Would you be interested in playing a WW II Shooter from the "Other Side&quo

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Justforvisit (5047 posts) -

Well, recently I asked myself if it could work when you play a WW II shooter as a german soldier, while media and politics have certainly done all their best to demonize them (and with some certainly rightful), I bet the other side would have as much personal drama and interesting stories to tell as the usual Allied Forces WW II shooter.

Also, if you would want to play I'd also like to know, would you want to play them only in historical accurate events or would you want a fiction where they would win the war in the end?

Go ahead, I'm looking forward to read your opinions :)

#2 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -
I think it would be great, assuming it had a well written enough story, there could be some really interesting moral choices. It would be a nice breath of fresh air from the over-simplification of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' that most games and war films have.
#3 Posted by Socijalisticka (1621 posts) -

Red Orchestra 2?  Too bad the single player isn't all that great.

#4 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

I would indeed, but it would need to be made well. Historical accuracy in any game like that would be a must, and I wish even pro-America/American allies games would tone down the whole 'being a hero' thing and also interject more accurate history.

#5 Posted by josephl64 (4424 posts) -

I would like it to be on the Pacific Theatre, but even if you are playing as the Nazis, going full on historical would make it interesting enough for me to actually pick up the game as long as you hear the propaganda they would have heard, etc.

#6 Posted by CUDGEdave (2590 posts) -

Yes,Being the whole "American Hero"  is getting a bit tiresome.

#7 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

Not particularly - I'd like a good single-player game focused on the Red Army, maybe some missions with the Spetsnaz. Get to 'play the war' in the shoes of who really won it. :)

#8 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

Not particularly - I'd like a good single-player game focused on the Red Army, maybe some missions with the Spetsnaz. Get to 'play the war' in the shoes of who really won it. :)

iHarlequin
You do not know much about WWII history then. At one point, Stalin was ready to sue for peace with Hitler One of Stalin's generals urged him on and instead fight. Still, Stalin played a strange game in the history of the war and played it masterfully so we think that it was the Red Army that was the ones to really win the war. Fact is, if not for the Lend-Lease program that sent arms and other war material to both England and the Soviet Union from the US, things very well could have been different. You might want to read the book, Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier. Very interesting book and a look at how close Germany came to winning. As far as games where you can play as the "other side," iL2 Sturmovik and the rest of the franchise iL2 Forgotten Battles and it's expansion packs allows you to play as the Luftwaffe and the IJN and IJA.
#9 Posted by Granny_Spanked (1326 posts) -
I would love to play as a nazi, maybe even a Vietcong, but that would induce too much controversy.
#10 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15592 posts) -

No, I never want to play as the Germans. Even outside of WWII video games. Other settings, board games, FIFA, etc.

#11 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

Not particularly - I'd like a good single-player game focused on the Red Army, maybe some missions with the Spetsnaz. Get to 'play the war' in the shoes of who really won it. :)

WhiteKnight77

You do not know much about WWII history then. At one point, Stalin was ready to sue for peace with Hitler One of Stalin's generals urged him on and instead fight. Still, Stalin played a strange game in the history of the war and played it masterfully so we think that it was the Red Army that was the ones to really win the war. Fact is, if not for the Lend-Lease program that sent arms and other war material to both England and the Soviet Union from the US, things very well could have been different. You might want to read the book, Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier. Very interesting book and a look at how close Germany came to winning. As far as games where you can play as the "other side," iL2 Sturmovik and the rest of the franchise iL2 Forgotten Battles and it's expansion packs allows you to play as the Luftwaffe and the IJN and IJA.

 

First, those are flight games. I'm talking about infantry, artillery and ground combat.

 

Second, Stalin was Germany's ally, they (Germany) invaded them and broke their peace treaty. Regardless of that, the Red Army's victory on the Eastern front and their following push to Berlin (with special notice to the Battle of Stalingrad) were pivotal to the ally's victory. Let me put it this way: while the U.S's support, and England's participation in the war were -very- important, I have little doubt that without the USSR making Germany divide its front (and fighting the strongest army in WW II - and this is a fact, not conjecture or theory), the Axis would have most likely won. I can't say the same about the outcome if USA/England hadn't participated, and instead it'd been Germany v. USSR - the USSR might've lost, but I seem them as a 'better' bet than those two together.

