With the recent release of the newest edition of the Battlefield franchise returning to World War II, and the never ending questions we receive for any historical AAA title as to its accuracy it seems only appropriate. Although timed to the release of the game, by no means is this AMA intended to specifically be limited to questions about items or occurrences therein, but rather our panel is willing and eager to tackle discussion that speaks to the broader themes present, such as those of gender and race in war, and the meta-themes as well, such as what authenticity means in the context of modern media.
With a game that covers a range of themes including Norway, North Africa, Special Operations, and French Tirailleurs, we have a large and diverse group from our panel of flairs standing by today, although of course I would remind users that, being a global group, many may only be active for limited segments of the day:
^^^AskHistorians ^^^has ^^^no ^^^association ^^^with ^^^DICE ^^^or ^^^Battlefield ^^^V ^^^in ^^^any ^^^way ^^^and ^^^is ^^^not ^^^endorsing ^^^the ^^^game ^^^at ^^^all, ^^^as ^^^will ^^^probably ^^^be ^^^clear ^^^enough ^^^when ^^^we ^^^rip ^^^into ^^^its ^^^historical ^^^accuracy.
From my limited knowledge, it seems that Soviet women were much more active in combat roles than in the militaries of the other combatants. If that is the case, would the main reason be the desperation of the Russian military situation or is it representative of different attitudes to gender in the USSR?
In one of my university courses, women in war was discussed. The only notable combat service that was shared in the class was that of the Russians, specifically in the air doing bombing raids and the like.
Other than Resistance groups, did any other major militaries/countries deploy women in combat roles, or in situations where they would reasonably or likely be found to have had to take up arms for defense of a base or camp?
For the panel more broadly:
Where do you think that contemporary ideas of 'authenticity' in fictionalised depictions originate from? Clearly, as we've seen in numerous controversies surrounding games that dare to place people of colour in medieval Europe, or feature women doing... anything, there are very particular perceptions of what belongs in the recreation of a historical period and what doesn't. In this context, we might point to films like Saving Private Ryan as shaping the public imagination of what something was like, but there must be a longer history of depicting the Second World War before modern filmmaking. Can we point to particular efforts at the time to define how the war should be portrayed? Are there any particularly influential moments between now and then that helped define the boundaries of authenticity in artistic depictions?
From a historian's point of view, what are your thoughts on debates about "respecting" the past in media?
Is making a piece of consumer entertainment inherently "disrespectful"? Or if it tries to be "authentic" (whatever that means) but gets things wrong is that "disrespectful", while something that tried to be "authentic" and doesn't get much right is "respectful"?
What about if it uses history for flavor but then goes and does its own thing with the history isn't "disrespectful" because it's clear it's not trying to be "authentic" or "realistic" (think something like Valkyria Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid 3, Soul-Caliber, etc...)?
Hey there everyone! Thank you for hosting this AMA.
To start with a (probably) straightforward, but very ignorant question: Who were the French Tirailleurs and what did they do?
For a much less straightforward but still very ignorant question, what is the legacy of their involvement in World War Two and what is their place in the historical memory of modern France?
I have several questions on the French tirailleurs.
How important were they in the Free French Army and, I guess in general, how important was the French French Army on the Italian and Western Front?
How were they treated by the white French soldiers and officers in the Free French army as well as French civilians?
What did the Germans, UK and USA think of them considering Nazi ideology was very racist and the Americans had a segregated army?
How were they treated by the 4th and 5th Republics after the war? I have heard they were not adequately paid their veteran pension.
What influence did they have in their respective colonial nations after the war? I have heard the resentment of some Algerian tirailleurs fuelled the flames of dissent and revolt in Algeria.
Thank you.
Kind of a weird question, but it's my impression that German stick grenades weren't designed to fragment on their own and had to be fitted with separate "fragmentation sleeves," which would seem to increase the logistical complexity. By contrast most other grenades had thicker casings designed to send metal everywhere without needing a separate sleeve. What was the reasoning behind this design?
How often was the average soldier facing combat (e.g. firefight) during the war? Were there difference across armies/theaters/troop types ?
Did germany use Tigers in Norway?
Hopefully I'm not too late.
Anyway, my question is on tank doctrine and design. Why exactly do tank destroyers (mainly focusing on German and Soviet ones) have no rotating turret? Also, when would assault guns be generally used, and what advantages did they have over traditional tanks?
In the movie Downfall/Der Untergang, the Nazi leadership including Hitler is portrayed as completely blaming the German people for their defeat in the final days of WWII and almost wanting to punish them by making them fight to the death. Was that really their mentality?
We see in the campaign, the tirailleurs doing all the work on a capturing AA guns and a German fortress, only to be erased from the picture.
What other instances in the war were covered up via whitewashing and what other uses of minorities as "Canon fodder" was there?