Talk:Great Patriotic War (term)

VOV is often critized

"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)

Great example of ethnic hatred blinding someone. Why bother reading, when you can just randomly strawman anything, and start ranting. 2601:201:8001:790:1494:D13A:8EC:7987 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad Translation

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)

Patriotic, Homeland, Fatherland, Отечество, Отечественная - all the words are tied to "father", which is padre/patre. So, the established translation makes a lot of sense. Fatherland and Patriotic have similar etymology and meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamuria (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Term

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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

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"

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

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

@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

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

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)

• I agree, there are many cases, when people outside USSR/Russia do not understand difference on the whole or in some specific (sub)conflict of WWII. Section can be improved, but total removing is pointless. Alex Spade (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See Also v2

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)

Recent edits

Obviously this edit is problematic because the sources used (a fully state-funded Polish think tank) does not adequately support what is written by the IP and looks like WP:OR. There is no mention of 1939-40 invasions or war crimes being justified in whatever "narrative" IP is referring to. Rather it mentions Kremlin use of the past to justify current foreign policy and its governance. There is already a usage section which mentions the period the term refers to. Sure this part can be expanded, but this edit is not a good one (and the sources are not good enough) and it is referring too much to the holiday and this "narrative" which is not within the scope of the article. There is already an article on the holiday and for contemporary propaganda in general. And not to mention the "propaganda legend" category which I do not think the IP knows what this means, however the IP seems very insistent on edit warring this instead. Mellk (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"The primary means of manipulation include holding Western Europe responsible for the rise of Nazism and the outbreak of war, whitewashing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, justifying the invasions of neighbouring countries and the mass repressions against their populations." I admit that the way I edited was quite messy and disorganized, I was planning to expand it when I could and also hoped other users would contribute, and perhaps another section was unnecessary. I would like to know why you think the "Propaganda legends" category shouldn't be included though. -- 2804:248:FB48:0:B8B9:F666:776D:2FB3 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that the article is about the term only, not about the memory of WWII, parades, and how Putin's regime uses it to justify his current foreign policy. The article only discusses the history of the term "Great Patriotic War" and the countries that officially use it/used it in the past, as it basically synonymous with Eastern Front of WWII and used in most post-Soviet states. So to me this looks like it is out of scope of the article to mention this undefined "narrative" (is it Kremlin propaganda under Putin you are referring to? Russian/Soviet historiography in general?) which talks about the propaganda about history in general and not the term itself. So it is better to put this in an article about propaganda, like propaganda in Russia (if about historical memory) or something similar (maybe Putinism if it is already mentioned there) and be more specific about this "narrative", as well as using better sources which I am sure there are better sources which discuss this. I am sceptical about the current sourcing and its "facts" it says, for example the reason it became a holiday in 1965, but this is not important for this article. Also the categories do not belong in the article about the term. To me it implies that the Eastern Front itself (again, both terms refer to the same thing) is something made up or some kind of legend. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point, perhaps the scope of this article should be expanded or it should be added to another article. But yes, when I talk about the narrative I'm not talking only about Putin's propaganda but Soviet historiography in general, as well as it's political purposes.

This article is mostly an study of how the victory cult which exists in Russia today was born, during the Brezhnev era, it cites many sources, and it talks about the reasons for it, how it was created, etc, the most interesting part though is how the war was used to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia and to vilify West Germany:

https://history.rutgers.edu/docman-docs/undergraduate/honors-papers-2012/414-no-one-is-forgotten-nothing-is-forgotten-war-memory-under-the-leonid-brezhnev-regime-1965-1974/file

Lastly, when I added the "Propaganda legends" category, I was of course referring to the narrative crafted around the "Great Patriotic War", while the term is mostly synonymous with the Eastern Front, it definitely has propaganda aspect to it. -- 2804:248:FB48:0:B8B9:F666:776D:2FB3 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably this article is best and already includes much of what you wanted to add. Also, I would not use someone's undergrad thesis as a reliable source, perhaps take a look at WP:RS. Mellk (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stalinobus1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not only the Greater German Reich

but practically all of Europe fought against the USSR. Some of these were allied countries that sent their armies, the Kingdom of Romania, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Italy, the State of Finland, other allied countries sent volunteer formations, the Spanish State. In addition, support was sent by collaborationist regimes, the French State, the Norwegian State, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Slovak State, and the Independent State of Croatia. Large industrial concerns from France and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Greater German armaments industry

Romanization warring

Note: recent edit-warring at the article related to romanization of Cyrllic by anon users 46.39.56.83 (talk · contribs) and 109.252.104.231 (talk · contribs), may be related to the same pattern of activity seen at this (and other) articles by Индира Задорожная (talk · contribs), recently indeffed as a sock of Diabedia (talk · contribs). Please watch for further warring about this by new IP users, and don't hesitate to revert them. If you see the same activity by logged-in users, they may be s WP:SOCKPUPPET. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)