 

Regardless, dealing in alternate history is foolish. What we do have are facts: the death toll was bigger when the USSR was present - out of all the German deaths,  88%  was dealt by the USSR (do you have any idea how massive a number that is?). The Normandy landings were only made possible by an overwhelming presence of the USSR on German's Eastern fronts. The only thing I do grant you is this: the UK's role was pivotal in the sense that they managed to hold the German push until the USSR joined. The USSR gave the most of itself, and took the most from the Germans - and that's how they secured the allied victory. If you're going to come with some **** overplaying the importance of the African theater, and trying to donwplay the importance of the USSR, I will counter you - specially if you try to be a dick about it and start your sentence in a pretentious and condenscending tone. We need to appreciate the sacrifice the US army and the people of the UK, France and other allied countries did - but also realize that it was  nothing  compared to what the USSR went - a recently formed nation, which had been formed less (much less) than a century ago.

#12 Posted by sukraj (23060 posts) -

No

#13 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

Yes I'd love to.  The Germans had all the coolest equipment.  I think it would obviously have to be played out in a fictional manner because nobody would want to "play" if the outcome was decided beforehand.

#14 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]You do not know much about WWII history then. At one point, Stalin was ready to sue for peace with Hitler One of Stalin's generals urged him on and instead fight. Still, Stalin played a strange game in the history of the war and played it masterfully so we think that it was the Red Army that was the ones to really win the war. Fact is, if not for the Lend-Lease program that sent arms and other war material to both England and the Soviet Union from the US, things very well could have been different. You might want to read the book, Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier. Very interesting book and a look at how close Germany came to winning. As far as games where you can play as the "other side," iL2 Sturmovik and the rest of the franchise iL2 Forgotten Battles and it's expansion packs allows you to play as the Luftwaffe and the IJN and IJA.iHarlequin

 

First, those are flight games. I'm talking about infantry, artillery and ground combat.

 

Second, Stalin was Germany's ally, they (Germany) invaded them and broke their peace treaty. Regardless of that, the Red Army's victory on the Eastern front and their following push to Berlin (with special notice to the Battle of Stalingrad) were pivotal to the ally's victory. Let me put it this way: while the U.S's support, and England's participation in the war were -very- important, I have little doubt that without the USSR making Germany divide its front (and fighting the strongest army in WW II - and this is a fact, not conjecture or theory), the Axis would have most likely won. I can't say the same about the outcome if USA/England hadn't participated, and instead it'd been Germany v. USSR - the USSR might've lost, but I seem them as a 'better' bet than those two together.

 

Regardless, dealing in alternate history is foolish. What we do have are facts: the death toll was bigger when the USSR was present - out of all the German deaths,  88%  was dealt by the USSR (do you have any idea how massive a number that is?). The Normandy landings were only made possible by an overwhelming presence of the USSR on German's Eastern fronts. The only thing I do grant you is this: the UK's role was pivotal in the sense that they managed to hold the German push until the USSR joined. The USSR gave the most of itself, and took the most from the Germans - and that's how they secured the allied victory. If you're going to come with some **** overplaying the importance of the African theater, and trying to donwplay the importance of the USSR, I will counter you - specially if you try to be a dick about it and start your sentence in a pretentious and condenscending tone. We need to appreciate the sacrifice the US army and the people of the UK, France and other allied countries did - but also realize that it was  nothing  compared to what the USSR went - a recently formed nation, which had been formed less (much less) than a century ago.

You didn't specify exactly whose shoes you wanted to play as. As far as I know, the Spetsnaz didn't exist during WWII. That said, the Red Army Air Forces played a very significant part in helping to with the war and even flew some US planes due to Lend-Lease.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, an alternate history is being revealed due to Soviet archives being opened to researchers and writers. Books have shown that Stalin was on the ropes during WWII. Once he was pushed to continue the fight, he did, but the history we knew up until recently was written by him (or at least by writers that would give the world Stalin's version of what happened).

