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

[steviej]

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.

About the Dardanelles campaing, as I understand it, once the naval bombardment failed and control of the chanel not achieved, Churchill argued that the landing (by the army) should be canceled. But by then the government and the army wanted to continue anyway. This may or may not be true. But whoever was to blame, clearly, once the naval bombardment failed, the landing should have been canceled.

Interesting story about Mussolini. Churchill was always a totally committed monarchist and aristocrat. He believed that working men should slave away their lives for the honor of king and country. Not an admirable person in this regard. His genius was understanding the international situation, with his eyes open. And in a war situation, he was very much the bulldog.

[deccie]

off topic post...

. Churchill was always a totally committed monarchist and aristocrat. He believed that working men should slave away their lives for the honor of king and country. Not an admirable person in this regard. His genius was understanding the international situation, with his eyes open. And in a war situation, he was very much the bulldog.

There were lots of arguments between the Australian Government of the day and Churchill regarding the deployment of Australian Military resources. Naturally the government wanted the resources deployed in such a way as to better the defence of Australia.  Churchill saw priorities differently. This was actually a pivotal moment in Australian history culminating in the fall of Singapore. At that time Australia finally saw that it's best strategic future lay with the USA rather than Britain and that Britian was no longer able to provide any reasonable defences for the Commonwealth.

Churchill is today remembered as a great leader in British politics. Ironically the Prime Minister of Australia he fought with very often is also remembered as a great leader for us.

http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp?pmId=14

[SANDRO43]

Churchill was always a totally committed monarchist and aristocrat. He believed that working men should slave away their lives for the honor of king and country. Not an admirable person in this regard.

What else could one expect, given his ancestry ?

A descendant of the famous Spencer family, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, like his father, used the surname Churchill in public life. His ancestor George Spencer had changed his surname to Spencer-Churchill in 1817 when he became Duke of Marlborough, to highlight his descent from John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Winston's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, the third son of John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough, was a politician, while his mother, Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome) was the daughter of American millionaire, Leonard Jerome.

[msmoby_ru]

Definitely better than FDR, but he was not exempt from some awkward calls originating from his right-wing leanings and hatred of Communism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Hi Sando, was Churchill so "right" wing? He was behind the first ever scheme to pay Unemployed workers. ..Hating communism? - strictly speaking Bolzhevism, surely..  wasn't he proved right?!

Deccie said: "He clearly did not understand the impact air power was having in naval warfare. "

Hmm, that doesn't square too well with his progressiveness real new military trends - he used NAVY money to develop Tanks in WWI and in between the wars pushed for expenditure on aviation relation military spending, esp aircraft carriers..

Mistakes: ( other than those mentioned )

1/ First to bomb and gas the Kurds - long before Saddam - yet he was instrumental in cheating the Kurds out of a promised homeland and drawing arbitrary lines on a map to create such places as ... IRAQ !

2/ Gallipoli

3/ Agreeing that all SU citizens would be handed back at the end of hostilities in WWII - thus sending hundred's of thousands of anti-Stalinist ( rather than pro-Nazi)  fighters - including Cossacks - to certain death.

4/ Erratic behaviour to Women wanting the right to vote !


5/ Taking Britain back to the "Gold Standard"

6/ Dogdy "friendships" e.g Mussolini .. but surely, if he had got Mussolini to change sides earlier it would have saved lives?.... In politics, it seems the most things get down, when two leaders LIKE each other.

His alledged intentions in 1926 - when he is accused of wanting to send in machine guns? .. Remember in 1926 the Soviets were sending money to Union activists.. Churchill regarded this as "war" ! the SU was deliberately trying to destabilise Britain, in the same way Britain had supported the Whites - then left them high and dry ... may be it was money, or when reports of atrocities committed in their cause got too embarrassing?

Churchill actually STOPPED troops being sent to "intervene" in riots in 1910. the Times allegation was shown to be false when records where made public many years later.  

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: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:http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/249502/Investigative-Reports-Secret-Letters-of-Churchill-and-Mussolini/overviewhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040829/ai_n12760623
[/quote]

Never knew about this angle... there surely should be something about this in the UK war records..?

[deccie]

Deccie said: "He clearly did not understand the impact air power was having in naval warfare. "

Hmm, that doesn't square too well with his progressiveness real new military trends - he used NAVY money to develop Tanks in WWI and in between the wars pushed for expenditure on aviation relation military spending, esp aircraft carriers..

Oh I know he was instrumental in those things but I still think he was still one of those who thought the Battleship was King. Remember Prince of Wales was a very new ship and Repulse had a significant refit. Repulse was in better shape than HMS Hood had been in when she took on Bismark.

