Thoughts on the Company of Heroes 2 "Rewriting History" Debate

[NewYork_Comedian]

After reading an article on Game Front (http://www.gamefront.com/company-of-heroes-2-russian/), and observing the appalling argument in the comments there, I thought I would share my opinion on the issues of the game. I should note that I am not an expert on the war compared to quite a few other people on the forums, if I have any inaccurate statements feel free to correct me.

For starters, the game is called Company of Heroes. I really doubt Relic went into this trying to dehumanize the soviet soldiers fighting in the most horrific conflict in human history. While there are many acts of brutality by Soviet officers commit (scorched earth tactics, shooting deserters, ect.) that have enraged a huge number of people, to say that these things never occurred would show a complete disregard for what happened in the war. More importantly, the soldiers under your command are heroes that risk life and limb to perform a number of brave feats, including:

Spoiler

Charging into enemy territory to defend their wounded commander.

Tanking out a Tiger tank with nothing put anti-tank rifles and ingenuity.

Going in behind enemy lines to rescue captive partisan soldiers.

To say that the game spits on the bravery of the men who bravely fought in the war would be a complete lie, rather it greatly respects the sacrifices that they made for their country.

That is just my opinion though, I want to know what you think of the petitioners who claim the game is full of blatant lies.

If you can though, I would also like to know the answer to a few legitimate questions.

Could the Soviets win the war against Germany singlehandedly?

Just how often were the atrocities committed by Soviets in the game happened in the real war?

Did Soviet leaders charge a large percentage of their men into the fray without any weapon to defend themselves?

 

[Zhukov]

Some context is important here.

In recent years, Russia has undergone a bit of historical revisionist white-washing. Their efforts in WWII have been cast as a pure and heroic struggle against the forces of ultimate evil. Which is less than correct. In truth, the Russians committed numerous atrocities, both against their own and against the German population (not to mention the Polish) when they pushed back into Europe during the closing stages of the war. Similar and arguably worse atrocities were committed against them by the Axis nations. The eastern front was one of the biggest and most desperate and conflicts in the entirety of human history. It involved a degree of savagery that was rarely or never experienced on the western front. Given the circumstances, at least some of the actions of the Russians could be excused by a fucked up sort of logic.

So when the game comes along and shoves the nasty shit in people's faces, some Russians who have bought into the whitewashing got upset.

That said, the game does exaggerate. Many of the things depicted therein did indeed happen (such as having NKVD units deployed behind regular units to shoot or arrest anyone attempting to retreat), but not as often as the game seems to imply. Whether or not this constitutes disrespect toward the real people who fought in those conflicts is up to you. Not really the kind of debate I'm interested in getting into - far too much wank involved for my liking.

To address you specific questions:

Could the Soviets win the war against Germany singlehandedly?

No. Absolutely not.

I would argue that the Russians did more to defeat the Germans than any other single country. The scale of the conflict in the east was far greater than that in the west. However, they could not have done it alone. The USSR benefitted from massive amounts of supplies being sent from the USA. Food, blankets, fuel, ammo, tanks, you name it. In particular, huge numbers of transport trucks that did wonders for the Soviet's logistics and troop movements.

Also of importance is the fact that throughout the eastern conflict large numbers of Axis troops were busy in occupied France, Greece, Norway and North Africa. Had these troops been available for the eastern front then... who knows?

Also, Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR, was crucially delayed by the Germans having to bail out their Italian allies in Greece. Those operations lost them valuable time in Russia before winter set in. If they had been able to take full advantage of the warmer months while invading the USSR then, once again... who knows?

Just how often were the atrocities committed by Soviets in the game happened in the real war?

Uhh... you'd need to put that one to a historian, or at least someone better read than myself. Safe to say, less often than some in the west would have it and more often than "patriotic" Russians would have you believe.

Did Soviet leaders charge a large percentage of their men into the fray without any weapon to defend themselves?

Nope.