If the Allies hadn't invaded Africa, Germany would not have had to divide troops between the Eastern Front and the rest of the Third Reich and it's puppet governments. Hitler gave up on England due to wanting to expand East into Russia and that had been part of his plan for a long time. There was only a non-aggression pact (not a peace treaty) between Germany and Russia and it was going to be broken. England was a diversion that cost Germany the win in the East. Stalin could have won easier if it were not for his purges where he got rid of all of senior military personnel prior to WWII. He had no choice but to send wave after wave of troops after the Germans. Once he got his factories back online (from being moved to the Urals and is one reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union) and he was able to get supplies back to the front, his troops were better armed and equipped than the Germans who didn't have warm clothing nor did their equipment work in the Russian cold.

If the US never entered the war, England would have been left on the back burner and Europe may very well have had a different face. I don't think I would have gone to Holland on a job several years ago if the Germans had won. The UK and the US aided in and drastically helped the USSR in their win and that is fact. At one point, the majority of the Luftwaffe was in the USSR. Once the Eighth Air Force started bombing Germany, that shrunk until 60+% was defending Germany from bomber raids. Eighth Air Force bombing raids also put a hurting on production of war material and more, oil and fuel, the one thing that is needed by air and ground forces. Russia couldn't even bomb German industrial targets. With no interference from the English and the Americans, Germany could have kept up their industrial and fuel output which would have kept more German forces in Russia with the ability to fight properly.

While Russia may have caused more German deaths, it was due to help from their Allies in the West. While England was wanting help from the US, the USSR was the biggest benefactor of that help.

#15 Posted by GeneralMufinMan (368 posts) -
As longs as it's either got good gameplay or a great story (ideally both), I'd love to play a WW2 shooter in general, used to be so many good ones, now it's nothing but modern...
#16 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -
I wouldn't mind it at all.. it's interesting seeing things from other perspectives.
#17 Posted by SoNin360 (5506 posts) -
Interesting. Reminds me of "All Quiet on the Western Front", which is about a group of young Germans fighting in WWI. Of course they weren't seen nearly as evil as WWII Germans, but it still portrayed them as a bunch of regular young guys fighting through a war. Anyway, though I doubt it will ever happen, it would be kind of interesting to play from the other side. Though there would be way too much controversy and media frenzy for any developers to want to even attempt something like that.
#18 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -
Interesting. Reminds me of "All Quiet on the Western Front", which is about a group of young Germans fighting in WWI. Of course they weren't seen nearly as evil as WWII Germans, but it still portrayed them as a bunch of regular young guys fighting through a war. Anyway, though I doubt it will ever happen, it would be kind of interesting to play from the other side. Though there would be way too much controversy and media frenzy for any developers to want to even attempt something like that.SoNin360
While most Germans who served in the Werhmacht were not Nazis like those in the SS were, people would still think wrongly. Look at Wolfenstein 3-D and the uproar that still surrounds it and the Nazi running around it was Hitler himself. If people are going to get up in arms about a game set in Fallujah in recent times, you know that they would get upset about games featuring play as Germans (though I have no idea why there was no uproar over the iL2 Sturmovik series).
#19 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="SoNin360"]Interesting. Reminds me of "All Quiet on the Western Front", which is about a group of young Germans fighting in WWI. Of course they weren't seen nearly as evil as WWII Germans, but it still portrayed them as a bunch of regular young guys fighting through a war. Anyway, though I doubt it will ever happen, it would be kind of interesting to play from the other side. Though there would be way too much controversy and media frenzy for any developers to want to even attempt something like that.WhiteKnight77
While most Germans who served in the Werhmacht were not Nazis like those in the SS were, people would still think wrongly. Look at Wolfenstein 3-D and the uproar that still surrounds it and the Nazi running around it was Hitler himself. If people are going to get up in arms about a game set in Fallujah in recent times, you know that they would get upset about games featuring play as Germans (though I have no idea why there was no uproar over the iL2 Sturmovik series).

For me, while I wouldn't be offended by such a game, I think the fact that many of the German soldiers were not technically members of the Nazi party is incidental. They fought and served the Reich which means they fought directly for Hitler and his regime, which also means they facilitated the Holocaust, among other things.

Obviously, all wars inevitably lead to widespread death, but when you play on the side of the Germans you are role-playing in the shoes of those who advocated and executed a genocidal campaign on a global scale and that reality alone makes the issue a bit more of a touchy subject, and for good reason.  

