Skipper Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 > NSDAP and CPSU were most certainly opposed > in practice and creed, if not in name. It wasn't CPSU then. Anyhow, you miss the point here. Both parties originally relied on working class. Which in my book makes them neighbours in a political spectrum. German communists had to compete with NSDAP for the same power base. And as state regimes, they were not entirely opposed in practice and creed. Certainly not "entirely" opposed. Painting that war as an anti-communist fight makes no sense. Even less than saying that it was a fight of an arian race against international sionism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMcGuire Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G0gmag0g: do we really want to experience what the real soldier saw, exploding bodies, blood and gore (not Al)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd love to see Al Gore on the battlefield. Just once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boy_Recon Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 there were still active Ukrainian partisan groups in 1952, when Soviet Ministry of the Interior troops finally dealt with the problem by mounting a campaign of extermination against them, supported by armour, aircraft and artillery. I personally would be very wary of taking any Soviet statistics/information at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Sad topic, this. Um, this is just a game, and at best a probably very unrealistic game (but I love it as a harmless ecreation). Thinking about civilians is a sign that you've forgotten how very unrealistic the whole thing is. It's a wargame, and a million miles from the appalling reality. So let's just play soldiers, and not kid ourselves. Leave civilians out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 > there were still active Ukrainian partisan > groups in 1952, when Soviet Ministry of > the Interior troops finally dealt with the > problem by mounting a campaign of > extermination against them, supported by > armour, aircraft and artillery. They were dealing with that problem since 1944. By 1952, there were just a few hundreds of those partisans. If memory serves, the last one was caught in 1958 or something like that. > I personally would be very wary of taking > any Soviet statistics/information at face > value. Heh... You tell me. I personally would be very cautious to take ANY statistics/information at face value - Soviet or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniversalWolf Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 One thing I must agree strongly with as stated by Skipper: the National Socialists and Communists are not very different in belief and practice, and certainly they are not opposites. They both believe in cetralized power, and in government control of industry; they both believe in expanding their spheres of poitical control through conquest of their neighbors; they both believe in killing their political opponents; most significantly, they both believe that individuals are the property of the state. In fact, one of the few things the Nazis and Communists disagree on is who deserves extermination. If there is an "opposite" to this philosophy, it is a belief in the rights and liberties of individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: Sirocco: > Estimated by whom..? By SMERSH organs responsible for the area. I dont see what's funny about it? These guys were quite competent in their job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would depend on your definition of their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 > One thing I must agree strongly with as > stated by Skipper: the National Socialists > and Communists are not very different in > belief and practice Okay, let's not take this too far the other way. It would be equally misleading. NSDAP and VKP( were very far from similar. > If there is an "opposite" to this > philosophy, it is a belief in the rights > and liberties of individuals. What a sequence of fashionable buzzwords! Reminds me of own Young Communist League past. May I kindly suggest that you get off your high horse, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 > That would depend on your definition of > their job. Counter-espionage, and security of army operational areas. Judging by how often during 1943-45 soviet generals managed to redeploy and concentrate large formations unnoticed, they managed quite well. Nothing funny, it was a very demanding job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 > The war in the Eastern Front was very much > pro-communism or anti-communism - at > least, that is the way it was portrayed to > its people. > See if you can get hold of > Beevor's "Stalingrad" if you want more > information. I found it very useful. No. In USSR it was portrayed by official propaganda as a war for the survival of nation. It was also broadly perceived as such by people. I dont need to read Beevor to figure that out - it is quite obvious from reading soviet newspaper articles of that era. Not to mention memoirs, war prose etc. Heck, famous Stalin's speach of July 3 '41 is enough to confirm that. It was his first public address of the war, by all accounts it made a huge impact, and remarkably it had not a single C. word in it (!