Homefront

[The American]

Homefront is set in a near future America in 2027 when a now-nuclear armed Korean People's Army invades the USA, defeating the United States military early on, toppling it from the superpower status it once held. The game takes place after the initial defeat of the United States, and is from the perspective of one of the American guerrilla fighting to free his home from the Korean forces. The game is written by John Milius who co-wrote Apocalypse Now and wrote Red Dawn. The beginning gameplay is reportedly set in Montrose, Colorado.

I am no fan of the DPRK, but do you think games like these are attempts at propagandizing american youth against china, dprk, and communism in general or are they just games with a shoddy premise?

[Savage]

This is fucking ridiculous. Just some infantile American nationalist fantasy trying to re-create the American revolution through a shit video game.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I don't think video game makers necessarily prioritize factual truthfulness. It could very well be bourgeois propaganda, or it could just be that the developers created a realistic scenario for a compelling storyline. We constantly see misrepresentation of history and ideas and defiances in laws of basic science and math in a lot of entertainment. If you've ever played the Dynasty Warriors series, there are multiple instances of already dead generals and officers participating in later battles and missions, and such blatant errors make me cringe.
I think it is great to look into the ethics of games and factual accuracy, but I think it is best to see games like Call of Duty and Homefront for what they are: a game. They are strictly for entertainment value. Even though I cringe at most of the COD storylines, I play it because it is a high quality game with captivating multiplayer features and cool guns and killing US cappies :D.

[graymouser]

Psycho nativist anti-communist propaganda, basically. It credits the idiot who wrote Red Dawn, there's no reason for it to be anything else.

[The American]

Whether it meant to or not, I think the Call of Duty franchise has convinced the kids of the west that Russians and Arabs are the bad guys

[Savage]

It could very well be bourgeois propaganda, or it could just be that the developers created a realistic scenario for a compelling storyline.
How is it realistic? Even if North Korea were the aggressors in the Imperialist hostility, North Korea's population is about 1 eighth of America. Video games are a great platform for propagation, they get the children early on and fuel hatred towards whatever enemy is specified. That's why there's more than just 'entertainment value'.

[Pretty Flaco]

Whether it meant to or not, I think the Call of Duty franchise has convinced the kids of the west that Russians and Arabs are the bad guys

For one reason or another, my bros enjoy playing as Spetsnaz :lol:
I think it's the accents.

[FreeFocus]

It is propaganda and it is built on faulty premises. North Korea doesn't pose a military threat in terms of invading the United States, and even when you look at nuclear weapons, it's unfathomable for North Korea to initiate nuclear war.

[Catmatic Leftist]

How is it realistic? Even if North Korea were the aggressors in the Imperialist hostility, North Korea's population is about 1 eighth of America. Video games are a great platform for propagation, they get the children early on and fuel hatred towards whatever enemy is specified. That's why there's more than just 'entertainment value'.

I'm not saying I disagree with this, but boycotting something solely because it 'propagates the capitalist system' is pointless, because if I followed that logic, I would be living in a cave and would be completely ineffectual.

[Savage]

I'm not saying I disagree with this, but boycotting something solely because it 'propagates the capitalist system' is pointless, because if I followed that logic, I would be living in a cave and would be completely ineffectual.
Almost all media propagates capitalism, that's its purpose, I just think it's important to make sure that people don't use things as pathetic as this video game as their fundamental source for historical and political knowledge.

[The American]

I'm not saying I disagree with this, but boycotting something solely because it 'propagates the capitalist system' is pointless, because if I followed that logic, I would be living in a cave and would be completely ineffectual.

Theres a fine line between being forced to participate in consumerism and buying a historically and politically inaccurate game that would have sparked outrage if featured anywhere other than a communist country

[Magón]

It's a game. What the fuck do I care what the developer's letting me kill. I see no difference between a virtual DPRK soldier, virtual Russian Ultranationalist, or some virtual cop. They're all fun to kill in the end.

And why does everyone suddenly jump to the Call of Duty games being pro-USA? I mean, you did actually get to play as a Red Army soldier in multiple games, killing Nazi's, etc. And it's just been the last game that's actually had you killing Cold War Red Army soldiers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's a game. What the fuck do I care what the developer's letting me kill. I see no difference between a virtual DPRK soldier, virtual Russian Ultranationalist, or some virtual cop. They're all fun to kill in the end.

And why does everyone suddenly jump to the Call of Duty games being pro-USA? I mean, you did actually get to play as a Red Army soldier in multiple games, killing Nazi's, etc. And it's just been the last game that's actually had you killing Cold War Red Army soldiers.
and cubans and vietnamese...

[Rafiq]

Guys, look at it there way.

You see a lot of invasions taking place in the united states video game industry, I'll tell you why.

America, is the biggest Imperialist power on planet earth. it has killed, invaded, more countries than any other in the history of Capitalism.

What are they going to do, set a storyline where we invade another country?

No! They want people to play as the freedom fighter for a change, because we know that the Imperialists will never be the freedom fighters, they do too, so they want to make a fake scenerio depicting this. Kind of like a mental orgasm.