#20 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]You do not know much about WWII history then. At one point, Stalin was ready to sue for peace with Hitler One of Stalin's generals urged him on and instead fight. Still, Stalin played a strange game in the history of the war and played it masterfully so we think that it was the Red Army that was the ones to really win the war. Fact is, if not for the Lend-Lease program that sent arms and other war material to both England and the Soviet Union from the US, things very well could have been different. You might want to read the book, Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier. Very interesting book and a look at how close Germany came to winning. As far as games where you can play as the "other side," iL2 Sturmovik and the rest of the franchise iL2 Forgotten Battles and it's expansion packs allows you to play as the Luftwaffe and the IJN and IJA.WhiteKnight77

 

First, those are flight games. I'm talking about infantry, artillery and ground combat.

 

Second, Stalin was Germany's ally, they (Germany) invaded them and broke their peace treaty. Regardless of that, the Red Army's victory on the Eastern front and their following push to Berlin (with special notice to the Battle of Stalingrad) were pivotal to the ally's victory. Let me put it this way: while the U.S's support, and England's participation in the war were -very- important, I have little doubt that without the USSR making Germany divide its front (and fighting the strongest army in WW II - and this is a fact, not conjecture or theory), the Axis would have most likely won. I can't say the same about the outcome if USA/England hadn't participated, and instead it'd been Germany v. USSR - the USSR might've lost, but I seem them as a 'better' bet than those two together.

 

Regardless, dealing in alternate history is foolish. What we do have are facts: the death toll was bigger when the USSR was present - out of all the German deaths,  88%  was dealt by the USSR (do you have any idea how massive a number that is?). The Normandy landings were only made possible by an overwhelming presence of the USSR on German's Eastern fronts. The only thing I do grant you is this: the UK's role was pivotal in the sense that they managed to hold the German push until the USSR joined. The USSR gave the most of itself, and took the most from the Germans - and that's how they secured the allied victory. If you're going to come with some **** overplaying the importance of the African theater, and trying to donwplay the importance of the USSR, I will counter you - specially if you try to be a dick about it and start your sentence in a pretentious and condenscending tone. We need to appreciate the sacrifice the US army and the people of the UK, France and other allied countries did - but also realize that it was  nothing  compared to what the USSR went - a recently formed nation, which had been formed less (much less) than a century ago.

You didn't specify exactly whose shoes you wanted to play as. As far as I know, the Spetsnaz didn't exist during WWII. That said, the Red Army Air Forces played a very significant part in helping to with the war and even flew some US planes due to Lend-Lease.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, an alternate history is being revealed due to Soviet archives being opened to researchers and writers. Books have shown that Stalin was on the ropes during WWII. Once he was pushed to continue the fight, he did, but the history we knew up until recently was written by him (or at least by writers that would give the world Stalin's version of what happened).

If the Allies hadn't invaded Africa, Germany would not have had to divide troops between the Eastern Front and the rest of the Third Reich and it's puppet governments. Hitler gave up on England due to wanting to expand East into Russia and that had been part of his plan for a long time. There was only a non-aggression pact (not a peace treaty) between Germany and Russia and it was going to be broken. England was a diversion that cost Germany the win in the East. Stalin could have won easier if it were not for his purges where he got rid of all of senior military personnel prior to WWII. He had no choice but to send wave after wave of troops after the Germans. Once he got his factories back online (from being moved to the Urals and is one reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union) and he was able to get supplies back to the front, his troops were better armed and equipped than the Germans who didn't have warm clothing nor did their equipment work in the Russian cold.

If the US never entered the war, England would have been left on the back burner and Europe may very well have had a different face. I don't think I would have gone to Holland on a job several years ago if the Germans had won. The UK and the US aided in and drastically helped the USSR in their win and that is fact. At one point, the majority of the Luftwaffe was in the USSR. Once the Eighth Air Force started bombing Germany, that shrunk until 60+% was defending Germany from bomber raids. Eighth Air Force bombing raids also put a hurting on production of war material and more, oil and fuel, the one thing that is needed by air and ground forces. Russia couldn't even bomb German industrial targets. With no interference from the English and the Americans, Germany could have kept up their industrial and fuel output which would have kept more German forces in Russia with the ability to fight properly.