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniversalWolf Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Similar: Stalin exterminated millions of Ukrainians and others in the 1930s, and Hitler exterminated millions of Jews and others in the 1940s. Similar: Stalin purged from power anyone and everyone suspected of disagreeing with Communist dogma, executing most and sending the rest to prison camps. Hitler purged from power anyone and everyone suspected of disagreeing with Nazi dogma, executing most and sending the rest to prison camps. Similar: Hitler's ambition was to conquer his neighbors and impose Nazi rule. Stalin's ambition was to conquer his neighbors and impose Communist rule. Similar: In the days immediately prior to World War II, the Soviet Union was filled with flag-waving processions carrying the hammer and sickle and huge portraits of Stalin. In the days immediately prior to World War II, Nazi Germany was filled with flag-waving processions carrying the swastika and huge portraits of Hitler. Similar: Hitler and the Nazis were openly hostile to organized religion, believing it threatened absolute loyalty to the state. Stalin and the Communists were openly hostile to organized religion, believing it threatened absolute loyalty to the state. Similar: Stalin and the Communists portrayed the war as a struggle for national survival. Hitler and the Nazis portrayed the war as a struggle for national survival. Are there differences? Of course there are. The Nazis believed your race made you worthy or unworthy, while the Communists believed your class and your money made you worthy or unworthy. The Nazis believed that Aryans were a master race, and so believed that Aryan lives were more precious and valuable than other races, while the Communists believed that every life was equally expendable in the name of the Revolution. The Nazis were decidedly nationalistic, while the Communists were decidedly globalist. But are there more differences than similarities? I don't think so. The underlying ideals are very similar, especially when contrasted to the underlying ideals of France, Great Britain, the United States, and the rest of the western democracies. Was Nazi Germany more similar in ideal and practice to Stalin's Soviet Union, or more similar to Churchill's Great Britain? This is why the Nazis and the Bolsheviks hated each other so much: because they realized how similar they were, and neither one could stand heretics. In the end, I would be equally opposed to a Nazi regime or a Communist regime ruling my own country, but I'm not opposed to a reasonable republic of some sort - they're not perfect by any means, but they're usually tolerable. Perhaps you have a different opinion. As to the presence of civilians in the game, I'm all for it some time in the distant future when other technical issues of greater importance have been resolved. For example, civilians should never appear until after we eliminate the unit abstraction and have one in-game figure for each individual soldier. It seems to me we're actually reasonably close to that (would I be wrong to estimate 5:1 or 6:1 currently?), so the jump shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility. I can certainly see that carts or trucks or tractors at least could be damaged and left behind by fleeing populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Ah, politics. You have to remember that ideology is one thing, while parties are something totally different. For example, in 1970's China was ideologically closer to USSR than USA, but Mao thought it would be politically wiser to ally with USA. The reason why Soviets spread communism to world (or why USA spread capitalism) was not because they were so solidaric for the oppressed workers world-wide, but rather because it was a way of increasing Russia's influence. I really don't understand national socialism or fascism as an ideology, but anyway it is against communism. That is anyway one of the main reasons why Ben and Adolf rose to power: industry patrones were worried about commies carrying out strikes and stuff, so they gave blackshirts money to kick their ass. But IMHO Germany would have attacked Russia even if Stalin was chairman of the local Conservative Party. Hitler had plenty of excuses: Jew conspiracy, Slavic plotting, threat from Asia, etc. If Wehrmacht could invade Denmark and look good, USSR could have been a humanitarian intervention compared to that. Nazis and Bolsheviks were similar in that both created totalitarian regimes. Whether they were on the same end in spectrum, is indifferent. You cannot evaluate political parties on single dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted May 31, 2001 Share Posted May 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: > That would depend on your definition of > their job. Counter-espionage, and security of army operational areas. Judging by how often during 1943-45 soviet generals managed to redeploy and concentrate large formations unnoticed, they managed quite well. Nothing funny, it was a very demanding job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maskerovka and covering up the full picture of anti-Soviet partisan activity are two different things. This thread is heading for the General Discussion category unless someone can steer it back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 31, 2001 Share Posted May 31, 2001 I had previously posted an old old suggestion for CM2 involving civilians. I thought they could be an interesting unarmed AI-controlled 3rd party to city fighting. Can be captured, can be paniced, can be mis-identified at a distance, and most importantly, as a disincentive to carnage you loose points with every civilian you kill-off. Think of the possibilities. Holding the inhabitants of a village as hostages. Infantry, artillery and armor held-up by fleeing refugees. This would come in hand in CM4(?) early war. French refugees clogging the roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 31, 2001 Share Posted May 31, 2001 > This is why the Nazis and the Bolsheviks > hated each other so much: because they > realized how similar they were, and > neither one could stand heretics. Wrong. From all accounts, they hated each other because they had extremely different ideologies. Otherwise, both Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany were despotic state regimes - which accounts for the similarities you listed. > they're not perfect by any means, but > they're usually tolerable. > Perhaps you have a different opinion. I have a first-hand experience of living in USSR, and I do have a different opinion. I would live there, and there are many enough republics where I would not. In fact, they are probably more numerous than those, where I would. Republican democracy works for North America and Europe - fine. It doesnt work for, say, Africa. Whether it'll work for Russia is an open question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts