QuoteThe day Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union
Operation Barbarossa was the codename for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II. Adolf Hitler's offensive in the east signalled the beginning of what would be the most devastating phase of the war.
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and his generals had been preparing for this moment for months. On Sunday, 22 June 1941, the time had come. At 3:15 a.m. the German army — the Wehrmacht — launched its attack on the Soviet Union. There was no declaration of war, and the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 was simply ignored.
More than three and a half million German and allied soldiers were supported by artillery, Luftwaffe aircraft and tanks as they joined forces in an advance that was rapid, ruthless and overwhelmingly effective. The Luftwaffe bombarded Soviet aircraft while they were still on the ground. The battle line extended over 1,600 kilometers (990 miles), from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south, making it the longest front line in the history of warfare.
The soldiers of the Red Army were caught unprepared by the onslaught: "Some of them even came out in their nightshirts and opened fire, they were taken completely by surprise," recalls former Wehrmacht soldier Gerhard Goertz in a video that is part of the online portal at the Haus der Geschichte (Museum of Contemporary History) in Bonn.
There had been earlier warnings of what was to follow, but they were dismissed by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. He was convinced that Hitler would not dare to attack a vast realm like the Soviet Union. As a result, there was no mobilization against the Nazi threat.
German propaganda described the attack as a preventive strike launched in response to an imminent military assault by the Bolsheviks. In reality, Hitler had ordered a ruthless campaign designed to destroy his enemy. The dictator dreamt of conquering new Lebensraum ('living space') for Germans in the east: A Greater German Reich that would reach from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Hitler's crusade
For Hitler, the war was a battle for survival between different Weltanschauungen ('worldviews') and races, a campaign to subjugate the Soviet Union. It was also seen as a crusade against Weltjudentum ('world Jewry') and Bolshevism. Tellingly, the vicious offensive took place under the codename Operation Barbarossa, a reference to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor (1122 – 1190), also known as Frederick Barbarossa (red beard), who had led the Holy Roman Empire in a crusade.
The massive assault was less a military campaign and more a mass crime in glaring contravention of the provisions of international law. Many of the soldiers who fought for the Nazis had been taken in by the Blut-und-Boden ('blood and soil') brainwashing that encouraged them to believe that they were members of an 'Aryan master race' far superior to the Slavic peoples: "Our commanders never tired of telling us that the Russians were barbarians, or uneducated 'Untermenschen' ('inferior human beings'). So, when it came to the Russians, there were no inhibitions," says former Wehrmacht soldier Herbert Baier on the online portal in Bonn.
"Hitler's war against the Soviet Union was a war of extermination. It went far beyond any military objectives," believes historian Chris Helmecke from the Potsdam-based Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. "Instead, it was all about the ideologically-motivated and systematic annihilation of a whole state and its population."
"In terms of its all-encompassing criminal dimension, the German-Soviet War is indeed unique in history," he told DW.
Compelled to perform forced labor
Some 5.6 million Soviet soldiers were taken as prisoners of war by the Germans and used as forced laborers. An estimated 3.3 million did not survive the ordeal. With the support of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, SS units killed anybody who they believed to be Jewish.
Jews were dragged out of their houses "and told to bring their own spades along in order to dig their graves," explains former soldier Willi Hein, who witnessed some of the horror first hand.
His testimony has also been added to others at Bonn's Museum of Contemporary History. "Then they were shot and killed by members of the military police units that were known as the Feldgendarmerie." In addition, there was the notorious so-called Commissar Order, which stipulated that any Soviet political commissar detected among prisoners of war was to be summarily executed on suspicion that they were enforcers of 'Jewish-Bolshevism' among Soviet troops.
The German invaders were initially confident of victory. The Wehrmacht occupied Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. Hopes also ran high that the German forces would soon enter Moscow.
But they never fully managed to break the Red Army's resistance. What followed was a long and bloody war. The Wehrmacht was pitifully equipped for the desperately cold winter temperatures, which could plummet to minus 50 degrees Celsius.
No strategy for long-term conflict
Historian Chris Helmecke believes that Hitler massively underestimated his Soviet enemy: "There can be little doubt that the soldiers of the Red Army were doggedly determined. Their commanders were always learning new ways to do battle." The assumption was clearly that it would be possible to rout "the Soviet Union in a huge Blitzkrieg of encirclement battles close to the border between the two sides. There was no alternative plan for the possible failure of this concept." What is more, the Germany economy was not prepared for a long-term conflict, says Helmecke: "They simply didn't have the resources."