While Russia may have caused more German deaths, it was due to help from their Allies in the West. While England was wanting help from the US, the USSR was the biggest benefactor of that help.

 

You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.

 

Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front. 

 

Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.

 

While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.

 

In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.

#21 Posted by brickdoctor (9746 posts) -

All Quiet on The Western Front is one of my favorite books, so yes. I think it'd provide for a potentially good story. It'd get rid of the "All 1945 German soldiers are Jew killing Nazis" stereotype. A lot of people fail to realize that a lot of guys on the other side are genuine people fighting to protect their country or support their families. It'd be fitting for a society growing up in the War on Terror too, where not everything is always black and white.

#22 Posted by wis3boi (31472 posts) -

Of course.  They offer all the sides in other genres, why not an FPS

#23 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

 

 You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.

 

Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front. 

 

Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.

 

While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.

 

In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.

iHarlequin

What's odd about your position is that you essentially admit that the USSR basically did one thing: protect its own real estate after being double crossed by the Nazi leadership.

And while you are certainly correct in your analysis that the theater of war in the Eastern Front was the most significant contributing factor in the fall of the Third Reich, your extrapolations placing the majority of credit on the shoulders of Soviets for ending the War isn't even remotely logical given the limitation of their involvement in a global conflict. The Soviets were instrumental in weakening the Third Reich but had little to do with the downfall of the remaining AXIS members, where by contrast the U.S. was involved in constant battles with all three nations and was instrumental in the surrender of each.

You also seem to ignore the reality that the USSR's non-aggressive pact with Germany facilitated the invasion of various European countries while the Soviets waged their own invasions in the name of self-interest. That pact paved the way for the Germans to take what they wanted without worrying about fighting a war on two fronts thus it can be logically argued that Russia, while certainly a major contributing factor to the end of the War, was also one of the primary contributions of its inception and propagation.

As to the notion that the USSR handed the Germans their most crushing defeat, that is most certainly true. However, that defeat wasn't merely due to the might of the Red Army but rather a combination of various factors including Hitlers militaristic resources being overextended due to the Allied attacks on key positions, the troops being unprepared for the harsh climate and weather, lack of supplies, and other variables, most notably home court advantage, all of which ensured an eventual decisive Russian victory.  

The U.S. came across the sea into foreign territory and fought three separate nations on all fronts and in all manner of combat. Your version of history seems to ignore the Japanese and Italian component of the War, the former being the last nation to surrender only after having two cities leveled by an atomic weapon. That weapon ENDED this war entirely and would have done so even had the Russians not been such an important factor in decimating German forces in the previous years leading up to the end of the conflict.

Again, this was a global war and the eventual victory of the AXIS was facilitated by many, many nations but to deride or marginalize the involvement of the U.S. cannot be supported by historical evidence nor can you claim that Russia's contributions were the most significant. I think you could make the argument that the Eastern Front was the single largest contributing factor to the weakening and fall of the Third Reich but that postulation alone does not buoy the notion that Russia was the most important presence in WWII.

#24 Posted by GeneralMufinMan (368 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

 

 You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.

 

Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front. 

 

Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.

 

While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.

 

In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.

Grammaton-Cleric

What's odd about your position is that you essentially admit that the USSR basically did one thing: protect its own real estate after being double crossed by the Nazi leadership.

And while you are certainly correct in your analysis that the theater of war in the Eastern Front was the most significant contributing factor in the fall of the Third Reich, your extrapolations placing the majority of credit on the shoulders of Soviets for ending the War isn't even remotely logical given the limitation of their involvement in a global conflict. The Soviets were instrumental in weakening the Third Reich but had little to do with the downfall of the remaining AXIS members, where by contrast the U.S. was involved in constant battles with all three nations and was instrumental in the surrender of each.

You also seem to ignore the reality that the USSR's non-aggressive pact with Germany facilitated the invasion of various European countries while the Soviets waged their own invasions in the name of self-interest. That pact paved the way for the Germans to take what they wanted without worrying about fighting a war on two fronts thus it can be logically argued that Russia, while certainly a major contributing factor to the end of the War, was also one of the primary contributions of its inception and propagation.

