An Extremely Heated Debate On WW II, BIA:Earned in Blood, and The History Of Russia.

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
My mom let me open one gift early (after seeing my excellent Christmas concert) And I got this one. It is an awesome game. Does anyone else have this one (or Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30) They are rated "M for Mature" (but since we were all desensitized to violence years ago, I guess it doesn't matter) in the US, and have very good reason to, it's a true story about a American parachutte platoon durring WWII (The 101 'Screaming Eagles' Division). And it tells about how the bonding of the men (who all survived the war) to their sargent all got them through 'Hell and back' of the Normandy Invasion in 1944.

When I'm not on here, that is what I am doing. :D
 

admin

Retired Administrator
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

I tend not to buy war shoot-em-ups in preference to third person stealth - which is essentially only two game series (Splinter Cell and Hitman)

They (Brothers in Arms) do look pretty cool though, and if I had any money I would consider buying them :D I think gamespot thinks quite highly of the Brothers in Arms series also.

As with you I'm completely desensitized to violences, although apparently, after watching the new King Kong yesterday, not huge man-eating creepy crawlies!
 

samboo1

New member
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

My taste in games is not very girly at all. I love shooting games and racing games etc...Ive never been on Brothers in Arms though. Sounds good though, i might rent it, as i need a new good game to get hooked on ;)
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

@David- Explosions, blood, gore, violence, what a world we live in... :D
 

tony_montana

Semper Fidelis
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

I have not played this one(this is the second game) but I have played the first, and it has to be one of the best WWII games out there(along side Call of Duty) Is this one better or worse than the first?
I have one comment,though. Even though I am a proud American, I dont like how most WWII games look like we won the whole war alone. We must have great respect for the British, survivng Hitler's bombing runs for over a year, and surviving and striking back. We must also greatly respect the Russian people, who never gave up in a very bleak situation(the Russians also lost more lives than any other country-over 10 million Russian soldier/civilians died). Thats one reason I make fun of the French. They gave up in two weeks whilst the Russians battled the Nazis for three years without ever surrendering(the Russians are the ones that eventually captured Berlin,thus ending Hitler's Third Reich).
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

This one is way better tony. And don't get me started on a WWII debate...

I'm sorry everyone, but I have to do some US gloating (please forgive me). America had the lend-lease (or lease-lend) where we sent supplies and weapons to England before 1941 where we entered the war. Hitler was unstopable. America was the only allied country fighing a two (or three) prong war also.

American forces came from Italy and through Normandy (with British[can I say British David?] and other allied nations) The russians ony had the Eastern front, while America had the Northern and Southern routes. And we can't forget the whole war in the pacific thing also, a lot of [only] american forces were diverted to there also.

While it was a group effort, American guns with american tanks and american planes with american men, with british following behind the spearhead 1st, 82nd, 101st, 4th, and 9th (I think) divisions to take france and stop the blitzcreige (lightning war, did I spell that right?) of Nazi (not German) propaganda and steel on foriegn soil to stop a crazy man with a little too much power, the other countries were simply defending their own land, and were doing just that until 1942 with the help on the US into Italy and then again in 1944 with Normandy. All the while in the other side of the world with another grueling fight being fought to take back islands that were captured by the Japanese imperial forces.

And the russians only won because we were forcing Hitler to take men from his Eastern front to fight the US/British forces in the West, Battle of the Buldge anyone? those were formerly East front men fighting in the West to slow down the US/British forces, thus allowing the russians to break the extreamly thin Nazi lines and almost march unaffected to Berlin, while the men they were just fighting were bogging down US/British forces.

Sorry if I made anyone mad at me for saying that, but I kinda hade to.

Look see, you made me rant, are you happy? :D
 

tony_montana

Semper Fidelis
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

Apperantly you didn't understand me. I respect the Russians because of their personal losses. America was never invaded, no civilians died, we loss less than a million soldiers....Now look at the Russian numbers: OVER 10 MILLION Russian soldiers AND civilians killed. The Russians were fighting with almost nothing to beat back the Nazi scum. I respect the Russian people for that.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

So you're telling me that Guam, Wake Island, The Phillipines, Hawaii, The coast of California, the East coast, Merchant ship bound for UK, the Allutian Islands, Midway, and the Marshall Isalnds were never infact invaded by Japanese forces. Those are just off the top of my head. In order:

1. Guam: If you don't know this, go get a better education.

2. Wake Island: see 1.

3. The Phillipines: Lots of men lost theri lives there, Batan Death March rings a bell here. MacArthur: "I will return" as in "I will return to save American citizens (at the time) from being enslaved and slaughtered by Imperial forces."

4. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By the your way of thinking, this never happened. Japanese planes invaded American soil with their planes with their bombs.

5. California: Japanese subs were sighted, and bombs with balloons attached to them followed the Jetstream to hit N. CA and Oregon, killing several civilians.

6. The East Coast, German subs were sunk and sighted on the East coast of the USA, in our national waters, 11 miles out to sea.

7. Mearchant ships: going from US to UK delivering supplies and weapons to the Britih forces. German subs sank millions of tons of cargo, and kiled thousands of sailors on those ships.

