Soviet troops "fighting to the death" in CM2

[The Commissar]

Skipper,

speaking as an atheist myself, despite the religious background of my parents, I agree with you on your points.

However, what the schools taught and what the parents of the children taught was a different matter. Yes, punishment would be inflicted if one was feeding anti-communist ideas into the child's ear, but it was done none the less. Especially early on after the revolution, when people were even less happy with the new regime then they were later on. People were still religious, even if the practice was outlawed, churches burned, and openly religious people thrown into jails.

I remember my grandmother telling my father to keep his voice down when he had discussions with me about the wrongs of communism when I was still young. I guess she was used to the KGB spying on people, imprisoning those who were potential "enemies of the state".

In my eyes, religion is nothing but a tool. A very useful tool indeed, able to inspire men to perform unthinkable acts of courage and self sacrifice, and most importantly, give hope in a desperate situation. I wont get into details, but I will say that although I am not a believer, I do respect what religion has done for humans world wide.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Skipper]

> I think I know what youre talking about

> here, or at least what in my opinion the

> reason was.

Yes, and no. It is yet more complicated than simply being accustomed to hardships.

Anyway, by 1941 Russia had a 1000+ years long track record of winning big fights on it's own turf after losing an opening round. That's a pattern, you know

[Skipper]

> but it was done none the less.

But if you remember your teenage years, if your parents tell you something that is denied by school, radio, newspapers etc; and the denial is sold under the guise of "progress", you are just likely to think that your parents are backward and superstitious.

By the way, I am no atheist - I think that Universe is self-conscious.

This doesnt feel like CM topic, does it?

[Romeoman]

I completely agree with Skipper. I am only 23 years old, so already my parents were in the generation of atheists. I can tell you for sure that VERY few people born in the late 70's or early 80's in the cities (villages were another matter alltogether from a social point of view) in the former communist countries in Eastern Europe are religious in the traditional sense.

Religion was pointed out as something not needed anymore since the 1920's. Most young people, especially as education was completely government controlled, never had a chance to learn the old ways. It just fell in disuse. This is however true mostly in the cities, where an educated social group existed. In the countryside, communism had far less social impact (besides the collectivisation, of course). Villages had had their own churches and supported financially their own priests for ages, so they just continued doing so.

However, as most soldiers came from the kolchozes, religious motivation might have worked. But I really can't imagine the comissars and officers of the Red Army leading the men in prayer, only 20 years or so after burning hundreds of churches in the Russian civil war...

[Jarmo]

The church and religion had been a no-no for a good while before

the war broke out. At that time it was however seen as a good tool

to help unite the people against germany. The church was given some

amount of freedom in return for blessing the war. This didn't

last of course and after the war the religion was banned again.

BTW, while it is of course futile to try to find the logic behind

illogical behaviour, it is still possible however, to find the reasons for

the said behaviour.

(not that the reasons I gave necessarily are the true ones)

[Terence]

rebyata!!

umom rossiyu ne ponyat'.

tn

[mensch]

I don't know about you guys but growing up with a Ukranian Herritage, us "Uks" are damn religious (Othordox or Catholic) I know then (and some still); the Ukranians hated the bulshies and communists (religion is a deep part of the ukranian culture.. a many long stories of how the russian communist state starved the people and tore down a many churches or pillaged the state of Ukraine, cause a great fever of fanatizsim to get revenge on these red ivans)

The germans yes invaded Ukraine only to find that the Ukranians hated communisim more so then them (plus handed over unwanteds in thier population very willing and quick - which pleased most of the ss units there), they (the german ss) utilized this hatred to form death squads (the ukranians seeing a chance for revenge on thier neighbours the Russians and Poles; many asked for arms and positions in ss death squads - check the rosters on many of these east units, and camp personal, you'll be supprised how many were Uks.) any how I just hope the Kossaks are included in CM2 (another bunch of nasty guys).

I'm sorry I don't want to seem like a flame war but all these athiest saying religion was not a factor in the east.. have got to read up more on the culture or each state (poland, ukraine and russia… and not just war history books, you'll be suprized.

[primal]

The Germans took over a million Soviet prisoners during the first 6 months of Operation B. Initially the Germans were considered liberators and warmly welcomed by the people of the territories they conquered. Many of the Wehrmacht commanders wished to enlist the help of these people by employing them in the war effort. Unfortunately German high command had other ideas. Following the Wehrmacht came the SS Death Squads who terrorized the local populations with an unheard of brand of brutality. These actions turned the local populations, once the staunchest German allies, of whom they originally thought were liberators, into bitter enemies. Thus you have reports of Ukrainian soldiers fighting bitterly to the death. However the vast majority of Soviet soldiers at the beginning of the war were more likely to surrender then fight so staunchly. Only when the Germans were at the gates of Stalingrad did the vast majority of Soviet soldiers fight with equal resolve. At this point it was know that the Germans did not simply want to occupy their land but totally annihilate them as a people. Therefore there resolve was stiffened and they rallied around the once hated Soviet system. At this point in the war neither side gave much quarter nor did they expect it. In summary both the Germans and Russians fought with fanatical resolve and a bitter hatered which can scarcely be imagined today. It would not be appropriate to grant one side more fanatical bonus points then the other.