Churchill himself wrote that the sinking of PoW and Repulse came as a big shock to him.

Unfortunately a lot of early Allied Naval action in the Pacific wasted significant assets for no significant gain.
Like:

The ABDA force (Battle of the Java Sea)
Sinking of PoW and Repulse as mentioned (air power)
The sinking of HMS Hermes (air power)
The sinking of the Dorsetshire and Cornwall.(air power)

Had those units been combined into a single fleet and if Hermes actually had a Squadron on board that would have been quite a significant unit with which to do things. Unfortunately, it was spread far too thin.

Of course this is all hindsight... but a lot of Allied lives were lost. )-:

[SANDRO43]

Never knew about this angle... there surely should be something about this in the UK war records..?

I'd say that's uncorroborated speculation so far, but aren't we used to governments hiding their dirty laundry for as long as possibly feasible ?

Oh I know he was instrumental in those things but I still think he was still one of those who thought the Battleship was King. Remember Prince of Wales was a very new ship and Repulse had a significant refit. Repulse was in better shape than HMS Hood had been in when she took on Bismark.

It's hard to readjust to a new scenario. For instance:

General Giulio Douhet was a contemporary of the 1920s air warfare advocates Billy Mitchell and Sir Hugh Trenchard...Assigned to the General Staff in the early 1900s Douhet published lectures on military mechanization. With the arrival of dirigibles and then fixed-wing aircraft in Italy he quickly recognized the military potential of the new technology. Douhet saw the pitfalls of allowing air power to be fettered by ground commanders and began to advocate the creation of a separate air arm, commanded by airmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
but his was a lone voice for MANY years, for instance the neither RIAF, nor the Luftwaffe nor the Japanese, ever had any bombers that could be called strategic, such as the British Lancaster or later the US B17 Fortress and B29 Stratofortress (fortunately ).

[deccie]

For instance:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
but his was a lone voice for MANY years, for instance the neither RIAF, nor the Luftwaffe nor the Japanese, ever had any bombers that could be called strategic, such as the British Lancaster or later the US B17 Fortress and B29 Stratofortress (fortunately ).

Well the B-29 is actually a Superfortress. The B-52 being the Stratofortress.
As for "strategic bombers, the FW-200 and JU-290/390 could have been in this class but all three  had quite substantial limitations.  Last trip to Germany I bought a 1/72 kit of a JU-290. I'm looking forward to building it but will only do so once i have stopped moving around.

[msmoby_ru]

Oh I know he was instrumental in those things but I still think he was still one of those who thought the Battleship was King. Remember Prince of Wales was a very new ship and Repulse had a significant refit. Repulse was in better shape than HMS Hood had been in when she took on Bismark.

Churchill himself wrote that the sinking of PoW and Repulse came as a big shock to him.


Of course this is all hindsight... but a lot of Allied lives were lost. )-:

Sure, leaders on all sides ( early on) made the mistake of forgetting the damage of air power - but Churchill felt he had to to do something.

[SANDRO43]

Well the B-29 is actually a Superfortress. The B-52 being the Stratofortress.

You're right, I mixed the two names up .

[Ronnie]

I would much rather discuss the next war and how to prevent it....in theory, of course.

Where will it be? Iran? Israel?

What of China's plans?  Why is the communist government growing its military and then lying about the rate at which it's build up is taking place?  Doesn't military build up precede something else?

Will Russia continue to use proxies and support any country who opposes the west?   

[msmoby_ru]

I would much rather discuss the next war and how to prevent it....in theory, of course.


Where will it be? Iran? Israel?

It will be between Europe and North America ... we are stealing all the FSU women - the strong euro and weak dollar is all part of the plan ...

What of China's plans? 

They think they can win FSU women over with cheap goods .. HAH, pathetic .. we have Haute Couture, BMW, Rolls Royce and Bailey's Irish Cream...

Doesn't military build up precede something else?

Er. isn't THAT why the Russians are worried about USA setting up bases in the Czech republic and Poland -  for a "missile defence system" ?  ... HAH .. we know it is just a secret base to smuggle out Russian women from under the clutches of wily European men ) .. bribing Poland and Czech Republic won't work .. all their women are in London and Dublin, now    

Will Russia continue to use proxies and support any country who opposes the west?   

It's much more serious than that, Ronnie ... Hegemony... They've won the right to host a winter olympics in Sochi, they hosted the European Champion's League cup - letting us in without a visa, they've won the eurovision song contest, the EUFA Club soccer cup and now they are in the semi finals of the European Soccer Championships... THEY think they are being "clever"... WE are letting them win..

HAH, while their backs are turned, we will steal more of their women - and when the North american men come - they will soon find only RM...

