. The programme, co- produced by a veteran American journalist, Peter Tompkins, and to be broadcast on RAI, Italian state television, tomorrow alleges that it was to prevent these embarrassing letters coming to light that Churchill ordered the murder of Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040829/ai_n12760623

[deccie]

Very interesting Sandro. I wasn't aware of that issue before.

Churchill clearly had his faults. One of his most disastrous moves centred around sending the Prince of Wales and Repulse to the far east resulting in them being sunk off Singapore. He clearly did not understand the impact air power was having in naval warfare. In my country (Australia)he is most remembered for the disastrous Dardanelles campaign of World War One.

[SANDRO43]

In my country (Australia) he is most remembered for the disastrous Dardanelles campaign of World War One.

I know . Actually, IIRC WC's idea was not bad strategically, but the campaign was grossly mismanaged locally by both the British Army and the Royal Navy, despite his being then, IINM, their First Sea Lord of the Admiralty (which made him sign himself as Former Naval Person in his later correspondence with FDR).