By the time of the German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad that ended on 2 Februar 1943 at the very latest, it was clear that Hitler's aggressive war of occupation was falling apart. The Third Reich had overstretched itself by choosing to fight in a two-front war against both the western Allies and the Soviet Union. The failure of Operation Barbarossa is seen as the turning point in World War II. Helmecke concludes, "With hindsight, it is possible to say that the war was already strategically lost in 1941."
The Soviet Union paid a terrible price in the Great Patriotic War, suffering the heaviest losses of all the nations involved, with 27 million deaths, including 14 million civilians. In his memoirs, Russian author and journalist Ilya Ehrenburg (1891- 1967) wrote: "In our country, there was probably no table at which people gathered in the evening where they were not aware of an empty seat."
In Central and Eastern Europe, the after-effects can be felt to the present day: From the shifting of borders to the practice of remembrance. "In the post-Soviet states – by which I do not only mean the Russian Federation – the war is still very much a part of people's lives," says Jörg Morré, director of the German-Russian Museum in the Karlshorst district of Berlin. "All these traces of the past – that is the many who lost their lives, those who were deeply traumatized or wounded, and others who were displaced and after the war forced to live away from their homeland. All this has become part of family histories that are now entering their third, fourth or even fifth generation."
Reconciliation between individuals
Is such a thing as reconciliation even possible after such terrible suffering? Yes, says Jörg Morré. And sometimes that reconciliation can be entirely unconditional: "I find it astonishing. Especially on the level of individual encounters." Of course, the terrible stories from the past have not been forgotten. "And when we Germans start getting pro-active and roll out a discussion about the question of blame, they just say 'Get on with it!' But no demands are put on us. And that is why I say that the gesture of reconciliation really is unconditional – across every level of the state."
Of course, within the government it is said that, "we cannot forget," says the director of the Germany-Russian Museum. And this debate has sometimes also been linked with political demands: "But that is just one way of trying to take history and make contemporary political capital out of it."
Most ferocious total war in history with the mass of the victims and the place of unprecedented industrial genocide. :(
Nit: the German Army was Das Heer, not "the Wehrmacht." The Wehrmacht was the entire armed forces of Germany (but didn't include the armed forces of the Nazi Party).
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2021, 10:10:59 AM
Nit: the German Army was Das Heer, not "the Wehrmacht." The Wehrmacht was the entire armed forces of Germany (but didn't include the armed forces of the Nazi Party).
Nit back at ya: the German Army was
Deutsches Heer, not
Das Heer which simply translates as "the army".
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
But we do refer to the KGB, which is an acronym of the Russian name.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2021, 11:36:39 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
But we do refer to the KGB, which is an acronym of the Russian name.
Yeah, but just as an acronym, and again, probably for the nice enemy/alien factor. KGB sounds more menacing than (what would probably be) CSS (Committee for State Security?.....booooring).
The Russians call ours by their language's acronym (TsRU)...not as the CIA.
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
In the old Languish days, Tim would be working up that alt-history map as we speak. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
I like German documentaries when they say "Die Deutsche Wehrmacht" for emphasis; I can think of no other Wehrmacht.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
Barbarossa = red beard. Stalin had a mustache, and red is the color of communism. :P
(Disclaimer: I just made this up, I have no idea.)
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
It might be an attempt at distancing Germany from the Nazis. They joined NATO 10 years after the end of the war (not quite) thus becoming our allies. So our forces trained with the German army and so on, whereas 10 years back they were fighting the Nazi wehrmacht.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
In the old Languish days, Tim would be working up that alt-history map as we speak. :(
Done!
Alt-hist 1934: Hitler does not back down in front of Italian hostility to a premature Anschluss.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2021, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
In the old Languish days, Tim would be working up that alt-history map as we speak. :(
Done!
Alt-hist 1934: Hitler does not back down in front of Italian hostility to a premature Anschluss.
I think we all know how this ends...
- Germany rolls over an incompetent Italian military.
- Puts more forces into North Africa/drives the British out of Egypt/the Middle East
- Germany wins WW2
- Profit?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2021, 11:47:33 AM
I like German documentaries when they say "Die Deutsche Wehrmacht" for emphasis; I can think of no other Wehrmacht.
I think that's the point, though... Wehrmact just means "armed forces". So every country with armed forces have a Werhmacht in German.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:39:18 AM
Yeah, but just as an acronym, and again, probably for the nice enemy/alien factor. KGB sounds more menacing than (what would probably be) CSS (Committee for State Security?.....booooring).