[The Commissar]

You know, out of all the solid arguments presented by the lot of us in this thread, I think Terence said it best.

Pravda, brat, pravda.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Jasper]

Originally posted by primal:

Following the Wehrmacht came the SS Death Squads who terrorized the local populations with an unheard of brand of brutality.

Primal - I agree with you almost entirely in substance, but in the research that I've been doing - evidence the sites below - I think that the Soviet soldier was an ornery tough SOB to start with. I acknowledge that the German war with Russia was different than the war with other countries. Not sure why. But I think the Soviet Army gave the Germans too much trouble too early (before the Nazi policies could be put into effect and then for the Soviets to learn about them) to explain it entirely.

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

I'm pretty sure the German plans didn't involve fighting the Soviets into the winter of '41. So somewhere between the start and the winter, the German plans got deposited in the crapper. The difficulty in reducing surrounded Soviet units may have been one factor in that.

------------------

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or

http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[primal]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

You have made an excellent point. The Germans were completely unprepared for the onslaught of the Russia winter. Initially they did not even supply their troops with winter gear or tank antifreeze, thinking it would be a quick campaign. No doubt the Russian soldier's resolve was hardened by the especially harsh winter of 41. Contributing to Russian staunchness would also have been threats by their own high command and rumors of German brutality towards prisoners. You are correct in pointing out that the Russian resolve toughened even before Stalingrad, perhaps it was solidified there.

The Russian side of the war, despite what many Americans, English and French believe, was really where the war was fought. It was a massive front. Russia is in essence a reverse funnel. The farther you go in the wider your front becomes. Thus if not conquered quickly its winter and manpower supply will eat you alive.

Back to the question of whether Russian units should receive some type of bonus. Initially I was opposed to this idea based on their mass surrenders at the beginning of the war. However having giving it much thought my view has changed slightly.

The war between German and Russia grew bitterer and bitterer as time progressed. Neither Germans or Russians were inclined to surrender or give quarter as the war continued. Therefore it may be appropriate to incorporate this feature as the war progresses. Thus early in the war Russian soldiers would be more likely to surrender, while later in the war they fight more stubbornly, along with Germans, to the death. This is probably the appropriate solution.

There is of course the question of whether or not this can be simulated simply by changing the status of a unit such as using a majority of recruits at the beginning of the war and elite veterans at the end. Having considered this I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason being that as the war progressed even recruits on the German and Russian side knew of their fate if they were to surrender. So even if a unit were to fight like a recruit it would still fight to the bitter end like an elite veteran. To sum all this up I do now agree with you that there should be a new multiplier attached to each unit to simulate the fight to the death type mentality as the war progressed.

[primal]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

You have made an excellent point. The Germans were completely unprepared for the onslaught of the Russia winter. Initially they did not even supply their troops with winter gear or tank antifreeze, thinking it would be a quick campaign. No doubt the Russian soldier's resolve was hardened by the especially harsh winter of 41. Contributing to Russian staunchness would also have been threats by their own high command and rumors of German brutality towards prisoners. You are correct in pointing out that the Russian resolve toughened even before Stalingrad, perhaps it was solidified there.

The Russian side of the war, despite what many Americans, English and French believe, was really where the war was fought. It was a massive front. Russia is in essence a reverse funnel. The farther you go in the wider your front becomes. Thus if not conquered quickly its winter and manpower supply will eat you alive.

Back to the question of whether Russian units should receive some type of bonus. Initially I was opposed to this idea based on their mass surrenders at the beginning of the war. However having giving it much thought my view has changed slightly.

The war between German and Russia grew bitterer and bitterer as time progressed. Neither Germans or Russians were inclined to surrender or give quarter as the war continued. Therefore it may be appropriate to incorporate this feature as the war progresses. Thus early in the war Russian soldiers would be more likely to surrender, while later in the war they fight more stubbornly, along with Germans, to the death. This is probably the appropriate solution.

There is of course the question of whether or not this can be simulated simply by changing the status of a unit such as using a majority of recruits at the beginning of the war and elite veterans at the end. Having considered this I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason being that as the war progressed even recruits on the German and Russian side knew of their fate if they were to surrender. So even if a unit were to fight like a recruit it would still fight to the bitter end like an elite veteran. To sum all this up I do now agree with you that there should be a new multiplier attached to each unit to simulate the fight to the death type mentality as the war progressed.

[primal]

[

Originally posted by Jasper:

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

You have made an excellent point. The Germans were completely unprepared for the onslaught of the Russia winter. Initially they did not even supply their troops with winter gear or tank antifreeze, thinking it would be a quick campaign. No doubt the Russian soldier's resolve was hardened by the especially harsh winter of 41. Contributing to Russian staunchness would also have been threats by their own high command and rumors of German brutality towards prisoners. You are correct in pointing out that the Russian resolve toughened even before Stalingrad, perhaps it was solidified there.

