Talk:Great Patriotic War (term)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

VOV is often critized[edit]

"Since the early 1980s, the Great Patriotic War is sometimes referred to in Russian texts by the acronym ВОВ but this abbreviation is often criticized" Being native Russian, I have never ever heard anyone critizing this "term" inside exUSSR up to current time. This "term" importance is actually many times more important than, say, what WWII means in the West; because it IS this what caused holocaust against USSR citizens and they are celebrated as ones capable to endure, overcome and turn the tides of whole war. Because it is USSR citizens which were targeted by Hilter and which heroically broke his war machine, not Europe, not USA, not Afrika. 93.129.3.218 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed), войну выиграли не только русские. И не только русские сражались. Но только русские взяли Берлин "побыстрей" ценой многих сотен жизней. Чтобы такие уроды как ты сейчас могли нести подобную херню про то, что типа: "только русские победили1".188.162.84.18 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). Потому что более 80% потерь Германии - Восточный фронт. Так что да, победили именно русские. Американцы и иже с ними только помогли. Алессия (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

"Legitimacy of the USSR as the single saviour of peoples and the World from the Hitler's Plague; however, in accordance to historical facts, at 1941.06.22 Hitler's army near USSR borders had over 4,3 mln; nor captured Europe countries nor USA army (only 156000 - see "Normandly landings") could make succesfull resistance to Nazi's."

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me work out what it is trying to convey. This needs tidying up or deletion.

It means what You don't know History!!! WWII begun at 1.09.1939 and until 22.06.1941 (when Hitler attacked USSR) no one country could win Nazis. But when USSR after 4-year war won Hitler, USA started to loud what it was their victory. BUT - 156000 US troops couldn't do anything useful against 4,3 million of Hitler's army.

Spot on!93.129.3.218 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad Translation[edit]

Why do you translate it as "Patriotic War"? In Russian "отечество" means homeland. Therefore, the term should be translated as "The Great Homeland War". I will fix it if you don't mind. 93.173.111.60 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then "homelander war" --Eugeny1988 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Even better translation of "отечество" is "fatherland". The term must be translated as Great War for Fatherland, or Great Fatherland War.
True, but "Great Patriotic War" is the established translation. That's what we were taught when studying English. -- Wesha (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Because "Homeland" by itself does not spiritually connect to "отечество", "homeland" connects perfectly with "национальная"/"national". Using a combination like "patriotic homeland war" would match, but "homeland" can be simplified and ommited as a weaker duplicate of original meaning. 93.129.3.218 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Term[edit]

I've also seen claims of World War 2 being referred to by Russians as the Great Patriotic Anti-Fascist War. The author of the following article claims this. http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp1003.html 67.53.78.15 01:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Anti-Fascist" is not used. It is sometimes accompanied by wording "Great Patriotic War against facist occupants", but never as "Great Patriotic Anti-Facist War". "Great Patriotic War" is a rock-solid definition. 93.129.3.218 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the tem itself deserves medium importance, while the war itself of course desrves the highest possible mark Alex Bakharev 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a different article about this other term, if indeed it is or has been fairly widely used in Russia. Since this article is about an alternative name for the war (alternative outside the US at least) and not about the war itself. There are often different terms for events or place in different countries, so it could be neither irrelevant, nor merely political in nature (as reference to a website that is political in nature and does not pretend the myth of non-bias might make one think). In the US, the war with Vietnam is called the "Vietnam War", in Vietnam I believe it is called something like "the American war". And the word "Japan" is not used by Japanese to describe their country or land, but "Nihon". In the US, veterans will say they went to fight Hitler and fascism, though still will call it World War 2. Author Thomas Mann in his 1938 This Peace (Dieser Friede) criticizes the British ruling class for putting up with Hitler because they like him as a bulwark against communism, it was not all the population that were not for fighting fascism, or even acting as if they had to choose one over the other. I guess what I am trying to say is, acknowledging the term "Great Patriotic Anti-Fascist War" is not pro-Soviet propaganda. In the world outside of wikipedia, I'd personally like to see WW2 more recognized as the anti-fascist war it was. Or, at least the anti-fascist war soldiers knew they were fighting. Children of the generation born after WW2 sang school-kid songs flaming both Mussolini and Hitler. I heard my father sing it for the first time this past year. 67.53.78.15 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The separation between Eastern Front (World War II) and Great Patriotic War articles[edit]

I would like to say that the current separation between the Eastern Front (World War II) and Great Patriotic War articles here in Wikipedia is an absolute nonsense, since boh terms describes the same event.

To create a tiny separate article called "Great Patriotic War" just to separate the term from the mainstream Historiography is just a mere pro-neo-Soviet POV, in my opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.232.230.158 (talkcontribs) 16:32, 17 July 2007

O unsigned anonymous editor, the article "Great Patriotic War" is clearly about the TERM rather than the events described. 3 of 4 paragraphs actually begin with "the term". Eleland 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that the two articles should be merged and that this article should become a section of the Eastern Front article. Otherwise this article merely seems redundant. Tiger Khan (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's about the term, not the war. The term does intentionally ignore Stalin's earlier invasions of Poland, the Baltics, etc. and collusion with Hitler. That will eventually have to go back in the article. —PētersV (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I would still argue that discussion of the term could be part of the greater Eastern Front article, allowing for the consolidation. Tiger Khan (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not nonsense, since boh terms needs to be represented[edit]

All opinions are valid. That being said it is an objective fact that World War 2 is not called World war two in Russia (even by pro-neo-fascists in that country) The "Eastern Front" was the WESTERN front to the Soviets. The west is not now and never will be the center of the world. Nor will capitalist imperialist intrests last forever. Ignorance and intolerance, unfortunatley, will always exist. This article describes the term not the event. p.s. proof-read your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.167.190 (talkcontribs) 07:30, 22 July 2007