Look at Modern Warfare 2, you play as the freedom fighters.

They want to create a video game in which the oppressed and defenseless, poor poor little sheep plays as the American patriot, when in reality, this would never occur.

[Magón]

and cubans and vietnamese...

Still doesn't change the fact.

[The American]

It's a game. What the fuck do I care what the developer's letting me kill. I see no difference between a virtual DPRK soldier, virtual Russian Ultranationalist, or some virtual cop. They're all fun to kill in the end.

And why does everyone suddenly jump to the Call of Duty games being pro-USA? I mean, you did actually get to play as a Red Army soldier in multiple games, killing Nazi's, etc. And it's just been the last game that's actually had you killing Cold War Red Army soldiers.

The Modern warfare series had the communists as enemies didnt it?

[Magón]

The Modern warfare series had the communists as enemies didnt it?

They were Russian Ultra Nationalists last I checked.

One out of I don't know how many total games, have you fighting Communists, and that's Black Ops. The rest, as far as I know, have you playing as a Red Army soldier or don't have you playing on the Eastern Front at all. (Forgetting the Modern Warfare titles since like I said, they're Ultra Nationalists.)

I think everyone just needs to take a breath, take a zanex or some shit, get the bug, stick, whatever that's up there ass, out, and see these games as purely entertainment. If they do have a political agenda, then you have to realize that those of us who the political agenda might target, are a very small percent of the whole world that plays these games. Because to the majority of people who play them, are playing them for fun and entertainment, and see them as nothing more.

[The American]

Ultranationalists or not, I remember being bombarded by the hammer and sickle symbol everywhere in that game, and to many people that is synonymous with communism, especially kids that aren't as educated as they should be, and since the hammer and sickle represents the enemy, the enemy is communism (according to modern warfare)

[Magón]

Ultranationalists or not, I remember being bombarded by the hammer and sickle symbol everywhere in that game, and to many people that is synonymous with communism, especially kids that aren't as educated as they should be, and since the hammer and sickle represents the enemy, the enemy is communism (according to modern warfare)

Maybe because in the Call of Duty world, and I believe in the real world Russia, the Hammer & Sickle is still a common symbol to be seen.

I can't imagine an actual Communist Society, where video games (or anything for that matter) have to be screened to such an extent that we can't criticize or critique it in various forms of art and entertainment.

In other words, I don't give a fuck if the person, creature, being at the end of my virtual rifle is a Communist, Alien, Nazi, Capitalist, GTA Cop, whatever. It's a game, a game created as entertainment and fun. If you look too into it, or anything for that matter, you'll see that digging can only go so far until you end up like this: complaining that a game made for an audience who hardly cares about Hammer & Sickle emblems, (and probably sees them now as more of a fashion statement than a political one), is really a ploy to get our youth or whatever to dislike Communism. Or it has an anti-Communist agenda to it. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Flaco]

You people take this shit way too seriously.

[Red Commissar]

Homeland has a confusing premise from what I'm reading on the wiki article. Apparently Kim Jong-Un somehow turns around North Korea, makes it powerful, and conquers South Korea.

From there the now-unified Korea somehow takes out Japan and brings it into its sphere, then begins to extend its influence in other parts of East Asia (and where is China and Russia in all this? I don't know). The US on the other hand is going through economic collapse and peak oil, economically weak and politically divided (oh noes). In this process of this Korea declares war on the US in 2025, uses some screwed up EMP device hidden in a satellite to disable American infrastructure, and in the process takes over Hawaii and San Francisco. US being economically weak and politically divided falls on itself. I'm assuming from there they begin to work through the Southwest, and the game picks up in 2027 two years after the "invasion".

Like Greymouser said, the guy who wrote this also wrote Red Dawn (and like Red Dawn, the story starts in Colorado...). I'm willing to excuse the ridiculous premise before this that somehow NK pulls this off. It's obvious that it's going to present an anti-Communist theme, and I imagine they'll be able to vilify some people who would collaborate with such a regime, and maybe establish some parallels with real life figures, groups, or stereotypes.

And from the American perspective, this is always a nationalist wet dream. Instead of being the imperialist power that invades other countries, you are fighting on its own soil. Poor ol' USA has to fight a defense war against an invader. Games like Red Alert 2 and 3 were at least for what it's worth meant to be more comedic in nature and not really trying to push a serious message.

There was another game along similar lines like this one, but an alternate history where Soviet Union got big and strong, and invades the Northeast. I believe it was called "Freedom Fighters" or something like that, and the player character was involved in a resistance like this in NYC. It hardly made waves in the long run compared to other big name shooters from around that time, like CoD 1 did.

I mean I know this is a product to be sold and a game, but there are stupid themes in here.

I'm hoping the thing will flop. There's a game I used to see in the bargain bin involving what appeared to be Americans fighting back to take their neighborhood from terrorists (?). Hopefully it'll be in there with it one day with forgotten relics like "Freedom Fighters".

[The American]

I'm hoping the thing will flop.