The Russians call ours by their language's acronym (TsRU)...not as the CIA.
I feel like it's quite common to use original letters for acronyms (the example that springs to mind is the Spanish Civil War given the number of acronymed groups) but even now with, say, the SPD or PSOE or other political parties in other countries :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 11:55:26 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2021, 11:47:33 AM
I like German documentaries when they say "Die Deutsche Wehrmacht" for emphasis; I can think of no other Wehrmacht.
I think that's the point, though... Wehrmact just means "armed forces". So every country with armed forces have a Werhmacht in German.
Wehrmacht means Defense Power or Force. The word Armee exists as well in German (cf. Nationale Volksarmee for the GDR forces) or
Streitkräfte (Armed Forces).
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2021, 12:13:08 PM
Wehrmacht means Defense Power or Force. The word Armee exists as well in German (cf. Nationale Volksarmee for the GDR forces) or Streitkräfte (Armed Forces).
Sure. But does the term Wehrmacht apply uniquely to the German armed forces or can it describe the armed forces of other countries?
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
Yes there is.
The comments in the article were interesting and they do acknowledge this but I feel there may be a bit too much focus on Germany-Russia which is only part of it since the Soviet collapse. I don't think it's quite right to sort of make Russia synecdoche for the USSR given the catastrophe for Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states etc.
Obviously how to remember WW2 in those states is particularly challenging/contentious but I feel it's better to engage with that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
I agree. Same way panzer sounds more menacing than tank.
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2021, 12:13:08 PM
Wehrmacht means Defense Power or Force. The word Armee exists as well in German (cf. Nationale Volksarmee for the GDR forces) or Streitkräfte (Armed Forces).
Sure. But does the term Wehrmacht apply uniquely to the German armed forces or can it describe the armed forces of other countries?
Only German armed forces during WW2. Name given by Hitler AFAIK.
Quote from: Syt on June 22, 2021, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
Barbarossa = red beard. Stalin had a mustache, and red is the color of communism. :P
(Disclaimer: I just made this up, I have no idea.)
The name was actually picked due to the similarities between the German assault on the Soviet Union and 16th century Ottoman naval operations.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if military organizations/units/similar that are perceived to be successful/badass are more likely to keep their local name in an international context. Napoleon has his
Grande Armée, Italy has
bersaglieri, Japan has
samurai, the Soviet Union/Russia has
Spetznas, Nazi Germany has
Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe (the
Kriegsmarine isn't
quite as cool I guess), the UK has the Royal Air Force (which often gets called just that in Sweden while many other countries' air forces are called the Country X Air Force but in Swedish) etc.
Today the term Wehrmacht only refers to the German armed forces between 1933 and 1945, but until the 1960s or so it was a generic term for armed forces. Luftwaffe is a generic term and used for foreign air forces.
Another one is flak. More ominous than antiaircraft.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2021, 01:30:08 PM
The comments in the article were interesting and they do acknowledge this but I feel there may be a bit too much focus on Germany-Russia which is only part of it since the Soviet collapse. I don't think it's quite right to sort of make Russia synecdoche for the USSR given the catastrophe for Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states etc.
Obviously how to remember WW2 in those states is particularly challenging/contentious but I feel it's better to engage with that.
Russia and the Soviet Union were always used interchangeably in German. Operation Barbarossa for example was also called "Russian campaign". It is similar to how England and the UK or Holland and the Netherlands are not really distinguished in colloquial language.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2021, 11:29:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2021, 10:10:59 AM
Nit: the German Army was Das Heer, not "the Wehrmacht." The Wehrmacht was the entire armed forces of Germany (but didn't include the armed forces of the Nazi Party).
Nit back at ya: the German Army was Deutsches Heer, not Das Heer which simply translates as "the army".
:huh: The army was referred to as Das Heer, or "the army." The "Deutsches" term could be used to refer to just the German army, or Navy, or Armed Forces (
Deutsches Wehrmacht) when there was doubt about which army or navy or armed forces was being referred to (Germans would refer to the
Britische Wehrmacht to distinguish it from the German one, but this was almost never done by Germans for the German army or navy or air force, just like the member of the US Army just say they are "in the army" not "in the United States Army").
In other words, if you are going to insist on adding
Deutsches to Heer, you also need to do it for Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, etc.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
I dunno. I've heard people refer to the "German Army" but almost never the "British navy." It's always "the "Royal Navy." I do run across VVS about as often in historical writing as "Russian Air Force."