The above is a completely pointless discussion on semantics written by a biased source, and I believe should be ignored. Spelling mistakes aside.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieurfill (talkcontribs) 22:19, 5 December 2007
I think the IP expresses points too often overlooked in the West. 118.90.89.74 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda usage[edit]

I had to kill the paragraph which said that the term Great Patriotic War was a deliberate diversion from previous Nazi-Soviet friendly relations and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; while an interesting thesis it needs to be sourced and attributed rather than appearing as the opinion of one editor. This being said, it was certainly a term of propaganda, and it would be interesting to have some properly sourced material on its anatomy as such. Eleland 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone desperately needs to change the non-English in the middle of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:104:4000:6D:59D2:132C:B6A3:579E (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why the “(term)” is necessary[edit]

The “(term)” is necessary in the title because there is a need to differentiate from the denomination “Great patriotic War” to the event that this name describes — which is known and recognized by most of the world as the Eastern Front of World War II.

This discussion is somehow similar to the Hirohito name question; until now, the “Showa Emperor” article is named this way in Wikipedia because most of the world outside Japan knows and denominate Showa as Hirohito.--MaGioZal (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "(term)" is unnecessary. Any political argument aside, capitalizing every word makes clear that its a proper noun, making it redundant; and the fact that its not commonly used in English-speaking Western countries should be a dead giveaway. The "political" argument is that its used commonly in ex-USSR countries and so is somehow tainted for not being Western or from a US pov (which of course I reject). 118.90.59.31 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I mistook the argument. 118.90.59.31 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"See Also" section is a mess[edit]

It is not clear how Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Winter War, Occupation of the Baltic states, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina articles (all of which describe events pre-GPW) ended up in this section. I'll remove it now. RJ CG (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda"[edit]

The way the word is usually used is from the US Cold War pov of government sponsored spread of lies. However, "Great Patriotic War" generates genuinely felt and extremely profound emotions in Russians. Consider how the US government uses references to the events of the War of Independence to show noble ideas. 118.90.89.74 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with honoring those who died fighting the Nazis after they invaded the Soviet Union. I do have an issue with the Red Army invading BEFORE the Nazis and later claiming to "liberate" in the "Great Patriotic War" those it had earlier already conquered and wreaked havoc upon, as in the Red Army soldier retired in Riga who complained 145,000 died to free Latvia from the Nazis. Well, no, it's likely that many died and more just trying to take the Courland pocket to wipe out Latvia. So look at all the lives Stalin could have saved if he had just kept heading toward Berlin instead. Consider that. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Vecrumba. Rudolfensis (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

High-resolution poster with readable text[edit]

Here's a high-resolution copy of the Родина-мать зовет! poser. http://www.arteveryday.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/27.jpg

The text is clearly readable. Could somebody translate it? --Nbauman (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" of term and propagandic value/historical significance[edit]

@Greyhood, I don't believe your revert was appropriate, nor did your lengthy edit summary apply. It is quite clear that the "Great Patriotic War" was chosen for its historical significance and, as well, to promulgate the view that the Soviet Union entered the war upon Hitler's assault and not a moment sooner. The content which was added was completely appropriate, as it represents reliable scholarship regarding the decision to apply GPW, the term, to WWII after Hitler's invasion. The correct action would have been to re-title the section to indicate "Criticism of term in reference to World War II" or similar. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As explained by me here, this criticism looks like a marginal point of view and revisionism, contradicting facts. Like the information in this change shows, the term appeared in 1914 and was used in a similar sense and with a similar purpose as in 1941. There is no evidence that Stalin or whoever else ordered the usage of the term to promulgate any views, especially those related to its difference from World War II. Also, of course, the Soviet Union was not in a state of war after the war with Finland and before June 1941, so they indeed entered the war on that day. Re-entered perhaps, from the point of view of some countries outside, but for the vast majority of Soviet citizens it was only in June 1941 that the war began.
So it looks like this: the USSR ceased participation in WWII actions for some time (btw, World War II was initially a "world war" mostly for the UK, Germany and France, because they were contesting the global domination and fought on a global scale, while the conflicts with the Soviet participants were regional). Then Germany invaded. As always when invaded, like it was done on two previous occasions in 1812 and 1914, Russians/Soviets proclaimed Patriotic War, meaning a war for the defense of fatherland and intended to boost the morals. And now, 70 years later some smart belletrist historian tells the term was used "to flatter the Russians" (the term actually was used to flatter all the Soviet people), for "marginalizing the Jews" (what's this about?? marginalizing Holocaust in the territory of the USSR perhaps, but than the author is just a bit Holocaust- and Jew-crazy, since nobody in the USSR denied that events, they just weren't so fixed on Jews given the fact that more Slavs perished in absolute terms) and to promulgate "the view that the war began in 1941". But the defensive "war for fatherland" indeed began in 1941 and they used the exact and traditional term, and only by unscientific, retrospective approach one could arrive to a conclusion that it was made for revisionism purposes. The Soviets didn't care about revisionism in 1941-42, they cared about the moral and survival. And after the war ended, they should have renamed their war for fatherland, in which everyone lost friends and relatives, "World War II", just to make modern revisionists happier? GreyHood Talk 20:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Zuguomuqin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Zuguomuqin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Differences between the term Great Patriotic War and the World War II[edit]

I have restored the fragment devoted to the differences between terms. I think it is informative and reasonably important Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See Also v2[edit]

We are talking about the usage of the word here in the article, correct? Maybe for the see also we could have World War II as a link and decommunization laws(is mentioned in the Ukraine part). I would do it myself but I am relatively inexperienced at wikipedia and I dont want to mess up this. TheJJ chat? 05:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)