It probably won't due to the inevitable orgy of flag-waving and attempted parallels between them and the revolutionary war, and you know how americans love to wave their flags and draw up parallels between their favorite politicians and the founding fathers

[Red Commissar]

It probably won't due to the inevitable orgy of flag-waving and attempted parallels between them and the revolutionary war, and you know how americans love to wave their flags and draw up parallels between their favorite politicians and the founding fathers

It really depends on how they market it and whether their audience takes it, which will inevitably be the large chunk of teenage console gamers. Freedom Fighters had pretty much a similar premise but it really didn't take off, and for the most part it was released during an upsurge in patriotism.

[psgchisolm]

I think it is great to look into the ethics of games and factual accuracy, but I think it is best to see games like Call of Duty and Homefront for what they are: a game. They are strictly for entertainment value. Even though I cringe at most of the COD storylines, I play it because it is a high quality game with captivating multiplayer features and cool guns and killing US cappies :D.


Whether it meant to or not, I think the Call of Duty franchise has convinced the kids of the west that Russians and Arabs are the bad guys
Call of Duty 1-2 didn't. They put the russians in the light of defending their homeland from the nazi invaders. They didn't vilianize the Germans either. They just happened to be the common enemy, and likewise you fought against them...3 times lol. Either way it was still fun.

*note* The all of the Call of Duty's I mentioned in the above statement include: Call of Duty, Call of Duty: United Offensive, Call of Duty : Finest Hour, Call of Duty: Big Red One, Call of Duty 3, and Call of Duty Roads to Victory, and Call of Duty: World at War. With United Offensive being the best ofcourse ;D

[Comrade_Stalin]

It's a game. What the fuck do I care what the developer's letting me kill. I see no difference between a virtual DPRK soldier, virtual Russian Ultranationalist, or some virtual cop. They're all fun to kill in the end.

And why does everyone suddenly jump to the Call of Duty games being pro-USA? I mean, you did actually get to play as a Red Army soldier in multiple games, killing Nazi's, etc. And it's just been the last game that's actually had you killing Cold War Red Army soldiers.

It is ture that you can play as a Red Army soldier in multiple games, but let's look at the view of the US of Red Army soldier which they show in these multiple games. First they show that the only tactic for the Red Army is human wave attacks. Second they show that the Red Army will lose most of the fights it will get inot. Call of Duty 2 went out of it way to start the Red army soldier you play as in a bad start at the begining of each mission. The town square where all of the red army soldiers are dead or begin killed by the Nazis mop up team. Or how about the time when in that house being shot by another group of Nazis, only to be saved. The last one Call of Duty Balck op Show that the Red army will turn on it own soldiers just to team up with the Nazis even thought they note that most of the "war crimes" araginst the Nazis came from the Red Army.

[Comrade_Stalin]

There was another game along similar lines like this one, but an alternate history where Soviet Union got big and strong, and invades the Northeast. I believe it was called "Freedom Fighters" or something like that, and the player character was involved in a resistance like this in NYC. It hardly made waves in the long run compared to other big name shooters from around that time, like CoD 1 did.

I mean I know this is a product to be sold and a game, but there are stupid themes in here.

I'm hoping the thing will flop. There's a game I used to see in the bargain bin involving what appeared to be Americans fighting back to take their neighborhood from terrorists (?). Hopefully it'll be in there with it one day with forgotten relics like "Freedom Fighters".

You do know that the same people who are making Homefront are also the same ones who made Frontline fuel of war, right? It work on the same ideal of a Russain-China red state starting a war with the good old USofA. The game did not do that well, so I don't think that Homefront will do as well either. It hard to fight for the states with 20%(they just report 10%) unemployment right now.

[Red Future]

Whether it meant to or not, I think the Call of Duty franchise has convinced the kids of the west that Russians and Arabs are the bad guys

Dont forget though CODs politics are really just story based , they only run off what action novels have been publishing for years.If i remember in MW2 you kill US traitor shadow company soldiers in a plane graveyard.

[Magón]

First they show that the only tactic for the Red Army is human wave attacks.

That's because even in the late '30s to about mid-1943, the Red Army's way of attacking large groups of enemies; was with large human wave attacks. Even into '44 when the Red Army was finally relieving Leningrad from German control, they used large human wave attacks. Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, etc. were all battles that consisted of large waves of Russian troops charging into their German enemies.

If they had a Call of Duty game set in the Iran-Iraq war, would you or anyone else on here be getting upset when either the Iranian or Iraqi troops are sent into attack via human wave? I don't think so.


Second they show that the Red Army will lose most of the fights it will get inot. Call of Duty 2 went out of it way to start the Red army soldier you play as in a bad start at the begining of each mission. The town square where all of the red army soldiers are dead or begin killed by the Nazis mop up team. Or how about the time when in that house being shot by another group of Nazis, only to be saved.


See, you see it as them trying to show the Red Army will lose the fight, I and probably everyone else who plays Call of Duty, will see it as a story of soldiers over coming a great struggle. (And we all know how Americans love to see soldiers, no matter what side their on, over come a great attack or whatever. It excites the player/viewer, gives them something to be proud that they achieved and whatnot.)