[SANDRO43]

HAH, while their backs are turned, we will steal more of their women

I say, your English long noses are giving you an obvious advantage in sniffing them out ahead of the competition, hrrumphh, what ? Has The Hague Supreme Court of Justice got an Otorhinolaryngeal section where to lodge an Unfair Nasal Practices complaint ?

[2tallbill]

Has anyone Read "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov translated to English
by Thomas Beattie?

He wrote a book which completely goes against everything that I learned in school about
WWII. I am NOT saying that I believe everything or even most of what he wrote, but he made an interesting case about the Eastern Front, the causes, timing, reasons etc of the war. 

If nobody or very few read it, then I will go on to another thread. I don't have the time or energy to be Viktor Suvorov's defender.

Bill

[SANDRO43]

Has anyone Read "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov translated to English
by Thomas Beattie? He wrote a book which completely goes against everything that I learned in school about WWII. I am NOT saying that I believe everything or even most of what he wrote, but he made an interesting case about the Eastern Front, the causes, timing, reasons etc of the war. If nobody or very few read it, then I will go on to another thread. I don't have the time or energy to be Viktor Suvorov's defender.

Bill, discussed here (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=7461.msg133299#msg133299) a couple of months ago .

[2tallbill]

The book goes to great lengths to show how Stalin always wanted to invade
the West after Germany "and the rest of the West destroyed each other.

Some of the things the book went to great lengths to say were

1. Most Russian tanks, training etc were offensive in nature and as such they were
not very useful in defensive uses. For example it says that Russia had a huge number of fast attack tanks, that had removable tracks intended for use in Western Europe where the weather and roads were better. These removable tracks were next to useless in defending Russia in the snow and poor roads.

2. Russia had a large amount of troops trained as para's to launch troops forward, which proved useless in a defensive war especially after their forward airfields were over ran. Russia had a large number of big gliders that were intended to move large amounts of men, and weapons in an attack but nearly useless for defensive purposes.

3. They broke down many of their layered border defenses so that their own troops could surge West, enabling Hitlers armies to surge Eastward unhampered as well. Russia had stockpiled fuel and material forward which they would use but when over ran was able to be used by the Germans.

There are many other such things said in the book, but I never read about any of these things in other books nor could I verify it elsewhere.

I was always taught that Stalin made a treaty with Hitler and believed Hitler would follow it and was caught with his pants around his ankles when Hitler invaded.

The book said that Hitler only invaded because Stalin was getting too close to Germany's oil supplies from Romania.

Since I got most of my history lessons in American schools and books written in English I was wondering if others give any credibility to the alternative history written in "The Icebreaker" ?

[deccie]

The book goes to great lengths to show how Stalin always wanted to invade
the West after Germany "and the rest of the West destroyed each other.

Some of the things the book went to great lengths to say were

1. Most Russian tanks, training etc were offensive in nature and as such they were
not very useful in defensive uses. For example it says that Russia had a huge number of fast attack tanks, that had removable tracks intended for use in Western Europe where the weather and roads were better. These removable tracks were next to useless in defending Russia in the snow and poor roads.

This is crap for a start. This was the BT series of tanks - developed from an American tank by the way.
They were at best light to medium tanks with very little armour. Most were eliminated very easily by the Germans. Russia had some heavies - like the T-28 which were known as "land battleships" Big multi-turreted monsters but very slow, cumbersome. Easily targeted by aircraft and having lots of light weapons and one main gun. Again, most were eliminated very quickly by the Germans. It was not until the KV series and the T-34 series the Russians got some decent tanks.

2. Russia had a large amount of troops trained as para's to launch troops forward, which proved useless in a defensive war especially after their forward airfields were over ran. Russia had a large number of big gliders that were intended to move large amounts of men, and weapons in an attack but nearly useless for defensive purposes.

2Tall, have you thought about this at all?
How do you launch gliders if you don't have air superiority? Gliders are big, fat and slow. And make real good targets. The Russians did not have air superiority until later in the war when they could feild aircraft like the IL-2 for ground attack and the Yak-9 for fighter duties.

3. They broke down many of their layered border defenses so that their own troops could surge West, enabling Hitlers armies to surge Eastward unhampered as well. Russia had stockpiled fuel and material forward which they would use but when over ran was able to be used by the Germans.

I really doubt Russia had such large stockpiles considering how desparate they were for materials under lend lease. Even such basics like Radios were always in very short supply in forward units. So you had situations with one tank in a single troop with a Radio and the rest being controlled by signal. Now imagine the results if that single tank is knocked out?

There are many other such things said in the book, but I never read about any of these things in other books nor could I verify it elsewhere.

Like I said - seems like crap to me.

