Help support TMP


"Why gaming's latest take on war is so offensive to Russians" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board

Back to the History of Wargaming Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset

Wonder


Rating: gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Derivan Paints: Striking It Lucky With Colour

Sometimes at a convention, you can be just dead lucky and find a real bargain.


Featured Profile Article

Gwen's Brother-in-Law Comes Home

Thanks in part to your donations, Personal logo Editor Gwen The Editor of TMP's brother-in-law has been able to leave the hospital after his cancer operation.


1,173 hits since 14 Jun 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 4:12 p.m. PST

"Company of Heroes 2 found broad favor with the media, gaining an 80 percent average on Metacritic. But there's one group of people who really don't like the game.

Critics in Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union say its portrayal of the Eastern Front in World War II plays to Western bias about history and clichés about the Soviet war effort…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sho Boki Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 5:47 p.m. PST

If soviets are outraged, then all is right in game.
And vice versa..

VonTed14 Jun 2019 6:57 p.m. PST

I assume they are welcome to partake in capitalism and make their own game?

von Schwartz14 Jun 2019 7:10 p.m. PST

Wow, so then why are the Russian casualties in Russia's (the victor) "victories" so much higher than the Germans (the vanquished), isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Personal logo cloudcaptain Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 7:48 p.m. PST

This article is from 2013 as is the game. They probably aren't even mad anymore.

picture

lkmjbc314 Jun 2019 7:53 p.m. PST

Good to see some push back against the stupid post war Western propaganda.

Paul Carell's writing is certainly great, fun reading… but it is propaganda…and stupid in the long run…

Unfortunately, this still colors our view of Russia. Even in the US military. Thank goodness there are some professionals in the US armed services that see beyond this.

Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Abdul Hamid II, and Hitler had different opinions of the backward Russians.

I suggest Frank Chadwick's writing on this… it is a useful corrective.

Joe Collins

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 8:30 p.m. PST

Attackers almost always need more troops than defenders, and lose more troops in the attack.

There's an advantage to being on defense.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 11:25 p.m. PST

And a lot of "soviets" died on the nazi side. Plus the usual socialist stalinist human tretments.it ends up piling a lot more casualties than pure one sided warfare. They lost hugely the first two years too.

Sho Boki Sponsoring Member of TMP15 Jun 2019 1:23 a.m. PST

@Thresher01.
This is not always be true in Russia.
At Borodino Napoleon attacks with 12 against 15 and loses 2 against 5.
Hitler also attacks Stalin with 3 against 21 and.. at Stalingrad there was more Russians fighting on Hitler's side than on Stalin's side.

mghFond15 Jun 2019 8:02 a.m. PST

"at Stalingrad there was more Russians fighting on Hitler's side than on Stalin's side."

Sorry, don't buy that. Could I see some sources on numbers for that statement?

I did manage to find a few numbers – 40,000 Hiwis (which were supposed Russian volunteers helping the Nazis) on one listing of the Axis OOB but then there were almost 2 million Soviet forces at Stalingrad.
So a mere drop in the bucket.

Walking Sailor Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2019 10:33 a.m. PST

Wow, so then why are the Russian casualties in Russia's (the victor) "victories" so much higher than the Germans (the vanquished), isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
NO, in war, the loser is the one that loses more than they can afford to lose before the other side loses more than they can afford to lose.

Cuprum215 Jun 2019 10:35 a.m. PST

The losses of the Soviet army during the war were about 10 million people (the rest of the dead were civilians). Of these, more than three million prisoners of war died in Nazi captivity. German prisoners of war died in the USSR just over 350 thousand (they were in the USSR until 1955).

Hiwis (voluntary helpers of the Wehrmacht) are non-combatants. These are people who went to cooperate with the Nazis, so as not to be destroyed in the Nazi camps. To say that they fought against the USSR is not entirely accurate. Most of them went to the Soviet side at the first opportunity.

Even combat units from the Russian nationalists switched over to the Soviet side. Do you know, for example, the history of the 1st Russian national brigade SS "Druzhina"? In 1943, the brigade in full force passed to the partisans. Russian anti-Soviet units were unreliable (with the exception of a few). That is why they fought against the allies in France – Hitler was afraid to leave them on the Eastern Front. However, in France they did not show much zeal)))

link

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.