The last one Call of Duty Balck op Show that the Red army will turn on it own soldiers just to team up with the Nazis even thought they note that most of the "war crimes" araginst the Nazis came from the Red Army.

That's probably because Call of Duty doesn't go necessarily for the most accurate of stories in the first place. They're historical fiction games, not simulators that are meant to show players what it was really like on the battle fields of Stalingrad or whatever.

In World at War, I could probably tell you all the faults and made-up shit that they added into the game. But I won't, because it doesn't matter, it's a game and entertainment when it comes right down to it. Call of Duty creators just take from history, the most exciting and sometimes most brutal points in a battle, theatre, whatever, and focus primarily on that because it gives the people something exciting and gets their hearts beating.

[Comrade_Stalin]

That's because even in the late '30s to about mid-1943, the Red Army's way of attacking large groups of enemies; was with large human wave attacks. Even into '44 when the Red Army was finally relieving Leningrad from German control, they used large human wave attacks. Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, etc. were all battles that consisted of large waves of Russian troops charging into their German enemies.

If they had a Call of Duty game set in the Iran-Iraq war, would you or anyone else on here be getting upset when either the Iranian or Iraqi troops are sent into attack via human wave? I don't think so.



If Human wave attacks worked, then the First world war would of been over in the first week. Human wave attacks have never worked for any country in any time we have know. But we do know that they are bad. So we show the people we don't like using them. Let look at the battle for Stalingrad for example, were the Red Army traped an entire enemy army group. Wow that some "human wave attack". Wait human wave attack have no planing, but traping an entire enemy army group sound like some one had a plan.




See, you see it as them trying to show the Red Army will lose the fight, I and probably everyone else who plays Call of Duty, will see it as a story of soldiers over coming a great struggle. (And we all know how Americans love to see soldiers, no matter what side their on, over come a great attack or whatever. It excites the player/viewer, gives them something to be proud that they achieved and whatnot.)


I have yet to see any American game show communism as a great struggle or good for that matter.





That's probably because Call of Duty doesn't go necessarily for the most accurate of stories in the first place. They're historical fiction games, not simulators that are meant to show players what it was really like on the battle fields of Stalingrad or whatever.

In World at War, I could probably tell you all the faults and made-up shit that they added into the game. But I won't, because it doesn't matter, it's a game and entertainment when it comes right down to it. Call of Duty creators just take from history, the most exciting and sometimes most brutal points in a battle, theatre, whatever, and focus primarily on that because it gives the people something exciting and gets their hearts beating.

What ran out of ideals at this point?

[Pretty Flaco]

If Human wave attacks worked, then the First world war would of been over in the first week. Human wave attacks have never worked for any country in any time we have know. But we do know that they are bad. So we show the people we don't like using them. Let look at the battle for Stalingrad for example, were the Red Army traped an entire enemy army group. Wow that some "human wave attack". Wait human wave attack have no planing, but traping an entire enemy army group sound like some one had a plan.


Wtf are you talking about? There were battles in world war 2 (and world war 1 as well) when russians were sent rushing into battle in waves at the enemy with little to protect themselves and sometimes no weapons at all.

What you're trying to say is very unclear.

[Rusty Shackleford]

From the little i know of soviet strategy and tactics in WWII is this. there was a doctrine they used which basically involved constant agression. this was adopted in the 30s. if you are invaded, you always attack back. when possible attack. break lines and all that jazz.

this led to units breaking german lines, but then becoming surrounded and then dissolved(to put it nicely).

the soviet military didnt have the mechanization to pull this off in the early stages of the war. but, no matter what, they had to be vicious and constantly attack and harass. then things got to the point where retreat was treason with order No. 227 i think.

by the end of the war, the red army was making combine arms rampages against the nazis becuase industry picked up and the army was better equipped. (more T-34s, Katyushas, Sturmoviks, Ilyushins, Nagants, PPSHs The introduction of the IS series)

this is basically a from of the "Blitzkrieg" doctrine which the UK USSR and Germany pretty much simultaneously developed. afaik.

(this prompted me to read up on it in wikipedia and i thought this picture was obligatory)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Poster_russian.jpg

Now, this looks like a matured doctrine. but still, Warsaw pact and soviet training i can imagine was similar. i forgot where i found this but watch. men walking/running into battle.
zNQ0ilCS_o0

My Point is, Stalin, that Warsaw Pact militaries and the red army all use soldiers in constant movement, forward. they may not necessarily be human wave, but penal battalions were actually sent on "banzai" attacks.

im not criticizing military doctrine, im just sort of proving you wrong.