8. Allutian Islands: Japanese forces took these islands that are considered part of Alaska.

9. Midway: 2 US carriers were sunk/badly damaged fighting for this US province that they just barely repeled the invadeing Japanese forces.

10. Marshall Islands: Named after the man who cmmanded the forces who re-took the islands from Japanese foces.

So don't tell me that the US was never invaded by someone durring WWII. Many civilains and soldiers died in these uncalled for attacks.

And what did America have in the Pacific in the opening days in the War? 3 carriers groups, 1 of which was sunk, and the other so badly damaged it had to limp to San Franciso to be repaired. 1 full carrier group, 1 carrier, 2 support carriers, a couple destroyers, a battle ship (maybe) a few crusiers, and ammo/supply ships. Less then 10,000 men to defend the entire Pacific Ocean.

America had an army of 100,000 men before Pearl Harbor. America was using a bolt action rifle until 1936, America was lucky to have had less then 500 outdated Stewart tanks. America had 10 year old aircraft that copuldn't break 400 mph unless they were diving from 30,000 feet. America had almost nothing until Pearl Harbor.

I understand that Russia lost over 10 million forces, but Russian had 10 million forces to spend. We didn't. Every man counted for us, and for Russia, they could throw away 10 million men, and have another 10 million take their place.

I will continue if need be. :)
 

tony_montana

Semper Fidelis
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

J, I am sorry to say this, but you sound very, very, cold blooded there. The Russians are ******* human beings too, and your saying, "They had 10 million people to go die." Most of these people has no choice. As I said, a bulk of the 10 million deaths were civilians in Stalingrad and Leningrad, who were starved to death by the Nazi onslaught(this is true in Leningrad). In Stalingrad, the people had to flee since the damned Nazis destroyed their city. I just cant believe that you can sit there and say that the Russians had 10 million people they could let be killed. that, like I said, is very, very, cold blooded to me. I dont care if the Russians were communist or what, they were a proud people who were fighting for thier ******* lives against the Nazis.
Sorry, J, put I am pretty shocked at your cold blooded comment directed at the Russians.
 

simon_4420

New member
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

Why are you guys so worked up over events that happened over 60 years ago? Nothing you say or do will make a difference. Like its been said before WWII producted no winners only losers....... Mother was right violet computer games are the cause of evil, lol
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

Did I say they chose to die? No, I said they "had 10 million men to spend" as in they were forced by Stalin to take "not a step back" or be shot. I respect the Russians also, they fought bravely, died honorably, and sacrificed much to save what they love, much as America and many other countries did in WWII.

You must also look at Russia's history:
Ivan the Terrible killed millions who didn't agree with him
Stalin 'purged' millions for the sake of paranoia
And that's just to name 2.

Russia is built on blood, violence, and distrust.


Oh, and try to limit your language to hell and damn.
 

Dabney

Deutscher Moderator
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

J. said:
You must also look at Russia's history:
Ivan the Terrible killed millions who didn't agree with him
Stalin 'purged' millions for the sake of paranoia
And that's just to name 2.

So what do you wanna tell us with that? I don't get it, and I don't want to think anything wrong of you.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

All I'm saying is that Russia has a very bloody past.
 

simon_4420

New member
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

I did A-level history last year and we did all about Stalin and Ivan the Terrible and Russia's twisted history. Its really interesting to to think just how backwards there where just 50 years ago.
 

Dabney

Deutscher Moderator
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

J. said:
All I'm saying is that Russia has a very bloody past.

ok. I'm not sure, but when I read this first, it sounded like you wanted to say that Russians were worse than other peoples because they had a bloody past, but i'm sure you didn't want to say that.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: A Heated Debate On World War II and Brothers In Arm: Earned In Blood.

oh, of course not, I'd be contradicting myself if I said that, saying that I respect them, and then that they are horrible people is something I wouldn't do. :)
 

tony_montana

Semper Fidelis
Re: An Extremely Heated Debate On WW II, BIA:Earned in Blood, and The History Of Russia.

J, it looks like you are talking about the leaders of Russia who are twisted. I agree with that very much. But I also say that the normal Russian is not a twisted human. They are like anyone else on earth, and probably better than some of us. Ive met a few Russian people and they have to be the nicest, most kind people who ever lived. They aren't interested in riches like most Americans(Im not dissing america right here,just saying).
Anyway, I did blow my temper last night and cursed a little bit. If you ask why I am defending the Russians alot, well, I have some Russian ancestors. I can even speak and read a little Russian. I am learning more right now.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Re: An Extremely Heated Debate On WW II, BIA:Earned in Blood, and The History Of Russia.

I can understand that.

See, eveyone thought this was going to be a huge battle, and it ended nicely. I kind of wanted a good debate though...
 

tony_montana

Semper Fidelis
Re: An Extremely Heated Debate On WW II, BIA:Earned in Blood, and The History Of Russia.

Well, now everyone will be pissed as us because they expected a huge battle:D Anyway, to tell you the truth, I didn't mean to debate anything. I just made a couple of simple comments. I still hold to what I said about the Russians making a huge difference in the outcome of the war and such. BUT, I am sorry for calling you cold blooded. I guess I took your comment out of context.
Anyway, sorry for all the other members that they didn't see some huge battle go on.:Bomb: :Bomb: :Bomb:
 
Top