The USSR did suffer from supply shortages, especially early on. However the one-rifle-for-three-men thing popularized by the Hollywood film Enemy at the Gates (as well as the original Call of Duty) is pure bullshit. It doesn't even appear in the book on which that movie was based. That was more likely something that would have been seen in the Russia of World War One. Although even then I've personally not seen any accounts of it.

They did have severe shortages of ammunition at times. Particularly during the battles in Stalingrad and Leningrad (aka St Petersberg). I've read accounts (written by the Soviet soldiers themselves) of them defending against German attacks by throwing rocks and fighting with knives and sharpened spades. Shit was brutal. However this was certainly not standard procedure.

Hope this helps.

 

[Albino Boo]

The soviets could not win the war on their own. British and American air power pounded german cities from 1942 onward. This stripped away fighters and light bombers away from the eastern front to bolster Germanies air defences. The flak guns defending the Reich required 1 million men. The resources required to defend against the western allies air assault significantly reduced the combat power on the eastern front. Its not all done to the production numbers. The soviets produced 1000000s of tanks but the food in the bellies of guys manning them came from the US and came to the front on US trucks. The communication systems was reliant on British and American telephone wires. In the early period of 1941-1942, western aircraft in soviet hands were more capable than anything that they had. When most of the Soviets tanks had been destroyed in battle, the inferior westen supplied tanks was better than no tanks. In something as vast and interconnected like WW2 you can't divorce the conflict into little bits and say one nation could win on its own.

The Red army was in the grip a totalitarian state. The period preceding WW2 is know as the terror in the Soviet Union. The anti Kulak operations of 1937 lead to the arrest of over 650000 people and the execution of 350000 alone. The same time year, the purge of the army lead to the execution of 1/3 of the entire officer corps. The future Marshal Rokossovsky had all his fingernails pulled out and many of his teeth smashed. During the battle of Stalingrad 12000 soviet soldiers were shot by their own side. The Red army rarely took prisoners of anyone in the SS, luftwaffe or tanks units. They were routinely shot of out hand and sometimes tortured to death. The Red army also carried mass rapes after getting into German areas, this was not directed by high command but they did very little to stop it either. This was largely in relation to the German mass rapes, which totaled an estimated 10 million, mostly on the eastern front. The eastern front was fought without rules or pity with two of the worlds most brutal totalitarian states trying to exterminate the other.

The soviets did send men into battle without arms in the 1941 to spring 1943 period. The surrounding and destruction of soviet armies in that period caused the rapid formation of new units. This largely occurred at railheads in the middle of nowhere in conditions of chaos with the Germans and Stalin breathing down commanders necks. If the plan called for an attack at such and such time and because of the chaos the unit was not fully armed, the commander faced two choices, either delay the attack and face a high chance of being arrested, tortured and shot or order the attack anyway. Unsurprisingly they chose that later.


If you want more information I would recommend you reading Anthony Beevor's books Stalingrad and Berlin: the downfall. He makes no concessions to the propaganda of either side and details the faults and crimes of both sides.

 

[Clowndoe]

The soviets did send men into battle without arms in the 1941 to spring 1943 period. The surrounding and destruction of soviet armies in that period caused the rapid formation of new units. This largely occurred at railheads in the middle of nowhere in conditions of chaos with the Germans and Stalin breathing down commanders necks.

I'm not sure if you're "wrong" per se but I think your description highlights points I find interesting. If you could add some context, for example if you're saying divisional commanders sent troops without arms, then that could be seen as almost reasonable, because a division that doesn't quite have enough rifles can keep unarmed units in the back. Misreading such statements might be the cause of so many misconceptions afterall. I've also read that Germans breaking through Russian lines might catch Russians while refitting, often at railheads, meaning that it was the Russians being attacked without arms rather than purposefully shoving troops in without guns.

Anyway, I really hate the question as to whether or not Russians did the Enemy at the Gates thing because although I don't believe it for a second it's always so awkward to explain to people why it's wrong.