[ComradeOm]

That's because even in the late '30s to about mid-1943, the Red Army's way of attacking large groups of enemies; was with large human wave attacks. Even into '44 when the Red Army was finally relieving Leningrad from German control, they used large human wave attacks. Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, etc. were all battles that consisted of large waves of Russian troops charging into their German enemies.Soviet 'Deep Operations' was a highly sophisticated doctrinal base that emphasised the use of mechanised formations, highly mobile warfare and combined arms across a relatively broad front. It was, aside from the last aspect, very similar to the much vaunted German Blitzkrieg. Mass operations such as Stalingrad and Moscow are classic cases of mobile warfare - with powerful incisive thrusts into the flanks of the enemy to encircle and destroy isolated formations - but Bagration remains the apex. This was a highly complex and coordinated series of armoured thrusts designed to shattered an entire German front. To characterise these as "human wave" attacks in which the Red Army simply hurled men and material at enemy positions is deeply, deeply incorrect


the soviet military didnt have the mechanization to pull this off in the early stages of the warThe problem was not lack of mechanisation. The Red Army was probably the most mechanised in the world prior to 1941 but virtually all its mobile assets were wiped out in the opening weeks of Barbarossa. This was due to the incompetence of the High Command (read: Stalin) in positioning the formations along the border and crippling their ability to respond to the invasion

[ComradeAV]

Here's a good article , reviewing Call of Duty:Black ops, from a marxist perspective:http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/01/03/review-of-call-of-duty-black-ops/

[Lunatic Concept]

Just play Arma 2 lol :thumbup1:

[Magón]

Soviet 'Deep Operations' was a highly sophisticated doctrinal base that emphasised the use of mechanised formations, highly mobile warfare and combined arms across a relatively broad front. It was, aside from the last aspect, very similar to the much vaunted German Blitzkrieg. Mass operations such as Stalingrad and Moscow are classic cases of mobile warfare - with powerful incisive thrusts into the flanks of the enemy to encircle and destroy isolated formations - but Bagration remains the apex. This was a highly complex and coordinated series of armoured thrusts designed to shattered an entire German front. To characterise these as "human wave" attacks in which the Red Army simply hurled men and material at enemy positions is deeply, deeply incorrect

If you've read anything on Soviet military tactics at the beginning of Stalingrad, or before, you'd see that what you're talking about is just massive human wave attacks on German positions. Yes, they did use mobile warfare tactics, but these were very far and few between since Stalingrad was being bombed on a constant basis by German bombers, and the factories in which the tanks were being built for Russian use were constantly having to be repaired themselves and protected from German attacks.

It wasn't until '43, near the actual end of Stalingrad when the Russian troops began to encircle their German enemy, because of the winters that the Germans had to endure and were never really ready for. Plus, German supplies were getting stuck in snow, supply lines were cut, all sorts of other things came into effect. But at the beginning of WW2 for the Russians, and in most of Stalingrad, these attacks were done with large groups of soldiers attacking the other soldier's lines in massive waves.


If Human wave attacks worked, then the First world war would of been over in the first week. Human wave attacks have never worked for any country in any time we have know. But we do know that they are bad. So we show the people we don't like using them. Let look at the battle for Stalingrad for example, were the Red Army traped an entire enemy army group. Wow that some "human wave attack". Wait human wave attack have no planing, but traping an entire enemy army group sound like some one had a plan.

Oh my god, you know nothing of Stalingrad do you? Just because you think human wave attacks don't have any planning ahead of time, doesn't mean they don't. Like ComradeOm said, they would attack each other's flanks, or whatever line they could find when the battle really got heated, and attack with massive waves of soldiers. You fail to realize that in Stalingrad, once the 6th Army actually got into Stalingrad, and the Russians met them head on, the line between who was who was cut, and it was a mash up of soldiers. If you've read anything on Stalingrad, you'd realize that it was so mashed together, that you go go into a building, find your own people on one floor, but find German or Russians on the next, etc. The best tactics the Russians had to use when going up against a large German line, was human wave attacks. They might not have worked, but to the Russian commanders at the time, they were what they were doing to stem the German advance towards the Volga.

It wasn't until later in the year, and into the next year, that Russian military infrastructure finally started to pick up again after it's pull back behind the Ural Mountains, and tanks like T-34s and other things could be properly shipped to Stalingrad and finally push back the German aggressors, who at that point were just fighting to stay alive. So don't go trying to say, that the Red Army was working to encircle the Germans right away, because that's not true at all. They were busy trying to hold what they could by any means that they could.


I have yet to see any American game show communism as a great struggle or good for that matter.

That's because like I said, you look at them the wrong way. You keep seeing these games as something to put Communism down. Others don't look at it like that, and see them as a game for entertainment. And like I already said again, Americans love stories that have an upbeat and happy story of great struggle. That's what the Call of Duty games are all about, is showing a great struggle over an enemy. Not just necessarily for the Russians, but for the Americans, British, French, whoever you might be playing in the game.


What ran out of ideals at this point?

No, you're just a fucking idiot, so I thought I'd reiterate what I'd said previous, which seemed I failed since you still don't get it. It's like talking to a wall with you.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Wtf are you talking about? There were battles in world war 2 (and world war 1 as well) when russians were sent rushing into battle in waves at the enemy with little to protect themselves and sometimes no weapons at all.

What you're trying to say is very unclear.

