Talk:Napoleon invasion of Russia 1812
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The literal translation is "war of the fatherland" . Same thing for the WWII version.
Correct. (Great) Patriotic War is just the standard English translation. --Kolt 08:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned those mythical partisans at the back of invading army are very disputable, especially against Napoleon. I have recently read "War and Peace" and I have few conclusions. I can share them with you. Partisans are mostly rhetoric propganda feature. What was real calles Guerilla warfare. Pure definition of the guerilla warfare says, that they are speciall troops trained to operate at the back of the front. During Napoleon invasion, there were no real guerilla warfare, but when Grand Arme retreated, small groups of cossacs assaulted troops looking for food in neighbourhood. Since it happenned during retreat, one cannot tell that it influenced Napoleon defeat. This however influence number of casualties. In relations to Hilers time, you probably know, that guerilla warfare was used on the bigger scale in 1942 and later. Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, Napoleon didn't attract Poles from Lithuania in the same way as Hitler didn't attract Ukrainian nationlists. Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You probably noticed that the analogy is little bit misleading: Napoloeon wanted to make peace with Russia, Hitler wanted to conquer Russia. Napoleon didn't want to promise antything Poles to have free hands for peace with Russia, Hitler didn't want to offer anything to Ukrainians, since he wanted to rule himself all the East. And Napoloeon captured Moscow. If Hitler had captured Moscow, he probably would have been able to win a war! Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the term "partisan warfare" in the present context should be understood as "asymmetrical warfare" or plain "ambushing", rather than as guerilla movement in the modern sense. The analogy to the German invasion is however indeed based on some of the invaders' great miscalculations, as well as on geographical coincidences. Meanwhile, it seems to me that your invokation of parallels concerning independence-minded minorities on the Russian periphery is a bit far-fetched. While the Germans relied on broad territorial control, Napoleon did not: marching right through towards the enemy's major city was fair enough. While the Germans needed supply lines, Napoleon did not - at least, that's what he thought: the armies would trade or take what they needed along the way. Napoleon failed because the regular Russian army mercilessly wore him down and crushed him in the end, and not because the local peasants didn't like him.
--Kolt 20:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
