Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Yeah and Machu mentioned if two commissars came to blows. That could end ugly. Though I suspect one might take down the other, then the soldiers would take down the taker-downer.

Ciaphas Cain alluded as much, though his POV might not be all that good.

I sometimes wish that the Cain books came with both a "Cain perspective" and a "rest of the IoM" perspective.

I know, and Amberley Vail is not the best source either. Though I like the books in general. There are a few things I feel should be edited and such, but that's me.

Anyway I have little trouble with commissars being like him, they are molded into a fit, so their basic traits would endure.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
I know, and Amberley Vail is not the best source either. Though I like the books in general. There are a few things I feel should be edited and such, but that's me.

Anyway I have little trouble with commissars being like him, they are molded into a fit, so their basic traits would endure.

I do like the fact that because the book is literally written as a biography of Cain's perspective (written by another fictional character, Inquisitor Vail), it does give him a little more leeway in terms of playing with fluff and actual events, and makes some things easier to believe if we attribute them down to human error, rather than "OMG THIS AUTHOR SUXXORZ". It also shows that commissars can still be humans

To answer directly to me, you doesn't need to quote me.

Each and every commissar has his or her approach on their way of disciplining the regiment. Plus I find the memoirs of Cain well-written except from a few hyperbolistic moments.

I was going on a quote-frenzy last night.

But definitely agree on the different approaches of commissars. Look at Gaunt, for example.

...yet I like the part from the introduction of the commissars into 40k in the rogue trader aera, that mortality rate with commissars is high, suspiciously often a cause of accidental friendly fire...

another thing being the soviet army having struggles because their commissioners were skilled in agit-prop and eager to eradicate moral issues, but had no idea about strategy and tactics (e.g. not every retreat a question of will, but sometimes of necessity), and the c.o.s were not willing to be executed for doing the right thing... Now I suppose in analogy for every Gaunt or Yarrick there will be dozends of "tactical obstacles" clad in black. But to quote Ultrasmurf Agemman, "the Codex is not about being a good Astartes, but about being a loyal one"... The same here.

It depends on how you regard the commissar. In Russia and China a commissar is a very brave person, totally loyal to his state, and will bravely defy horrendous odds no matter the cost. Yet in the west the political officers are often ridiculed to a degree that seems just funny. Remember the Hunt for Red October with captain Rabius. There a political officer was onboard, not a bad guy, but taken care of nonetheless.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
It depends on how you regard the commissar. In Russia and China a commissar is a very brave person, totally loyal to his state, and will bravely defy horrendous odds no matter the cost. Yet in the west the political officers are often ridiculed to a degree that seems just funny. Remember the Hunt for Red October with captain Rabius. There a political officer was onboard, not a bad guy, but taken care of nonetheless.

Russian Commissars never made sense to me until I understood the IG perspective on wars from 40k novels. Then it all made sense to me.