Wow and I was think that only Nin was the only fucking idiot here but there seems to be more. What Nin was trying to point out that Communist troops use the same tactics that we used in World War One, Human wave attackes, where a larger group of men are ordered to attack a line of the enemy with no tactics or support. My line was that the Communist troops are only being labeled as using "human wave "attackes as they have never work, form world war 1 to today.

[Comrade_Stalin]

If you've read anything on Soviet military tactics at the beginning of Stalingrad, or before, you'd see that what you're talking about is just massive human wave attacks on German positions. Yes, they did use mobile warfare tactics, but these were very far and few between since Stalingrad was being bombed on a constant basis by German bombers, and the factories in which the tanks were being built for Russian use were constantly having to be repaired themselves and protected from German attacks.

It wasn't until '43, near the actual end of Stalingrad when the Russian troops began to encircle their German enemy, because of the winters that the Germans had to endure and were never really ready for. Plus, German supplies were getting stuck in snow, supply lines were cut, all sorts of other things came into effect. But at the beginning of WW2 for the Russians, and in most of Stalingrad, these attacks were done with large groups of soldiers attacking the other soldier's lines in massive waves.

Oh my god, you know nothing of Stalingrad do you? Just because you think human wave attacks don't have any planning ahead of time, doesn't mean they don't. Like ComradeOm said, they would attack each other's flanks, or whatever line they could find when the battle really got heated, and attack with massive waves of soldiers. You fail to realize that in Stalingrad, once the 6th Army actually got into Stalingrad, and the Russians met them head on, the line between who was who was cut, and it was a mash up of soldiers. If you've read anything on Stalingrad, you'd realize that it was so mashed together, that you go go into a building, find your own people on one floor, but find German or Russians on the next, etc. The best tactics the Russians had to use when going up against a large German line, was human wave attacks. They might not have worked, but to the Russian commanders at the time, they were what they were doing to stem the German advance towards the Volga.

It wasn't until later in the year, and into the next year, that Russian military infrastructure finally started to pick up again after it's pull back behind the Ural Mountains, and tanks like T-34s and other things could be properly shipped to Stalingrad and finally push back the German aggressors, who at that point were just fighting to stay alive. So don't go trying to say, that the Red Army was working to encircle the Germans right away, because that's not true at all. They were busy trying to hold what they could by any means that they could.



Wow , you just took the line that ComradeOm shoved in your faces to say that you were wrong, and shoved it in my faces to say you are right. With that type of logic "no one" could know more about the Red amry and Stalingrad then you. But fact don't matter to trolls, only insults. So here I will insult you knowlegde by with you own statment.

First you point out



You fail to realize that in Stalingrad, once the 6th Army actually got into Stalingrad, and the Russians met them head on, the line between who was who was cut, and it was a mash up of soldiers. If you've read anything on Stalingrad, you'd realize that it was so mashed together


This means that the Red army was in fact using close quarter combat, and the find fix flank finish tactic at that time, as they are all, mashed up. Human wave attack would not work as there is no lines to send the waves of troops at. Also during the battle of Stalingrad larger number of sinpers were use which require more then human wave tactics.

Second, you said



It wasn't until later in the year, and into the next year, that Russian military infrastructure finally started to pick up again after it's pull back behind the Ural Mountains, and tanks like T-34s and other things could be properly shipped to Stalingrad and finally push back the German aggressors, who at that point were just fighting to stay alive. So don't go trying to say, that the Red Army was working to encircle the Germans right away, because that's not true at all.


This is not the statment I made. My statment was that the Red Army used more tactics then human wave attacks. Hell the only time Human wave attacks were used to my knowlege was when they were using penal troops, as this is the only tactic that you can use with them. But let's start with the begin of the war with the Soviet Union. Stalin's plan had always been to encircle the Germans , which was the main goal of all military tactics at that time. Hell German Blitzkrieg isbased on the ideal of breaking thought enemy lines to encircle enemy groups and cut them OFF from resupply. Stalin was just better at it then the German. Instead of only breaking thought and encircling them, he draw the enemy in. Were it would be hard to resupply there troops. Hell this is the same tactic that the Russains use every time someone comes after them. Stalin used lines of troops, not human waves. The German think that the had broken thought would then encirle a group and then find a new line of troops waiting for them. They would keep on doing this all the way into Russain. What the Germany failed to understand as well as you, as there is a bigger picture to all of this. One it slows the enemy down. Two you do not need to encircle your enemy to cut them off from supply, Partisans and distance can do that for you.

This shows more think on the communist part then the West is welling to point out. Hell every time they fight communist troops or fight with them, they say all of there tactics are human wave attacks. It does not matter, that the human wave attack of world war 1 never worked, or the fact that every "human wave" attack by communist seems to work, with out the need of support form tanks and airpower.




That's because like I said, you look at them the wrong way. You keep seeing these games as something to put Communism down. Others don't look at it like that, and see them as a game for entertainment. And like I already said again, Americans love stories that have an upbeat and happy story of great struggle. That's what the Call of Duty games are all about, is showing a great struggle over an enemy. Not just necessarily for the Russians, but for the Americans, British, French, whoever you might be playing in the game.