The Russian side of the war, despite what many Americans, English and French believe, was really where the war was fought. It was a massive front. Russia is in essence a reverse funnel. The farther you go in the wider your front becomes. Thus if not conquered quickly its winter and manpower supply will eat you alive.

Back to the question of whether Russian units should receive some type of bonus. Initially I was opposed to this idea based on their mass surrenders at the beginning of the war. However having giving it much thought my view has changed slightly.

The war between German and Russia grew bitterer and bitterer as time progressed. Neither Germans or Russians were inclined to surrender or give quarter as the war continued. Therefore it may be appropriate to incorporate this feature as the war progresses. Thus early in the war Russian soldiers would be more likely to surrender, while later in the war they fight more stubbornly, along with Germans, to the death. This is probably the appropriate solution.

There is of course the question of whether or not this can be simulated simply by changing the status of a unit such as using a majority of recruits at the beginning of the war and elite veterans at the end. Having considered this I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason being that as the war progressed even recruits on the German and Russian side knew of their fate if they were to surrender. So even if a unit were to fight like a recruit it would still fight to the bitter end like an elite veteran. To sum all this up I do now agree with you that there should be a new multiplier attached to each unit to simulate the fight to the death type mentality as the war progressed.

[primal]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

You have made an excellent point. The Germans were completely unprepared for the onslaught of the Russia winter. Initially they did not even supply their troops with winter gear or tank antifreeze, thinking it would be a quick campaign. No doubt the Russian soldier's resolve was hardened by the especially harsh winter of 41. Contributing to Russian staunchness would also have been threats by their own high command and rumors of German brutality towards prisoners. You are correct in pointing out that the Russian resolve toughened even before Stalingrad, perhaps it was solidified there.

The Russian side of the war, despite what many Americans, English and French believe, was really where the war was fought. It was a massive front. Russia is in essence a reverse funnel. The farther you go in the wider your front becomes. Thus if not conquered quickly its winter and manpower supply will eat you alive.

Back to the question of whether Russian units should receive some type of bonus. Initially I was opposed to this idea based on their mass surrenders at the beginning of the war. However having giving it much thought my view has changed slightly.

The war between German and Russia grew bitterer and bitterer as time progressed. Neither Germans or Russians were inclined to surrender or give quarter as the war continued. Therefore it may be appropriate to incorporate this feature as the war progresses. Thus early in the war Russian soldiers would be more likely to surrender, while later in the war they fight more stubbornly, along with Germans, to the death. This is probably the appropriate solution.

There is of course the question of whether or not this can be simulated simply by changing the status of a unit such as using a majority of recruits at the beginning of the war and elite veterans at the end. Having considered this I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason being that as the war progressed even recruits on the German and Russian side knew of their fate if they were to surrender. So even if a unit were to fight like a recruit it would still fight to the bitter end like an elite veteran. To sum all this up I do now agree with you that there should be a new multiplier attached to each unit to simulate the fight to the death type mentality as the war progressed.

[primal]

Originally posted by Jasper:

Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action.

You have made an excellent point. The Germans were completely unprepared for the onslaught of the Russia winter. Initially they did not even supply their troops with winter gear or tank antifreeze, thinking it would be a quick campaign. No doubt the Russian soldier's resolve was hardened by the especially harsh winter of 41. Contributing to Russian staunchness would also have been threats by their own high command and rumors of German brutality towards prisoners. You are correct in pointing out that the Russian resolve toughened even before Stalingrad, perhaps it was solidified there.

The Russian side of the war, despite what many Americans, English and French believe, was really where the war was fought. It was a massive front. Russia is in essence a reverse funnel. The farther you go in the wider your front becomes. Thus if not conquered quickly its winter and manpower supply will eat you alive.

Back to the question of whether Russian units should receive some type of bonus. Initially I was opposed to this idea based on their mass surrenders at the beginning of the war. However having giving it much thought my view has changed slightly.

The war between German and Russia grew bitterer and bitterer as time progressed. Neither Germans or Russians were inclined to surrender or give quarter as the war continued. Therefore it may be appropriate to incorporate this feature as the war progresses. Thus early in the war Russian soldiers would be more likely to surrender, while later in the war they fight more stubbornly, along with Germans, to the death. This is probably the appropriate solution.

There is of course the question of whether or not this can be simulated simply by changing the status of a unit such as using a majority of recruits at the beginning of the war and elite veterans at the end. Having considered this I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason being that as the war progressed even recruits on the German and Russian side knew of their fate if they were to surrender. So even if a unit were to fight like a recruit it would still fight to the bitter end like an elite veteran. To sum all this up I do now agree with you that there should be a new multiplier attached to each unit to simulate the fight to the death type mentality as the war progressed.