Posts: 1,103
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
I have been wondering why some WWII campaigns were not conmemorated with medals, like the liberation of Romania, Bulgaria, Manchuria and Korea. Were those campaigns not so important or they just omitted them from the medal`s list?
:confused:
Thanks in advice
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
The Who, Won't get fooled again
Posts: 1,128
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
The wars with Finland did not get any specific medals either.... nor the anniversary "10 years of Victory".
Posts: 513
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
I would guess that the decision to institute a medal was totally political.
The capture/liberation series of medals seemed to involve politically/strategically important cities for the USSR after the war (generally). I don’t think Romania, Bulgaria, Manchuria and Korea were as important to the Soviets in the early post-war times as were Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
As to the lack of the 10 years of victory in the GPW, 10 years would have been 1955, at which time the Soviets were doing rather well in spreading communism and making scientific advances. By 1965, things were arguably not as good, and perhaps the government felt a bit of rah-rah stuff was necessary to pep up morale?
Posts: 157
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
Tretov Wrote:The wars with Finland did not get any specific medals either.... nor the anniversary "10 years of Victory". The medals for defense of Leningrad and Arctic Region were given for 1941-1944 war with Finland as well. The Soviet army didn't have to fight for Finish cities. You know that better than me.
T. Nackowicz Wrote:I I don’t think Romania, Bulgaria, Manchuria and Korea were as important to the Soviets in the early post-war times as were Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. Also, when Soviet Army has reached the borders of Romania and Bulgaria, they declared war on their former allien Germany and Red Army didn't have to fight for Bucharest and Sofia as much as for Warsaw, Kenigsberg, or some other cities.
Posts: 173
Threads: 7
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
09-14-2005, 03:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-14-2005, 03:40 PM by Simon.)
Please, allow me to share my thoughts and ask questions on the subject.
Romania and Bulgaria were Germany's allies, not countries under the occupation. Both of them signed separate cease-fire agreements with the Soviet Union. Did Red Army actually fight for Bucharest and Sofia or simply march in following the diplomatic agreement?
Manchuria and Korea were liberated during a lightning campaign that was over in a matter of weeks. Decision makers must have thought that "Victory over Japan" medal was sufficient to commemorate battles in the Far East.
War with Finland was fought before the tradition to strike medals in honor of campaigns originated. Major engagements before Finnish War had their badges, not medals. Though Finland was beaten, Red Army suffered heavy casualties and failed to occupy the entire country. Stalin must have viewed the campaign as unworthy of even a badge. Besides, was the war with Finland supposed to be a prelude to a larger campaign? I don't want to advertise theories of a certain historian, but his arguments are worth consideration. So far I haven't been able to find acceptable counterarguments. He also offers his explanation for why '10 years V of Germany' medal was not established.
Simon
P.S. While I was writing this post, Eugene already answered my question about Bucharest and Sofia.
Posts: 513
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
This is all very interesting stuff. To what does the above-referenced author attribute the lack of a 10-years-of-victory medal (I don't think I know the historan you are talking about)?
Posts: 1,128
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
09-14-2005, 06:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-14-2005, 06:06 PM by Tretov.)
Eugene Wrote:The medals for defense of Leningrad and Arctic Region were given for 1941-1944 war with Finland as well. The Soviet army didn't have to fight for Finish cities. You know that better than me.
Viipuri, which was one of the largest cities in Finland at the time, was captured, lost and re-captured (and finally kept) after heavy battles.
Simon Wrote:War with Finland was fought before the tradition to strike medals in honor of campaigns originated. Major engagements before Finnish War had their badges, not medals. Though Finland was beaten, Red Army suffered heavy casualties and failed to occupy the entire country. Stalin must have viewed the campaign as unworthy of even a badge. Besides, was the war with Finland supposed to be a prelude to a larger campaign? I don't want to advertise theories of a certain historian, but his arguments are worth consideration. So far I haven't been able to find acceptable counterarguments. He also offers his explanation for why '10 years V of Germany' medal was not established.
The Soviet Union had two wars with Finland, 1939-1940 and 1941-1944. The later one was in larger scale than the first one, but as stated in the thread, it seems to have been included in the Polar Regions medal.
As for the purpose of the Winter war... I dont know for sure either, political and strategical reasons (Soviet demanded territories, access to naval bases and airfields etc etc like from the baltic states). It would be too long to debate here  so I guess we better refer to history books for the details.
This is a very interesting thread though!
Posts: 173
Threads: 7
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
0
T. Nackowicz Wrote:This is all very interesting stuff. To what does the above-referenced author attribute the lack of a 10-years-of-victory medal (I don't think I know the historan you are talking about)?
The historian is a Soviet defector Vladimir Rezun who publishes books under the pseudonym Victor Suvorov. If you ever read his writing, please do so with caution. People who take their time to check his sources often find them twisted or non-existent. In my opinion, his works are at least partially based on true facts and contain thought-provoking analysis. At the same time, I feel that his sensationalistic style and Earth-shattering conclusions are secrets of his success. His books read like mystery novels and are geared towards masses that don't bother to verify what he writes. He claims that Stalin scheduled an attack on Germany on July 6, 1941. Because of Hitler's preemptive strike, Soviet plans were ruined and Red Army didn't reach Paris and Madrid. Stalin had to settle for eastern Europe and felt that he lost the war. For this reason, Suvorov argues, 10th anniversary of victory was not celebrated. In 1955, USSR was still ruled by men who held senior government positions in 1941 and knew how disappointing the result of WW2 was for Russia. Consequently, at the time of 10th anniversary, medals were not struck, commemorative coins were not minted, parade was not held. In 1965, Brezhnev was GenSek. During the war, he was only Major-General and didn't see the big picture. On 20th anniversary, Brezhnev made Victory Day a national holiday that was celebrated with medals, coins and parade.
Suvorov's conclusions are far from being the most shocking. One historian claims that entire Russian history, as we know it, was fabricated by Romanov dynasty and A. Nevsky was King Ghiz Khan, not a Russian knyaz. Surprisingly, G. Kasparov, the world chess champion, subscribes to this theory.
Posts: 700
Threads: 40
Joined: May 2002
Reputation:
0
I remember also reading that the reason that they began celebrating the "...Years of Victory" was because of the rise of post traumatic stress disorder that began appearing amongst Soviet veterans during the early 1960s. In order to combat this, the Soviet government began a long process of near hero-worship of the WW2 veterans. Thus, the reason that the 20th anniversary was such a huge celebration, and every 10 years thereafter. From other sources that I read, I tend to believe this theory. There is no way that 4 straight years of combat for many of the veterans could have had a positive psychological impact on them...
Dave
|