Name one pro-communist game made in the US. Ever time they make a game about communism, they are the "bad guys" or "loser" ally. Call of Duty is no different. While all of us enjoy playing as the communist, I will give you that, But I and other do not like being showen as "losers" with bad tactics and bad weapons. Which oyu can see if you ever played those games.




No, you're just a fucking idiot, so I thought I'd reiterate what I'd said previous, which seemed I failed since you still don't get it. It's like talking to a wall with you.

No Nin you are a troll that just ran out of ideals and are now moving on to personal attacks do to you lack of ability to make a counter statment.

[IndependentCitizen]

If people are concerned about what they're playing, play project reality - in this game, you play factual and real life events with other players from around the world on either side. Insurgency, you can play as insurgents fighting British, American, Canadian and other forces using insurgent tactics.

I've played with Muslims in that game, and not once have they considered the game propaganding anti-Muslim ideas, or Anti-Western ideas - it's a game, it's fun to play in these scenarios, atleast it isn't so stereotypical like some games...

[Magón]

Wow , you just took the line that ComradeOm shoved in your faces to say that you were wrong, and shoved it in my faces to say you are right. With that type of logic "no one" could know more about the Red amry and Stalingrad then you. But fact don't matter to trolls, only insults. So here I will insult you knowlegde by with you own statment.

Did I say I knew more about the Red Army or Stalingrad than anyone? No, I'm simply putting down the facts that I've read and researched over the years about the battle and WW2 on the Eastern Front. Different strategies were used at different times of the battle, that's what I was trying to get at with what ComradeOm said.



This means that the Red army was in fact using close quarter combat, and the find fix flank finish tactic at that time, as they are all, mashed up. Human wave attack would not work as there is no lines to send the waves of troops at. Also during the battle of Stalingrad larger number of sinpers were use which require more then human wave tactics.

I never said they used close quarters combat tactics all the time, the city was big, and different places had different things going on at one time. And just because there was a large number of snipers in Stalingrad, doesn't mean that they were always used in every advancement or attack that the Russians or Germans did to one another.


This is not the statment I made. My statment was that the Red Army used more tactics then human wave attacks. Hell the only time Human wave attacks were used to my knowlege was when they were using penal troops, as this is the only tactic that you can use with them. But let's start with the begin of the war with the Soviet Union. Stalin's plan had always been to encircle the Germans , which was the main goal of all military tactics at that time. Hell German Blitzkrieg isbased on the ideal of breaking thought enemy lines to encircle enemy groups and cut them OFF from resupply. Stalin was just better at it then the German. Instead of only breaking thought and encircling them, he draw the enemy in. Were it would be hard to resupply there troops. Hell this is the same tactic that the Russains use every time someone comes after them. Stalin used lines of troops, not human waves. The German think that the had broken thought would then encirle a group and then find a new line of troops waiting for them. They would keep on doing this all the way into Russain. What the Germany failed to understand as well as you, as there is a bigger picture to all of this. One it slows the enemy down. Two you do not need to encircle your enemy to cut them off from supply, Partisans and distance can do that for you.

This shows more think on the communist part then the West is welling to point out. Hell every time they fight communist troops or fight with them, they say all of there tactics are human wave attacks. It does not matter, that the human wave attack of world war 1 never worked, or the fact that every "human wave" attack by communist seems to work, with out the need of support form tanks and airpower.

I didn't have much interest in discussing tactics of Germany and the USSR, and I still don't, so whether Stalin was better at tactics than Hitler for whatever reason, I don't care, because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand in the first place, and whether Stalin was better than Hitler with tactics is a matter of opinion since looking at both men's ways of fighting can be seen as whatever a person wants to see them as.



Name one pro-communist game made in the US. Ever time they make a game about communism, they are the "bad guys" or "loser" ally. Call of Duty is no different. While all of us enjoy playing as the communist, I will give you that, But I and other do not like being showen as "losers" with bad tactics and bad weapons. Which oyu can see if you ever played those games.

Games are neutral ground, they've always been neutral ground when it comes to games like Call of Duty. I don't know of any game where it's showed they had bad weapons? What they have in Call of Duty, is as far as I know, historically correct when it comes to the front line soldiers of WW2, etc. The only game I would say, that I've played, that's put the Communists in the lime light of being the bad guy is Black Ops because it's about an American CIA agent dude, fighting Communism. But even then, it's purely for entertainment, and used because people in the West don't know what it was like to be a Soviet spy during the Cold War. They've been shown James Bond, and that sort of thing. You can't blame the game creators for what they've been exposed too. It is what it is, and trying to drag it so far as to say they're anti-communist, when it's just meant for entertainment is fucking stupid and childish. And probably nearing mental illness if you're trying to scrape and a measly little thing like a video game, and call it out by saying it's got some "anti-communist" agenda to it.


You keep missing the point, that probably 99% of the people who play these games, don't give a fuck about the politics in the game, and would rather just kill whoever's in front of their machine-gun, rifle, whatever, than worry about how they're somehow against Communism or whatever?