Yeah I just think it's slightly problematic now that there is a Russia distinct from the Soviet Union - especially given the way memory and commemoration is used (particularly by Russia). I think it's important to also remember and acknowledge the (worse affected) successor states like the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine - simply because they were on the way to Russia and then on the way to Berlin.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2021, 02:31:42 PM
The name was actually picked due to the similarities between the German assault on the Soviet Union and 16th century Ottoman naval operations.
Both employed Incan Torpedo Boats?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
Because he led the Germans on a crusade. So I guess invading the Bolshevik USSR was supposed to be some kind of Nazi Holy War or something.
I mean Frederick wasn't all that successful in his crusading but I suppose it went better for Germany than the 1941-1945 one did.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2021, 12:07:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
I mean Frederick wasn't all that successful in his crusading
No kidding.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2021, 05:05:56 PM
Yeah I just think it's slightly problematic now that there is a Russia distinct from the Soviet Union - especially given the way memory and commemoration is used (particularly by Russia). I think it's important to also remember and acknowledge the (worse affected) successor states like the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine - simply because they were on the way to Russia and then on the way to Berlin.
Yeah I guess it's a bit tricky because while the non-Russian people in the Soviet Union suffered greatly and should not be sidelined that way, in terms of politics the Soviet Union was not a union of nations and countries, it was the Russian Empire re-conquered and re-branded with fire and sword (well, rifle).
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2021, 11:36:39 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
But we do refer to the KGB, which is an acronym of the Russian name.
The Russians don't return the favour, though - FBI is FBR and CIA is CRU.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 23, 2021, 12:14:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2021, 12:07:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2021, 11:40:54 AM
What did poor Frederick I do to deserve being associated with this? It would have been more appropriate if they attacked Mussolini.
I mean Frederick wasn't all that successful in his crusading
No kidding.
Wasn't he the same who had trouble distinguishing plural neutral cases in -a and singular feminine cases -a in Latin?
:nerd:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
Along the same lines, we use panzers when referring to WW II German tanks instead of just calling them tanks. But we call other things by the name their country called or calls them rather than a more generic name. As an example, we refer to the RAF or use the full name, when referring to Britain's air force, rather than saying the British Air Force.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 07:53:40 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2021, 11:36:39 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
But we do refer to the KGB, which is an acronym of the Russian name.
The Russians don't return the favour, though - FBI is FBR and CIA is CRU.
French is a bit more complicated: FBI pronounced the Anglo way, while CIA is pronounced the French way (French pronunciation of each alphabet letter).
I did hear FBI pronounced the French way but it was a trailer for a '50s movie, in a bad movie night.
Hm, yes, in German we also use the English pronunciation for FBI, CIA, MI-5, etc.
Without doing a systematic survey I feel Germans would use English where available and otherwise German words. So Air Force would be used in an American context, Royal Air Force in a UK context (RAF not so much, as R.A.F. means something different in Germany :P - sidenote: nice touch that in the WW1 flashback in Archer, Wodehouse served - period appropriately - in the RCF, i.e. Royal Flying Corps), US Navy, Royal Navy and so on, but would use russische Luftwaffe, französische Marine etc. for Russian or French militaries.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2021, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 22, 2021, 11:30:11 AM
I've always wondered if there is a bit of German fanboi-ism in that we alway say "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" instead of the just the German "armed forces" or "air forces"...I mean, we don't go around saying the "Krasnaya Armiya" or the "Voenniy Vozdushniy Sil", or the "Forces armées françaises".
But maybe not fanboi-ism...just that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe give it a nice menacing alien/enemy sound to it, suitable to WW2-era propaganda.
Along the same lines, we use panzers when referring to WW II German tanks instead of just calling them tanks. But we call other things by the name their country called or calls them rather than a more generic name. As an example, we refer to the RAF or use the full name, when referring to Britain's air force, rather than saying the British Air Force.
Along the RAF lines I can see an argument with the Luftwaffe (I always make that Luftwaffle...) and Wehrmacht.
But panzers...ja. That's fanboyism.
Incidentally I always found it curious that the UK gets the generic RAF and RN whilst other countries have to throw their nation's name in there.
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2021, 11:17:43 AM
Incidentally I always found it curious that the UK gets the generic RAF and RN whilst other countries have to throw their nation's name in there.