I was always taught that Stalin made a treaty with Hitler and believed Hitler would follow it and was caught with his pants around his ankles when Hitler invaded.

The treaty - as discussed earlier in this threat is the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact.
I think even Stalin knew one day Hitler would attack, it was just the timing caught him off guard.

The book said that Hitler only invaded because Stalin was getting too close to Germany's oil supplies from Romania.

Since I got most of my history lessons in American schools and books written in English I was wondering if others give any credibility to the alternative history written in "The Icebreaker" ?

There is probably a kernel of truth  in the book - but if so it is well hidden.

[deccie]

I would much rather discuss the next war and how to prevent it....in theory, of course.

well since you beleive the great one world government is coming it's a bit hard to debate anything with you logically Ronnie.

[steviej]

I would much rather discuss the next war and how to prevent it....in theory, of course.

Where will it be? Iran? Israel?

What of China's plans?  Why is the communist government growing its military and then lying about the rate at which it's build up is taking place?  Doesn't military build up precede something else?

Will Russia continue to use proxies and support any country who opposes the west?   

US Intervention in WWI (unilateral allied victory instead of truce) ->
Treaty of Versailly, German Poverty/Famine ->
Rise of Hitler, WWII , Holocost -> ILLEGAL FORMATION OF ISRAEL ->
Insane and pointless commitment of US in Middle East -> WWIII

IMHO, if any major war breaks out, it will be  because of the pointless, and seemingly fanatic commitment of US to Israel. (Israel has no essential strategic value to US)

Another scenario: China invades Taiwan. What would US do? Taiwan also has absolutely no essential strategic value to US. What would we do, start WWIII over that???

Most major war scenarios involve US. We are by far the most dangerous, aggressive and massively militarized nation in the world.

Putting missiles on Russia's border is an insane and pointless provocation.

[deccie]

Putting missiles on Russia's border is an insane and pointless provocation.

Agreed. How the US expects Russia just to sit back and take that I just have no understanding of...

[steviej]

Agreed. How the US expects Russia just to sit back and take that I just have no understanding of...

In the US, we have a massive defense industry. Their business is war. They actively seek diplomatic trip-wires around the world, actively propagandize (through their congressional representatives) about US "obligations" and so on, around the world. Look at Iraq: $8 - $10B per month!! Not a bad deal. US Foreign policy is out of control, and constantly aggitated by these industries.

Two very wise early American leaders, George Washington and James Monroe, formulated the basic tenets of American foriegn policy that served us well until WWI. That was two things:
1 - never get involved in foreign wars
2 - keep them out of North America

Since WWI, we have been constantly involved in foreign wars. It is big business here now. The whole missile defense system on the Russian border is just to get a big government contract, stimulate more tension, requiring more government contracts.

[Gtex]

Steviej;

Whenever I read statements like yours I am intrigued and keep reading, knowing I will find perhaps insight, more likely foolishness. 

This country allows you to think  (and argue for) whatever you please.  Still, you can not change history to conform to your preference.  Quoting others out of context will not serve to support your arguments with anyone well informed.   

The theme of George Washingtons' 2nd inaugural address was, "In peace, prepare for war..." 

Those knowledgeable of his (or Monroe's) record through actions would not use their comments to support the view you espouse. 

[Gtex]

Further background:

"To secure peace is to prepare for war."
- Carl von Clausewitz

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."
- Mao Tse-Tung

"If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
- George Washington

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill

"The fact that slaughter [of war] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [war does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms."
- Carl von Clausewitz

"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master."
- Demosthenes

Do you really think if we lay down our arms the rest of the world will love us and nobody would think of taking advantage and conquering us?

[deccie]

The fact that war is sometimes justified does not excuse all wars.

Defending yourself does not mean all military acts are excusable.

Financial interests are tied up with the military. That is undeniable.

Just think, especially those of you married and living with Russian or FSU women, that 30 years ago you were being told that these women and their familes were your enemy.

Do you beleive everything your government tells you?

[Gtex]

Deccie;

"Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln....."

Nothing I said or quoted is at variance with you first three comments, and your point is?

Thirty years ago, most here believed about Russia as the world now percieves the USA (IMHO, UMMV); the people are OK (generally), but do not trust the government.

Lastly, I do not even believe everything I see with my own eyes, and this is a sage self-awareness I should hope we can all achieve.

[steviej]

... "In peace, prepare for war..." 

That certainly does not conflict with "stay out of foreign wars" at all. It's quite synergistic. It's just my view that US foreign policy is simply out of control and, bordering on insanity. We have trip-wires and mutual "defense" agreements all over the globe guaranteeing our constant embroilment in hostile actions.