Anyway, long story short, I think Relic did in-fact go way overboard with some of the things they show the Russians doing. Burning people out of their homes isn't scorched earth, it's just retarded. Same with shooting your men as they run away from a tank that's 30 feet behind them. It's just far too outlandish and I think they could have found some classier ways to show the more terrible parts of the war. I haven't played the game, but I watched through the cutscenes, and I haven't seen the Germans doing terrible things to farmers. It's not that I want to see it, but then they could have shown something real, like Russians rejoicing over their chance at getting payback at German townsfolk. "A," that's a lot more real than the Saturday morning cartoon villain commissar who caps fools for no raisin left and right, and "B," you could show that some of the bad stuff the Russians did, while never justifiable, was at least understandable. It would be a lie to say that Westerners don't enjoy their personal revenge fantasies and you could use the opportunity to make the Soviet people seem less awful.

Oh and I don't think any of the three major allied powers could have won on their own. Pick any two and it would have been a much bloodier slug-fest that still ended with an eventual Russian victory. On the other hand, having those three countries together when they were I too deeply ingrained in what WW2 was that you can't do a what-if that would be totally fair and logical. It's like when people say that Germany would have won if Russia wasn't such a big-wide frozen Steppe. Well if that corner of the world wasn't a big, wide, sparsely populated Steppe, we wouldn't have Russia in the first place. The world wouldn't be anything like it is now.

 

[lizards]

snipity

Since everything else has been covered ill bring this information to the table. Yes the soviets on the way to Berlin DID IN FACT DO MANY TERRIBLE THINGS, the likes of which would make what happened in the game pale-faced. The Russians were angry and wanted to ruin the German country more than what the Germans did to the Russian Country. Their are many accounts of them kidnapping German women and then 10 or so men raping them, one after the other.

Relic didn't go overboard, as much as some very stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid people reviewing the game are unaware of, Relic actually took the very light approach to what the Soviets did. Seriously im in rage mode over the number of people who gave coh2 "0" reviews because they think that the Soviet forces were very upstanding and polite to the same people that just destroyed 95% of their Capital City.

I would also like to take a minute to give a highlight to the fact that people of today don't understand what REAL war is, the Soviets and the Germans had a REAL war. It wasn't just fighting a couple people a day, it was fighting all day everyday and any civilians caught up in it could just forget about any "inherit natural rights," real war is dirty business and the victors get to steal and rape as much as they want.

Even Americans on the march to Berlin acted in very distasteful ways.

 

[Spoonius]

Relic didn't lie, but they did cherry pick. It's almost like they had a per mission 'atrocity quota' to fill.

Sure they didn't cover the worst of what the Soviets (or Germans) did, not by a long shot, but that which they did incorporate just seemed forced. Like they were trying too hard to be 'edgy' and 'authentic'.

 

[ERaptor]

Relic didn't lie, but they did cherry pick. It's almost like they had a per mission 'atrocity quota' to fill.

Personally, I think the above pretty much describes my feelings. It really felt forced here and there, and eventually my reaction came down to rolling my eyes at "Look at how horrible this stuff is!"-moments.

Concerning the "Debate". Most Discussions i've read about COH2 were started by angry russians who were unhappy with the depiction of russians in the game. The whole thing could be wrapped up within minutes by saying "This stuff happened, so deal with it.", but instead the arguments usually melt down to a "Who was the bigger asshole in the war"-competition. I find the whole thing really silly, and since its still a very popular troll-bait, I usually try to keep my distance, especially since only a historian could actually argue with some decent numbers and facts backing him up. One of the main problems with the whole discussion, at least in my eyes, is that usually every side will try to look like the "good guy", after the whole thing is over. This usually leads to arguments where most participants are strongly biased, and discussions like that are just incredibly stupid and hard to read. I dont really like to dig trough 50 posts of propaganda and hate-speech to find 1 or 2 good points.