Just a matter of language, no? In Dutch, our navy is called simply Royal Navy as well. And the British fleet would be called the Royal British navy.
Even the French Navy, officially Marine nationale (pun with Marine offered) is often called la Royale, due to a perceived high number of aristocratic officers.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 23, 2021, 11:33:27 AM
Even the French Navy, officially Marine nationale (pun with Marine offered) is often called la Royale, due to a perceived high number of aristocratic officers.
With cheese?
Quote from: Maladict on June 23, 2021, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2021, 11:17:43 AM
Incidentally I always found it curious that the UK gets the generic RAF and RN whilst other countries have to throw their nation's name in there.
Just a matter of language, no? In Dutch, our navy is called simply Royal Navy as well. And the British fleet would be called the Royal British navy.
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?
What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 23, 2021, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2021, 11:17:43 AM
Incidentally I always found it curious that the UK gets the generic RAF and RN whilst other countries have to throw their nation's name in there.
Just a matter of language, no? In Dutch, our navy is called simply Royal Navy as well. And the British fleet would be called the Royal British navy.
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?
What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
My understanding is that it has to do with the fact that individual regiments have ties to specific Royals, rather than a single connection to the army as a whole.
Edit: I was sort-of right: https://www.forces.net/heritage/history/why-it-british-army-and-not-royal-army
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 23, 2021, 11:26:23 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2021, 11:17:43 AM
Incidentally I always found it curious that the UK gets the generic RAF and RN whilst other countries have to throw their nation's name in there.
Just a matter of language, no? In Dutch, our navy is called simply Royal Navy as well. And the British fleet would be called the Royal British navy.
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?
What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
English Civil War reasons? The Army was parliamentarian, and revolted against the King.
Yeah, we historically don't do armies. The entire concept of keeping a standing army was seen as pretty dictatorial and horrid.
Armies were to be drafted as and when they were needed rather than be kept as permanent standing forces.
Long ago the navy was the same, private ships pressed into service when needed, but then the Royal Navy was established as a standing navy.
The army never really got the same treatment and clear distinction between the Royal standing force and the ad-hoc.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?
What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
Yeah I think the Royal Nacy and RAF are coherent, unified forces set up by the crown/state while the army is still technically a collection of regiments (some of which are royal like the Royal Artillery or the Royal Irish).
But I think at the back of it at least subliminally is that the army is not a loyal bit of the military/was kind of founded by Parliament/Cromwell with the New Model Army.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?
What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
IIRC, the entire RAF originally counted as a single Royal regiment. The Royal Navy is royal because it was originally a royal regiment detailed to serve on ships in company-sized formations (that's why there's reference to the "ship's company" and the CO being called "captain").
Curious bit of trivia for you: In parade formation, the Household Cavalry has the highest precedence (forms farthest to the right) EXCEPT when the Royal Horse Artillery is on parade with its guns, when it takes highest precedence (without guns it is second).
In other trivia: in its 400 years of the pennant's existence, only one non-RN ship has ever flown the Admiralty Pennant (hoisted when the British Board of the Admiralty holds a formal meeting onboard the ship) and that was USS Enterprise CV-6. That meeting was held in the fall of 1945 (when Big E was in the UK to pick up troops as part of Operation Magic carpet) to honor her achievements as the most-decorated US ship of the war.
On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20
I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 05:59:02 AM
On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20
I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.
Yeah that is disgustingly dishonest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 05:59:02 AM
On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20
I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.
The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians. It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine. Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it. There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2021, 06:25:04 AM
The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians. It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine. Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it. There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
I think the only purpose of that map and framing the thread in the context of % of land occupied is to minimise the impact on Russia and the Russian casualties.
I think if you just want to focus on Ukraine, without doing that, you choose a different starting point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 06:35:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2021, 06:25:04 AM
The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians. It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine. Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it. There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
I think the only purpose of that map and framing the thread in the context of % of land occupied is to minimise the impact on Russia and the Russian casualties.
I think if you just want to focus on Ukraine, without doing that, you choose a different starting point.
I think that the purpose of the map and the framing of the thread in the context of % of occupied land and reference to modern stories using "Russian" rather than "Soviet" is to highlight the fact that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and fought the Soviet Union, not just Russia... and that other parts of the Soviet Union suffered as much, or more, than the Russia portion.
I think that, if you want to focus on minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians, you choose a different starting point. And if you want to highlight stories that focus on minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians, you choose a twitter thread that actually does that.