No Nin you are a troll that just ran out of ideals and are now moving on to personal attacks do to you lack of ability to make a counter statment.

So I'm a troll for pointing out how these games are "anti-communist", and that looking so far into these types of games is fucking stupid, and you're an idiot for trying to look too far into it, calling any game that might have you playing as Communists, anti-communist or showing them as weak? It's a fucking game dude, take it or leave it, just don't go trying to say it has an agenda when you play on all sorts of sides.

[ComradeOm]

If you've read anything on Soviet military tactics at the beginning of Stalingrad, or before, you'd see that what you're talking about is just massive human wave attacks on German positions. Yes, they did use mobile warfare tactics, but these were very far and few between since Stalingrad was being bombed on a constant basis by German bombers, and the factories in which the tanks were being built for Russian use were constantly having to be repaired themselves and protected from German attacksYou see the arrows in the yellow areas in the below image? These are the advancing Soviet formations led by the 5th Tank Army and 13th Mechanised Corps, in the north and south respectively. Strangely enough this mass encirclement manoeuvre is vastly more sophisticated than simply throwing men into machine guns :confused:

http://historywarsweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/image/OperationUranus.JPG

Of course these grand sweeping armoured formations were of little use while fighting inside a city. That much should be painfully obvious. But then the Wehrmacht weren't exactly employing Blitzkrieg tactics in the city either (:glare:). However this does not mean that urban fighting is devoid of skill or that the Soviets simply marched men to their deaths in waves. That is the realm of Hollywood fantasy. As horrendous as the losses in Stalingrad were, for both sides, the Soviets would not have held the city if they had not very quickly become very good at urban warfare. Chuikov's 64th became particularly well known for their tenacity and skill in holding back the Germans. Yet you don't see that in Enemy at the Gates...


It wasn't until '43, near the actual end of Stalingrad when the Russian troops began to encircle their German enemy, because of the winters that the Germans had to endure and were never really ready for. Plus, German supplies were getting stuck in snow, supply lines were cut, all sorts of other things came into effectThere are two major problems with this statement. The first is that it assumes that the Soviets simply 'stumbled upon' the secrets of mass mechanised warfare in 1943. That is, that they suddenly switched from marching men to their deaths Somme-like to putting together some of the most elaborate and impressive armoured operations of the entire war. Even a cursory knowledge of the evolution of pre-war Soviet doctrine should dispel this mirage. The Red Army had been working off a very advanced (too advanced in some regards) operational base since the 1930s. There was no reversal or rediscovery of this doctrine throughout the war. From the very first days of the war (see below) the Soviets sought to put it into practice and they continued to do so to Stalingrad and beyond

The second problem is that your argument is grossly insulting and simplistic. It is, to quote an old post, derived from the myth of General Winter. This was the excuse liberally used by German generals in their memoirs to explain away Soviet successes and their own failings. It was easier to assume that the mighty Wehrmacht simply got cold than credit the supposedly inferior 'Slavic hordes' with mastering mobile warfare. This version of history was then taken up during the Cold War as Western historians drew from these readily available sources (in contrast to the closed Soviet archives and unfamiliar language) to construct a history of the Eastern Front that was almost uniformly told from the German perspective

I mean, imagine writing a history of the war in the Pacific only using Japanese sources! Absurd. Thankfully this situation has been increasingly addressed in the last decade or two. David Glantz has to be singled out for credit as his works, no matter how dry and boring, have really opened up the German-Soviet front to Western readers and academics. Here's (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm) an early paper from him on that issue. You can also check out his When Titan's Clashed for a history of the front that doesn't assume that the Nazis were supermen


But at the beginning of WW2 for the Russians, and in most of Stalingrad, these attacks were done with large groups of soldiers attacking the other soldier's lines in massive waves.Yet you accuse me of not knowing my history? Oh dear

You are at least correct in that Soviet doctrine was almost entirely geared towards the offensive but even this doesn't make you pause? The Red Army wanted to attack - always - because it was entirely married to the idea of the armoured breakthrough in what is now a classic of mobile warfare. Even when the entire front was dissolving in July 1941 the instinct of all Soviet commanders was to counterattack; not with massed ranks of infantry but with their considerable mechanised and armoured assets. Even after the border battles, when the Soviets were struggling simply to put men in the field, engagement such as Yelnia (30 Aug) saw continued emphasis on sophisticated combined arms with artillery, armour and even paradrops being used to augment the offensive. Directives from the top continued to emphasise the need for correct defensive/offensive approaches and certainly did not condone suicidal human wave assaults

Of course none of which would have been apparent to a German soldier defending against a furious Soviet assault, but then see above from comments on writing history exclusively from one side. Unfortunately these still inform the popular imagination. We know, for example, that the image of the endless Soviet hordes is simply false - the Soviets had no marked manpower advantage, after Barbarossa anyway, but were supremely skilled at shifting their forces along the front to create local superiorities

[Rusty Shackleford]

blew my post right out of the water.