As to the notion that the USSR handed the Germans their most crushing defeat, that is most certainly true. However, that defeat wasn't merely due to the might of the Red Army but rather a combination of various factors including Hitlers militaristic resources being overextended due to the Allied attacks on key positions, the troops being unprepared for the harsh climate and weather, lack of supplies, and other variables, most notably home court advantage, all of which ensured an eventual decisive Russian victory.  

The U.S. came across the sea into foreign territory and fought three separate nations on all fronts and in all manner of combat. Your version of history seems to ignore the Japanese and Italian component of the War, the former being the last nation to surrender only after having two cities leveled by an atomic weapon. That weapon ENDED this war entirely and would have done so even had the Russians not been such an important factor in decimating German forces in the previous years leading up to the end of the conflict.

Again, this was a global war and the eventual victory of the AXIS was facilitated by many, many nations but to deride or marginalize the involvement of the U.S. cannot be supported by historical evidence nor can you claim that Russia's contributions were the most significant. I think you could make the argument that the Eastern Front was the single largest contributing factor to the weakening and fall of the Third Reich but that postulation alone does not buoy the notion that Russia was the most important presence in WWII.

31972571.jpg

#25 Posted by Justforvisit (5047 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.

Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front.

Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.

While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.

In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.

GeneralMufinMan

What's odd about your position is that you essentially admit that the USSR basically did one thing: protect its own real estate after being double crossed by the Nazi leadership.

And while you are certainly correct in your analysis that the theater of war in the Eastern Front was the most significant contributing factor in the fall of the Third Reich, your extrapolations placing the majority of credit on the shoulders of Soviets for ending the War isn't even remotely logical given the limitation of their involvement in a global conflict. The Soviets were instrumental in weakening the Third Reich but had little to do with the downfall of the remaining AXIS members, where by contrast the U.S. was involved in constant battles with all three nations and was instrumental in the surrender of each.

You also seem to ignore the reality that the USSR's non-aggressive pact with Germany facilitated the invasion of various European countries while the Soviets waged their own invasions in the name of self-interest. That pact paved the way for the Germans to take what they wanted without worrying about fighting a war on two fronts thus it can be logically argued that Russia, while certainly a major contributing factor to the end of the War, was also one of the primary contributions of its inception and propagation.

As to the notion that the USSR handed the Germans their most crushing defeat, that is most certainly true. However, that defeat wasn't merely due to the might of the Red Army but rather a combination of various factors including Hitlers militaristic resources being overextended due to the Allied attacks on key positions, the troops being unprepared for the harsh climate and weather, lack of supplies, and other variables, most notably home court advantage, all of which ensured an eventual decisive Russian victory.

The U.S. came across the sea into foreign territory and fought three separate nations on all fronts and in all manner of combat. Your version of history seems to ignore the Japanese and Italian component of the War, the former being the last nation to surrender only after having two cities leveled by an atomic weapon. That weapon ENDED this war entirely and would have done so even had the Russians not been such an important factor in decimating German forces in the previous years leading up to the end of the conflict.

Again, this was a global war and the eventual victory of the AXIS was facilitated by many, many nations but to deride or marginalize the involvement of the U.S. cannot be supported by historical evidence nor can you claim that Russia's contributions were the most significant. I think you could make the argument that the Eastern Front was the single largest contributing factor to the weakening and fall of the Third Reich but that postulation alone does not buoy the notion that Russia was the most important presence in WWII.

31972571.jpg



True true x)

And come on guys, this thread isn't meant as history lesson / philosophy / discussions, just if you would want to play a WW II Shooter from the angle of Axis Soldiers.

#26 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

Not really, I find the WW2 setting pretty boring for games.

#27 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.

 

Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front. 

 

Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.

 

While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.

 

In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.

iHarlequin
Yeah, I talk about Stalin's lack of focus (or demerits as you call it) as that is true. He was looking to surrender to Germany. He had twice the population of Germany, but he was loosing troops at 2 1/2 times that of Germany. An army cannot sustain such losses as seen in the following passages from the book I mentioned above. [quote="Deathride"]

Pg. 157: After the fall of Orel, the astonishment of the urban Muscovites turned to panic. A week after Stalin told Beria to see what could be done to come to terms with Hitler the streets of Moscow exploded in a series of riots that gripped the city for days as the terrified citizens, including officials and party members, tried to seeze whatever they could and then flee. Stored closed, the transportation system came to a halt, the British embassy was sacked, and the metropolitan police lost control.

For the next few days (or weeks, depending on whether on counts from the news about Orel on the 3rd or Zhukov's dismal report of the 7th), Stalin hesitated between surrender and resistance, as well as the immediate and more practical decision whether to abandon Moscow outright. Most of his entourage was packing up, making plans to leave, and encourage their subordinates to flee.

*snip*

Pg. 159: In traditional accounts. Stalin's determination was fixed and unwavering as the steadfast will of the Russian people to resist and the Russian soldiers to fight to the last man. We now know that none of those myths were true. For the moment, the interesting question is why Stalin changed his mind, since clearly he was at least considering the idea of surrender.

Like most of the significant decisions the two dictators made during the war (Hitler's decision to attack, Stalin's refusal to believe he would), the reasoning is unknown. Stalin presented himself laster as a man of steel, unmoved by the German onslaught. During his lifetime, the few people who knew the truth understandably remained silent. When Khrushchev denounced Stalin in his famous Secret Speech, he perhaps inadvertently shifted attention away from the horrible fall of 1941 to the catastrophe of the summer.

Just as Stalin was creating his own narrative of the war, Khrushchev created a counternarrative. Although much closer to the truth, Khruschev's version of events had the result of confirming the idea that whatever Stalin's weaknesses were in June 1941, by July, or maybe August, he was back in charge, and from then on his determination to fight to the last Bolshevik was unwavering.Stalin's uncertainties about victory, like his earlier overtures to Hitler and his decision to attack Germany in the near future, vanished in the Orwellian memory hole.

Sure, the Soviets were important to the war, that does not alter the fact that it took everyone in Europe to crush the Third Reich. Did the Soviets lose vast numbers of men? Yeah, due to Stalin getting rid of the generals he needed to properly fight a war during his purges and he still purged those who brought him bad news during the war. Many times, his generals lied to him about what was actually happening on the front for fear of their lives. Stalin wrote the history of the USSR in WWII and he did so masterfully, but the problem was, it was almost all false. @ everyone else, sorry that this has had to go on. With this post, I am finished with the history lesson. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, archives once closed to everyone outside of the USSR are now open and new facts about the war, especially in the east are coming to light, much like what is revealed in Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin or Bloodlands, Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (it's about how many may have really died in the lands between Germany and Russia and at the hands of both dictators).
#28 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16428 posts) -

Well, recently I asked myself if it could work when you play a WW II shooter as a german soldier, while media and politics have certainly done all their best to demonize them (and with some certainly rightful), I bet the other side would have as much personal drama and interesting stories to tell as the usual Allied Forces WW II shooter.

Also, if you would want to play I'd also like to know, would you want to play them only in historical accurate events or would you want a fiction where they would win the war in the end?

Go ahead, I'm looking forward to read your opinions :)

Justforvisit

I don't mind. I played as a German soldier in Battlefield 1942 and as an Iraqi soldier in the Desert Combat mod (for BF1942). Obviously, there's no story with the scenarios which was fine with me.

I actually enjoyed being a German machine gunner in the Omaha Beach scenario, mowing down Allied troops.

#29 Posted by donalbane (16363 posts) -

Well, recently I asked myself if it could work when you play a WW II shooter as a german soldier, while media and politics have certainly done all their best to demonize them (and with some certainly rightful), I bet the other side would have as much personal drama and interesting stories to tell as the usual Allied Forces WW II shooter.

Also, if you would want to play I'd also like to know, would you want to play them only in historical accurate events or would you want a fiction where they would win the war in the end?

Go ahead, I'm looking forward to read your opinions :)

Justforvisit
Yes, yes I would. When Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway came out, the consultant wrote a book of the same name that dealt with the struggles of a non-nazi soldier in the German army and how disgusted they were with the war crimes that the SS and nazi loyalists carried out. They ended up going rogue and killing a squad of them. It was all really compelling, and would help people better understand that there was a difference between the standard German army and the Nazis.